Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak to this member's bill which was first proposed by Jonathan Young. I wasn't scheduled to do this but I actually do have some knowledge in this space based on my role in local government over many years. Actually even the Hon Ron Mark will recall conversations where councils are pitted against public opinion public use of land and how they have to sort things out. The gentleman in the rear Su'a Williams—that's correct isn't it—will know as well. Anybody that's in local government will know that actually this can be a problem. And I'm not limp-wristed and half-baked as the previous member Virginia Andersen just said. This bill is actually a reasoned response when the public are concerned about something and actually the law is not clear. If it was so clear then police would've cleared a whole lot of things off properties in the past.I want to remind members of this House how we would actually get to a position of using this law. I agree that everybody has a right to protest—no problem—and if you think of the Parliament out here we have lots of protests here. We might actually have a lot more in the next three years but we've had a few in the past. So people protest but would we think it's right that people can actually occupy outside? I bet there would be big debates in this House if people sought to occupy that on a permanent basis.Actually what happens—and a council is no different—is the public who actually have public spaces have a tolerance for protest but they do not have a tolerance for occupations and what normally happens is they then lobby their local councillors. They say Actually this isn't right. This is our space we want to use it. We don't want it occupied. Can you do something about it Mr Mayor?"—or Mrs Mayor or Miss Mayor. Generally what happens is the council will go and look at its legal rights and actually its legal rights are unclear. Then the council will get legal advice spend a lot of money—"What can we do?"—and find out it's quite difficult.I remind members of this House that the Dunedin City Council's trespass order was controversial. It cost them a lot of money it was legally unclear and the police did not know how to act. Auckland Council also issued a trespass notice on 28 November 2011 which was immediately followed by an injunction. If it was so clear nobody would even take an injunction but it is a contested piece of law. Wellington City Council has also had a very similar example in 2012 which went through a whole injunctive process.We're not talking about stopping people from protesting. What we're talking about is the public being able to exert its rights as the owners of that property to make sure there aren't occupations and structures and permanent things left there. Actually as the bill is written if the property or placard or some sort of fixture is there for more than five days in any 12-month period—in other words that's the level of permanency—this law allows for it to be removed. Actually the member Mr Eagle who's in the Chamber now will also be aware in his local government role that sometimes this can be difficult. And I acknowledge him for being here now.We also say that actually if the law says that officers of the council can seize property and things with specified notice—and if you go and ask members of your community who have seen these things play out who have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on legal cases you'll see that actually what they want is to prevent occupations but to allow people to protest—and to stop wasting money on unnecessary lawyers' costs. So I commend Jonathan Young on bringing this to the House and I actually think rather than the previous speaker's emotional terms about "limp-wristed" and "not working" that this is actually a very reasoned response to an issue that arrives from time to time and which actually our community doesn't like. I urge the opposition who happen to be the Government at the moment to support this bill."