Parker DavidBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. The questions to the Minister then are around the 12 projects that have been listed. Given that this bill is about fast tracking consent but doesn't formally guarantee funding for the projects that may go through this process why limit it to 12? There's ample scope for many projects across the country to benefit from this particularly as we've heard contributions this afternoon about current Resource Management Act process and I draw the Minister's attention to Mr Bishop's comments about the shared cycleway and walkway between Pētone and Ngauranga which was forecast to take four years at least through the consenting process—so many other projects that might benefit from that.I draw his attention specifically to my tabled amendment seeking to add the Pētone to Grenada link road into the schedule. If the Minister continues an answer that he wants to limit that then I would add a supplementary question: will he under the criteria I'm about to set out in his bill support that particular link road if an application for a referral were made?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member but can I just advise the committee that if members are going to repeat the question with a different insertion in it—so you're just saying your project instead of the project that's just been replied to and the Minister would therefore be giving exactly the same response—I will view that as repetitious.BRETT HUDSON: Madam Chair I can tell you I'm going to use the specific criteria set out in clause 19 which are the criteria under which the project would help to achieve the purpose of the Act and to show that that particular amendment—in my view and I'm hoping the Minister might well agree even tonight—meets the conditions that are set down so strongly that if it were not to be part of Schedule 2 today the Minister might signal his willingness to accept a referral application.For instance 19(d)(ix) talks about resilience and particularly the management of risks from natural hazards. So the Minister is probably aware just the other night of a five-hour delay impacting about 46000 vehicles from a small slip on the highway between Ngauranga and Pētone. In fact one of the key purposes of this link road is to provide transport resilience to the Wellington area particularly for such hazards and potential impacts of climate change in the future.I also note that in 19(d)(iv) it talks about increasing productivity. This road is forecast to take up to 25000 vehicle movements per day off the Wellington motorway. At its inception it was talked about improving productivity through a direct link between Porirua and the northern parts of Ōhāriu to the Lower Hutt valley and vice versa. It's assessed that it would reduce 10 minutes each way from those journeys. It would also have taken 25000 vehicle movements a day off the current Northern Motorway. It would therefore improve—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member again. The member is being—could you please resume your seat. The member is being quite defiant on the contribution that I made to him just a couple of minutes ago. The Minister has been asked that question has answered it by advocating and inserting a new title. It is repetitious and I'd ask the member to either ask a new question or recall the answer to his question that the Minister has given on several occasions already in this debate.Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think the concern we have here on this side is that this comes to the nature of the bill around the breadth of the projects and whilst it may be in relation to a similar type of question actually the projects themselves are very diverse and represent a significantly different range of considerations for each project and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What's the point of order Mr van de Molen?Tim van de Molen: Well my point of order is that Mr Hudson is asking the Minister about a different project and whilst it relates in Part 2—that schedule of course—it is an entirely different consideration and so therefore the range of amendments should be debatable.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I disagree and I've already ruled on that.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Madam Chair. My point of the question to the Minister is that I'm seeking to ascertain given the position he's taken so far on the restriction of projects to be included under Schedule 2 a clear sense of how the mechanisms of this bill would work. I'm giving a detailed example for the benefit of the Minister in the Chamber of a project that meets so many of the criteria set down for a potential application for referral. I'm very keen to understand from the Minister just how automatic it might be for a project that strongly meets those to actually make it through. Now the project itself also unlocks housing developments—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member's time has expired.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Clause 19 of Part 2 does make it clear that in respect of the decision as to whether to refer projects through to the panel in addition to the listed ones the general purpose of the legislation is to bring forward employment. But economic effects the project's effect on social and cultural wellbeing whether the project would be likely to progress fast—there's no sense putting something through this process if it was going to go through pretty quickly anyway through a council—whether the project can result in a public benefit of generation of employment increasing housing supply contributing to well-functioning urban environments providing infrastructure in order to improve economic employment and environmental outcomes improving environmental outcomes that are listed minimising waste mitigating climate change promoting historic heritage strengthening economic environmental and social resilience—there's a long list there which does give a wide ambit of things to be taken into account by the Minister. The primary issue though still will be whether it will bring forward employment.