Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Just picking up on my earlier contribution I want to draw the Committee's attention to clauses 11 and 12.I highlight that this clause clause 11 requires the councils to provide for development capacity. There were obviously several submitters who raised some issues around trying to express exactly what we mean by development capacity". Does it mean "up" and "wide" in terms of—sorry just to explain this particular clause it is to enable councils to have a long-term take I guess on housing needs.In these two clauses—submitters were concerned about being clear around what they actually mean. There are some questions that I do want to put to the Minister in the chair Nick Smith but the concerns that submitters raised in regard to these particular clauses are around defining whether it is intended to build up or out and whether we include business and commercial property or it is just purely residential. Also they made a point around how you would measure sufficient long-term and expected demand. My question to the Minister in the chair is: what does he mean by "development capacity" and how the heck does he measure sufficient long-term and expected demand as was raised by the submitters?The other part of this clause is about reverse sensitivities. Again this was raised by Agriculture New Zealand the Stevenson Group Fulton Hogan and Fonterra which were seeking protection on their significant infrastructure such as electricity transmission water infrastructure and transit infrastructure. Again to the Minister: can he guarantee that existing development capacity—for example electricity transmissions—will be protected in his amendment?There is another part of the bill that I want to ask the Minister questions on and that is clause 131 subclauses (1) and (2). This part—and no other speaker has actually raised this point but it relates to there being no appeals to the Environment Court for certain activities. I just want to bring the attention of the Committee to the proposed insertions here—which is section 128A of the Act. The Environment Court appeals in respect of decisions on subdivisions residential activities on a single allotment in a residential zone and boundary infringements will be precluded unless the activities to which the decisions relate have non-complying status.The concern for me there obviously is how are we ensuring that the public can actually take their concerns to the Environment Court when we have this particular clause in the bill? Maybe the Minister can allay our fears that this particular clause makes it really clear that in this case it would not be permitted. Again the clause introduces new limitations on the scope of appeal such as that a submitter will be restricted to appealing only those methods that are raised in their submission. Furthermore there will be no right of appeal for submitters in the event that their submission is struck out under new section 41D inserted by clause 120. I believe that these particular clauses deserve a response from the Minister to ensure that the public can raise appeals in the Environment Court for certain activities.My major question is—and I did want to take a point of order when Marama Fox was speaking when she was reading out her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281. That is my third important point that I want to raise in my contribution tonight. She read from a piece of paper in relation to her particular SOP. She mentioned in her paper that her SOP covers I believe grasses and forestry. I wanted to ask with all due respect—I have gone away and have looked at the SOP which the members of this Committee have and there is absolutely no mention in that SOP of grass or forestry. But it does talk about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and I have gone away and got a copy of that Act in case the definition—"