Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Well I thank Mr O'Rourke for explaining my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 317. This is because Part 2 goes to the real heart of the bill. It is in clause 6 of course that the bill overrides the normal processes that would apply under the Reserves Act and the Resource Management Act (RMA). So the Supplementary Order Paper  because there is no plan change process because the bill sidesteps that—in a plan change process where you are rezoning what is now open space to residential mixed housing urban land you would normally get an opportunity for public submissions and for those submissions to deal with issues like what the impacts of that zoning change would be and how the plan should have new objectives new policies and new rules to guide the future use and development of the land. The provisions in the Resource Legislation Amendment Act which Parliament debated earlier this year make a much faster process for the way in which subdivision activity takes place and there is no guarantee that applications for subdivision consents are actually going to be notified.So the SOP as a minimum requires that there is a resource consent application for the housing development that is a notified activity and puts in play a number of provisions: that it must protect the habitat of the dotterel and the shore plover and avoid adverse effects from land disturbance. We have got no certainty given that the bill sidesteps the plan change process that there will be adequate provisions to ensure that the development does not lead to quite significant sedimentation in Omaru Creek and in the Tāmaki estuary. We are certainly aware of Ngāti Paoa's major commitments to enhancement of the people the land and the community but from experience with a number of big resource consent applications and developments you need those sorts of commitments to be put in as conditions of the consent or as clear plan objectives.So a question for the Minister is: if this SOP is not supported by the Government how is the Government going to guarantee that the local communities in Tāmaki Point England Panmure and Glen Innes actually get a say on this housing development and how it happens? How can the Government guarantee that the consent will be notified? The council has said there will be a consent process but there is absolutely no guarantee because of the Government's changes to the RMA that people will actually get the opportunity to have a say on that. So we encourage members to support this SOP to make sure that the community can actually participate in how this housing development happens; what sort of density it is; what provisions there are for connectivity walkways cyclists and pedestrians; how the major earthworks that are likely to be required on this very wet site will be dealt with; how sediment measures are to be put in place; and things like site hardening. Given Omaru Creek is a very polluted waterway if there is a lot more asphalt and there are more large roofs there will be a lot more stormwater generated. The Auckland Council is providing some tens of millions of dollars to improve catchment management for Omaru Creek but there will be significantly increased stormwater volumes if there is a lot of site hardening with this development.We would also like to go on and talk to some of the issues around the loss of the reserves and the loss of the playing fields and the SOP that is in the Minister the Hon Nick Smith's name. We heard a lot of submissions concerned about the effect of the housing development in doing away with areas that are used for sports. Point England Reserve currently has six full-sized sports fields in the southern part of it. There are four kilikiti wickets. Those kilikiti wickets are used during the week and during the weekend. They are very popular with the Pasifika community and the Auckland Council in its sports network needs-analysis report went through and looked at what the impact would be on the Tāmaki area from the loss of these sports fields and the kilikiti wickets at Point England when they are overcome with housing. That needs analysis shows that there is no potential within the existing sports parks for the kilikiti wickets that are displaced at Point England being accommodated there. That is because of the large scale and size of these kilikiti wickets. It also found that most of the other sports parks in the vicinity have already been developed to capacity through things like having sand carpets and floodlights so there will be a significant shortfall in terms of playing hours if this land is sacrificed to housing.So what has the Minister for the Environment done in response? Well we have Supplementary Order Paper 321 which cuts across once again the decision making by the Auckland Council. Instead of allowing the Auckland Council to look at how the lost sports field capacity should be dealt with the Minister through his SOP will amend the bill to insist that the council provide another 5.3 hectares on the balance of the Point England Reserve which is not going to have houses put on it for sports fields. That increases after 12 months to 8.4 hectares. Mr O'Rourke called it micro-management and I agree. It is the Minister once again as is characteristic of him imposing his will on Aucklanders rather than allowing the democratically elected council to deal with this issue of the shortfall in sports fields. We have the Government not responding to submissions because a lot of the concern amongst many submitters was about the loss of open space. There were fewer submitters who were concerned about the loss of sports fields but those who were were concerned. This SOP of the Minister's has come out of left field. It was not signalled in the Local Government and Environment Committee and it is the Government attempting once again to be seen to be doing something when all it is doing is undermining democracy.The loss of the sports fields is significant because the Auckland Council paid out over $60 million to Auckland University in 2016 to buy Colin Maiden Park. That has got a number of sports facilities in it. The council does not have the resources to keep doing that—to buy more land for sports fields. The Government has completely understated the impact on particularly the Pasifika community through the loss of the kilikiti area when the Pasifika population in the Tāmaki area is expected to increase by 42 percent by 2038. It has not looked at how the Auckland Council is supposed to deal with the loss of the sports fields for housing and instead is just doing this quick and dirty SOP to require that the rest of the reserve be sacrificed for sports fields instead of the open space that it currently is. The regulatory impact statement notes that the changes in the SOP are unusual because once again they are being done through primary legislation which is overriding the normal processes in the Reserves Act and the RMA for the council to actually decide what should happen on the balance of the land which remains as council land.So this SOP of the Minister's is really symbolic of the provisions of the primary bill which cut across local democracy and cut across local decision-making. I do want the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson to answer what guarantee there is if the bill goes through without my SOP that the community in Tāmaki will actually get to have a say on the resource consent application. We are not having that normal plan change process and there is no ability to constrain the housing development to ensure that it is sustainable to deal with issues like coastal hazard sediment density public transport access connectivity to other reserves like Tāhuna Tōrea and connectivity to the local shopping centre unless those sorts of issues are discussed through the resource consent process. At the moment there is absolutely no guarantee that that consent application will be publicly notified or that there will be any opportunity for locals to actually have their say.