Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. It's disappointing to hear the Minister's response around the lack of support for the proposed time frames including the one that Mr Abel has just referred to. So that is disappointing.It's actually also very disappointing to hear his disdain for Marlborough District Council. Perhaps he'd like to have a conversation with his colleague Mr Arbuckle—I mean Councillor Arbuckle who still sits on that district council. That would be a very interesting caucus committee conversation perhaps wouldn't it? Around that. Maybe Mr Arbuckle may want to ask the Minister some questions around that given he is representing the ratepayers of that council that the Minister has such disdain for. But anyway we'll see if that goes anywhere.Minister I want to put to you—Suze Redmayne: Not disdain. He just doesn't agree with everything they say.TANGI UTIKERE: Well feel free to take a call over that side. I'm very interested to hear in what your contributions and questions might be. But I'm interested from the Minister: in terms of the conditions of new section 165ZFHC(3)(a)—this relates to a change in a condition and Minister you've cited a process around where conditions may sought to be changed or are up for review. I'm interested in what an example would be as a change to one of those conditions that would be required as a consequence of extending the duration of the permit. Because it seems that the extension action is the actual trigger that would bleed into what that change in condition would be. So given that the trigger is in the bill perhaps it would be helpful for the committee to just get an understanding of what one of those conditions might be.I'll turn to 165ZFHD so Mr Chair I am going in some form of chronological order—albeit alphabetically. So this is where there would be a requirement to update the nature of the extended coastal permit and it's particularly around the duration aspect. So Minister there appear to be two options under subclause (1)(a) when a decision is made that is a decision taken by way of the application that's lodged. Either the decision to firstly continue operating under the existing permit but the second is to continue with an application.So my question is whether or not there is any thinking around the fact that if there is a continuation of an application that effectively is live whilst there is still a decision to be taken in relation to the existing permit there will be cost implications associated that. Given the Minister's view that the councils should not be seeking to effectively cost-recover anything—and there is an Amendment Paper in my name that would seek to change that and I'll come to that in due course. But what consideration there is for cost implications but also in terms of notification to the relevant council or consent authority of that decision to either continue to operate under the existing conditions of the permit or for the council to continue to process the application.How was that notification to take place? Because elsewhere through this bill it refers to written notification. Is that form of the notification going to continue to be silent? Will it be something that is set via annual regulations? The consistency aspect I think is quite important. So I'll leave the Minister with those sets of questions.