Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill

For purposes of completeness and thoroughness, the referral motion I shall now read. I move that the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Despite the Minister’s desire to do it completely, he’s actually read it incorrectly. He’s moved for a second time this evening that it be read for a first time. The instruction to the committee is part of that motion, but by commencing it with “I move that this be read a first time”, he’s actually moved that incorrectly, and so I’m not sure the motion actually stands.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I thank you for that clarity. I think the Minister has read the first statement rather than the second.

💬 Hon Member: Details matter.

It would appear. I move, That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Let me elaborate that, Madam Speaker. A challenge was put forward by one of the honourable members from the Labour Party as to why this is necessary. A challenge was stated that there was not enough explicitness in my speech. I want to draw everyone’s attention to the dire uncertainty that faces this industry, the large number of applicants that are waiting in line and are anticipating a positive result when and after the select committee undertakes its constitutional duties. Obviously, it’ll be up to the select committee to hear the submissions and come back. The key point is that if we are able to proceed with haste and enable those consent holders who currently enjoy existing legitimate permits for the purpose of occupying the coastal environment—which has rightly been pointed out are not tradable property rights; they do represent, however, an exclusive entitlement under the law to occupy a portion of the coastal environment. They—not all; a host of them are due to run out and expire at the end of 2024.

The challenge for the Government, indeed the industry—why, I’d go broader given the rather withering assessment from Treasury about the problems that we’re going to face with the growth of our GDP—is that moving this bill frees them up from the obligations, largely unnecessary in my view, of lodging replacement consents. The farms aren’t going anywhere, and enabling them to dedicate time, energy, and investment resource into gaining greater productivity, greater positive economic outcomes from existing enterprises and ensuring that those costs that they face through protracted consent processes—largely superfluous; a hangover from poorly drafted law from times gone by—that is why I and our side of the House see it as a positive development.

The other final thing I’d say, given that I was challenged, is that a compressed period of time enables the bill to be passed by the end of July. And it is a balance between certainty for the consent holders and an opportunity which I’ve already covered off in my speech, which is available in the bill, in terms of other stakeholders. Therein lies the explanation behind the referral motion.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I hear what the Minister is saying. One of the comments, though, is around the previous laws that have been poorly drafted—laws from times gone by, to quote what the Minister said. And, of course, the Government and yourself, Madam Speaker, will just sort of think, “Well, it’s just the Opposition trying to slow things down for the sake of slowing things down.” But what we’ve seen is that a whole lot of mistakes happen, and I’m concerned that it is actually only 33 working days. If you take into account King’s Birthday and if you take into account our Matariki celebrations, and if you take into account weekends, it’s only 33 working days for everything to be completed and done.

And this is the concern I have, because it’s a challenge for us—and before the dinner break, we had the challenge around the regulatory impact statement for the water services bill that had hidden and incorrect language on it.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Different bill—different bill.

Yeah, but I’m making a case here, a pattern here. And, also, before the dinner break, the last Government speaker commended the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just come back to the motion.

Thank you. I guess I’m just building a case.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Relevance—relevance.

It is completely relevant, because we want to get laws right, and the Hon Shane Jones said that there have been poorly drafted laws from times gone by. We don’t want to be looking back, in 30 years’ time, and have people talking about poorly drafted laws from times gone by and they’re talking about us. So when you look at this I really do think—[Interruption] Yeah, it’s not us; it’s the Government. I have to make sure I get that right.

So it is really important, and there are two things I really need to say about this. One is around timing and those 33 working days in terms of community engagement and business engagement. We keep hearing that it’s all about the economy and it’s all about getting us moving forward and making more money, but we need to make sure that we do it with industry, so the challenge is having 33 working days, a really short amount of time, to get people to submit on the bill and get the bill right.

Secondly, it’s around the capacity of the workforce here at Parliament, and I have to say that the Clerk’s Office and the Clerk’s team do an exceptional job. And the fact that we’re looking at legislation that—we already had it; 18 July has already been used once today for the previous bill, and again for this. And, again, it is relevant because I’m on the committee that’s dealing with the fast-track bill which is taking up a huge amount of time for the Clerk’s team, and they do God’s work, because they are working day and night to make sure they get it right.

So my question around this legislation is: if we can do what the Minister has said he wants done, we need a little bit more time. So I propose, potentially, a three- to four-month process. I think there’s nothing unreasonable in that. I’m happy to cede in a couple of months on the end, so not the traditional six months—that is OK with me. We want to be fair and reasonable on this side of the House.

I’ve heard what the Minister said about the time period in terms of these consents that are coming up for renewal. It’s a large amount. And that’s why we’re not asking for 12—and I’m speaking on my own behalf here; I’m not speaking on behalf of my party. We’re not seeking the full six months. We’re saying we should just extend it a little bit more so that, I say to the Hon Shane Jones, we don’t have poorly drafted laws.

