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

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 5, and that is “Other amendment to Resource Management Act 1991”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2, in terms of what it proposes to insert, in the sort of number of word count, is quite small, but the implications actually are quite significant because they relate to the entire part of Subpart 1A of this bill. We have last night and this morning been making our way through Subpart 1A, which relates to the duration of a coastal permit. Now, section 123A, which this part seeks to amend by, basically, inserting an additional provision, does relate to the duration aspect.

My question to the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, is, despite the views that have been expressed and some of the answers that have been given, whether he is open to—and there’s still an opportunity to perhaps put another amendment on the Table—ensuring, though, that the consideration of the five-year extension and the 10-year extension time frames, effectively, are still in play. While I accept that that might be unusual, it is still not an impossibility.

My question to the Minister is the five- and 10-year options which have been advanced by the community—albeit haven’t been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee—were issues that were raised in Subpart 1A, and there were very good reasons for that. Some of the points that the Minister has raised relate to the ability or inability of the director-general to exercise their discretion in terms of making determinations and decisions. It might be that actually ensuring that there is a specified time frame within Part 2 is more conducive to ensuring that all of the information is made available to the director-general. I’ll start with that particular question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on something that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries mentioned before in terms of Tai Tokerau. My understanding was that Tai Tokerau iwi did not actually support this bill, particularly Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who actually had a lot of the marine farms, also did not support the extension. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying what the Minister meant by Tai Tokerau, that would be great.

In terms of Part 2, and particularly when it comes to clause 5 inserting new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act, when we are looking at Subpart 1A of Part 7A in the Resource Management Act, I want to particularly draw attention to what happens if the permit holder no longer wishes to hold the permit. One of the things that I have found within the bill itself, but also within Subpart 1A of Part 7A of the Resource Management Act, is clarity around this. Also, I’m sorry, my apologies: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is not in Tai Tokerau, but other iwis in Tai Tokerau did vote against this.

The reason I mention this is because the Minister answered one part of my question previously, but my second part of the question is around the sort of modelling that has been done when it comes to if the permit holder no longer deems their production or their business to be profitable—can they, in this case, shorten or amend the duration of their permit?

Now, new section 165ZFHI, inserted by clause 4, does say that you “must not amend the duration”. I’m looking to Subpart 1A of Part 7A for any example or any sections that may potentially imply an adjustment to the duration at the permit holder’s own volition when it comes to the coastal marine permit. I wondered if sections in the Resource Management Act such as 165D of Subpart 1 of Part 7A, around “Power of consent authorities to refuse to receive applications”, doesn’t quite cover it, but whether something under the subheading “authorisation”—like section 165T “Authorisation lapses in certain circumstances”—may be a possibility.

I’m really looking for the Minister’s and the officials’ guidance on this, because there is nothing in this bill that has any clarity around voluntary shortening of that permit if someone didn’t want to hold on to it, and what some of the implications are. There might be none; in which case, please let me know, in this case, if there are no additional implications—they simply hold the permit and they don’t need to do anything with it and it naturally lapses in 2050, but it then is no longer operational. The question is around: are there any provisions under the Resource Management Act Subpart 1A of Part 7A that give the permit holder the opportunity to, at their own volition, shorten a permit if they no longer deem their business to be profitable or they no longer wish to operate under that permit and not replace it with another permit? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of questions for the Minister. Of course, this relates to all of the bill—the entirety of the bill—because what is happening, as my colleague Tangi Utikere described, is that this insertion is Part 1 of the bill is being acknowledged here in section 123A of the Resource Management Act (RMA). That is that “The duration of a coastal permit”—to which the Part 1 that we’ve already been discussing is—“is subject to any extension” under the duration here of a consent for aquaculture activities.

The questions are around that coastal permit. The coastal permit is not just a permit to occupy. That is part of what a coastal permit can be—occupation—but it is also the discharge that can be done through a coastal permit. The Primary Production Committee report says that right up the front in the commentary: that extensions are to “cover all RMA consents needed for a marine farm to operate (such as a coastal permit to occupy or a coastal permit to discharge)”.

It’s that latter issue of discharge that has the particular environmental effects that we were talking about in Subpart 1. Those are very important because we’ve also talked about in Subpart 1 that the review—we know that has been well litigated that it’s ratepayers to pay for any review. Not only is that review constrained by needing the director-general’s concurrence but it is also constrained to this two years that it can only commence “not later than 2 years after this subpart comes into force”.

