Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): I have been sitting listening carefully to contributions from members on the other side of the Chamber and I have to say that the debate has been more measured than I perhaps thought it would be earlier on. I particularly want to comment on several of the contributions from Green Party members who I think—particularly Catherine Delahunty made a very good historical analysis of the dilemmas and situations that we find ourselves in. I am not one who normally agrees with much of what Catherine Delahunty has to say but I thought her contribution in this debate was actually very thoughtful and useful.Members have made a number of points in various speeches about ownership of the land and clearly some of them have not even read the second paragraph in the explanatory note which makes it very clear that the development land is Crown-owned. Minister Smith in a contribution in this debate earlier this afternoon made it very clear that this is land that has been funded and purchased by taxpayers and as such is entirely appropriately available for housing for Treaty settlement issues and for the purposes of this bill.What I have found particularly unusual is that not too many months ago in this very House Labour members supported the Riccarton Racecourse legislation—which was a reserve piece of land—for exactly the same types of purposes as are being explored by this piece of legislation and now on this piece of legislation they simply do not. What I am keen to know is what has changed. What is it in amongst the Labour Party that has changed from its support for the Riccarton Racecourse legislation that it now finds itself unable to support this legislation which seeks to achieve very similar objectives and goals?Phil Twyford in his contribution made the point that Labour actually has no beef with Ngāti Paoa but then he went on to say that it was important that Governments govern in the interests of all New Zealanders which is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve—not for any other reason than that. Ngāti Paoa came to Minister Nick Smith seeking this opportunity and they did not actually want another piece of land. So it is arrogant I think of Labour members to assume that they know best what Ngāti Paoa want and that they themselves should be making decisions about Ngāti Paoa's aspirations for this piece of land. This is a historic situation where for the first time in this Parliament Labour will not be supporting what is effectively a Treaty situation.I want to talk to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 321 where the Minister has actually gone to some considerable lengths to listen to the submitters who submitted in the very good and thorough select committee process. His SOP is aimed and directed exactly at addressing many of the issues that were raised by those submitters. So there will be as a result of the Minister's SOP a guarantee that Auckland City will cease grazing. The SOP from the Minister makes sure that that will occur.The second thing that the Minister's SOP seeks to achieve is that it requires that the area of playing fields be retained. That is exactly what submitters wanted. The Minister's SOP gives an absolute assurance that 8.4 hectares of playing fields will be retained and it provides certainty for that community.This bill has had the total support of Ngāti Paoa and I think that some members across the Chamber seem to have forgotten that. There were a number of contributions from members. Peeni Henare for instance asked about the right not to object. Well this bill has been part of a very full appropriate and normal select committee process. There were hearings held in Auckland there have been submissions that have been available and it was well submitted on by members of the public. So it seems that Labour has been happy to rely on the same process on some pieces of legislation but not on others and it is this selective picking of sometimes supporting an open and full select committee process and sometimes not that allows it to be I think somewhat conflicted in this kind of legislation.Denis O'Rourke from New Zealand First made a very typical New Zealand First kind of speech and contribution to this debate. I do not think that it added anything to the debate at all. He spoke about the conservation values but on the other hand he would much prefer to have cows grazing on this piece of land—and so too it seems would members of the Labour Party. He said that he wanted to support the community so I guess what that actually means is that really deep down New Zealand First does want to support this bill.Eugenie Sage made a point about what guarantee there was that there would be a notified consent process. Well that is a matter that Auckland Council will address. I cannot speak on behalf of Auckland Council but I do think that it probably will take it on board. I understand that the mayor has written a letter to the Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Council will I am sure take on board the issues raised by Eugenie Sage. So the Minister has I think addressed most of the issues that have been raised by submitters in his very good SOP.Michael Wood gave an interesting contribution because here is a relatively new member to this House who barnstormed his way through the Mt Roskill by-election saying that housing housing housing" was the most important issue. Now suddenly he comes to the Parliament and he finds that—under the whip of the Labour caucus actually—suddenly housing is not the important issue for Auckland after all. Housing is not the issue that he came to Parliament to support and suddenly now he wants to support cows rather than houses.So I think that as we have heard from a number of speakers in the debate Louisa Wall has been the one who has most coherently and articulately really summed up the conflicted and difficult spot that the Labour Party finds itself in. Louisa Wall has really tried to find as much justification as the Labour Party could for not supporting this bill and she acknowledged that she found it difficult and that it was a difficult situation for the Labour Party to struggle with this piece of legislation. I think that that just typifies the internal wrangles and difficult philosophical positions that the Labour Party finds itself in.I have been interested in listening to these speeches and I guess we will listen to a few more yet to go."