McKelvie Ian; Rurawhe AdrianIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I listened to that last speech with interest. I would very much like to invite the previous speaker Chlöe Swarbrick to the Rangitīkei to tell my seven councils and my dog owners that their money is being spent on roads and social enterprise. I think the dog owners would give her a fair old flea in the ear and they'd give those mayors and councils a fair old flea in the ear too so I don't think that'll work. But anyway I wanted to just go back to where the Minister was when she started because she claimed this bill alters the way central government thinks about local government and I think to some extent it will do in the future. But I want to take us back a few years because I think this bill has its origins in 2002 in fact. If you think about 2002 we brought the well-beings into local government at a time when frankly the Government wasn't supplying the well-being and the services it should have done around local government. You'd have to wonder whether that's not going to be repeated in 2019. The other thing I want to talk about is development contributions. They were brought in the same piece of legislation and I was a very part-time part of local government at the time. I had a little bit to do with the implementation of this and it was a very confused process the implementation of the development contribution regime. The reason it was confused was because there was no development happening and anyone who was in property or in development at that time will realise that bulldozers were parked up for many years. Of course when you bring a development contribution in you've got to calculate the future cost to get it to fruition and when you've got no development happening it's almost impossible to calculate the future cost of developing something in advance of a development that might not happen. So there were a lot of problems with the development contribution regime in its early days and I think there will be problems with it again because it very much looks like we could be entering another phase where we end up with very little development taking place. So whilst I think development contributions have their place it is a very difficult system to implement. It's difficult because you can't anticipate what's going to happen in the future. So I think that whilst these things have a place in local government when all goes well they are difficult to implement at times. The reason that we are not necessarily in favour or are not in favour of these measures being implemented is that they are very difficult to control and to get a measure on particularly the development contribution regime. I just want to go back to the cultural well-being or the well-beings because when well-beings were brought in in 2002 they were viewed with huge suspicion by local government. They were then gradually over the years picked up and I think probably had a time when they worked pretty well. The problem was that local government was in a regime where they'd spent 10 or 15 years picking up on a generation of lack of investment in infrastructure basically. That's what's caused a large part of the increased costs of local government in recent years: spending money that was never spent in the days of my parents' generation—because they lived through a time of zero and 1 and 2 percent rate increases for 40-odd years. They didn't need to spend on infrastructure; we now need to spend on infrastructure.So it's going to be very interesting to see what happens as a result of this bill but we certainly haven't seen our way clear to support it. Thanks Mr Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Jamie Strange.