Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. Where to start? We've heard about—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Nothing.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Ha ha—nothing! We've heard some florid language. But we have talked about this power to undertake a review and how strangely for the Resource Management Act (RMA) this amendment says that a consent authority cannot charge for a review of consent. And we've heard the Minister answer that.Then we have at the next clause down the purpose of the review and some strange language for the Resource Management Act but it says as long as the review is undertaken in a way that—(a) is consistent with Part 2;"—that being Part 2 of the RMA and we know that sustainable management purpose—"and (b) does not prevent the permit holder from carrying out the aquaculture activity to which the coastal permit relates." So my first question with zero rhetoric is: what is the temporal scale of that (b)? Is the permit holder not able to be prevented from carrying out the aquaculture activity whilst the review is being undertaken? Or is it that they can never be prevented from undertaking that aquaculture work which would defeat any point of a review happening in the first place whoever was paying for it? And we know in this case it will only be ratepayers who could possibly be paying for it because of the avoidance of section 36 of the Resource Management Act.I want to focus on some of the things that the Minister has told us. He has told us that this is all about jobs and that these activities are extant. He hasn't referred to any evidence showing that they are forecast to continue for ever. I am sure that is his view though. He hasn't provided any evidence about these aberrant councils reviewing consents but he has mentioned a lot "landscape concerns" and "amenity". I would commend to him the Natural and Built Environment Act that this Government has repealed because that did a lot to change the strength of amenity that we have in the Resource Management Act and I think that is something that this Government should go back to of course. But if this is true—if the Minister has the evidence to show that the council is behaving terribly and reviewing all these consents based on amenity values based on landscape—then that could be in the purpose of the review and the council could have to pay for their own reviews if it was related to those landscape and amenity issues. But no.What we heard then was that ecologists are trouble as well and maybe don't go back to the Natural and Built Environment Act if you don't like ecologists or environmental bottom lines. I am of course in favour of these things caring about the environment and that of course is what the purpose of the RMA does to some extent as well with the sustainable management purpose. And that takes us back of course to the purpose of the review having to be consistent with Part 2. There should always be a role for ecologists in this. The Minister talked about indiscriminate detritus and I put it to the Minister that indiscriminate detritus can sometimes have important ecological effects and those effects are ones that may need to be assessed. And it should not be for the ratepayers to assess those effects if they are having a detrimental effect on the environment—the environment that is everybody's and not just those permit holders'.So my question is: one how can the Minister have so much disregard for the environment when this clause still refers to Part 2 and all of these sections are within the Resource Management Act the purpose of which is sustainable management? And secondly what is the temporal nature of 165ZFHJ(b)?"