Cunliffe DavidHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to make a reasonably technical contribution to this discussion specifically around clause 5 of Part 1 which I do not believe has been addressed yet in the discussion. There are many many clauses that we have not yet touched upon in this debate on Part 1. Before I do may I make a brief comment in respect of the previous exchange. I am sure you will reflect on the ability of members to cause offence or otherwise in stating their understanding—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is out of order. Just continue with the debate. Concentrate on the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Clause 5 requires two new subsections be added to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. The first is that an Order in Council may incorporate a map plan or document prepared or issued by any person or body." That is a very significant although ostensibly technical amendment. Let me comment in two parts. The first is to replace what would have been a requirement for technical and specific language with any range of map plan or document. It is therefore possible—indeed probably intended—that that move would make it easier for a special housing area (SHA) to cover a broader area a broader range a larger quantum of development. In considering that the Committee has to take account of the rights that attach to normal consenting processes that are necessarily abrogated by this extension of the SHA process. Those are serious issues.The next part of that subsection I think adds to that serious question and that is because this map or plan may be issued "by any person or body."—not a territorial authority not a regional authority not the Auckland Council but perhaps by a developer perhaps by an interest group perhaps by the Tree Council perhaps by Greenpeace or perhaps by the Property Council. The point as members can readily see is that the uncertainty that this creates is both unnecessary and significant given the fact that the rest of clause 5 seeks to extend and abrogate rights that are extant in the law as it stands. It is unclear—and I invite the Minister for Building and Housing to comment because we are fortunate to have the responsible Minister in the chair—what the reasoning is behind this specific clause. Is it perchance the result of developer pressure for an even faster and more speedy process? Is it to abrogate the democratic processes of perchance the Auckland Council or other territorial authorities? Or is there a more sanguine explanation that is not apparent to members of this House? I am sure the Minister will want to comment on that.May I reflect on the fact that there is an interesting contradistinction between this clause that the Minister has added which allows a policy change to be done by a broad area a large group of housing opportunities and the contrasting approach that the same Government—I think possibly the same Minister—took in regard to the tree-trimming regulations in Auckland where it removed just such an ability and required people who wanted to protect something in this case special trees to do it by the individual tree which had to be specified by a long and bureaucratic process of the council. In fact more trees probably died for the paperwork required by that highly specific amendment. And in this bill the same Minister is doing the exact opposite. To protect something you have to be specific to the individual tree or—thanks to Mr Goff's pressure perhaps a very small group of trees—but if you want to develop something you can do it by anybody providing a map. Imagine Captain Cook providing a map—he could do the whole country in one go. I mean the point is the clause—that might sound ridiculous—Jono Naylor: Nothing more ridiculous than what you've been saying all night.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —does not self-limit. Mr Jono would be best to constrain his interventions to something that has substance. He has made his speech. Mr Chairman thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on this and I hope he will."