Utikere Tangi; Jones ShaneTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. We still wait for some of those responses from the Minister but while we wait for that I would like to move on to clause 4 which inserts new section 165ZFHH Application of extension where coastal permit is under appeal". It seems very peculiar that in subsection (2) here it says that "The extension does not apply—(a) until all rights of appeal are exhausted;" or the other one is that the outcome is a declination or the application is withdrawn. My question to the Minister is: why is it necessary to indicate in legislation that all the rights of appeal need to be exhausted? I note that on a question of a point of law there is an appeal through to the High Court which is indicated elsewhere but why is there a need to insert the reference to ensuring that all appeal rights have been exercised and exhausted? Surely that's a natural justice application that exists with all decisions that are made provided that they are taken through the right judicial process. I want to follow up on the point that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has just touched on and it relates to the proposed new section 165ZFHI "Power to undertake review". Now it talks about the ability of a consent authority to undertake a review of the conditions that might exist under Subpart 1A but when we look at subsection (3)(b) it talks about the fact that a review that might be undertaken under this particular provision "must not be undertaken more than once in relation to any coastal permit;". Now my question to the Minister is: what if there has been a review that has been sought for a condition of a permit that has gone through the process and then there is an issue with a different condition of that permit—is that then now subject to no further review despite the fact that the conditions are distinctly different or separate? So my question to the Minister is firstly whether subsection (3)(b) is in fact indicating that the limitation of only one review in relation to a coastal permit is for the permit in toto or is it related to the conditions and if it is related to the permit in toto then how is that providing a fair approach to have other conditions that might be sought to be reviewed effectively reviewed by the consent authority? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I sense we're wending our way to the end of this session so I shall make some additional remarks. The member makes some very relevant points as to why would the rights of an applicant to continue on with a process be retained. In the event that this legislation does change there may very well be applicants who are seeking for example to change some of the boundaries of a permit that this legislation will allocate to them into arguably 2050 and I would say that a lot of people have got permits well beyond 2050. They've got permits that go 35 years long so the fact that I've compromised on 2050 I thought was very modest and reasonable. So the policy point that's made here is to preserve the rights of that applicant to continue indeed if they feel that it's necessary because there are problems with the location of the farm to enjoy those ongoing rights.On the matter of clause 165ZFHI "Power to undertake review" when the review is undertaken—and they will be very very few in number because this is not really a troublesome industry. These farms have been there for decades. They're now an indelible feature of the local environment and it's a sad day actually that they're not there in perpetuity but the only reason we can't do that is because this is the commons and if people are going to have a perpetual right that right sadly has to be dealt with in the context of whether there are residual interests with the local Māori through the seabed and foreshore. And I don't want the industry permanently blighted by that endless fairytale. So I would say that the two-year reference talks about the fact that if there are conditions that need to be reviewed you have a period of uncertainty and it has to be dealt with in two years.I really feel that the bill when you look at the fundamental underlying purpose of the bill lays out that there are trade-offs. It is not reasonable that people who have spent their life savings who have got their houses mortgaged to the hilt to create jobs in wee businesses in regional New Zealand year after year have to put up with the depredations of unelected grandees in these councils who do not face the costs of their ill-informed indiscriminate wandering ways trying to interfere with the lawful business of aquaculture. That's why it's really important that we focus as I've endeavoured to do on the two-year period.I don't really want to talk any more about the regulatory statement because that's now an element of history. We've got to look forward. Yes there was a host of considerations reflected from the different Government departments in that regulatory statement. This bill does not undermine any iwi interests. Yes there were references in the regulatory statement from some iwi who feel that it violates their iwi settlements. Far too much is read into these consultation opportunities in the iwi settlements. They are not the power of veto. They are not going to be allowed to hijack economic development where garden-variety Kiwis are trying to make a living and they fear that their enterprises are going to be hijacked or held hostage by people reading up or coming up with the most jaundiced interpretation in respect of the Treaty settlements.The Treaty settlements were and remain a point in time and the Crown does have to work with iwi to respect them but all iwi need to hop on the bus of economic empowerment whether it's the iron sands of Taranaki the aquaculture in Marlborough or the mining in Tai Poutini."