Dean Jacqui; Parker DavidHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh thank you Madam Chair.Hon Nathan Guy: This will be a great call.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah. So I just have a question for the Minister a clarification really because he made several statements earlier in this debate which don't seem to line up as far as I can see. The first statement that the Minister made was in reference to a question that I had posed to him around his estimation of the number of projects that would approach for referral into the fast-track process. The Minister in answer to several questions said it was effectively—and forgive me if I paraphrase Minister but I think the answer essentially was that it is hard to tell; there are a number of tracks that consent applications can go down but it essentially is hard to tell the number of applications that might come to the panel for referral. As part of that answer the Minister said that the chair of the panel always has the opportunity to increase the number of panels to hear applications which is logical and yes indeed it's in the bill. Then in terms of Part 2 there was a conversation quite a lengthy conversation around referred projects and members I hope throughout the House have a number of Supplementary Order Papers tabled and also not tabled where they are proposing a number of projects to be inserted into the bill into Schedule 2. One of the comments the Minister made at that time with regards to those referred projects and why he didn't feel he could support them—paraphrasing again Minister; forgive me if I haven't got it quite right. But the comment he made at that time was We don't want to overrun the system." So my question is: which is it to be? Is the system being geared up to deal with all-comers or is there going to be some other filter residing in the Minister's office that we are unaware of?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It is a bit of both. I don't want to clog the system up at the start while we get it up and running. I've got great confidence in Judge Newhook to run an efficient ship. He's done it very well as the head Environment Court Judge for the last few years and he's going to be setting this up. But I do want it to get a way on rather than trying to manage too many things at the start. But there are other complications in some of these projects. You know some of these roading projects that I don't know the detail of they'll involve the acquisition of land that's not owned by the roading authority and that in the end will probably be the cause of delay not planning issues. Now this doesn't change the Public Works Act so there would be little point putting things on a fast track through the fast-track Resource Management Act processes here if they didn't have the land on which to do it. So you know there are those sorts of complications that we want to have a check on as projects come into the system.I think I've referred pretty well to the roading projects and bridges and other transport projects but I don't feel I have addressed Jami-Lee Ross's amendment in respect of Auckland water and I do want to take some time to explain why the Labour Party will not be voting for that Supplementary Order Paper. Now the issues in respect of Auckland's water are serious. They have had a large application for 200 million litres per day extra out of the Waikato River. They already take 150 million litres a day. They've in addition to that recently had a consent for 25 million litres per day for winter water when the flow in the river is higher and they're midway through and just about completed a transfer of 25 million litres per day summer water—it's not quite summer water; it's additional water at lower flows—as a transfer from the Hamilton District Council.Once they get that water they will have as much water as they can use for the next year or so. Indeed they haven't completed yet the upgrade to their pumping infrastructure out of the Waikato River to use that full 25 million litres per day. When they do that will enable them to reduce the draw-down of their reservoirs reserving more of their reservoirs for next year. Hon Nathan Guy: What's the cost of that Minister that water?Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost of that water is nil in terms of the water. The cost of pumping it and treating it makes it the most expensive water that Auckland already uses; a multiple of times more expensive than the water they draw from the reservoirs. That was a point made by Mayor Goff at a meeting I was at yesterday. Hon Nathan Guy: Is there a payment to iwi?Hon DAVID PARKER: No there is not a payment of iwi for the water— Hon Nathan Guy: Of any kind?Hon DAVID PARKER: Of no kind. The Waikato River Authority eschewed the idea of paying for the water although there is an acknowledgment that if Auckland's taking from the Waikato region they should contribute something back to the environmental projects in the area which is likely to come to the Waikato River Authority and be matched one for one by extra spending on environmental outcomes by the Waikato River Authority. If I come back to the issue of the 200 million litres per day consent in our view that's not something that should be listed. That's essentially forced through as a listed project for a number of reasons. One is it's actually not clear that it's the right outcome. In fact I think the likely outcome for Auckland is that they will get the extra 25 million litres per day all year round. They'll probably get another amount between 50 million and 100 million litres extra per day of winter water when the flow is higher. But the question as to whether they should get that amount additional in respect of when the river flows are lower is a difficult question because it comes at the cost of the people in the Waikato catchment comes at the cost of farmers comes at the cost of other commercial users. And in respect of farmers it disproportionately comes at the cost of Māori owners of underdeveloped Māori land in the Waikato catchment. I think it would be unwise of this House to push that consent through this route. It is complex. That's why I've called that particular application in and put it to a called-in panel board of inquiry through the Environmental Protection Authority and Auckland Council is happy with that outcome; so are the Waikato Regional Council and so are iwi.There is a further complication in respect of that relating to Treaty issues because of course the Waikato River Authority was set up as a consequence of various Treaty claims by iwi that have been settled on different parts of the river—initially Waikato-Tainui and then other tribes with relationships to the river higher in the river—and there would be a danger of creating a real hurt amongst the Treaty partner if we were to rush and override their interests here. So that's why we won't be supporting that particular SOP even though we agree that it is important to get extra water for Auckland. I make the final point again that even if we did that we actually wouldn't be giving them additional water that they could use because they haven't got the infrastructure to use more than the 25 million litres per day extra that is coming to them.Jami-Lee Ross: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'll allow Jami-Lee Ross."