Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): I am going to take a brief call because I have leave this evening for an important meeting in Nelson and had not counted on the special debate earlier but I wanted to respond to some of the questions that had been made on Part 1 of this bill. Can I too acknowledge Ngāti Paoa in the gallery who came to me back in 2015 proposing that a pragmatic response to their Treaty issues and to the issues of housing in Auckland was to utilise some of the 18 hectares of land that has effectively been grazed for 60 years.Hon Members: Nonsense.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The members can say it is nonsense. The grazing lease that currently exists goes back to 1977. I am advised that when the Crown first purchased the reserve in 1945 there was grazing right from that date. So the essential question for the Parliament is: when we have high levels of need for housing in Auckland should we have 18 hectares of valuable prime land just 12 kilometres from the CBD being grazed by cattle? I am repeatedly challenged by members—the likes of Michael Wood who screamed through the by-election that housing is the biggest issue and then spends the other part of his time opposing the very houses that the city of Auckland needs exposing the double standards of members opposite.I want to refer quite specifically to the 45.4 hectares of Point England Reserve land that is referred to in Part 1 of this bill. This is land that was paid for by the Crown. This is not land that was paid for by the Auckland Council; it was paid for by the Crown. It is my view that where the Crown has paid for land it is entitled to use it for broad public use including the settlement of the Treaty claim with Ngāti Paoa and to use land for the use of homes. I know members opposite object to homes being built. They want to make a big issue of housing but they just oppose the practical construction of homes. Effectively Labour's position is that it does not like cows in other parts of New Zealand but it likes them on the Tāmaki reserve—it does not want homes constructed.Can I respond very specifically to the question from Michael Wood. He argued and said that the Auckland Unitary Plan which is referred to in clause 3 of this bill should have considered the use of the Point England Reserve for housing at that time.Michael Wood: I didn't say that at all.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: You said that was the proper time when it should have been considered. The member does not even understand the law. It would have been unlawful for the Auckland Council to consider zoning that land for housing in the middle of the Auckland Unitary Plan process—unlawful—because it was a recreation reserve.The final point I would make—and I know it is in the next part—is that I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 321 in my name. I am not going to have the opportunity to be here this evening. It simply responds to two key concerns. Members opposite have said: But how can you guarantee the grazing will end?". Well we have introduced an SOP to make that plain. They have said: "How can you guarantee that the recreation land and playing fields will be retained?". Well we have said: "Let's make that plain and put it in the law." So it just shows bad faith that when Labour members have raised concerns—the likes of "How can you guarantee you're going to stop the grazing? How can you guarantee that there is not a retention of playing fields?"—they now scream that that somehow undermines the position of the Auckland Council. The Government is acting with good faith. The Government is keen to resolve the Treaty settlement with Ngāti Paoa and we respect their spiritual association with the land. The Government is keen to get housing and what more practical place to build housing than an area that has been grazed by cows for 60 years. It is put to far better use with the plan that has been put forward by Ngāti Paoa."