So that’s really my point—those two things. The first is the time frame for the community and for business to be engaged in the process, because business has so many of the answers and we support that. And the second is around the Clerk’s team and the pressure that is going on here in Parliament. It’s wonderful that we have such busy and engaged Clerks, but how do we actually make sure that they are equipped, that they are sustained to make sure that we can get this right?

This bill, the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, is not a big piece of legislation. But, as we’ve seen already this afternoon, there have been a few holes and a few leaks in the boat, and we don’t want that boat to sink. We want to make sure that we have it right for the sake of the future of New Zealand, because, again, we as parliamentarians want to be proud of our work, and I know that the Minister wants to be proud of the work that he does on behalf of New Zealand but also on behalf of the world. We need to get it right. We need to get it right for the sake of New Zealand, but also for the sake of our standing on the world stage.

So I think when we look at the date of 18 July, I’d potentially—and I’m looking to my whip; I’m unsure that I can propose this—be proposing 18 September, so that gives us two more months to look into this. I would suggest 18 September as the date, and, secondly, that would give space to the Clerks to help get it right, for the submissions to come in, and for us to then be able to really critique. I know that good law is made—I’ve been here long enough now to know—when we take the time to listen to the people, listen to the pros and listen to the cons, listen to business, listen to environmentalists, and to listen to iwi and hapū, because we’ve got to have everybody at the table to make sure we get it in the right place and we have it set so it’s something that the Government can be proud to present when it comes time for Royal assent. Imagine that—imagine if the bill went for Royal assent and then within weeks or days or months it had to be amended. That would be embarrassing, and we don’t want you to feel embarrassed. We want to do our best to protect you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I won’t be embarrassed.

Sorry, Madam Speaker. We want to do what we can to ensure that this Government can be proud of the bills it puts through, and we’ve really challenged you this weekend, I know, because there’s been some stuff we’ve really disagreed with. And this we don’t agree with, but it is actually something we need to really consider because, as the honourable Minister says, we don’t want poorly drafted laws. We don’t want to be those laggards that, in the future, people look back at and say how wrong we got it.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, look, we don’t support the truncated period, which won’t come as any—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Oh, why not?

Well, I’ll tell the Minister why not, but before I do I want to support the views that have been expressed by my colleague Mr Bennett. What we are seeing in front of us this evening—and I have to say it’s a bit of a pattern that we are experiencing under urgency from the Government—is a level of sloppiness that I think New Zealanders would find very distasteful. Actually, it’s probably circuitous against democracy. We are starting to see Ministers that simply do not know what they are doing. I have real doubts around what will go in front of the select committee, given the haste within which—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Read the bill. It’s right there.

Yeah, the bill is there. It’s unfortunate the Minister wasn’t able to actually move it correctly—the referral motion that we are debating. Details matter, Mr Bishop—details matter. This is just ongoing sloppiness, and it is a cascading theme of something that is rather shambolic, and they really need to sort themselves out.

This is a bill—and I raised this in my first reading contribution not that long ago. The Government has had a legislative programme. They had plenty of time to bring this to the House. They have chosen to do so under urgency. They have chosen to then constrain and suggest the truncation of a period of time in front of a select committee that will not be in the best interest of the community or of the public.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: You never did that, eh, ever? You never did that!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, I didn’t, Mr Bishop. I didn’t.

We’ve heard a lot about the aquaculture sector. Well, let’s hear from them. Let’s give them an opportunity rather than a short seven-week opportunity to actually hear from them. Maybe the Government does not want to hear—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Here it is.

Well, the Minister is waving a piece of paper. Clearly, he thinks that because he’s heard from them, this House—members of the House via the select committee process—don’t need to. Well, Democracy 101, Minister Jones—that’s not quite how it works in this country. What’s really important here is that if the aquaculture sector want to be heard, let’s give them time to be heard. Let’s hear from them. Let’s ensure there is a clear and fair process for them to participate.

I know the House has resolved that this will go to the Primary Production Committee. I have to say I haven’t spent a lot of time on the Primary Production Committee.

💬 James Meager: That’s not relevant.

Well, it is relevant, because this is where it’s going. What I do know is earlier in the week—[Interruption] I don’t know why members opposite want to make some undesirable and silly interjections when they already know the answer.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s actually a very good point, Mr Utikere. Please keep the interjections to the minimum and preferably witty and calm.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Wit on that side of the House is clearly nothing in abundance at this time of the evening.

The Primary Production Committee is a busy committee. I spent some time on it this week. I know that they have a busy work programme, and I’m sure other members of the House who are actually on that committee might want to contribute to give a bit more of a closer examination and view on that. This constrained time period is not going be helpful. If we look at the date that the Minister has proposed, we are talking about a report-back date to the House by 18 July.

