Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you very much and greetings everyone for what will no doubt be an illuminating morning. On the question of costs—Hon Jo Luxton: No doubt.Hon SHANE JONES: —there no doubt will be opportunities in the future for the director-general to alert future Governments as to whether or not these enlarged fears that are being spread around the Chamber this morning have any substance. From my perspective the policy work behind this bill those fears are groundless. The reason why the ratepayers and the council will meet the costs of an intervention in the legal rightful business of a marine farmer is because they will know that it has to be of a particularly egregious nature because they're going to pay for it themselves. In the event that they decide that the condition problem is of such a magnitude that they need to spend the ratepayers' money they will also consult and seek the authority of the director-general as a further discipline. New Zealand is saddled with far too many cases where relatively narrow-minded local government officials are interfering in the rightful business of entrepreneurs and the marine-farming industry. This particular rod of discipline is overdue. The ratepayers know that they benefit from having industry in their regions. The industry based on risk multiplies a whole host of benefits every day it remains in business. So the dividend enjoyed by the ratepayers is the presence of that industry. Before anyone interferes in this very innocuous harmless industry called aquaculture there is an extremely high threshold they must pass.On the question of the surrendering you may have worked out that I am not surrendering in terms of my advocacy for this bill. This bill provides an opportunity for a marine farmer to enjoy the permit they already have extended till 2050 at the latest; or if they're involved in a process to adjust elements that comprise their entitlements within that defined area they can't have two permits at once. Our side of the House doesn't believe in double-dipping. The surrendering option enables the applicant to come back and enjoy the 20 to 25 years security and it simply provides clarity that you can't be involved with two permits at the same time.Tangi Utikere: So it's cancelled.Hon SHANE JONES: Now on the question—I say again: this bill cancels no permits; this bill breathes life into the entrepreneurial endeavour the risk-taking ability and the commitment to double our exports over the next 10 years. That's the ideological philosophical purpose of this bill. Where an applicant is already in a process at the point at which this bill is enacted you only have one permit.My point in relation to one review on a permit: the review if such an additional review is required and there is an egregious failure like the member from the Green Party contemplated last night with fish farming—a highly profitable activity happens all over the world: Chile Norway other parts of the world but here in little New Zealand we catastrophise these points in the ocean that are the size of a beauty spot but no we're not allowed to do it. This bill is getting rid of all of that ideology. We are going to focus through here where there are cases where there may be a serious threat such as an unwanted biological presence—there are other pieces of legislation to deal with that. We've had far too many unnecessary superfluous and worrisome interventions from local government interfering with the rightful business of employers and investors in the marine-farming industry and today they have their champion in the matua.