Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Part 1 of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I really want to focus on two preliminary provisions under the interpretation clause. The first is about the definition of Auckland Council". It "has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009". Essentially that section says that a unitary authority has been established under section 6 of that Act. So Auckland Council therefore has the responsibilities duties and powers of a regional council. What do regional councils control? They actually control the use of land through policies and rules. The rules are about determining what activities can occur and they are either permitted prohibited or they may be "other". The "other" are controlled discretionary restricted or non-complying activities. Essentially what this particular clause does is empower Auckland Council as a unitary authority that is responsible for long-term planning.I then want to focus on the "Auckland combined plan"—which is referred to under the interpretation clause—which "has the same meaning as in section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010". What that particular section does is as described by section 122—and I think my colleague Michael Wood highlighted that—provide that Auckland Council has responsibility for developing a regional policy statement a regional plan and a district plan for Auckland. That is what it has done. The involvement of local boards and communities in that process means that Auckland Council to all intents and purposes has a formal operative plan.What this piece of legislation is attempting to do is change that operative plan. Under normal circumstances that plan change actually has a very specific process. That public process requires research evaluation and consultation. That consultation has to include the community. It is vital in that process that there is pre-consultation notification and submissions by the community and that the steps in that plan change process—there are actually nine of them.I am not going to outline what all nine are but the fundamental one that is being transgressed within this particular piece of legislation is the requirement for a section 32 Resource Management Act (RMA) report. That section is "Requirements for preparing and publishing evaluation reports". What that section says is that that RMA section 32 report must—must—"examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal … are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of [the RMA]". The purpose and principles of the RMA are in section 5(1) "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources." Subsection (2) of the purpose is "… which enables people and communities to provide for their social economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety—".We would contend that what this bill actually has done by making it a Treaty bill is transgress that process which would normally have enabled communities to have gone through this process to change the Auckland Plan. So that is what this particular part of the bill has outlined and empowered the Auckland Council and the Auckland combined plan to do. I would like to know from the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson the justification for subverting what would otherwise have been a full process that would have enabled communities to have a say.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I just want to just reinforce that what we are doing here is debating Part 1 which is about interpretation. That is where you started. Now the member is moving into a Part 2 debate. This is very tight. Part 1 is about the interpretation of these phrases and obviously clause 4 binding the Crown and clause 5 is transitional savings and related provisions. So we will not be able to be having a Part 2 debate during the debate on Part 1. I would just remind members that this is a tight part of the bill. It is only a small bill. I realise that it is very contentious—people have got a lot to say on Part 2—but can we just keep it to the parts that we are debating. At the moment it is Part 1 so it is about interpretation.LOUISA WALL: Thank you Mr Chair. That is really why I highlighted what the interpretation clause actually meant in terms of " 'Auckland Council' has the … meaning" which then makes it a regional council—well the same designation as a regional council. That is why the relevance of the Auckland combined plan having the same meaning as in section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 is vital. Within that context it actually sets out an incredibly prescriptive process for altering a district plan which is what we have. This bill completely undermines the process that the Auckland community has gone through to develop its local plan.The point that I make in bringing it all up would have been a thorough assessment about the piece of land that we are talking about—I mean Point England has been a reserve since 1945. The qualification for it to be a reserve comes from the Reserves Act. The lands that are included in the Reserves Act have been acquired for their conservation value. They have also been acquired for their recreation value and for their education value. By defining these parts in the interpretation what I am trying to highlight is that the same processes that should have been employed—because we have had to all intents and purposes a plan change—have not actually occurred. So we have completely undermined the ability of the community to have a say. I think it is important that we note that.The other aspect of the community not being able to have a say was actually because the Crown even though it has not noted it in the bill—because it was and is to be used as commercial redress for a Treaty settlement for Ngāti Paoa the council which should have engaged in consultation with the community and the local board which should have engaged in consultation with the community actually did not do so because of the confidentiality of it being a Treaty settlement. I have particular issue with that because nowhere in this bill—nowhere in this bill—does it mention Ngāti Paoa does it mention Treaty settlements does it mention rights of first refusal or does it mention Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau.So because of that fact we have actually subverted a very structured process in terms of the plan change that would have been required if Auckland Council had have initiated this redefinition of this piece of reserve land this piece of recreation land in the first place. You would not be able to do it. What I am highlighting is that because of those interpretations that the Government has put in this legislation—I want the Minister to answer why he thinks that this piece of legislation should not have gone through the robust process that it should have gone through based on the meaning of section 116(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.If it had gone through that process as I have highlighted there would have needed to be a section 32 RMA report and inherent in that report would have been consultation with the community which would have enabled the community to challenge what this legislation is trying to do in fact which is to alienate reserve land recreation land. They are lands that actually when you look at the history of the Point England Reserve include 25 hectares of a tāhuna tōrea which is a specific reserve within Point England Reserve that the locals created in the 1980s when there was talk of having a residential marina. In fact the community led by activist Ronald Lockley persuaded the council—persuaded the council—to create that wildlife reserve. All of that history attached to this piece of land has been completely negated by what the Crown has done so we on this side of the Chamber can see why the people have not been taken with the Government.I have got some other things that I particularly want to bring up because the reality of this legislation is that it actually stems back to Budget 2015. It is about the $52.2 million capital contingency fund that was created to facilitate the development of housing on Crown land. That is what this bill is really about. It is about that initiative that the Government created in 2015. Kia ora."