Parker DavidJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): I realise that the capacity and how much Auckland needs is a contentious issue that he raises but I say to him—I ask the Minister—why is he effectively criticising the Auckland Council for requesting 200 million litres of water a day when we say to local authorities all the time Forward plan. Go and make sure you've got your plans ready for future growth and future capacity."? Let's bear in mind that Watercare applied for this seven years ago. Seven years ago they were projecting their long-term need was going to be 200 million litres a day. They've fronted up seven years later to the select committee and said "We need 200 million litres. Put this in the fast-track consenting bill so we can actually get the opportunity."Why now do we question whether the Auckland Council is doing what probably is normally the appropriate thing in forward planning over the amount of water that they need? It seems like it's far too picky and criticising the council unnecessarily when they're actually putting their hands up and saying "Our city is growing. Our infrastructure is not up to scratch. We need to do something about it. We want to put in a consent for 200 million litres." Because the problem they may have is that if they get their extra 25 or extra 50 and then in five or 10 years' time they come back and go "Ah we need more again." we have to wait another seven years or hope that a Minister calls it in. Why is he now criticising the Auckland Council for trying to do the right thing and forward plan?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I haven't criticised them; I'm just saying that they're not necessarily right to get it all from this source. I think that there's been great progress made in the last couple of weeks maybe in part because of the pressure that was brought upon the system by Mayor Goff's application through this process that's true—that that's sort of triggered a conversation. It's also had a bit of pushback which has triggered some other conversations which needed to be had. I think we're on the way to solving these issues to the extent that they can be solved and I make the point again that Auckland this summer will have no more capacity to pump than the 25 million litres per day extra that they already have in respect of winter and will get for summer.The final point that the member made is that they might come back for more and say they need more in the future. Well that's possible but every additional amount that they take from the river assuming that the current minimum flow regime is proper—and we're in no position to judge that here—comes at the cost of someone else who wants that water. There is a feeling within the Waikato region that although they want to help Auckland they don't want to go so far as to prejudice either the river or their own commercial or municipal interests long term. I think it's very interesting that this conversation has opened up the reality that already the water that they take from the Waikato River includes treated waste water from the Hamilton and other towns that lie along the banks of the Waikato River. Therefore effectively the water that Auckland is taking at the bottom of the river and treating once it's pumped to Auckland includes treated waste water.I think once people think about that they might actually be able to contemplate that they need to do more with the large amount of waste water that is already treated in Auckland and discharged to the Manukau but could be treated to a higher standard and recycled. I suspect that's part of the answer long term for Auckland and I don't think within the 10- to 15-day period for submissions that would have been enabled if that was a listed project under this particular piece of legislation those very complex issues could have been properly sorted through.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you Madam Chair. The final question and point that arose out of the Minister's first response is around the way in which this bill treats the Treaty requirements in the Treaty clause. I realise the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which was part of Part 1 also has an interaction with Part 2. The reason I'm raising that now under Part 2 is because Schedule 6 clause 42 is around appeal rights. Paragraph 42(1)(e) provides that "any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public."—meaning that if there was an SOP that went in around the Auckland water issue or other water-related projects that might be referred by the Minister or might already be in the Schedule how does the Minister see this particular part of the Schedule interacting with the previous decision of the committee around the Treaty clause whereby effectively now the committee has set up by including the stringent Treaty clause where decisions must be consistent with principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has opened up under Schedule 6 clause 42 the ability for an iwi say that has a greater interest in a project over and above members of the public to in fact challenge these consents and hold them up by doing a point of law appeal because they're of the view that a panel made a decision that was not consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi?So my question to the Minister is: why has he chosen this series of appeal rights and this series of decisions around the Treaty clause when I'm sure given his extensive legal knowledge particularly as Attorney-General he will know that these clauses the way they will interact will in fact open up the door for appeals against these projects which is over and above what the Resource Management Act (RMA) already allows? Why has he said effectively here's the set of projects—here's this legislation that we think is important and it's going to fast track things—but by the way we're going to put some extra clauses in there which means they could ultimately be challenges and slowed down more than they otherwise would because now this law will have more stringent RMA Treaty provisions than the normal RMA does? How does he see that interacting in the future?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Auckland water project well I don't think it will have any effect. We have been working through those issues over recent months with Auckland Council Waikato Regional Council and others. But in respect of the broader point—because they won't be listed in the Act; assuming that the Supplementary Order Paper isn't voted up which is a choice for the committee not for me—with respect the member is incorrect that appeal rights are going to be broader than they would be under the existing legislative framework because under the existing legislative framework you have an appeal on the facts; here there are appeals limited to points of law and/or judicial review. If you wish to bring judicial review as well as an appeal on the point of law you have to go to the court and unless the court allows you to argue those separately which I don't think they normally would they have to be heard together. So it's an appeal on points of law and judicial review."