Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Clause 545 is the clause that I spoke about earlier that gives effect to the heritage protection order. It's the clause that sets out the fairly extensive and broad nullification of a whole lot of activities on land that has been designated as subject to a protection order—so nothing that includes any undertaking of any land use subdividing any land or changing the character intensity or scale of the use of any land.Then there are several other clauses and it's not until we get to clause 550 that we find that there is an appeal provision relating to clause 545. In clause 550(1) it says that the section applies if a person—(a) proposes to do anything in relation to land that is subject to a heritage order for the purpose that but for the heritage protection order would be lawful; and (b) has been refused consent to undertake that" and so on.But then in subclause (2) of clause 550 there is the ability for a person to appeal to the Environment Court against a heritage protection authority's refusal to consent to the conditions. Now that's good I guess but an appeal through to the Environment Court has the potential to be slow cumbersome and expensive. I'm wondering whether the balance is right in terms of that appeal process where the heritage authority that has already been tested in terms of its own financial ability to be robust clearly will have resources available to defend and protect themselves against an appeal of a protection order but an individual could be for instance one of the communal property owners who may feel that the situation unfairly imposes upon their ability to enjoy peacefully and lawfully access to the land or to some use of the land. But the balance between the two—the authority has already had its financial probity tested and proved so they've got assets they've got strength and they've got financial might but the individual that is appealing may not have. And I'm keen to have the Minister's sense about how the relative power imbalance or the potential power imbalance might potentially be better addressed.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I suppose I would first make it clear that in respect of heritage protection orders on private land as opposed to communally owned Māori land those heritage protection orders can only be made by a council or the Crown; they can't be made by a Māori authority. So it's the council or the Crown.Then if someone has land that is subject to a heritage protection order—and they may have bought the land subject to that order. It's not always imposed upon them; it's often something that a prior landowner has wanted to protect for the future before they sold their land. It might be—I don't know—a very old church it might be a place that's got some significant trees on it or it might be the site of the first school in the area—for whatever reason they might have wanted to preserve it. But then a subsequent landowner might want to say "Well look I still want to do something here." and they could apply to the council or the Crown if the Crown was the relevant authority. Their permission might be refused and they might think that unreasonable. In order for that to be tested there is an appeal right created as is the case in just about any other appeal right. In respect of important matters of public or private interests it's normal for the appeal to go to a court because they run fair processes they act judicially without bias they apply the law without fear and favour and they give reasons for their decisions which gives confidence to the public that the system is robust and that's what's proposed here."