Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to talk to clause 6(1)(b) which is about the reservation of the development land as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 being revoked. There is a lot of information in the regulatory impact statement. In particular I refer to paragraph 34 where it says that It must be clearly established the land is no longer required for its present purpose or any other reserve purpose."The Government is both blind and dumb—and I do not mean dumb as in "mute"; I mean "stupid". Surely it can see that the reserve is being used for the purpose it is meant to be used for—i.e. for sports fields for recreation and for people of the area being able to just enjoy it. I say "stupid" because it just shows such short-sighted thinking—that the present purpose using the land as a reserve is not going to be necessary in 20 to 30 years' time when the population of Auckland is expected to be something like 2 million and that area in particular is going to grow by 20000 over the next few years. Where on earth are those people going to be able to use a reserve in the way it is meant to be used?Somewhere else in this regulatory impact statement it says that the scope within the wider reserve network to absorb some of the impacts of the loss of the development land will be impacted on. So the land is being used as a reserve. The population is going to grow over the next 20 30 years—it is going to double in Auckland by 2043 I think—so we are going to have even more need for reserve land. How crazy it is just to say: "Well there's a bit of green grass. Let's go and build houses on it." There are many many other ways that we could have actually achieved the same thing. In fact under Labour's plan Ngāti Paoa would have got their housing development. Under Labour's plan Ngāti Paoa would have got a marae. Under Labour's plan they would have got recognition of their special interest in Point England. But of course the National Government did not think of anything along those lines. Really the Government just wanted to push this through because it has run out of ideas. It did not listen to anybody who submitted. The Government is at a loss here.My colleague Peeni Henare has raised the issue about the cattle being on the Point England Reserve. He also stole a bit of my thunder because I was going to talk about Cornwall Park and the sheep. Last time I—in fact it was not the last time. The first time in about 1985 when I was at teachers college I jogged through Cornwall Park—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not in the bill. Focus on this bill.KELVIN DAVIS: OK Mr Chair. I heard Nick Smith say that the reserve land was being used for cattle. If you use that rationale to build houses on a reserve then what else is up for grabs within Auckland? What about the park down the road where the kids have their swings and slide? Can the reserve status of that land be revoked? What is next? Is this the thin end of the wedge? If this is what the Government has got up its sleeve to create more housing is it going to just take all the reserve bits of land around Auckland? The Riccarton Racecourse was an example of what it has done. Now it is the precedent that has been set. The thing is that it says it has used the precedent of the Riccarton Racecourse legislation. That is exactly the issue. That is exactly the problem in terms of a precedent. If it can do this to Point England—if it can revoke the reserve status of Point England—then it can revoke the reserve status of any other land around Auckland. Of course we need all the reserve land that we can for the simple use of—"