Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister the Hon Shane Jones for addressing a couple of the questions. There is still the issue of the reference to the appeal rights inclusion in the legislation which the Minister has not addressed and also I am yet to have a response from the Minister about his view on Amendment Paper 57 which is on the Table and has been available in the public domain for the last couple of weeks. I would be keen to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.I want to turn my focus now to new section 165ZFHK and this is about the concurrence of the Director-General (D-G). Now our position is that we don't agree that the Director-General should be involved in this particular way but if that is going to be set aside by the Parliament and the Director-General is involved I do have some questions that relate to the role that the Director-General would undertake. In particular when we're looking at that proposed new section subsection (2)(a) talks about the need for the D-G to make a decision either to concur with the consent authority or otherwise. The question that I have for the Minister firstly is how will the Director-General be guided in making those determinations? Surely there must be some form of framework or ability for the Director-General to consider various aspects otherwise it would change depending on Director-General to Director-General. So the question is around scope really and what guidance would be provided for the D-G to be able to exercise those—whether that's something that's suggested might be within regulation or not.Further in that section it talks about a particular time frame for the Director-General to receive information in reaching a determination. Now OK what's consistent with the Resource Management Act is that there is an ability for time frames to be extended if there is a need for further information to be provided. What's not clear in this section however is that whilst there might be a time frame for getting the information to the Director-General to be able to make a determination on a review there doesn't appear to be any time frame for the Director-General to make a determination. So it's one thing in the process of receiving information—and OK it's quite clear about working time frames as to when that information would arrive—but I invite the Minister to comment on the ability for a time frame within which the Director-General will make a decision. Now that is important because further on this particular part there are time frames set for when decisions need to be made on a review. But it seems to be absent of time frames that relate to the Director-General to be able to make a decision. So I will leave that with the Minister.The other area that I do want to touch on—I understand that my colleague Mr Bennett actually has an interest in asking a question on one part of new section 165ZFHL so I won't in the interest of time delve into that. But the issue that I do have is on new section 165ZFHM. This is about the time frame relating to when a decision needs to be made. The Primary Production Committee has changed the wording from beginning" to "initiating" the review. My question to the Minister is: how is initiation described? It could be that if you begin a review that's very clear—when the green light has been given to the consent authority to undertake the review. It would seem to me that that's when the time starts ticking. Now initiating a review—are we talking about when the consent authority first lodges something with the Director-General? Is it the point when the Director-General makes the determination that a review can go ahead or not? Is it extended by the 20 working days because the Director-General makes a determination that they need more information? There is a clear change in the wording from "beginning" to "initiating" and my question is: what does "initiating" mean in the context of a process for determining whether a review is successful?If a review is not to be undertaken that's a moot point clearly but "initiating" is what? I think that's important. Is it the date that the application is received? Is it the date that the Director-General makes the decision or determination? Is it the date that the notification exists? They are important considerations that I'd appreciate from the Minister."