Twyford PhilPOINT ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT ENABLING BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 June.Clauses 1 and 2PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to speak to the title clause. Point England Development Enabling Bill—well what is in a name? There is no clue in the name of this bill that helps you to understand the level of anger and cynicism and disenchantment that this bill has created in the community of Point England. Is there anything wrong with development with housing as set out in the bill? It is a bill about development. No. Everybody in Auckland understands that we desperately need to build more houses. People want to see development but they do not want to see it at all costs. The fact that Auckland needs more houses built that it needs more development as this bill purports to deliver is not some kind of alibi for every madcap hare-brained scheme that Nick Smith comes up with and that is what this bill is.Is there anything wrong with Enabling"? Well apart from the fact that the bill cuts across the Reserves Act and the Resource Management Act and the established legislative democratic processes designed to give communities a say about developments that are happening in their communities and trying to ensure that the right questions are asked about the environmental effects of the proposed development—apart from that there is nothing inherently wrong with a development project. In fact I would argue that if the Government and Nick Smith had gone about this differently they could have done the enabling of this project. They could have pursued the development ambitions for this 12 hectare patch of land that we are talking about without actually poisoning the well of public support for this project.What is more there is nothing wrong with an enabling bill that seeks to deliver up a patch of land that can be used as commercial redress in a Treaty settlement. There is nothing wrong with that at all. As speaker after speaker in this Chamber has pointed out through the course of this Committee stage debate there is widespread respect and understanding for Ngāti Paoa and their aspirations to settle their Treaty settlement and move ahead to build a platform at Point England for their people to have a marae to have a place that they can call their own and actually to build an economic base.So there is nothing wrong with those things those ideas that are all inherent in the title of this bill the Point England Development Enabling Bill. But Nick Smith has as he has so many times before made a pig's ear of this project this Point England Development Enabling Bill which had—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to sort of warn the member that just repeating the name of the bill over and over again gets to the point of being repetitious. It is a very narrow debate—the debate on clause 1—following a full Committee stage. So I am going to ask the member to confine himself to relevant matters and I warn him there are not many.PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Chairman. In relation to "Development Enabling" in the title what the Minister has done with this bill is to take precious parkland at Point England away from a local community that treasures that parkland and strongly believes that that parkland at Point England is needed not for development but for future generations. It is a community that is very aware that under the intensification plans of the Tāmaki Regeneration Co. it is going to have an extra 20000 people living there right across the fence from the recreation reserve as it is now. That is why there is a level of cynicism and disenchantment about this bill.I want to say also that it is an enabling bill for Treaty settlement legislation that will follow in this House. Labour has made it very clear—in fact we have put it in writing in our minority view as part of the commentary—that we will support Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement process when the Treaty settlement bill comes to this House because we are part of a cross-party consensus in this House that holds Treaty settlement very dear. This is an enabling bill. It has some objectives that on the face of it sound worthwhile—"