O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support Part 6 as proposed by Labour Party member David Parker. It does pre-empt in fact parts of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill which is currently going through the process. But our support is worth some caution I would have to say because fixed boundaries have worked in fact in most parts of New Zealand quite effectively—Christchurch is one of those. But I accept that Christchurch with its huge areas of land adjacent to it is rather different from Auckland which is built on an isthmus and has a much greater rate of growth. So bearing that in mind I think it is quite appropriate at this stage that we do accept that some change is necessary in places such as Auckland to make the use of fixed boundaries no longer appropriate and to look for an alternative. I think the alternative we have here is certainly one that we can consider supporting. It is a shame that this proposal is not actually going through a full select committee process because this like other provisions in the bill itself really does need proper examination. It is a shame that that is not happening but we do not have the luxury of that. Here we are in urgency. Here we are having to look at Part 6. On balance New Zealand First will support Part 6 subject to the Greens' amendments which I think are satisfactory and on the basis of the alternative to fixed boundaries that is set out in new section 46C(2)(b) in particular but also in paragraphs (c) (d) (e) and (f). The crux is paragraph (b) which actually says: a requirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning which sets aside areas of special value and sets out future infrastructure corridors and networks as an alternative to urban boundaries". The other paragraphs everyone can read for themselves. The point that I want to make is this: the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill has drawn a large number of submissions in support of spatial planning and it does seem to me and to many people that that is the way to go in the future especially for Auckland. It is a much more sophisticated approach to planning especially in high-growth areas. But most of all New Zealand First is very supportive of the parts of this particular section and that is new section 46C(2)—all paragraphs of that—where it refers to infrastructure corridors and networks as a tool to prevent growth into inappropriate areas especially those areas where delivery of infrastructure would be far too expensive impracticable or too remote from transport opportunities. That is the point of Julie Anne Genter's amendments so that is why we particularly support those. I would have to add this: in my 15 years on the Christchurch City Council on more than one occasion I actually tried to use the limitation of the expansion of infrastructure as a way to discourage inappropriate growth but of course it was illegal to do so so my attempts largely failed. I have to say that some of the areas where that growth happened were areas that have now been red zoned—areas that should never have been developed on at all. Megan Woods nodding her head is quite right—we all know where those areas were and we all know that that development should not have happened. If we had had this regime at that time it would have been possible to avoid it. Finally Julie Anne Genter was quite right when she referred to the need for development to take adequate notice of transport issues. In fact New Zealand First policy is to favour transport-led development. You can see that in many parts of the world so it is not a wheel that we have to reinvent. There should at least be adequate notice taken of transport issues when developments are approved. That is not happening currently. So with those qualifications New Zealand First will be happy to support Part 6."