Pugh Maureen; Brooking RachelASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Welcome back members. We are debating the first reading of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. We're up to call number eight. I call Rachel Brooking.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you—thank you Madam Chair for that and to take this opportunity to speak on as you said the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. Not a bill about trees" which is what the previous speaker before me at dinner time Tom Rutherford referred to. And that may be fair because in his mind both these bills might be related to Shane Jones and Shane Jones loves talking to business and doing whatever it is that they ask him to. So perhaps that is why.So we had an interesting speech Madam Speaker—you may have missed it—from the Minister in his first reading where he talked about "eco-bile" among other things. But I want to go to the main point which is of course that this is terrible legislation and I say that as an ex-Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and an associate environment Minister. Because of course there was a lot of movement in the aquaculture with the Natural Built Environment Act—and that was repealed in December. There was a body of work that could have been worked on with this bill but alas it has not. Instead we have just a hammer to deal with this issue. The Minister said that he was cutting through wax—cutting through wax with a sledgehammer.There was also talk about how it might be balanced; there is no balance to using a sledgehammer. There's nothing here that does anything for sustainable management which of course is the purpose of the Resource Management Act and this bill is amending the Resource Management Act. Nothing—no interest by the Minister in anything to do with looking after our environment which is of course consistent with his other legislation the Fast-track Approvals Bill that wants the facilitation of development to trump all other environmental rules.Hon Shane Jones: Growth—growth.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And he's saying now "growth growth" and that's right—growth at what cost? Growth at the cost of not considering the environmental effects of environmental issues such as: we can see with marine farms if you have a whole lot of shellfish—and most marine farms are mussels. There's also of course the fin-fish farms that we've heard about tonight as well. We know that they can cause environmental effects. If you have too many in one area and you don't rotate them enough you can add to a lot of nutrification in that environment that can lead to environmental effects.Hon Shane Jones: Details—details.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And the Minister says it's "details details". They are details and they are important details—in my submission and opinion. They are important details in that they are ones that can be assessed if required. Now I know the Minister will likely say "Well despite this blanket 25-year extension councils are still able to review those consent conditions if they think that some of these details need to be addressed". But he's also been very clear that that regional council cannot require any payment for that review of those consent conditions. He's called these "suffocating costs" by regional councils. Regional councils when they're looking at the effects of a of a farm—a muscle farm or a fin-fish farm—they are looking at those effects because this is a common resource that we are talking about. We are not talking about things that are happening on the land here. We are talking about things that are happening in our common resource— Hon Shane Jones: Far too academic.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —of the sea. Apparently it's "academic" to discuss the difference between land and ocean which is curious particularly coming from that Minister who has sublime academic credentials. If only he cared as much about the environment as he did language.Now this is a private benefit that these people are getting from a common good. That's not to say it shouldn't happen.Jamie Arbuckle: It benefits everyone.Hon Shane Jones: Jobs.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We're hearing that it's benefiting everyone that it's jobs. Well in that case if it's economic and its jobs then there is no harm in proving to those markets that we are trying to get a premium for our very fine products that I'm sure many people in this House will agree and enjoy from time to time—we need there to be good environmental regulations so that when we are saying that that is a premium product we can explain that in fact yes the environmental effects are considered. This bill does not do that."