That means that there are 18 years’ duration where a consent to discharge cannot be reviewed. I’m interested to know what evidence there is for saying that there’s never going to be a need to review a consent in that 18 years, or if there’s analysis that other parts of the RMA may be able to override this if their effects are significant. I asked the Minister if he sought advice on that particular point, but also if the Minister’s sought advice on other legislation that might apply.

We heard the Minister and responses to questions earlier saying that—this was in relation to a question about an Amendment Paper that was put about fish farming rather than molluscs. Fish have different environmental effects—different discharges—and they might change over time, so they might need to be reviewed, and what is the Minister going to do about that? The Minister replied, “Well, other legislation might apply.” I’m wondering, then, what other legislation he’s referring to, what advice he has sought on the other legislation, and specifically around environmental effects.

We’ve heard very clearly from the Minister that he’s not interested in amenity and he’s not interested in landscape, and that would be addressed under the occupation consent. But a discharge consent is about environmental effects. We’ve also heard from the Minister that there is an ideological purpose to the bill and he’s told us that he wants to help entrepreneurs. The flip side of that is that it’s allowing pollution—that is what this bill is about. It is about allowing pollution, and even if you’re going to make ratepayers pay to try and do some regulation of that pollution—some protection of the environment from that pollution—they can’t do it for 18 years. This just seems extraordinary.

So I’m interested in the effect that this amendment has on section 123A. How are environmental regulators going to make assessments in those 18 years where a council won’t be able to instigate a review with or without the director-general? How are those environmental issues from discharges going to be managed?

We are talking about Part 2, an inoffensive, benign section in this proposed legislation. What it deals with is there may be cases—especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau, covered by the super-city council—where there’s been a history of allocating 35-year permits, if I can use that term. In the event that someone who enjoys such a permit ends up having the opportunity to extend their permit so it goes beyond 35 years as a consequence of us having a drop-off date of 2050, they’re not going to lose their entitlement.

On the question of discharges—on the question as to whether or not Part 2, in addressing whether or not there are a small number who have a longer period to run their business without being hassled, undermined, or unnecessarily taxed, in a figurative sense, by these busybodies in regional government, the reality is we’re going backwards. The purpose of this benign segment here is to give surety to those long-suffering, hardy employers, developers of our natural resource. Now, where there is an egregious case at some ill-defined point in the future, reflective of what the honourable Green member and the former Minister of oceans have referred to through fish farming, and if it did represent a biological threat, there are other pieces of legislation that can be invoked.

We are not going to have a situation where a tiny group, day and night, studying the innards of the Resource Management Act, weaponise every obscure reference to undermine capitalism, to undermine the functioning of the market, after people have made a difficult but admirable decision to invest their own money in creating jobs. This bill, this Minister, unashamedly stands with them. There may be a few molluscs and rare, obscure snails that go by the way, but I’ll take jobs any day.

I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere next. I just want to remind members that this is a very, very small piece of the bill, and I don’t want any repeat questions of anything that’s already been asked, because this is not something that’s got a lot of scope to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are still some questions that haven’t been addressed by the Minister. I note that the Minister has said that this particular part is inoffensive, and, actually, he describes it as benign, which is rather unfortunate, because this is an actual part of the bill that is rather active in terms of its transference and what rights and responsibilities it does actually pose. For the Minister to describe this as benign, perhaps he is referring to the word count rather than the actual impact or effect that this might have. That’s a question to him.

I do note, actually, that there is an Amendment Paper in my colleague Mr Abel’s name, so I won’t touch on that, because it relates to inserting reference to administrative charges, which, actually, we haven’t covered in this particular part yet. And, in the previous part, the Minister still failed to address the Amendment Paper in my name—OK, I accept it was voted down, but it did still reference what was considered to be fair and reasonable and at a cap of 50 percent. On this side of the committee, at this stage, we would look to support Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper because it inserts a further trigger in the sense of administrative charges being carried over, but I’ll leave that to the Greens to explore a bit further.

