Utikere Tangi; O'Connor GregTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Speaker Well some may consider such rhetoric as that we've just heard to be that of a false prophet—we are here on the weekend. But isn't interesting that we are here progressing a piece of legislation during urgency for something that actually could have fallen on the Government's legislative agenda—if they were so serious about it—at an earlier time. It is very very interesting indeed.The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill at the first reading this evening and that is because this is simply a blanket approach to simply extend all marine farm coastal permits. This is lazy. This is irresponsible on the part of the Minister who has just moved this particular bill and it is yet another example of this Government simply lifting and shifting not wanting to actually address any issues not wanting to take any responsibility; wanting to lift and shift and park it for someone at a future date or period in time.Now we agree that there needs to be some certainty for marine farm operators. That's important but when the Government just simply throws a complete blanket 20-year extension without any consideration around what might need to be in place for mitigation any consideration about the element of change in the environment over that period of time is simply short-sighted.The general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill talks about the fact that there are 1200 existing marine farms in New Zealand that do require one or more resource consents in order to operate. Now if you look at the 300 in that statement that have consents that might expire by the end of this calendar year and then a further 150 due by 2030 there are around 750 that continue to fall within that particular mix. This is not something that we can support under urgency because of the sweeping element of change that the Minister is wanting to be able to deliver.We've heard from the Minister about the ability or actually the inability—let's be honest about this—of councils to undertake a fair and reasonable review. We've heard him wax lyrical this evening about the nature in which regional councils and other councils actually go about this. Now when I have a look at the explanatory note of the bill it talks about the way in which those review consent conditions of extended consent which would apply en masse as a blanket opportunity there could actually be undertaken. And the second bullet point on that talks about the fact that it needs to be with the concurrence of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary IndustriesIt might be interesting to find out when this bill does go to select committee—and we will Minister be talking about the debatable motion on the shortened period. I'll leave that until we get to that—you're not going to get a free ride in terms of thinking that we're just not going to put up any suggestions on this side of the House.Hon Shane Jones: Don't be personal. Don't be personal.TANGI UTIKERE: Well you said it so I'm just responding to it.But what this raises as a matter of interest is the level of involvement that the director-general would have and the nature in which the director-general would follow instructions or directions from the Minister in relation to this regard.I note that it does talk about an agreed scope. The question would be the agreed scope obviously between the council but perhaps the director-general and I understand the applicant or actually the person who holds the extended consent as well. But the other point of interest is that this will also be something that is not cost-recoverable. Effectively this is an expectation on councils to undertake a review without having any recompense in any shape or fashion.This is just another cost that this Government is wanting to put on councils. We've already heard about the parking fine infringement tax that this House has already dealt with today in terms of that. This is another cost that the Minister and the Government are seeking to do. Now the Minister might think maybe just don't do it". Well on this side of the House we think it's appropriate that consents that have been extended for a period of 20 years into the future should be subject to some form of review. The question about how that cost is recoverable or not is something that needs to actually take place. So we look forward to continuing this conversation but in terms of the Labour Party we cannot support this blanket approach to roll out an extension of permits as they relate to coastal areas and so we will not be supporting this beyond the first reading.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call the next speaker—Mr Jones you've been blessed with a very loud voice. I just hope you can be blessed with some judicious use of it as the rest of this debate goes on with some optimism."