I do apologise to you, Madam Speaker. It sounds as though it is a little bit of a repeat of the previous referral motion, because it’s the same date and it probably could be argued that it is the same set of reasons or examples that apply to this. But this is a separate bill, and so I do want to go through it.

💬 Hon Member: It’s brand new.

It is a brand new bill. If we’re looking at 18 July, and my colleague Mr Bennett has helpfully—thank you, Mr Bennett—identified it’s 33 working days. I didn’t think about the two public holidays there. If we have that as our end date and work back, let’s think about the consideration for what is on the work programme for the Primary Production Committee. Let’s think about the fact that one week will be taken out by scrutiny week, which is something that is extremely important for that select committee and all select committees to do. Let’s think about the fact that it will provide a level of unfairness to any other matters that might be in front of the select committee. We are talking about a truncated period of around five to 10 days at most where members of the public will be able to submit on this bill and for members of Parliament to hear what it is that they have to say about it—five to 10 days. The 10 days is probably being generous, to be honest; the five days is probably conservative.

My view is that it is not fair to those who are engaged in aquaculture. It is not fair to the people who have already—since this bill has been progressing through its first reading—made contact with members of Parliament to express concern about the fact that they will not have a fair opportunity to engage in this process. The level of fairness is pretty important.

💬 Hon Member: Mail is streaming in as we speak.

They are streaming in. We’re also talking about—and I referred to this in the first reading contribution—there are approximately 1,200 existing marine farms. Now, many of them will be in a number of different types of ownerships. If we’re going to say, for example, that the chair of the committee may call for submissions later this evening, that’s not going to be a huge period of time by which submissions will be allowed to go in. We are currently in King’s Birthday. That rules out the communication level that some might be expecting where they might hear from this sort of stuff. It, in my view, is rather unfortunate, and so I think that’s a consideration that the House needs to take account of.

What we are talking about in this bill—and this is very important—is a proposal to extend by blanket opportunity a 20-year period. That is a significant period of time. Truncating that period of time by which the select committee would be required to report back, I actually, again, don’t think is very fair. The argument that I am mounting this evening is one of fairness—fairness to those who are involved in the aquaculture sector and those who are not involved in the aquaculture sector but who wish to participate and have their say on this. We are not talking about a bill that is going to, effectively, constrain something for a short period of time. We are talking about 20 years—it’s a long time. I challenge members opposite to suggest that 20 years is not a long time.

We’ve also got provisions in this bill around regional councils, and I know the Minister has a very strong view, it seems, around regional councils. They are part of the local decision-making and democracy process. To expect them to have a say—and this is a bill that directly affects them. I can point to the relevant section if you would like. It is new section—it’s like an alphabet section—165ZFHM. You don’t see that very often, but it’s alphabet section 165ZFHM. We might call it the alphabet section.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Why is that relevant? Irrelevant.

Well, no. It’s not irrelevant because it’s in the bill. What this select committee process is about is hearing from the very people for whom this bill will have an impact. Our regional councils are directly impacted by this bill. Is five to 10 working days an adequate opportunity to allow them to submit? I don’t think it is. Members on this side of the House will not support the truncated period.

The other thing I will say—and then I’ll conclude—is that we again are starting to see something of a similar nature in that we are in urgency but it is very clear that the Government, in continuing to provide referral motions that are truncated—when they actually get them right—simply does nothing but continue to demonstrate that they actually don’t seem to care about engaging with stakeholders. If they did care, they would want to make ample opportunity and provision for stakeholders and members of the community—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Marginal—marginal.

Well, members of the community, Mr Jones, are not marginal. You might think so, but they are not.

💬 Hon Member: They shouldn’t be marginalised.

They should not be marginalised. Exactly. This is an opportunity for them to have a fair go. A date of 18 July is far too short. I like the idea that Mr Bennett has suggested that, actually, it needs to be much longer—well, not much longer, but a period of time longer. What we’re asking for here is some fairness available. The select committee process—the only opportunity that people will have to submit to this bill, which we can’t say for some of the other items that are in the Government’s urgency motion over today, 30 May—is simply not fair.

I invite Minister Jones, and I invite members of the Government, to reconsider the referral motion and to listen to the arguments that have been advanced primarily on this side of the House around not just unfairness but the workload that we expect of people who have been working hard in this particular precinct while we’ve all been here over the last few days. This is about making sure that the process is fair to everyone to participate in, and giving them as much time as is possible and necessary and fair is very, very important. And so, unless something changes in the next wee while from Government contributions, our position will continue to be one of not supporting a truncated referral period of time.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased to take a call in this debate as a member of the very hard-working Primary Production Committee. It’s a fantastic committee with fantastic members on this committee.

