Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair Shane Jones for his benign contribution. I do think that the suggestions that have been offered from members on this side of the House—and I do note that there was a wry smile from the Minister when my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was suggesting some of those possibilities there particularly the nimby aspect. But they are aligned with what clearly is an anti-ratepayer approach to this. When we think about the fact that rates are continuing to increase in our community—and yes let's be fairly frank about this: the majority of locations where these coastal permits will fall will be from the local consenting authorities many of whom took the time to share their views with the Primary Production Committee. So I do think that it is appropriate that the committee does consider what might be sort of phrased as anti - local government anti-ratepayers anti-council sort of definitions or tones for this particular title.I have a couple of my own that I'm sure the Minister has had an opportunity to reflect on because they are part of the tabled Amendment Paper. The first one is to call this the (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms Despite Potential Degradation of Environment)" Amendment Bill. Look I was actually quite happy to not have that and to vote against that myself—and this side would—on the proviso that the opportunity to reduce the time frame for extensions to that of five years or even 10 years which was seen as a compromise was going to be taken up by this Government at this stage in the committee of the whole House. Sadly that has not been the case and so I feel that I have to continue with what was proposed there because let's be honest there is the potential for ongoing degradation of the environment when this Government effectively extends permits and the conditions that are currently operating—not about a review but the actual current operation of the permit over a 10- 15- 20-year horizon—and beyond. There is bound to be some potential—there is absolutely bound to be some potential for degradation when it comes to the environment. So calling it that was certainly an option.The other was the "(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can Down the Road)" because this has become symptomatic of this particular Government in terms of their approach to basically anything and everything these days. That's on Amendment Paper 55. So I'm interested in the Minister's thoughts given that they have been tabled.I want to turn now to clause 2 which is about the commencement. Now it's proposed that this particular Act once it's given Royal assent will come into force the day after Royal assent is given. Now as we've worked through this committee of the whole House stage largely around Part 1 we have turned our mind to some of the hurdles and obstacles that applicants; that councils particularly consenting authorities; and that the director-general themself may actually encounter. Given that there is still an element of some uncertainty—and the Minister might actually refute that there is uncertainty in this particular space—my question to the Minister is: why not consider a time frame post Royal assent?So for example even if it was to be six months post Royal assent to ensure that there are processes that are in place for the director-general to go about consideration. Yes there are time frames that are already given in terms of the 20 working days for you know additional information to be provided but wouldn't it provide some confidence and certainty—the very things that the Minister wants to provide in this bill—to ensure that the processes that this Government are wishing to set up and put in place can adequately be put in place? A six-month 12-month period may do so. It would still provide certainty for the individuals that the Minister seems keen to provide certainty for.My question is: why is it necessary to allow this bill to effectively come—well once it's given Royal assent it will be an Act—into force the day following Royal assent? I mean we deal with this in this Parliament all the time where the commencement date can be very different depending on a range of different circumstances. I don't think that the need for certainty and confidence would be done by providing a further date. So I'll leave that question with the Minister."