Stanford Erica; Twyford PhilERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you for the Minister being in the chair. I've got some questions around Part 1 and I note there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table addressing this. I want to talk about the things in the bill that have been excluded so protected land parks and reserves Māori customary land land protected from use of certain powers without agreement—so there's a whole range of parcels of land that aren't able to be used for development. They're specifically excluded—Restrictions on developing certain land". We went through that at the Environment Committee and understand and agree with all of those lands that are restricted from being developed. The question to the Minister is: did he receive any advice on other parcels of land that for example have had say a recent Environment Court decision? So you may find there is a parcel of land that under the Auckland Unitary Plan was able to be developed locals took that to the Environment Court and the judgment was in favour of them. So this may have been quite recently say in the last couple of years. Under this bill technically—and I'd like the Minister's advice on that—as far as I can see that land could then be developed. Now I want to just run the Minister through an example. So in my electorate for example we've got Ōkura. It is on the banks of the Ōkura estuary. It is a pristine marine reserve. The area was under the Auckland Unitary Plan allowed to be developed with infill housing. The council actually opposed that funnily enough and so did all of the local greenie groups. So they all got together took it to the Environment Court and the Environment Court went and ruled in their favour. So this is a very recent decision on a parcel of a very significant land that was said if it was developed in that way to put the pristine marine reserve and estuary in great danger. So I guess my question is that in this bill as far as I can see there's no preclusion for that land to now be developed in contravention to that ruling of the Environment Court. So I just wanted the Minister to answer that to start with if he would.Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Madam Chair thank you and I want to thank the members for their questions. I take it that the member Jacqui Dean is really just wanting to have a general conversation about the processes in Parts 2 and 3 leading up to a specified development project. So those processes do form much of the substance of this bill and a great deal of time has gone into considering the balance between kind of complexity and speed. The objective of this legislation is to bring large-scale complex projects to fruition in the space of months or one or two years as opposed to sometimes a decade which is what they would normally take under some of the existing processes. So there are processes set out in Part 2 for the ability for local authorities or others to make proposals about specified development projects and then a process for these proposals to be considered for the development of a plan for the development project. It sets out mandatory things that should be included in that plan and then there's an establishment process for an independent hearings panel. It's true I think that much of this process was inspired by the independent hearings panel process that was used for the Auckland Unitary Plan. There's a front-loading of public consultation designed to give people in communities a say and to be able to shape the development plan at an early stage and then everybody has a chance to have a say and make a submission at the independent hearings panel. But the critical thing is that there are appeals only on matters of law and judicial review. So some critics I think pointed out and some people at the select committee pointed out that the process was quite complex and quite weighty but we've done our best to try and strike the right balance between a process that will facilitate good planning and good decision-making while giving people access to the rule of law through the independent hearings panel and while also giving flexibility for the way that the different tools are used in putting together these projects. I'm happy to have other questions from the member on the processes around the specified development projects. To Erica Stanford the issue about whether there exists under these provisions the possibility that development in certain areas could go ahead after it's been through some other process—and Ōkura was cited as an example—theoretically yes a specified development project could take place in an area like that which has already say been through the Environment Court. We didn't seek to preclude that possibility in the legislation but there are a number of checks and balances that are built into this that are designed to make sure we get good decision-making that everybody has a chance to have a say. So local councils for example—their view on the specified development projects must be sought formally and transparently. Hopefully we'll come later to the provisions around parks and reserves but any reconfiguring of parks and reserves for example would have to go to Cabinet to the Minister of Conservation. So there are a number of checks and balances including the fact that these plans would have to go to an independent hearings panel likely to be headed up by an Environment Court judge. The other thing I think to remember is that the provisions—Parts 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act—are included in the principles and purpose of this legislation. So there are a number of different checks and balances designed to ensure good decision-making. But yes it's true—just in the same way that a project like this could alter the designations and the consenting that exist within a district plan they could affect a hypothetical block of land that had already been through some kind of process."