Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to first thank the Minister for providing me with much-needed entertainment. But I have yet to get a response from the Minister regarding the question that I asked. I understand the Minister's position on a lot of the things that he mentioned but I was specifically asking it in the context of the regulatory impact statement particularly where the regulatory impact statement states around the negative impact on promoting the sustainable management of natural physical resources and upholding.So I would just like to get a clarification from the Minister that if the Minister believes there is no negative impact to the natural physical resources or that the Crown - Tiriti obligations have been upheld would that mean that the regulatory impact statement as has been stated here is incorrect? Which is good; which is fine. We get that. But it would be good to get that from the Minister.The other thing that we mentioned before and one of the other speakers mentioned before in terms of what does this do to the regions I will also I guess at this stage like to point out that all regional and unitary councils oppose this bill. So it would be really good to get the response from the Minister that if this is really good for regional development—and I really hope that it is. Also it did state here in the regulatory impact statement that it does have certainty for industry and consent authorities. In that case—this is not my area of specialty—why then would the regional and unitary councils oppose this bill if it's going to be good for the regions? So if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying that as well.On the off chance that this does have potential future impact because the extension of this bill goes to 2050 as we mentioned has there been any modelling? Again providing jobs is really really important for the regions and we would like to see those jobs sustained for long periods of time. I would like to ask the Minister or the officials has there been any sort of modelling around when certain environment or when the agriculture or the consent itself can no longer sustain the same level of jobs or production through a variety of reasons? The degradation of natural resources or the natural environment being one of them but for the sake of talking about the courses just in general has there been any modelling been done in case something doesn't go according to plan over the next 25 years what are some of the mechanisms for that?In this case I'm looking at new section 165ZFHC(3) where we're looking at The conditions applying to … coastal permit". And I wondered if anything has been done around that or any sort of additional conditions or any sort of wiggle room has been provided during this period or are we going to see an exponential or increasing investment into something for the same level of output or for the same level of sustainability. I think the Minister used a very key word here on economic durability which I agree with and I think it would be nice for us to have that but what happens if we are putting in more investment into it than the output? Would that be considered durable?So those are the three questions that I would like to get some response from the Minister on. And also just Mr Chair for you as well so far what I'm hearing is we're still sort of on subpart (1)(a) of this discussion but it'd be really good to at some stage to weigh in when we get the clarifications that we ask for from the Minister in due time we will move on to subpart (1)(b). Thank you."