Parker DavidJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you Madam Chair. I think there are three issues there which I hope I may be able to respond to the Minister on: firstly whether it's the appropriate mechanism—I can ask questions to get it in line Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can ask questions yes. The Minister's in the chair.JAMI-LEE ROSS: You lost my train of thought. The questions I'd like to put to the Minister on the three issues he raised were whether this is the appropriate process whether Auckland should take as much as they're asking for and also whether the Treaty issues can be overcome in this particular legislation.I guess the first question to the Minister on whether this is the appropriate process or not and why he came to the view that he did is around the certainty that the different processes provide. Unless I've got this absolutely wrong my understanding—the Minister can answer for me—is that this bill gives far greater certainty to any applicants or local authorities that are included in this legislation because the streamlining process which is all designed around ensuring there's greater economic opportunity and greater job creation gives far greater certainty of outcome than the call-in process. Am I wrong in thinking that the call-in process still has far more checks and balances and far more hoops that applicants have to jump through when it comes to applying for things and therefore this process does give the Auckland Council more certainty? That's the very reason why Mayor Goff made the submission that he did to the Environment Committee in the first place.The second point or question I want to ask is around the actual—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we have them one at a time?JAMI-LEE ROSS: Do I get more opportunities?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah you will.JAMI-LEE ROSS: OK. Great.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I suppose again it's not a cut and dry answer for that because page 95 of the bill at clause 32 of Schedule 6 says that a panel may decline a consent application or a notice of requirement for a listed project if the panel considers the granting of a consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement. That issue would still have been before this panel so it could have turned it down. So there wouldn't have been absolute certainty. But the member is right that Resource Management Act Part 2 considerations about what is the right balance outside of Treaty considerations would have been beyond the purview of the panel and I don't think that would be right in respect of this particular application. I think what Auckland needs is security of the water it needs for the facility that it's expanding at the moment which can pump 25 million litres per day extra which they're going to get. They may need some other winter water for next year by which time they may have invested in more water infrastructure and it's likely that they'll have the consent for that without me calling it in and without this panel hearing it within the next two weeks which is faster than this would handle it. In respect of the summer water over and above that that's a very contentious issue and it shouldn't be dealt with via this process.