O'Connor Greg; Xu-Nan LawrenceClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". The question is that—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Hon Member: A bit slow.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: We were waiting hoping that the Minister may have something else worthy to say—yeah. So I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister around potential title names that maybe the Minister would like to consider. And I think one of the things we have heard throughout this entire debate is the fact that the Minister gives very little regard to local government. And indeed one of the things we did see during the select committee stage is the fact that 90 percent of the submitters were opposed to this bill. So I wondered if the Minister has considered the amendment that rather than Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill we may get "Resource Management Act (We Don't Care About Local Government) Amendment Bill". But you know it's not just the local government both in terms of the submissions that the local government made but also the burden that it places on them in terms of the extra duties that local council and ratepayers will have to be responsible for. But we also heard from iwi Māori that this is something that they do not agree with. And you know we've heard from Ngātiwai Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki just to name a few that did not agree with this bill. So I wondered again if the Minister had considered not just that we don't care about the local government amendment bill but also iwi Māori. Because frankly in the select committee we heard that this is a violation of Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.More broadly speaking we have found that the Minister spent more time during this debate criticising us and also our position and the evidence that we have put forward evidence that the Minister's own ministry has put forward. The Minister has mentioned a number of things around you know the greenies and all of these people Greenpeace and all of those—but I wondered if this is just a simple case of the fact that the Minister has his head in the sand and this is a bill that is more accurately referred to as the "Resource Management (Head in the Sand) Amendment Bill" or "Tunnel Vision Amendment Bill". Or even the fact that we live in an alternative universe where there are not so much as ecosystems because the Minister does not believe there is any impact to the ecosystem or anything ecological and it's better to call it rather than ecosystem "ecosilos" because that's what we think that the suggestion here is going to do without any sort of accountability. When we are looking at this particular bill and the extension we're giving for a lot of those permissions for a lot of those permit holders they may be yearning to make those kinds of changes the kind of review that will incentivise them to make those kinds of changes undergo modern environmental assessments but this particular bill will not address that. It also does disregard the effect on current national environmental standards. So very much so I think if the Minister would consider renaming it to you know "Resource Management (Rather than Ecosystem but Ecosilos) Amendment Bill"."