Lees-Galloway Iain: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12562. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill although it is with some regret that like many of the other contributions this evening mine will be to oppose the bill for all the same reasons that have already been canvassed. But like others I would like to start by congratulating Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing this bill to Parliament and getting it through to a select committee. It was a long road for Mr Flavell. The bill was first introduced in July 2007 and it did not get its first reading until June 2009. So he waited patiently for that first reading. The issues were significant enough for most parties in the House to see fit to send the bill through to a select committee where those issues could be properly addressed and considered. It was at the point of the select committee consideration that some of the perhaps further fish-hooks in the bill were discovered. That is not to say that there is not resounding support for what Mr Flavell is trying to achieve and already a few different options have been suggested. Mr Flavell said that he would like to see a review of the Public Works Act and the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Mr Auchinvole has said that perhaps one day it will happen and this issue could be one thing that is considered as part of that review. I hope the debate that has occurred in the select committee and here in the House might help stimulate the Government into proceeding with such a review and other things may be included in that review but I hope that Mr Flavell’s concerns might also be addressed. 
The Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill sought to ensure that the former owners of Maori land—or general land for that matter—that had been acquired by the Crown for the purposes of public works are given the first right of refusal at the point when the Crown no longer requires that land. It also sought some redress where that land has been used for purposes other than what the Crown originally intended it for. This bill had merit. The issues were certainly worth considering and that is why Labour supported its referral to a select committee. Mr Flavell opened his address by thanking the select committee and by saying that the door was open. He said that he felt listened to and that the bill was discussed by everybody. I am sure that the people of Rodney would have enjoyed receiving the same level of consideration from the Government. They of course were shut down at the first reading of the Rodney District Council Bill. But again this is an issue of land of who controls land and of who has a say in the way that we use our land. I think that the people of Rodney had just as much reason to have their consideration taken to a select committee and to have the sunlight shine on their issues as well as on a whole host of other things. 
This is a rare moment when this Government has actually given people the opportunity to make submissions on a members’ issue. There were 71 submissions on this bill which means that the discussion was obviously quite varied and a range of views were heard. Well a range of views could have also been heard on the bill of my colleague Phil Twyford about the privatisation of Auckland’s assets. There could have been some good discussion on that bill at a select committee. Darien Fenton had a bill to discuss minimum wages for contract workers. That would have been quite a good bill to have at a select committee as well. I think that the discussion would have been interesting and that we could have come back to the House to consider what the people had to say and what the public thought about that bill just like with this bill but no the Government shut that one down. Ruth Dyson had an amendment to the Resource Management Act to do with the requiring authority status. That bill was shut down at the first reading. Winnie Laban had I thought a very important bill dealing with the rights of the families of people who are suffering from poor mental health and I know that that bill came very very close to making it through to a select committee. That would have been a good bill to refer to a select committee. 
Do members know what the common theme is here? Those were all Labour bills and the Government was not prepared to allow those bills to go through to a select committee. We have seen with this bill that there is a very good opportunity to hear the issues at a select committee and to maybe not progress the bill any further after that but to stimulate some debate so that those issues can be considered and may then be looked at in another way. With this bill there has been a proposal about a review or maybe there are already a few mechanisms available through the Treaty of Waitangi and other issues. But that has all come up as a result of the parliamentary process. It seems that the only way that one can get this Government to rethink its position on anything is to march up Queen Street in Auckland to show the Government that there is political will against what it is doing and that maybe the result of the next election would be at stake. Then we would have a back-down as we have seen with mining. Then we would get a back-down. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What’s this got to do with Te Ururoa’s bill? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: But it would be far better to use the political process in the way that Mr Flavell has with this bill. It is a good bill with good intentions. It has raised a number of issues that were worth considering and I know that the select committee took a lot of time over them and listened very closely to the submissions. That is the value of our process and it could be used in a whole range of ways. But I think that the issues with this bill have been well covered by previous speakers. It is a pity that it will not go on but I think that this is not the end of this issue. We will see this issue again. Maybe Mr Flavell will find another way to put it through in legislation. Maybe the Government will suddenly rumble into action and look at the Public Works Act and at all the other anomalies that it may have within it. But I congratulate Mr Flavell on bringing this bill to the House. It is sad that it will probably not progress any further than this second reading but he has raised some important issues that are worth discussing.