Simpson Scott; Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Look the Minister has made that point quite clear which is that Part 9 is essentially a cut-and-paste from the existing resource management legislation. But let me just hypothetically talk for a minute. For instance if I was my very good friend Warren Mayall from the beautiful Pāuanui part of the Coromandel and I wanted to do a subdivision—just by cutting and pasting the existing provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) into the newly proposed Natural and Built Environment Bill where are the improvements? Where is the streamlining? Where are the pieces in this admittedly administrative and functional part of the legislation? Where are the pieces of Part 9 that are going to make it easier for Warren Mayall for instance of Pāuanui to do a little bit of subdivision to do some development work and to make advantage of what the Minister has told us throughout this debate and indeed throughout the whole genesis of this change to our existing RMA environment? It's supposed to make things easier and it is supposed to make things quicker faster and less complicated but this part is just a cut-and-paste. It doesn't seem to make any improvements at all. Yes it's detailed and we could go through—as I'm sure some of my colleagues are intent to do—clause by clause subclause by subclause and point out some areas that need to be tested but just because it was in the Resource Management Act from 30-odd years ago and it may have been subsequently amended over the multiple times that the RMA has been amended since it was first passed by this House it doesn't mean necessarily I think that it should be just the subject of a straight cut-and-paste without some kind of opportunity to review to improve to streamline and to make it more efficient. So without referring to any particular clause in Part 9 I'm keen to know how the Minister feels that this part is actually going to improve his overall legislative package and what it might mean for my very good friend Warren Mayall in Pāuanui. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. To the Minister: it's a broader question in terms of how the bills fit together and so I accept what you're saying about this part of the bill. But as we went through the select committee we were almost in live timing with the cyclones that were happening and we thought a lot about where we build and how we build and we saw—and the Minister has probably seen this himself—overlays of where wetlands previously were and where flooding lay. The question is really related more to the interaction of this bill with the spatial planning and freeing up land. Are there likely to be more as we build on to the climate adaptation bill? Accepting that we haven't debated or had the opportunity to talk about that yet is that actually going to again talk about how we might free up land? Is that going to have some ability again to restrict the land available to apply these clauses to because we looked as a committee as we were doing this and we were thinking My goodness have we built in some places that we shouldn't have built? Have we left enough space between houses?" and all of those sorts of things. So my question is more about how all of that fits together please. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those questions really relate to the higher parts of the bill that we've already debated not to the mechanical provisions relating to subdivision and reclamation in Part 9 which are a carry-over of the Resource Management Act parts and are purely mechanical."