Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to talk on a bill that is amending the Resource Management Act. But of course this is a bill that went not to the Environment Committee but the Primary Production Committee and I disagree very strongly with the last speaker Catherine Wedd that this is about primary production. It is about pollution unregulated pollution—that is all that this bill is about.Now I would note that because it's amending the Resource Management Act it applies to the coastal marine area and not the entire exclusive economic zone as the chair for that Primary Production Committee suggested. We're looking at 12 nautical miles not 200 nautical miles here.Anyway this bill relates to coastal permits. We heard in various different stages of this bill the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries derides wealthy batch owners who are going to oppose the review of coastal permits for marine farms. But this bill doesn't just apply to occupation permits it applies to discharge permits as well—that is coastal discharge permits. That is a very real type of pollution that requires some regulation.But how do you do that with these very real environmental impacts? Well councils can review the consent conditions for two years after this bill is made. If they want to review in that two-year period—remembering that these permit extensions are for 20 years so there's 18 years there where they can't be reviewed—councils need to first get the permission of the Director-General of Ministry of Primary Industries and then they cannot charge that industry for that review. That is totally outrageous and very different from anything else in the scheme of the Resource Management Act.I was very disappointed that the Minister for the Environment did not seem to be involved in this process. When I've asked questions at annual reviews and the like it seems that the Ministry for the Environment—who are the administrators of the Resource Management Act—have not been involved with this bill at all. And then today in the House we heard a heckle from the Minister for the Environment about people opposing this being vegetarians. That does not take these very real environmental effects seriously and is shocking.Now it's also important to remember that we are not talking about private lands here—these are not land-use consents. This is the commons—the coastal marine area being part of the commons. So it's very unusual for anybody to get such an extension.People on this side of the House know that human-made climate change is a real thing despite what the Deputy Prime Minister might be saying today when he is visiting Pacific States who know all too well about climate change. But we know it's a real thing and it will impact the environment that these marine farms operate in yet they won't be able to be reviewed.Hon Member: Yes they will—20 years.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh! I'm told that they can be renewed in 20 years. The member opposite makes the point that these extensions are for 20 years and at that point in 20 years' time a new application will be required. Twenty years' is a very long time particularly in the context of the warming of our oceans and the impacts of climate change. If that is the kind of time frame that the member's opposite think is OK then I despair. This is shortsighted legislation that we see in this House time and time again. We know that international markets demand New Zealand to have appropriate environmental regulations but there are no environmental regulations here for that 18-year period when a council cannot review the discharge consent that will have very real environmental impacts or could. They might not but they could and that is what we are worried about if there's a possibility of those environmental effects and they're reviewed. We heard from the most recent Greens speaker Lan Pham that of course there are other environment effects that can come with the structures as well. The Minister for Oceans and Fisheries tries to justify the need for these marine farms. He said because industries ask for it we should do it but also for more pet food. An increase in pet food is no justification for ignoring important environmental laws. The need or the want the desire for pet food is no reason to make ratepayers—for the two-year period that they're able—to pay for problems that may be occurring within the marine farming industry. This Government over and over again is just tearing through all of our environmental protections and I keep hearing National members laugh when the Minister Shane Jones is speaking with some extreme language but it is the National Government that is allowing the destruction of our environment and I hope that voters particularly those involved in the Bluegreens realise what a disgrace they are.