Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): If only. The sort of doctor that makes you sick!Hon Maggie Barry: You're right there.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh what a lovely contribution from the old rough red on the other side! I hope we capture that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! You might just want to withdraw that.Hon DAVID PARKER: I withdraw that Mr Chairperson. I want to raise an actual example that was given to me by someone concerned about these Reserves Act changes. It builds on the points that have been made by my colleague and also by Denis O'Rourke and Eugenie Sage. It relates to the loss of open space. Some of these recreational reserves are open space. Fewer of them will be in the future. That is the effect of this provision because on more occasions than occur now there will be a joint application under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Reserves Act to change what happens on those recreational reserves from being open space to having some commercial character.The example that was given to me is in respect of the very limited open spaces that we have on the North Shore in Auckland—very very short of open space in that area. There is pressure in respect of some of those open spaces to build boating clubs that have a commercial aspect to them: they will have a liquor licence sometimes they might have a restaurant and there might be some exchange involved somewhere else.Denis O'Rourke: Car-parks.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes car-parks. Thank you Mr O'Rourke. There will be a change that will be advocated by those people who are in favour of it who will be alleging that there is a net benefit from the recreational opportunities that occur as a consequence of that. I think that is the contention that has been made by this person to me who is an experienced lawyer with experience relating to the Reserves Act saying that in his opinion that is what will be the result of this legislation.Dealing with the Minister's point about complexity and not trusting councils actually I do trust councils so this is not a distrust of council thing. But I want to deal with your point about bureaucracy. If members of the community who are opposed to the changing nature of the recreational opportunities on their local reserve have to deal with the RMA aspects of the car-parks the liquor licensing and the building you can bet that the people who are pursuing that are going to be lawyered up themselves to deal with the complexity of what they are proposing.Already this joint process is more complex than the two separate processes used to be. The Minister shakes his head but logically that is true. I am not saying that the RMA process is more complex than the existing RMA process; that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the addition of that to the Reserves Act process in the single process makes that single process more complex than the earlier separate Reserves Act process was for members of the public. So members of the public who might have been interested in keeping this as an open reserve without buildings on it—they wanted it as open space a place to relax an oasis of green as Eugenie Sage said—will be required to deal with the Resource Management Act process at the same time. Overall it will be a more complex process and it is likely that instead of a group of interested individuals appearing before councillors instead we are going to have this more complex process in which some of the parties that are proposing this change which is almost quasi-commercial sometimes are going to have lawyers on their side and members of the public will feel more threatened if you like and less able to participate unless they have the resources to play that same game.For those reasons I support the comments from my colleague Denis O'Rourke and Eugenie Sage that contrary to what the Minister is saying you are actually going to have a more complex process and a more bureaucratic process compared with the existing process which is limited to the Reserves Act considerations separately from the Resource Management Act processes for what is being proposed.