Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Chair thank you. When we left off last night there were still a number of questions that the Minister had not yet addressed. So the three that I have on my list that I have put to him—one is just to serve as a reminder. Why is there a need to reference appeal rights within the legislation; that's contained within new section 165ZFHH(2)? The second was around the limitations on only one review of a permit and the impact that that might have in relation to a review of a further condition to take place within the two-year period. So this is where you're only allowed as I understand it one opportunity for a review if that follows through the process around a condition but if within a two-year period there is a further issue with perhaps one of the other conditions that relate to a permit whether that door is closed for the purpose of a review; that is new section 165ZFHI(3)(b).Then the other one which is still of great interest is the status of a surrendered permit—so this was about a replacement permit. But in the circumstance where activities operating under a replacement permit if that permit was surrendered because the applicant had decided to take up the opportunity to have the permit extended what is the status of a surrendered permit? Is it that it just lies dormant and can be reactivated in some way? Why not just use the word that the permit is cancelled". So it's about the status of that. Those are the three questions that I'm keen to get a response for from the Minister. I want to turn to the Amendment Paper in my name which is Amendment Paper 57. This relates to new section 165ZFHI(4) inserted by clause 4. It's specifically around the ability for territorial authorities or consent authorities more specifically to effectively recover some of the costs. Now the Minister has said that he believes that these costs should be borne by the consent authority. That means that those are costs that are to be borne by the ratepayers. So it is the Minister and the Government effectively lumping onto ratepayers of this country an additional cost once the director-general has determined that a review can take place. This Amendment Paper seeks to find some balance between full cost recovery and the full cost being borne by the ratepayers. So I'm interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on Amendment Paper 57 which says that "Despite section 36" which is a section that relates to costs "a consent authority may recover costs of a review undertaken under this subpart subject to the following criteria" and there are two. The first is that the costs need to be considered as fair and reasonable and there is much case law around the country as to what fair and reasonable might be considered as. But that is the first criteria that must be engaged if there are costs to be recovered. The second and this was raised as a possibility through the select committee process is to actually have the costs capped at a maximum level. So instead of a consent authority saying that actually "No we'll recover part of it." or whatever it might be what my amendment paper does is effectively sets the maximum so that any costs that would be recoverable would not exceed 50 percent of the total costs incurred.It's also worth noting for the Minister that they are not either/or; both of those components need to be engaged in order for the costs to be recovered. So they need to be fair and reasonable or they need to be up to 50 percent. This is saying actually if you look at the costs that have been incurred or may be incurred that they are considered as fair and reasonable in the circumstances. And also that they won't exceed more than 50 percent. So that even if the costs do run higher than that it means that the ratepayers are not out of pocket for some costs. I'll leave those with the Minister and come back to some of the other issues."