Stanford Erica; Parker DavidERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to ask David Parker the Minister in the chair about a specific project in Schedule 2. I want to ask him about what happened to Ngāwhā. The reason I want to ask him what happened to this is because it goes to the Minister when he makes his decisions for referring projects down the line. I want to understand why it was that we ended up with a project in Schedule 2 in his bill that was purely for a hole to be dug in the ground for what he himself said earlier was a water storage project but in fact it wasn't because it was just a hole in the ground. What I'm after is what went wrong—why was it that the Minister didn't include the water or the water-take consents in that? What I'm trying to understand is his thinking when it comes to referring projects down the line because no doubt there will be water storage projects that will want to be referred. I know Dargaville is in a similar situation and there will be other places around the country as well that will want to put projects to the Minister for him to refer and I'm keen to get an understanding of what went wrong. We fixed it up in the Environment Committee. The National Party helped Jenny Marcroft with her amendment because they didn't have the support of the Greens and we helped them get that through. It's very very important for the people of Kaikohe. But what I'm trying to understand here is what happened? Why did the Minister leave out those consents and then change his mind at select committee? Like I said I'm only trying to understand that so I can understand more about projects that get referred and I've got some more questions. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm happy to answer that question. At the point that it went to select committee we didn't have agreement from the Green Party for the inclusion of water. The New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party thought water should be included but at that stage the Green Party weren't convinced. They sought more information. We obtained an assessment of the environmental effects. On that basis they thought it was appropriate that the Kaikohe water project be included and therefore the select committee chose to do so which is why it's now listed in the schedule. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I think you can then understand our point the point that Michael Woodhouse—not Michael Woodhouse sorry—Nathan Guy was making before which was about when there are going to be projects referred that include around the coastal marine area there is going to be—[Interruption]—it's late—potential conflicts between the two Ministers. As he mentioned there can be delays as we've already seen in the bill so that's what we're concerned about. But I'll carry on because I think I've made that point. I want to go back to what the Minister said earlier about not wanting to choke the system which goes a way to explaining I guess in the mind of the Minister that he understands that there are a number of projects that could be put in Schedule 2 more than the 11 that were put there. I guess I want to ask him if he knows that there were a number of projects that could be in Schedule 2 and if we are in such a dire economic state and we need to stimulate the economy and stimulate job growth—and he knows that there are a number of projects—why didn't he in that case make extra capacity? Given that we're in the worst economic situation of our lifetimes and he knows that there are lots of projects that could have been included but that he didn't include because he said that he didn't want to choke the system why didn't he just build extra capacity? Then he went on to say that there are a number of panels that could have been convened. Well if that's the case why not put more projects in? What we've been saying the whole way along Minister is that this is a wasted opportunity. These 11 projects they're not terrible on their own; in fact some of them are quite good. But they don't offer any significant economic value down the track. I mean I asked him earlier and he didn't answer the question. We've got the northern sky path in there which is a great project—happy with that. But when you put it up against something like a second Mount Victoria tunnel or a motorway extension or something that's going to offer significant economic value down the track and significant economic returns other than just you know the SkyPath—which is good and we're all in favour of it but as I think people have pointed out it lets people of Takapuna get in their lycra and cycle across the bridge. Those two things aren't—it's difficult to see why he's put in the Northern Pathway and not another project which we've got many of on the Table that would give us significant economic value. The question I asked earlier—the question that he hasn't answered—is how did he come to the decision on these 11 projects and not on some of these projects which would deliver significant economic value and significantly more jobs? As the Minister mentioned earlier all of these projects together are only 1700 jobs. I know there are wider jobs that will be created but it's actually 1700. That's not that many. That's fewer jobs than Air New Zealand has lost. So I'm really keen to get the Minister to answer how he came to those Schedule 2 projects why they're in there and why some of these ones that have significant economic value and far more jobs weren't included. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to say that the reason for that can be seen in the contrast between the discretion that the panel has in respect of listed projects compared with other projects. If members care to refer to clause 32 of Schedule 6 on page 95 of the bill you'll see that the panel can decline a listed project on only two grounds: one which is at subclause (1)(a) says that the panel considers that the granting of a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement with our without conditions would be inconsistent with any national policy statement including a … coastal policy statement;" or "(b) … the panel considers that granting a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement with or without conditions would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement." So those are the only two bases upon which a listed project can be turned down. We were not and are not confident enough. We haven't gone into each of these very worthy projects that might be put forward by way of list. We haven't gone through them enough in this preliminary process to conclude that that should be the limits of the ability of the panel to turn them down. We were satisfied in respect of those listed projects that are in Schedule 2 based on advice that we had from the ministry that they were appropriate for that limited discretion to turn down but that's not true in respect of all of the other listed projects and if the members in the committee—I think most members would agree that the panel needs more discretion than that. Otherwise in effect this bill would be consenting a whole raft of process without any adequate consideration of the environmental effects."