Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Mr Chair tēnā koe. I would like to talk to Part 1 and in particular the definition of development land" which means "the land that is 11.6921 hectares more or less". I have read here in the regulatory impact statement "Ngāti Paoa interests". It says: "Historically Point England was an important Ngāti Paoa kainga or settlement. Missionary reports written prior to 1840 record extensive settlement and agriculture in the area."So the question is how historically important was this bit of land? Was it historically significant or important? I would say the answer is probably yes but probably no more historically significant or important than any other bit of land within a 1000-kilometre radius of Point England because let us understand this: when Māori arrived here in whatever date it was—you know we differ on the exact date—within about a hundred years or so of settling in any particular area every rock every hill every valley every river and every nook and cranny was given a name everywhere. Wherever there was a flat bit of land it would have been used for settlement or for cultivations. This bit of land is probably no more important or historically significant than the land that is a No. 8 wire - width away from it in the Tāmaki redevelopment project because Ngāti Paoa would have settled there they would have had their kāinga they would have had their māra kai—their gardens. They would have named points of interest. People would have lived there people would have been born there people would have died there.It would have just been a typical Māori kāinga no more or less historically significant than any other bit of land in New Zealand Aotearoa at the time. So what makes this 11.6921 hectares more important than any other bits of land? Well it is quite simply this. There are no houses on it—there is no nothing on it. So it is the only bit of land within cooee that the Government can use to fix up its housing crisis.Sadly this 11.6921 hectares is going to be needed within 20 years for the purpose that it has now—that is a recreational reserve—because in 20 to 30 years the population of Auckland is going to double and where on earth are the kids in 20 years' time going to run around and play? Is it in the corridors of their townhouses—their three-story four-storey and five-storey townhouses? You know we—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I interrupt the member just to reiterate what I said to the previous member when she was on her feet. This debate under Part 1 is about interpretation. It is not about where the kids are going to play; it is about interpretation. It appears to me that the member who currently has the call is debating a Part 2 clause and he should come back to clauses 3 4 and 5 which relate to this part. I recognise it is very tight but if you want to get on and run the debate that you are wanting to run at the moment then let us move on.KELVIN DAVIS: The Point England Reserve is what we are talking about. The Point England Reserve meaning "the land that is 45.4259 hectares" and the development land in particular which is 11.6921 hectares—that is what we are talking about. It is the use of that land and the use of that land is going to change significantly. The use of that land—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! No we are not talking about the use of that land. We are talking about the definitions that are there. Just because it happens to mention that land area or that piece of land it does not then give licence in this part of the debate to take the debate where the member wants to go. This is about definitions and interpretation in this part of the bill. I recognise it is going to be controversial I recognise a lot of people are going to want to speak on it and every presiding officer is aware of that. But the debate that the member is running at the moment is not cognisant of what we are debating under Part 1."