Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I actually was not going to take a call on this part but the Minister for the Environment's responses led me to do that and it is around—Hon Ruth Dyson: Inspired you. GRANT ROBERTSON: —well he is an inspiring man—clause 181(2)(ii) and the question of reducing the time for objection or submission to 20 days in the case of a concession. I think it is two points that I want to make and then a question. The first point—actually Eugenie Sage referred to it but in passing—is that we are talking about public land. That is the thing that makes this distinctive. While it is possible for Resource Management Act - related cases to have that it has to be public land in this case because it is in the Department of Conservation's interest. That is what makes it different. Going back—and actually I think Eugenie Sage might have been working on the Conservation Act in 1987 in a different guise—there was clearly an intent to make the time frame longer. Forty days is actually a very unusual time frame in terms of the law.Hon David Parker: It is not a notice on a neighbouring gate.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right exactly. It is not a notice on a neighbouring gate as David Parker says. We are talking about complex often controversial concessions to public land being protected. It does not get much more important than that and therefore 40 days is a sensible time period for that. I think that is the distinction that has been missed here and reading through the departmental report it is clear that the Department of Conservation when it undertook its concessions processing review in 2010 went looking for ways to streamline the process of concessions. There may well have been some justification around elements of that. What it says in the departmental report is that it was looking for as I say ways to streamline the processes increase transparency and reduce compliance costs.That is all very well and good but as we have stated time and again in this debate in the last 2 days all of this law be it law within the Resource Management Act or here within the Conservation Act is about striking the balance between the way in which we allow sustainable development to occur and facilitate the public to be involved. This is a classic piece this clause of unbalancing that situation. By all means find ways—and there are in earlier clauses in this part—of streamlining the process but let us not sacrifice the ability as David Parker has noted often of small-scale community groups to be able to participate in what is a large and often significant concession about public land.Having made that point and very much supporting David Parker's typescript—as they say—amendment on this matter to return to a 40-day level I want to ask the Minister what consideration was given to submitters who came up with other alternatives one of which was a 30-day time frame rather than the 40 days or 20 days which would align it with some other pieces of legislation that have been passed by this House or whether or not there was the ability to define large and complex conditions which would be at 40 days and then less complex concessions at 20 days—Hon David Parker: Obviously.GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously as Mr O'Rourke and Mr Parker have now both said. I would seek some feedback from the Minister because it would seem to me that simply a blanket going from a 40-day process which has been in place—we have just been celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Department of Conservation. It has been in place for 30 years and has stood us in good stead as a country. To make that change on a blanket basis seems to me to deny the importance of that land to many New Zealanders and the importance of the process of going through and allowing time for submissions.So we oppose this part because of this clause but I do not think I have heard a sufficient explanation from the Minister as to why he may not have considered some of those in-between options. Overall this remains unfortunately symptomatic of this whole piece of legislation that in the Minister's rush to appear to do something about issues within resource management he has chosen to accept a reduction in the ability of the public to be involved in really important concessions about public land.