Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Point England Development Enabling Bill at its third reading. I thought it would be useful to just go back and recapture some of the essence of what this bill is about. Some of us will remember that it is the Point England recreation reserve. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member who keeps calling out and has done throughout this debate has just had his 10-minute call and I would ask him not to subject the rest of the House to another 50-odd minutes of that. Thank you.ANDREW BAYLY: So the Point England recreation reserve comprises 45.43 hectares and includes sports grounds walkways and other facilities for recreation. Eighteen hectares of this is used for grazing. The council administers the reserve together with an adjacent council-owned beach reserve of just under 3 hectares. Development of the land is actually on Crown-owned land but vested in Auckland Council as a recreational reserve. The bill enables housing to be built by creating a new land parcel. This will be rezoned as residential - mixed housing urban and it is anticipated 300 houses will be built on that area. The balance of the reserve i.e. 32.9 hectares will remain as a recreation reserve.I understand that this bill is contentious and—a lot of passions and a lot of emotions. I was at Auckland when a number of submitters came and made submissions from that area. I have also been here in Parliament when they have made similar submissions so I have a good personal understanding of the concerns. Personally I have reflected on a number of the issues that have been raised and I am persuaded that this development should take place. The reason I have come to this—the first point is: is there a need for housing? I think it is absolutely overwhelming that there is; even the Opposition members acknowledge that.Peeni Henare: Build them in Hunua.ANDREW BAYLY: But we have got 13000 sections being built in Hunua right now.Phil Twyford: How about building on your parks in Hunua? Go and build on your own parks.ANDREW BAYLY: If you just get off your bus and go and have a look Mr Twyford—but this section offers the ability to build 20 percent of them for social housing 20 percent for affordable housing and the balance as market-related houses.The second point is that we heard a number of submissions around protecting the New Zealand dotterel. A number of the submitters were very careful and made some good points but I am persuaded by the local iwi Ngāti Paoa who have given an undertaking to improve their environment. I also note that there will be an environmental effects assessment which will be required as part of the consent process.The third point is that Ōmaru Creek as the Minister Nick Smith has just mentioned has the lowest water quality of the 36 monitored sites in Auckland. This is a nasty piece of water that is really a bad advertisement for all New Zealand and Auckland and it is great that Auckland Council has committed $40 million to upgrade this scheme. That will take part as part of this redevelopment.The fourth thing is the use of the sports fields and again I visited this site. I do not actually recall all the members from the Opposition being there on that visit that day but 8.4 hectares of that is actually set aside for sports fields. We heard from a number of them and we have heard from officials that in many cases and during certain weather events those sports fields are not available all the time. Part of this bill is that those sports fields in the same area will be made available not less than 12 months after the bill is passed—the 5.3 hectares of it—and the sports fields will be upgraded. Some of the proceeds from this change will actually be devoted to upgrading those sports fields.Finally there is the issue around whether it is fair and equitable that Ngāti Paoa should be given the opportunity to develop this land and to create a marae. My view is that I find it actually slightly condescending and arrogant for Opposition parties to suggest that Ngāti Paoa should not be seeking this as redress even though as the Minister noted and as we heard in the committee they actually went to the Minister went to the Crown as part of their commitment to see a Treaty settlement. This land is absolutely essential to them.So I am actually persuaded on those five grounds that this development should proceed. I think it is going to proceed in a careful manner. I do think it is going to protect the interests of the community but also bring about a substantial change and an increase in housing. On that basis I commend the bill to the House.