Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. Just on that point I just make a comment that the Central Interceptor is a big project for Auckland but certainly won't solve all of its issues. The North Shore won't see any of the effects of that. In fact the cracking infrastructure—which by the way doesn't go into the streams; it goes directly out on to the beach in many cases—that storm water will continue to degrade our beaches. But that's just a point I'd like to make. Without sounding like I keep banging on about the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) I would like the Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker to answer my question from earlier. I would just like to make that point again that there could well be a case where someone is investigated by a local authority gets to the end of the process the local authority don't take any action and then the EPA can come in and start that process all over again. So you can imagine the unfairness uncertainty of that. In our democratic society when we break the law we know exactly who's going to be in charge of taking care of us should we go to court but in this case there is that potential to be investigated twice—or potentially even three times if it goes from the local authority to the EPA and back to the local authority again. I would like the Minister to answer that.But I wanted to move on to another point. We've talked already about subdivision earlier and I wanted to bring up a second point in relation to that. This bill undoes another one of the changes that the National Party made in 2017 where we took away the appeal right to the Environment Court for activities to subdivide. So that has been reintroduced in this bill. So what we foresee happening is again the increase in costs and uncertainty making it more difficult to build and more difficult to build cheaply but also putting off developers. When they think about the potential to subdivide they may think twice because of that uncertainty and additional cost. I was hoping the Minister could talk to that.Lastly I wanted to bring up the Randerson report which the Minister talked about earlier which is a huge piece of work that is no doubt going to suggest some wholesale changes to the Resource Management Act which are necessary. We've made this point many times and I'll make it again: we'd like to know why these little piecemeal changes are being made in this bill when there is a report that I think was already due to be released but has been delayed. I think the Minister mentioned that it was now going to be hopefully before the election. Why are we seeing these little piecemeal changes which undo really good work of the National Party in the last Parliament to make housing affordability better and to encourage more houses to be built when we're waiting on this big report which could well actually say that potentially the changes that were made under the last Government were good ones? Who knows—who knows what the Randerson report's going to say? But the point is: wouldn't the Minister have thought that it would be better to wait for that comprehensive report that will suggest no doubt wholesale changes and then to put those in place rather than making very small—what we would describe as tinkering around the edges—piecemeal changes that on the face of it seem just pretty petty politicking just undoing a whole lot of changes—good changes—that the National Party made in the last Parliament to make building more effective and for us to have the ability to build more houses. So I would like the Minister to talk to all of those. The first one was the EPA issues; the second one was then about the reintroduction of the Environment Court appeals around subdivisions; and then finally the more broader question around why it is that we are doing this under urgency when we're waiting on this comprehensive report that will no doubt give us a whole lot of wholesale suggestions for changes that's due in the next few weeks. It just seems like here we are again with another bill to make more changes to the Resource Management Act when we could be doing this all in one go once we've seen that comprehensive report from Tony Randerson.