Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. A number of questions for the Minister. Of course this relates to all of the bill—the entirety of the bill—because what is happening as my colleague Tangi Utikere described this insertion is Part 1 of the bill is being acknowledged here in section 123A of the Resource Management Act (RMA). That is that The duration of a coastal permit"—to which the Part 1 that we've already been discussing is—"…is subject to any extension" under the duration here of a consent for aquaculture activities.So the questions are around that coastal permit. So the coastal permit is not just a permit to occupy. That is part of what a coastal permit can be— occupation—but it is also the discharge that can be done through a coastal permit. The Primary Production Committee report says that right up the front in the commentary: that extensions are to "cover all RMA consents needed for a marine farm to operate (such as a coastal permit to occupy or a coastal permit to discharge)".It's that latter issue of discharge that has the particular environmental effects that we were talking about in Subpart 1. Those are very important because we've also talked about in Subpart 1 that the review—we know has been well litigated that it's ratepayers to pay for any review. But not only is that review constrained by needing the Director-General's concurrence but it is also constrained to this two years that it can be only commence "not later than 2 years after this subpart comes into force;".So that means that there are 18 years' duration where a consent to discharge cannot be reviewed. I'm interested to know what evidence there is for saying that there's never going to be a need to review a consent in that 18 years or if there's analysis that other parts of the RMA may be able to override this if their effects are significant. I asked the Minister if he sought advice on that particular point but also if the Minister's sought advice on other legislation that might apply.We heard the Minister and responses to questions earlier saying that "Well if"—this was in relation to a question about an Amendment Paper that was put about fish farming rather than mollusks. Fish have different environmental effects—different discharges—and they might change over time so they might need to be reviewed and what is the Minister going to do about that? The Minister replied "Well other legislation might apply." I'm wondering then what other legislation he's referring to what advice he has sought on the other legislation and specifically around environmental effects.We've heard very clearly from the Minister that he's not interested in amenity and he's not interested in landscape and that would be addressed under the occupation consent. But a discharge consent is about environmental effects. We've also heard from the Minister that there is an ideological purpose to the bill and he's told us that he wants to help entrepreneurs. The flip side of that is that it's allowing pollution—that is what this bill is about. It is about allowing pollution and even if you're going to make ratepayers pay to try and do some regulation of that pollution—some protection of the environment from that pollution—they can't do it for 18 years. This just seems extraordinary.So I'm interested in the effect that this amendment has on section 123A. How are environmental regulators going to make assessments in those 18 years where a council won't be able to instigate a review with or without the Director-General? How are those environmental issues from discharges going to be managed?"