Pham LanLAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me some time to speak to this very important point about 18 July. Because what's been made really clear in the debate so far is that the actual complexity of these issues is not well understood. And what really concerns me particularly coming from the Environment Committee is that it is going to the Primary Production Committee. Because what I'm concerned about and actually the Minister summed it up himself when someone mentioned seals or sea lions and the Minister was saying it's nowhere in this bill—they're just not in this bill. But the complexity comes when the materials of loose lines and aspects of netting can actually endanger these marine mammals and that's exactly what the committee is going to have to be focused on. That's the level of complexity that we need to go to including the materials that are involved in these aquaculture activities which can be hugely damaging to not only the marine environment—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We're referring to the motion which is the report-back date.LAN PHAM: Absolutely. And the important point that I'm making Madam Speaker is about the complexity of this issue and how it is not possible for officials to capture all of that complexity for 1200 consents in the marine space.And why I want to emphasise this is because the usual process where these consents would actually come up one by one either for renewal or as a new activity there would be appropriate decisions made at the community and council level about who is publicly notified or limited notified or whatever the decision is made. But all those people would get to have a say: tangata whenua; council; public. This is 1200 consents where that discussion will not be had. And the fact that we're trying to do this by 18 July is just astonishing. The actual mechanics of it—and it's something that I really want to check out. The House is sitting for one week only between now and 18 July. It is absolutely astonishing to even have this proposed that there could be a good faith – evidence based assessment by the committee by this time. And I want to point out as well I mentioned the usual process where each consent would potentially be spoken to by the public but I wanted to touch on the fact for example that in the Marlborough Sounds the council the community and tangata whenua have been having actual productive conversations for 15 plus years and they've actually got somewhere. So the fact that this would just override the democratic processes that are already in place is completely inappropriate and exactly why this time frame is not going to work.I'm really concerned that this is going to have severely detrimental impacts not only for the communities but particularly in the environmental space and this is no small thing. It's something that the committee needs to examine with the full breadth of the public service available to them to be able to give it a genuine assessment.This is across the entire country and it's for 20 years. Many of these consents were actually granted before the Resource Management Act was put in place. This is no small thing. It's hugely serious and I would like due consideration particularly from the Minister but certainly from the Primary Production Committee about how important this content is the complexity of it and it needs due process.I really invite the Minister to reconsider the time frame because I would propose that we need at least the standard six-month period because this is the seriousness that this blanket approach is offering. Thank you Madam Speaker.