Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. I have been in the Chamber for most of this bill this committee stage of this bill and have been listening closely to the Minister. So I also have some suggestions for the title and it's the title clause that I'd like to talk on. And of course we had a lot of discussion in the committee about how it is the council and therefore ratepayers that are going to have to pay for any review of these extended consent conditions. But of course they can only do that for the first two years. So my suggestion is—I've got it again in this title that I'm going to suggest and that is because of course I've spent a lot of time yesterday as well in the House talking about the water bill and there we see as well more and more money being put on councils and ratepayers. So my suggestion is that it's the Resource Management (Costing Ratepayers Again) Amendment Bill". That's my first suggestion. And that is of course because it is shameful that it is councils that have to pay for any review when the Minister has explicitly said that his concern is that it's those wealthy bach owners who are require requiring reviews. And so that is his justification for the consent holders not to be paying for those reviews which is the standard resource management process. Of course he already has a mechanism to get over that because the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has to agree to any review in the first place. And we've also heard that they can only do a review in those first two years leaving an additional 18 years. So a further title that the Minister might want to consider is the "Resource Management (Justified by Nimby Wealthy Bach Owners but Actually Stopping Review of Discharge Conditions for 18 Years) Amendment Bill".Another suggestion related to that particular point of these 18 years of no review on discharges—I'm not talking about the occupation consent but the discharge consent so that is pollution in our commons—is that it should be the "Resource Management (Allowing Unchecked 18-Year Discharges) Amendment Bill". I think that is an appropriate name for the bill.Then of course we've heard in very florid language about the importance of jobs and people making money from the commons and "capitalism" was used by the Minister as well. So another suggestion of course is that it could be the "Resource Management (Taking Capitalism to the Commons and Allowing Pollution) Amendment Bill". That I think would much more correctly explain what it is that this bill is doing.We also earlier in the debates last night heard about the aberrant councils and we heard of course about the Minister's disdain in particular for the Marlborough council despite his whip hailing from or still being a member of that council. So I was suggesting if this is all being driven because of that particular dislike of that council it could be the "Resource Management (Punish Aberrant Marlborough Council) Amendment Bill". That seems to capture a lot of what the Minister was talking about.We heard from the Minister about "indiscriminate detritus" and by that I think he was talking about maybe people involved in the resource management system. Of course being a proud holder of an ecology degree I think of "indiscriminate detritus" as being very important. Detritus can be very important in our ecosystems but of course there could be detritus from these fish farms—as we heard from Steve Abel particularly the finfish—that do cause negative environmental consequences that would normally be controlled by consent conditions on discharge consents but will not be able to be reviewed by these changes. So of course it could be the "Resource Management (Permitting Indiscriminate Detritus) Amendments Bill".And then finally my final suggestion for now is that we also heard from the Minister about trade-off politics and in resource management and planning law you often hear about trade-offs in the planning sense. So do we want to protect landscape over wind farms? That's the most obvious and easiest one to talk about. But we do not generally hear about environmental bottom lines which seems to be what this Minister is intent on doing in this and other pieces of legislation. So my final recommendation that I'd like the Minister to consider is the "Resource Management (Trade-off Politics by Getting Rid of Review Rights) Amendment Bill".This bill is a disgrace and should be renamed."