Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you and thanks for the Minister's explanation. I want to come back to this sense of a potential power imbalance between the authority that has deemed a piece of land communally owned to be the subject of a protection order and the potential for an individual to appeal that—as I say potentially one of the communal owners or a small group of those communal owners.In clause 550(4) it says In considering an appeal under this section the court must have regard to" and then it has three legs to the matters that the court must have regard to and this is the Environment Court. The first leg is "(a) whether the decision appealed against has caused"—has caused—"or is likely to cause serious hardship to the appellant; and". I can think of a wide variety of circumstances where it may be relatively easy for an appellant to show that actually serious hardship has occurred or is likely to occur.But then there's the second leg and it's not an "or"; it's an "and". So these three legs all have to be met before a successful appeal could be made. The second leg is "(b) whether the decision appealed against would render the land concerned incapable of reasonable use; and". It's that question about reasonable use and being incapable that I'm keen to have some sense from the Minister about; how that test of incapacity or reasonableness will be applied in terms of appeal decisions. I know that there's a lot of common law about the test for reasonableness. But that's the second leg; so that's another "and".And then the third leg is—this is clause 550(4)(c)—"the extent to which the decision may be modified without wholly or partly nullifying the effect of the heritage protection order." So three legs to a successful appeal need to be met not individually but collectively—the three legs. I put it to the Minister that that's actually a very high threshold for an appellant to meet and the potential likelihood of an appeal being successful based on meeting all three of those legs would be relatively small if indeed at all.So I'm interested in the Minister's views on that and whether he thinks that that is an adequate protection and whether it's a reasonable threshold for as I've indicated previously perhaps a single individual with limited means to try and meet the threshold of the three appeal criteria under that clause.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again I would note this is a carry-over of section 195 of the existing Resource Management Act. I would further note that the court must have regard to those three factors; it doesn't say that all three factors have to be fully met in order for an earlier decision appealed against to be modified. They're just the factors that must be considered. It doesn't say how they should be weighted.I would have thought in practice that if the decision appealed was going to cause serious hardship and it would render the land unable to be reasonably used and the decision couldn't be modified in a way that could accommodate that the decision of the court would then in part depend on what they thought was a fair outcome according to the scheme of the Act. That might include using the example I used earlier whether the person purchased the land already subject to that inhibition or whether this was something new or recent.In terms of the court's remedies there the court—at subclause (5)—can either confirm the decision reverse the decision modify the heritage protection order or cancel it."