I do want to share with my other colleagues and agree with the time frame that was suggested by Mr Bennett. And I do this genuinely. I understand that the Minister said he wants to give certainty to people and that there are consents that are due to expire at the end of the year, but I just wanted to make the Minister aware that the committee is already meeting during this period of time for hearing submissions on the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do imagine there is going to be a large amount of people that want to submit on that, just as—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: I doubt it.

Oh, I think you’d be wrong there, Mr Bishop—we will see. But I do think that there’ll be also a large number of people that will be particularly interested in wanting to submit to this piece of legislation. So I genuinely—I genuinely—do agree with Mr Bennett about extending the time frame out, simply because—

💬 Miles Anderson: We can do it, Jo.

—the committee is already meeting during that time, hearing submitters on another bill.

And Mr Anderson says, “Come on, Jo, we can do it.” Well, actually, it’s hard enough to get the members from that side of the House to decide what days they can fit into select committee in their diaries, so that’s been a challenge in itself. It’s a fact—it’s an actual fact. And Catherine Wedd is someone who does have a bit of difficulty deciding what days in her calendar she can come along when we’re meeting outside of regular sitting weeks.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can we stick to the motion before us, please.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will definitely. So one of the things that has come up within the regulatory impact statement is very concerning around the officials having limited information about the extent of data and evidence on the impact of what this piece of legislation is likely to do. They are unaware of what the actual problem in itself is and they’re concerned about the pace of reform because it’s limited the identification of options, the level of analysis, the collation and review of evidence, and engagement with iwi Māori and stakeholders.

I think that that’s really concerning if we’ve got officials saying that they are concerned about the speed and the pace of this reform. If they’re concerned about it, then I imagine that the public out there are very concerned about it as well. And I do think that it is only fair and it is only right that we give enough due consideration and time to those out there that are interested in submitting, and on this piece of legislation that we do genuinely give them the benefit of time to hear from them and hear their concerns and actually to consult out there more broadly.

So, again, I do want to reiterate, I am genuine in my thoughts around extending the time frame for this. I do believe that if we were to extend it out to the date that has been suggested by Mr Bennett, we could still give the sector certainty quite easily by having a report back of 18 September.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me some time to speak to this very important point about 18 July. Because what’s been made really clear in the debate so far is that the actual complexity of these issues is not well understood.

What really concerns me, particularly coming from the Environment Committee is that it is going to the Primary Production Committee. Because what I’m concerned about, and, actually, the Minister summed it up himself when someone mentioned seals or sea lions and the Minister was saying it’s nowhere in this bill—they’re just not in this bill. But the complexity comes when the materials of loose lines and aspects of netting can actually endanger these marine mammals, and that’s exactly what the committee is going to have to be focused on. That’s the level of complexity that we need to go to, including the materials that are involved in these aquaculture activities, which can be hugely damaging to not only the marine environment—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We’re referring to the motion, which is the report-back date.

Absolutely. And the important point that I’m making, Madam Speaker, is about the complexity of this issue and how it is not possible for officials to capture all of that complexity for 1,200 consents in the marine space. And why I want to emphasise this is that, in the usual process, where these consents would actually come up one by one, either for renewal or as a new activity, there would be appropriate decisions made at the community and council level about who is publicly notified or limited notified or whatever the decision is made. But all those people would get to have a say: tangata whenua, council, public. This is 1,200 consents where that discussion will not be had. And the fact that we’re trying to do this by 18 July is just astonishing.

The actual mechanics of it—and it’s something that I really want to check out. The House is sitting for one week only between now and 18 July. It is absolutely astonishing to even have this proposed that there could be a good faith - evidence-based assessment by the committee by this time. And I want to point out as well, I mentioned the usual process where each consent would potentially be spoken to by the public, but I wanted to touch on the fact, for example, that in the Marlborough Sounds, the council, the community, and tangata whenua have been having actual, productive conversations for 15-plus years and they’ve actually got somewhere. So the fact that this would just override the democratic processes that are already in place is completely inappropriate and exactly why this time frame is not going to work.

I’m really concerned that this is going to have severely detrimental impacts, not only for the communities but particularly in the environmental space, and this is no small thing. It’s something that the committee needs to examine with the full breadth of the public service available to them to be able to give it a genuine assessment. This is across the entire country and it’s for 20 years. Many of these consents were actually granted before the Resource Management Act was put in place. This is no small thing. It’s hugely serious and I would like due consideration, particularly from the Minister, but certainly from the Primary Production Committee, about how important this content is, the complexity of it, and it needs due process.

I really invite the Minister to reconsider the time frame because I would propose that we need at least the standard six-month period, because this is the seriousness that this blanket approach is offering. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move, That debate on this question now close.