Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. The three projects that are the subject of tabled amendments in my name would require a resource consent. Before I ask the Minister in the chair David Parker to comment on the merits of those as listed projects I just want to check something that he said in response to the Hon Jacqui Dean about why there were only 11 listed projects in Schedule 2. In his answer he referred to clause 32 on page 95 in the sense that there are very narrow grounds for declining them and therefore the Government had to be cautious in the projects that it put in. I'm paraphrasing; I don't want to misunderstand him—Hon David Parker: Yeah that's fair enough—yeah.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Minister's acknowledging that I've got that right. Well it strikes me that that's a circular argument because the very criteria that are grounds for the declining of a consent application are also set by this legislation and by the Government. So therefore in order to broaden the number of projects that could come into the schedule the Government was free to broaden the criteria for declining. Now I completely understand why one would need to be cautious about that but if I could also ask this question: it strikes me that these listed projects are likely to tick the boxes when it comes to clauses 32(1)(a) and (b). I doubt that the Government would've put any of the projects in if they were subject to Treaty claims or inconsistent with settlements rather or if they were in conflict with a national policy statement. Would that also be true?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): If it were obviously so we would not have put them in but it is also true that we haven't gone into these in the detail that a panel will once they receive a full application. So it remains possible that notwithstanding that we don't have that understanding of them at the moment there are aspects of them that could infringe those provisions and therefore on that basis could and should be turned down—but not so far as I'm aware based on my current knowledge.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Minister. I would then make the point that there is an opportunity here. So firstly not all 11 necessarily could get through the process as set out in the bill when it becomes law and therefore there is an opportunity to expand the number of projects comfortable that even if they're on the schedule they may not get through but if they're not on the schedule they'll never get through as listed projects. Indeed to be able to do that we would need to come back to the House and amend primary legislation in order to add to the list. Now the National Party believes this process has merit. We have passed legislation ourselves that provides for a fast-track consenting process through things like special housing areas and so on. So we're not averse to the process but I'm just surprised that it's so narrow.Now I want to come to the three projects—and test the merits or otherwise of that with the Minister—that are subject to tabled amendments in my name. The Minister quite rightly refers to clauses 19 and 20 I believe—no. What was it Minister in terms of the criteria for getting through? Oh yes it was clauses 19 and 20 on pages 14 and 15. I simply ask the Minister whether in his view the Dunedin Hospital redevelopment project which has been the subject of a painfully slow development process—the indicative business case was approved by the previous Government in April 2017 and three years and two months later we still haven't had any word that the detailed business case has even gone to Cabinet much less approved. I would believe that actually that project ticked many of the boxes that are laid out in clauses 19 and 20 in terms of the social and cultural wellbeing of the community that it will serve. I just wonder if the Minister could comment on why if that is the case such an amendment lacks merit for inclusion in Schedule 2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Dunedin Hospital project that certainly could be considered as a referred project. I'm not sure they've done all their land acquisition yet. In fact I think—Hon Michael Woodhouse: They're nearly done. I think there's one more title to go—one to go.Hon DAVID PARKER: They're nearly done. So maybe that's the answer: once they've done their land acquisition and they know where they can build the hospital they can—Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's not a reason not to put it on the schedule though.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well yes it is. It is a reason not to put it on the schedule with respect because until you know what land you're going to build it on you can't apply for a resource consent to build it on your land.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'll just finish on that point then. This does somewhat undermine the utility of this legislation when it's passed if indeed absolutely everything has to be wrapped up in a bow before it goes through a fast-track consenting process. The train is on the track and what the Minister has just said is that absolutely all of the carriage needs to be hooked up all of the coal is in the boiler and we're ready to go the passengers are on the train and only then are we going to set off. This if I use that metaphor strikes me as an opportunity to put those projects into the schedule such as the very worthy Dunedin Hospital project which runs the risk of a longstanding delay if it cannot be subject to some kind of efficient process for consenting. Yet what the Minister has just said is everything lock stock and barrel needs to be completed before it comes on the schedule. That rather undermines I think the benefit of this and reinforces the point that National Party members are through their tabled amendments making: that actually not only is this good for now but it could be an enduring practice in a post-COVID world to get some of these stimulus projects up and going.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I'm pleased to inform members that staged projects are actually permitted through this. You can apply for stages of a project. So if the applicant in that case wanted to bring forward an interim application in respect of the parcels of land that they already had control of but didn't have it all under control and weren't sure where they wanted to put the later stages they could come and seek through the Order in Council process for that to go to panels in stages. Again I'm not sure in that case how difficult it's going to be to consent that hospital. I know that area well; it's on the old Cadbury's site most of it and that's already got a big building on it. It may well be that they don't need a resource consent like this because it's something that'll fly through council in no time flat.