Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I intend to take a very short call on Part 2 of the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill and just have a short contribution around the development contributions. There also used to be another contribution that developers would be asked to make when undertaking a subdivision new development and that was the contribution towards recreational facilities. They would cover things like the contribution towards sports grounds or swimming pools or the skate parks that the Minister mentioned earlier.Now with these development contributions being defined differently within this Part 2 of the bill I just wonder whether the Minister would give some consideration to the submissions from the likes of Federated Farmers or indeed the Local Government Business Forum which includes in its membership Business New Zealand the Electricity Networks Association Federated Farmers the New Zealand Initiative the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and the Property Council of New Zealand who all suggested that local government needed to get its own house in order before it was given any further tools to enable it to access new funding from development contributions. Also Federated Farmers went on to suggest in their submission to the select committee that the bill should not proceed and that in fact the Government needed to be waiting on the upcoming Productivity Commission's inquiry into local government funding and considering the recommendations from that inquiry before it actually moved ahead with these development contributions. There seems to be a bit of unease around providing further tools for councils to make further deductions from developers when making these subdivisions. Also I'd like just a bit of clarity from the Minister about whether these development contributions will be voluntary whether there will be an expectation that they will be implemented and whether discretion will be given to councils on whether to implement them. I know as my colleague Ian McKelvie mentioned that in some areas there is huge pressure on infrastructure when major developments occur but in other areas—in some of those smaller areas like in the West Coast - Tasman electorate and in some of those smaller areas—those councils actually welcome development and even in my own experience I chose not to make development contributions compulsory as a mechanism for encouraging development. So we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we are debating these types of bills because it is not horses for courses. Not every council is made equal with its major urban counterparts and we just need to be cognisant of the fact that there will be a differential across the country in the need for these development contributions. I would also suggest that when we're talking about the kinds of things that development contributions may be used to fund in terms of infrastructure perhaps it is better addressed through the mechanisms inside of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and we may need to be looking further at the RMA process rather than looking at the Local Government Act 2002 in terms of how we manage those developments. They are so intricately intertwined I would suggest that resource management and these development contributions need to work in parallel and I just ask the Minister if she has given any consideration to that as well. With that that's the end of my call.