Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Otirā e ngā mema o Te Whare tēnā tātou katoa. Mr Chair I am happy to talk and take your advice about being specific on Part 1. I am happy to take a call—a very short call—on the Point England Development Enabling Bill on Part 1 clause 3 and there are three particular definitions there that I do want to make some points on and perhaps get some answers from the Minister in the chair. That is where we talk about development land under clause 3 and you will see that we talk about  'development land' means the land that is 11.6921 hectares more or less being Section 1 Survey Office Plan 503726". The words that get me and that spring out at me the most are those words "more or less". I could understand if we were in this House and it was 1817 or even 1917 when our tools of measuring the extent of the land would be under enormous pressure. But we are in 2017 and now we have got laser beams that can be so precise that it is either 11.6921 hectares or it is not—or it is not. So my question to the Minister is why do we have "more or less" in terms of "development land"? Why is there a need for "more or less"? Do we not have confidence in our surveyors having the necessary tools to get that precise? I do not know but that is a concern because of course 13.5 acres—or we could even go up to 30 acres—is still consistent with that term " 'development land' … more or less". So I think it is a decent question to ask the Minister in the chair as to why there is the need or the requirement to have a qualifier that is as long as a piece of string on those three simple words "more or less".Then we go on to the next definition in clause 3 where we talk about the "Point England Reserve". Again we say it "means the land that is 45.4259 hectares more or less"—"more or less". There it comes again—that term "more or less". I think it is a really good question to ask the Minister in the chair. Why have we not got specificity around the acreage or the hectares required for development land? Clearly what is remaining is what could be the Point England Reserve. There could be many of us I am sure in this Committee who might think that actually it might be all of the reserve that now becomes development land because under this definition in clause 3 that is how I read it. Am I the only one who is reading it that way? So I think we do need to say actually that it is just 11.6921 hectares for the development land—end of story. We also need to say that " 'Point England Reserve' means the land that is 45.4259 hectares"—end of story. And then those three words come up again in the "remaining reserve land" definition. Again we say that the land is "32.9213 hectares more or less".Like I say we are in 2017. We should have the tools the expertise and the precision in our surveyors to get what land is going to be development land what land is actually going to be left in Point England Reserve and what land is going to remain under the definition as remaining reserve land. That is the question I pose to the Minister in the chair and hopefully he can give the Committee and give all those who are watching the debate on this contentious bill an answer as to why we have "more or less" in the definitions of those three under clause 3 in Part 1 of the bill. Kia ora."