Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeReserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4921. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Reserves and Other Lands Disposal BillIn CommitteePart 1 agreed to.Part 2 Land dealingsIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on Part 2 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—a bill that I remember fondly. Six and a half years ago when I came into Parliament I was given the portfolio of land information and one of the very first bills that I got to speak on was indeed the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Here we are 6½ years later and the bill has only just reached the Committee stage. Clearly it is not a major priority for the current Government. I must admit I have not been watching it terribly closely in recent years but I understand that there may have been some matters of controversy around this legislation. I do hope that the Primary Production Committee has been able to traverse those controversial matters and has been able to land on some decisions that please all the people who are involved in these particular pieces of land because ultimately a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill should not be particularly controversial. It should be the sort of thing that addresses matters that really have a fairly strong consensus around them. So if there have been matters that have been a struggle for the select committee to consider then hopefully it has been able to make some sensible decisions.The majority of the submissions that the select committee received were in relation to the Albert Park Auckland Art Gallery development—actually this is ringing a bit of a bell. I do recall that there was a bit of controversy around this back when we were first considering the legislation. In fact some of that controversy was around the fact that the city council had proceeded with a development on the land in question under the assumption that this was a non-controversial piece of legislation and essentially that the changes would be rubber-stamped by Parliament. There were a number of submitters who took considerable exception to that. I understand that the select committee received legal advice on the matter that indicated that commencing construction had not involved any alienation of the park land under the Act because the Auckland Council continued to own the land for recreational and amusement purposes. Most submitters however and some members of the committee actually believed the land has been alienated from Albert Park which is at odds with how the public believe reserve land should be treated. Although it was the council’s view that it had followed due process in gaining approval for the development a number of concerns were raised at the select committee about the way that the council had gained the necessary legal consents.So in a way I suppose what the council was expecting this legislation to do was to retrospectively approve development that it had undertaken on that land. It is never ideal for Parliament to make changes to legislation that apply retrospectively. Interestingly we have done it a number of times in the last couple of terms of Parliament in order to rectify errors that have been made by local councils. I guess it is arguable whether or not this is an error that has been made. It certainly seems as though the Auckland Council made the case to the select committee that it was perfectly within its right to carry out the developments on Albert Park and that seems to have been the centre of much of the debate and consideration at the select committee—and indeed there was considerable debate at the select committee. Some of the committee members in fact believe that the clauses relating to the art gallery should have been deleted from the bill for the very reason that reserves and other lands disposal bills should be non-controversial and clearly there has been quite a lot of controversy around this matter.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Environmental Reporting Bill without amendment the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills progress on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and no progress on the Standards and Accreditation Bill.Report adopted.