Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for Coromandel to support this second reading piece of legislation. The member for Rangitīkei wants to know where the Coromandel is. Well maybe he should come and visit some time; he'd be delighted at the warm welcome that he would receive and his eyes would be opened to the beauties of the Coromandel.Just coming back to this bill this legislation is as the sponsor of the bill the MP for Palmerston North Tangi Utikere has very fulsomely explained in his second reading speech what's known as a local bill—relatively rare in the processes of our Parliament but quite an important tool for local government to sometimes address issue that are significant in terms of their inability to move things forward or to make changes that have occurred over time and that are in need of change largely due in this case to an historic legacy legislative environment that has precluded the Palmerston North council from actually moving forward on this piece of land—about 1.6 hectares of land—currently serving as a recreation reserve and known as the Huia Street Reserve.So Tangi Utikere went through the history of it but the situation is essentially that legislation dating back as far as 1876 is precluding the current council from administering this land in a way that is suitable for today's modern needs and from them exercising their prerogative as the locally democratically elected council. So this piece of legislation—this local bill—will change that. The sponsor of the bill Tangi Utikere made it clear that in his view as a result of the very fulsome select committee process he was now satisfied that due process had been followed in terms of the passage of this piece of legislation through the House. I want to confirm and acknowledge that from this side of the House.We too were impressed very much by the detailed work that the council prepared and submitted to select committee members and notwithstanding the fact that we weren't able to take up the generous offer to visit Palmerston North on this occasion—Angie Warren-Clark: Why was that?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: We were—well it's cold and windy sometimes so actually we took advantage of some of the very good modern technology that is available to us. We were able to reduce our carbon footprints by not attending in person but to take advantage of an incredibly good piece of drone footage provided by the council that gave us literally a bird's eye view a land eye's view a ground eye's view a this way up view a roundabout view a complete view of the entire piece of land of the surrounding properties of the buildings and the trees and the pasture that was on it the grass that was on it the vacated bowling club buildings and the neighbouring school and all that sort of stuff. In fact in many respects I think the ability for select committee members to go and look at that drone footage not once but multiple times if they wish was actually in some ways almost better than being in the very fine city of Palmerston North.So we were impressed I think as an Opposition that the council had done a lot of work and they'd clearly I think learnt from the mistakes that may have been made some years prior. I think the indication was that the Hon Steve Maharey had introduced legislation or sponsored similar legislation some 15 years ago that didn't cross the threshold in terms of satisfaction in terms of the select committee's mind back then that due process had been followed. On this occasion I think we're satisfied that it has been and we are as I say supportive. I was particularly compelled by the submission of council. There were 29 submissions some from local citizens and community groups who were concerned about what might happen to the land and what plans the council had. This piece of legislation actually doesn't focus on and is not intended to provide a solution as to what will happen with the land. This piece of legislation simply allows the council to move forward into a position where a decision about the end purpose or use of that land can be made by council in due course. So this is a piece of legislation that is effectively freeing up a legacy historic legislative rule that has prevented them from doing so.I noted in particular that the actual site has been effectively vacant since 2005 and that it's not required by council to meet any of its recreational or reserve needs and that the council on the other hand has some very significant and pressing demands in terms of providing space for residential building and development. Now the council hasn't yet come to any conclusion or decision about what kind of development may occur on the site but I think if people are listening to this debate and if those people who had had the opportunity to hear from submitters and also the council submission they would have a reasonably clear indication about what might be council's purposes and ideas for that site in the upcoming years. So the council we were pleased to see has actually completed all the required consultation under the Local Government Act of 2002 and they have come to this House via the local member to seek this bill's passage.There were a number of I think useful matters that the council raised and provided the select committee with a rationale for why this bill should be passed not the least of which was that changing the potential that they have gives the council an opportunity to at least consider provision of this land for housing. It presents an opportunity for the current council to show leadership by supporting potentially medium housing density development that would support the change in the traditional housing typologies that have been delivered by the current marketplace. The land itself—the 1.6 hectares—is located in a very good location for potential medium-density housing development. It's close to high amenity areas services and indeed to the central city. There are of course—we were assured and shown—very significant public spaces available within close proximity to the Huia Street Reserve and they will be maintained. So the proposal has the potential to provide the council with an alternative revenue source which is something councils are always interested in. But the proposal if this piece of legislation proceeds through the House as I suspect it will does not commit the council to immediately selling or developing the land.In concluding my contribution on the second reading debate I would also like to join with the member for Palmerston North in thanking the submitters thanking the council thanking officials and advisers to the select committee to the select committee's secretariat and to my colleagues on the Environment Committee who I think paid very careful and diligent attention to the provisions of this bill. We wanted to assure ourselves that it was the right thing to do and it was the right thing to do for the current democratically elected council to make decisions and enable them to do so. So on that basis I'm happy to confirm that on this side of the House we support the second reading and will continue to support it through to conclusion.