Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. There is a situation we have here where we did receive substantial submissions from the Marlborough District Council—that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is so disdainful of. A council I might add which in its region has 80 percent or manages 80 percent of the entire value of aquaculture in New Zealand and has 600 of the 1200 farms in New Zealand. So it's the overwhelming majority consenting authority for the wealth and value that is in marine farming so it's strange that we can't pay some attention to their wisdom on it. I'm sure that in the consideration of resource consents all factors are taken into account and that's as it should be.One amendment that I propose to you which is a follow on from my colleagues opposite—or alongside rather is—Hon Rachel Brooking: Same side.STEVE ABEL: Same side—colleague Same Side". One amendment that I propose to you is to make it a five-year extension. Now that was the most commonly struck upon number by submitters—a still very generous thing to have a free five-year extension.I will speak later to amendments that address the problem of giving extensions to farms that are deemed to be in inappropriate areas.Also the other amendment I'd like to speak to—that first one I spoke to was Amendment Paper 60; that's changing it from 20 years to five years in new section 165ZFHC of new Subpart 1A inserted by clause 4. The other amendment I'd like to speak to is regarding the director-general.Hon Shane Jones: Ah yes.Steve Abel: Pardon me?Hon Shane Jones: The Crown.STEVE ABEL: So when a consent authority does deem it appropriate to review a consent currently there is a requirement as this legislation has it that they must get the approval of the director-general. Now they should not have to get that approval. And we also propose that that is an amendment so that if the consenting authority does determine that they're going to do a review they don't have to get the director-general's approval—that would be less top-down oriented in a central government less telling the regions what to do. It's not localism by any stretch this legislation.We propose replacing new section 165ZFHI(4) inserted by clause 4 with: "A consent authority is entitled to recover the costs of a review undertaken under this subpart including any costs arising from a request by the Director-General under section 165ZFHK(3) for information not held by the consent authority in its normal course of business." And in Part 2 we propose inserting new clause 5AA amending section 36: "After 36(1A(b): insert: (c) section 165ZFHI in relation to the review of conditions for a coastal permit extended under subpart 1A of Part 7A." That's Amendment Paper 58. That amendment would again mean that local communities are not paying for the cost of a reasonable review of a consent activity in their area. To my colleague's point: why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for the reasonable management and assessment and reviewing of consents in their area when in fact it is a commercial activity? And the cost of that commercial activity the cost of its license to operate should reasonably be included in its costs. It should be something that that commercial activity pays for.When we asked and put that question to most of the commercial players in the Primary Production Committee process they also thought it was reasonable—no one could contest that they should rightly have to pay for the costs of a review of their consent or any of their consent processes. So I invite the Minister to support that amendment. Thank you."