Parker David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3398. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The last speaker said that life does not go on for communities. I hope that they were not holding their breath during the 7-year delay that we have had so far with this bill otherwise those members would have turned cold and blue like the members of the National Government. [Interruption] I have got to liven this debate up. It is getting a bit quiet in here is it not?You know it is somewhat sad. As other members have noted I was actually the Minister—I was considerably younger—when I introduced this bill in the House on 15 August 2008 I am told. A Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bill is meant to be a mechanism whereby Parliament tidies up things that have gone wrong in the status of pieces of land most of which are generally reserves. Occasionally those pieces of land have been wrongly described as to reserve status and so they cannot be used for the purposes for which they were intended. Pieces of land to which this applies crop up periodically throughout the country and there is generally a piece of legislation like this that tidies up a lot at the same time. It does not mean to say that no one disagrees with the outcome in respect of any one piece of land because there are always a few naysayers—not always but often—who say that the opposite to that which the Crown thinks is the case is in fact correct.Indeed there are a number of bits of land that have had their status changed or clarified pursuant to this legislation where there was discontent. One example was in respect of the Auckland Art Gallery development where there was controversy as to whether a relatively small encroachment on to the adjacent Albert Park by the extension or the renovation of the Auckland Art Gallery was to be permitted. The Auckland City Council thought it was legitimate. The Labour Government of the day with the agreement of other parties agreed and that is why it found its way into this bill—to clarify that uncertainty.Another one that has hung around for a long long time—and shows why this bill ought to have been progressed earlier—relates to what is described in this bill as Lookout Point land but what is colloquially known in the Ōāmaru region as Forrester Heights. Because this bill was so delayed in Parliament a lot of the agreements for sale that the Waitaki District Council had in respect of selling that land fell over. It had a clause that said that the subdivision had to be completed by a certain date and that it was subject to the title being granted which effectively meant that the status of the land as being endowment land held for whatever purposes the council wanted to put it to—including its sale and turning it into money for purchasing other assets—needed to be made clear before that subdivision could proceed.Because there was such delay on the part of this Parliament occasioned by the National Government not giving this bill a reading those agreements for sale and purchase passed their critical date and they were voided and those lands cannot now be resold at the same price. As a consequence the Waitaki District Council has quite a hole in its budget with the money already having been spent mainly on the restoration of the Ōāmaru Opera House. That particular saga dragged on for so long that a local bill had to be presented by Jacqui Dean covering exactly the same clauses and putting an additional cost on the parliamentary system because it had to be done again separately and this also caused a fee that had to be paid to the Parliament as is the case with every local bill. So the Waitaki District Council suffered the double blow of both having its land sales fall over because of delay and then having to pay a fee in respect of a local bill to do what this bill was designed to do.Another example—and I may bring forward a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of this—is that for some historical reason that I do not think anyone quite understands the Otago Aero Club land status is unclear and this bill makes it clear that the land does belong to the Otago Aero Club rather than anyone else. But then the Crown has got its hand out at the side and says: “Oh if in the future the Otago Aero Club decides to sell its land half the proceeds of sale have got to be paid back to the Crown.” I would hope that we could get the agreement on both sides of the House Mr Woodhouse to have an amendment to that particular clause in the bill—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Come and lobby me.Hon DAVID PARKER: Sorry?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Come and lobby me.Hon DAVID PARKER: Come and lobby you. This is in clauses 45 and 46 of the bill. New section 9(2A) to be inserted into the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1973 by clause 46 says that “if the Taieri Airport Trust sells the land it must pay half the net proceeds of the sale into a Crown Bank Account.” and the only reason that is in there is that the Crown said that it would not do it otherwise. So there is no principle lying under it. It is some sort of unlikely future eventuality that in the end the Taieri Airport Trust agreed to but I am sure that the member Mr Woodhouse would understand that it is an issue that vexes Mr Julian Smith amongst others and that it is quite unjust. So I hope that we can agree to an amendment to remove the words “However if the Taieri Airport Trust sells the land it must pay half the net proceeds of the sale into a Crown Bank Account.” It would be a better bill for that.The other mistake that was made in respect of this bill actually occurred in the Primary Production Committee and that was to insert into the bill at that late stage provisions relating to Ōpua esplanade reserve land which was inserted in the select committee through proposed clauses 34A 34B and 34C. The bill that went to the select committee did not have that in it. The select committee was somehow convinced that it should go in there but it was quite controversial. It changed legal rights in respect of that piece of land in a way that plenty of people up north thought was wrong. So it should not have been put in this bill particularly because all of the people who were of a different view never got the opportunity at the select committee to put the opposite point of view. So I am pleased that the Government has now agreed to bring forward a Supplementary Order Paper to take out those clauses 34A 34B and 34C which were inserted at the select committee.This is not particularly controversial or significant legislation but it is the sort of machinery of government legislation that should be passed promptly. I have already given you the instance of the losses which would go to many hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars that have been occasioned to the Waitaki District Council because of the lack of alacrity in passing this bill. I am sure that there have been other losses in other parts of the country caused by the uncertainty that has occurred in the period from 2008 until now. From 2008 until now is 7 years—7 years of delay. It should have been cleaned up by 2009 at the latest. Indeed had the Government come to the Labour Opposition and to the other Opposition parties and said “Look we want to get this piece of legislation through. It’s not controversial. You’ve all agreed to it at earlier readings of the bill or just about all of you have agreed to it. Let’s not muck about. Let’s actually get this through. Let’s not have the full length of speeches taken in the debate. Let’s just do our duty and get certainty.” we would have agreed. We would have agreed. This would have been done years ago but this feckless Government did not have the wit to come and say: “Look you guys you actually introduced this bill. Can we get it through?”. We would have cooperated.