Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I start off by thanking you Mr Chairperson for your earlier comments and also by thanking the Minister in the chair Nick Smith for his contribution and for proving the precise point that members on this side of the House have been trying to raise in this debate which is that if we go down this track then we will muddy the waters. We will not provide the protections that we currently have under the Reserves Act for our reserves. In the Minister's comments when he stood to take a call that is exactly what he said. He criticised anyone who was standing up for the retention of the reserves in our towns and cities and said that was getting in the way of development.The current protections we have under the Reserves Act when it comes to consideration of the exchange of reserves are very simple. It says that you consider the benefit to the reserve and the community that is served by that reserve. As soon as we start running that process together with plan changes that are almost inevitably centred around urban development—which of course is good and we should be finding the space to do that—you muddy the waters and the protection of those reserves will be watered down. But you do not have to believe me believe another man called Michael Wood who is one of New Zealand's most eminent Resource Management Act lawyers from Simpson Grierson who in his commentary on this bill is very very clear.He says: The amendments are intended to facilitate improved urban redevelopment by enabling integrated consultation … Arguably the proposed new section 14B may have the effect of opening the door for more applications to exchange other land for existing recreation reserves". So he is making it very very clear that the likely effect of these changes is for more and more of the parks and reserves in our towns and cities to be eyed up for development. And that is where this side of the Chamber has a real concern.There are also some questions I would like to ask the Minister around this and I guess the first thing is really to ask him about what the real driver for this is. If he is putting forward the argument that this is about developing more houses does he really believe that these changes are likely to result in more development on our parks and reserves? Otherwise what are we talking about here? What is the value of it? What analysis has been done to think about what changes we might see in the number of reserves exchange proposals coming forward under these proposals?I want to pick up on a point also that was raised by Denis O'Rourke in his comments and that is the net-benefit test. This is very very important. It is at the core of the jurisprudence and the wording in the current Act and the bill when we consider whether an exchange under the Reserves Act should go ahead. The wording we have got—and it pretty much does transfer straight over from the original Act through into the amendments—is that we have to consider the "net benefit for recreation opportunities".This has always struck me as a little bit strange and I wonder why it was not picked up at the Local Government and Environment Committee and whether it should be looked at because under the Reserves Act we do not just classify our reserves by their recreational benefit. We classify our reserves as historic recreational scenic or having natural benefits. But the wording in terms of the net-benefit test only seems to recognise the recreational benefits. I am not suggesting that that is a pernicious change put forward by the Minister or the Government because that wording does just transfer over from the previous Act but none the less it does seem to me to be a significant oversight that should be looked at. A whole range of the reserves that we have do not just have recreation benefits. If you are in Auckland you look at the Hunua ranges or the Waitakere Ranges. Actually the primary benefit of those reserves relates to their scenic and their ecological and sometimes historic values as well. So that is something that I think should be considered. One of the other aspects—and the Minister may like to address this really—going to the core objection that has been raised on this side of the Chamber is the question of if we are running these two processes together how it is that we have some assurance that the people who will be hearing both the reserve exchange proposal and the plan change proposal will be able to separate out the different imperatives under both of those processes.Firstly let us remember that imperative under the Reserves Act to provide for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public of the reserve and secondly the imperatives that will flow through from the amended Resource Management Act which essentially are about supporting increased development. How is it and what level of assurance do we have that we can actually balance those two and what work has the Minister and his officials done to ensure that we do achieve that balance if we are going to run these two processes together?"