Simpson Scott; Smith Stuart; Brooking RachelHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm not sure that we're quite getting the clarity of answer that my colleague Stuart Smith was looking for but none the less let's move on. I want to refer to clause 449 Requirements for offers for authorisations": "(1) An offer for an authorisation must specify—(a) the activity or range of activities for which the authorisation is sought; and (b) the site it applies to." I'm interested because the Minister has already told us that essentially this part of the bill is replicating existing Resource Management Act wording and format. That's I guess all fine and dandy to a point but the issue that concerns me is will this legislation and these words and provisions in Part 7—are they actually going to provide the futureproofing that we require? Aquaculture the marine space—the opportunities to commercialise it are rapidly expanding. My colleague Stuart Smith and also Simon Court have already mentioned offshore wind farms for instance but there's a whole range of new potential activity. For instance in New Zealand we don't do much in the way of kelp farming yet other nations do and what I want to be assured of is that there is enough flexibility in these provisions to meet opportunities that we may not yet have even considered. The science may not have even been developed yet and I'm not 100 percent sure that there is. There's a second point that I wanted to raise in relation to clause 454 and that's a clause that's headed up "Use of tender money". What happens is that regional councils go through a process of tendering for commercial use of marine space. There is potential for a competitive environment. There's quite a lot of prescriptive stuff in clause 449 that relates to the tendering process. Clause 450 gives preferential rights to iwi when it comes to aquaculture and the tendering process. Some of that relates to previous Treaty settlement claims and that's understood and is a given but there's a commercial aspect to this in that the regional councils are incentivised to actually monetise the process of tendering. So coming back to clause 454 "Use of tender money" it says that "The regional council must apply its share of the remuneration to achieving the purpose of this Act in the coastal marine area in its region." and I guess my question to the Minister is about the potential for that to effectively create a perverse incentive to commercialise in a way that may not otherwise occur. So for a regional council that wants to invest in improving its marine space providing tidy-up work or maybe some remediation of coastal erosion and a whole lot of that sort of stuff which is expensive and potentially long term they'll be looking for ways to generate revenue and income but it's not necessarily going to come from ratepayers. The use of the tender money I think is potentially an incentive to perversely commercialise that goes beyond what the Minister whose name this bill is in potentially may have considered. So I'm interested in the Minister's views and thoughts on that and on whether there are going to be any restrictions on that—particularly if a regional council is looking for a new source of revenue or an increased source of revenue surely that then is an opportunity where a keen and eager regional council would say "Ha ha! Here's an opportunity for us to generate some revenue." STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I turn to clause 443 "Regional council must offer authorisations if Minister of Conservation approves" and I know this relates to coastal and marine permits and so on. But I go back to my earlier statement about how surprised I was as was everyone who's ever come across the Department of Conservation's permitting habits at how long it takes. For the Onslow geotechnical work they got consents through. They gave it a fast-tracked process because they saw it as a project of national significance. It appears that at times and in certain circumstances the Department of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for the Environment—or that's what I take from that instance—and yet we've heard today that the Minister has said that Onslow will not get fast-tracked consenting which essentially signs its death warrant but this seems to be somewhat contradictory in clause 443. So I'd like the Minister's—I know that this goes outside of this provision but this provision seems to set it in stone that the Minister of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for regional councils anyway and therefore probably even the Minister for the Environment. So could I have some guidance on that from the Minister and some assurance that the Department of Conservation doesn't have this "Henry VIII" - type power over the environment? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): As I've noted previously most of these provisions are very similar to the Resource Management Act. On the issue of tendering I note that half of it does go into the public accounts. Hon Scott Simpson: Sorry can the Minister speak up? I didn't hear that. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Minister sorry one of the members is just seeking clarification of your last—Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh I was saying in the last point that half of that money does go into the public account. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Thank you Minister."