Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank members for their questions and I'll endeavour to work through them. The first one from Mr Court I'm surprised and disappointed that the member is unaware of the fact that Palmerston North is not even located within the Rangitīkei district; it's within the Manawatū district. But then again that's an example perhaps of a member not being on the ground in the regions. So that's the first thing. The second is that this is subject to a legislative process that goes back as far as 1876. The trust was created over the land and actually what the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922 did was exactly what the member was seeking to do albeit a hundred years ago to give effect to that suggestion. The Reserves Act component is captured because of the current usage and way in which the land is currently defined to ensure that there are recreational considerations around that. This just to be clear is only having a legislative change upon the 1966 Act none of the other Acts that have been referred to in the time line are largely affected except this adds a change through to the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966.In response to the Hon Michael Woodhouse Parliament specifically at the time—and I take the point that there are a number of historical components and elements to this but none the less—determined that it was appropriate to have these different pieces of legislation. The whole process of bringing a local bill to the House as we've already experienced today is to effect change at a local level. So this is something that no I have not had a conversation with the Minister for Land Information about specifically related to this bill or this piece of land but it is only able to be actioned as it stands currently by way of legislative change. The council gave effect to the process that's outlined in the appendix to the Standing Orders in terms of all of the notifications being certified and the like but no I've not had any conversations with the Minister for Land Information. It does raise an interesting point that if there are a number of statutes on the statute book that relate a bit more specifically that there might be a piece of work around that. I said as my response as a local member the Palmerston North City Council has done all the footwork around this and I've shepherded it through the process.In response to my colleague Rachel Brooking a hard-working member of the Environment Committee I know she is correct. There is currently a lease on that land that falls or is drawn in favour of the tennis club. What this effectively would do in terms of the legislative change is the bill makes section 3 of the 1966 Act apply to this piece of land by vesting it in the 1966 Act. It removes the trust requirement of the 1877 Act and therefore how the 1922 and the 1953 or the 1977 Act—it's a little bit confusing—is basically applicable. But it specifically leaves all current leases in place such as the one for the tennis club—that would still be a contractual negotiation between the two parties of course. But probably what's also worth noting is that the encumbrances that are currently in place and there are some that the member probably may recall from the drone footage and the maps there were some that ran around the skirt of the carpark to Palmerston North Girls' High School. So those access opportunities to any of the surrounding land are still preserved under this process.Clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.