Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise to take a second call on Part 1 and follow on from my colleague with respect to what was Supplementary Order Paper 390 which has been replaced by a tabled amendment. I thank the Table Office for helping me with that amendment and what was a drafting error by them—something that was lost in translation. They helped me fix that up at the eleventh hour to make sure that the tabled amendment was quite clear with respect to new section 26ZJA in clause 9 that natural justice principles and consultation with affected landowners—where the Director-General of Conservation has a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site there and is looking to gazette it they will undertake consultation with that affected landowner prior to the notice being gazetted. My colleague Maureen Pugh has talked quite extensively about the potential of what could happen on the Coast with respect to 85 percent of the landmass there being conservation estate and certainly with a great deal of it in the Southland region being conservation estate but this amendment and the powers with respect to spawning sites and the declaration thereof apply to private land and will affect private property owners' rights. Again as my colleague said there is an issue with whitebait habitat protection and we do want to see its habitat protected so it can spawn but equally when you have private property you do have rights and you want to be able to use your land in the best means possible. So my tabled amendment suggests that there should be prior to that Gazette notice and that process consultation with the property owner. Certainly within the Environment Committee this was teased out some more because I was concerned as I talked to officials as to the process for this and as to how they would go about it especially if there were for example commercial activities going on on that property such as gravel extraction and farming activities. For the director-general to come in on the basis of a reasonable belief and put a stop to that has significant social and economic effects on that private property owner. So consultation is key if there is a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site on that property and I think that the Department of Conservation would have an onus to undertake that consultation and make itself aware fully of the potential impacts that protection of a spawning site on private property would have on that property owner. The second thing that the tabled amendment does is provide for an appeal process. What I'm meaning there is an internal appeal process at this point that if the director-general makes a preliminary decision that yes in fact he or she believes—he at this point—that there should be a declaration that there is a spawning site to allow an appeal process to occur he is to have that decision reviewed and make sure that he has arrived at that decision in an objective way because we certainly don't want any interference or any undue influence to breach a good process to arrive at that decision and as part of that those economic those social impacts need to be properly considered. Then of course we have paragraph (c) that gives effect to section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is to allow for an appeal process for judicial review and bring civil proceedings if that landowner there disagrees with the decision. So I again submit that these are practical amendments to a bill that was introduced as being minor and technical but we can see it is anything but. It has wide-reaching ramifications that certainly I don't think have been worked through properly.