Stanford Erica; Parker DavidERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. In the spirit of the back and forth debate I would like to ask the Minister some questions about some comments that he made in response to my first call where he said that in two years we will be through the worst of this which I find extraordinary given the way the world is going and the fact that we've borrowed so much money. How he thinks that in two years we'll be through the worst of this and why a two-year sunset clause on this bill would fit with his expectations that we're going to be through the worst of this in two years—it seems astounding to me that we've borrowed $140 billion and in two years we're going to be in such a great economic state that we won't need to fast track these projects any more. But I guess the question I'd like him to answer is: given that comment how many projects does he expect to go through this process? How many would he expect in two years would be referred to the panel? I've got some more questions but in the spirit I'll let him answer that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well that will depend on the number of projects that come forward and are referred through to panels. It'll be a significant number. It'll be larger than the initial tranche of listed projects which is the first track. In terms of why I think that it is likely that the first two years of post-COVID will be the worst that's because that's Treasury's projection.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I wanted to speak to clause 4 in Part 1—the purpose of the bill. I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker: given the purpose of the bill—the purpose being to urgently promote employment to support New Zealand's recovery—given that why was it that only 11 projects were listed in Schedule 2? This is going to the purpose in Part 1. Why was it that only 11 projects were put in to go straight through to the panel? How did they come up with these 11 projects? Why was it that these specific ones were selected? How many jobs will be created from these 11 projects? And what sort of economic analysis has been done on those projects to see whether or not they fit the purpose of the bill?The concern that we have on this side of the House is in fact that the ongoing economic benefits from some of these projects isn't that great and I'd be very keen for the Minister to answer the question on what sort of analysis has been done and why these projects these 11 projects were listed ahead of the many other projects—very good projects—that could be—Kiritapu Allan: That's Schedule 2.ERICA STANFORD: No it's to go to the purpose of the bill which is in Part 1.Kiritapu Allan: Definitely in Schedule 2.Tim van de Molen: Don't do the Chair's job. Let her rule thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Thank you both for your assistance. The member was quite specific in referring to the purpose of the bill. She is now referring to something that is outside the scope of this debate but she very cleverly managed to work it into the purpose of the bill so I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. I will sit down in a minute but thank you Madam Chair for that kind comment.But I am interested in why 11 projects—how were they selected why were those ones come up with rather than other ones and what was the economic value the ongoing economic value? What was the analysis done around those compared to many many other projects that were not selected?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. The estimated number of direct jobs from the first 12 projects is 1700 jobs. There will be indirect benefits as well with flow-on effects of course of the money that is spent into the economy on those 1700 jobs most notably through wages being spent in the local economy but also contractors employing local repair people etc.As to the question of how many projects do you put in that's a fair question. The Government was of the view that if we put too many projects in at the start we choke the system and you won't get anything out quickly and we thought that it was desirable to get some projects out quickly. That's the reason why we haven't thrown everything in.Also in respect of the projects that you do put in there is a degree of effort required to make sure that they're appropriate for the first fast track which the panel has limited rights to turn down. Not every project that is suitable for the second track on referral where there are broader rights of turning down is suitable for the first track. That requires an assessment that is reasonably complex and in itself takes time. If we put too many projects through that we would have actually slowed the passage of this legislation.And how does that happen in terms of the choice? It's a choice that was made by Cabinet after advice from the Ministry for the Environment after advice from various agencies including the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency.Andrew Falloon: Madam Chair?Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Andrew Falloon.