My question to the Minister is around, given this is specifically related to Subpart 1A, at what point is the extension given effect to? While this is a discrete clause in terms of word count, it talks about the fact that the duration—so we’re talking about a time frame of a coastal permit—to which the section applies subject to any extension that may have been, effectively, authorised under Subpart 1A. Now, Subpart 1B is about the review of conditions, and we’ve talked about that; this is about Subpart 1A.

My question to the Minister is: given the number of proposed new sections in Subpart 1A, which of those are, effectively, engaged? Does it start at the new proposed section 165ZFHC, which is when it identifies the actual date of conditions, or is it at the point that the coastal permit is updated? Is it at the point when the application is withdrawn? Is it at the point where the decision is made that actually, no, the application is to continue? Is it at the point where the decision is taken for a permit to be surrendered? And I accept what the Minister has said around that.

There are a number of different proposed new sections in Subpart 1A, which is what this part refers to, that identify different actions to be taken. Now, it may be quite simple in the sense that, actually, the point of engagement here is when, regardless of those different sections, the different criteria are met, but my question to the Minister is: at what point is Part 2 actually engaged when it comes to an extension that may apply under Subpart 1A?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank my colleague opposite for—

💬 Hon Member: Not opposite!

Across—across the Chamber—across. I appreciate it, because I actually made the error of speaking to this amendment earlier on in the wrong part, but I should clarify that it belongs in this part. We were, sadly, not able to speak to a number of amendments in the earlier part because the debate seemed to be shut down prematurely, in our view. This amendment is one that rebalances the burden of cost for the consent authority, which is, effectively, the ratepayer, so that those commercial activities that are indeed being reviewed—if there is a requirement that they be reviewed—that the consent authority is entitled to recover the cost of review undertaken under the subpart, including “any costs arising from a request by the Director-General, under section 165ZFHK(3) for information not held by the consent authority in its normal course of business.”

Again, this is a very reasonable proposition in an otherwise reckless piece of legislation that would make it a little more reasonable, because it recognises that if these worthy businesses, as I’m sure many of them are, are in fact solvent, they should be able to cover the reasonable cost of consent. Where it is seen appropriate, as the legislation requires, that not only the consenting authority has to recognise the need for a review but they have to do that with the agreement of the director-general, then surely it is also fair, given that consent or consensus that there needs to be a review, that the costs of that should be recovered and recoverable. That’s the nature of the amendment, and we would like to hear the Minister’s response to another very nominal and reasonable amendment.

I remind the committee that we have already addressed Part 1. We have already addressed these relatively insignificant, largely marginal details reflected in the member’s amendment.

I bring us back to Part 2. Part 2 is explicitly covering those small number of rights holders, if I can use that term figuratively, that may go beyond a point where their entitlement stretches beyond 35 years. This is about ensuring that they don’t run afoul of what is an overdue piece of legislative liberalisation. It is driven to give greater certainty, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member from the Green Party, that debate, that issue—not necessarily the amendment, but the issue—was covered off in Part 1.

I repeat, again: yes, it is a departure from orthodoxy that the council staff—before they push the go button, before they worsen the prospects of the men and women—hail, sun, rain, shine, are up in the dark early in the morning creating jobs, boosting exports, braving the elements of the Tangaroa and Mother Nature. This bill celebrates their prowess, and the sooner it passes, the better.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am interested in what the Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, was just saying there about the application of new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act being only to do with the 35-year relationship. My understanding was that this inserts the whole of subpart 1A. If he’s saying it’s limited to the timing of only some of the extensions that may or may not apply, it would be useful for clarification on that.

Going back, I did ask—and this is how that 35 year relates—if there is a 20-year extension, the council has two years where they can pay for a review if the director-general applies, but what happens for those other 18 years? That is the question, and the answer I think I received was the Minister, basically, saying that there are no environmental protections for those 18 years and that this is to enable capitalism. If I am correct in thinking that what the Minister was saying was in answer to my question—I’m not sure that it was; that is why I am re-putting it for clarity here—that is extraordinary. It is beyond just not being orthodox; it is extraordinary. The Minister is sitting here and is happy to say there should not be environmental protections for 18 years, because of capitalism.

💬 Hon Member: He’s not saying that.

I am hearing someone from the other side of the Chamber saying that is not true. I hope that that person is a National MP and that they are going to their Ministers at the moment and saying, “What have you agreed to in Cabinet?” This is reprehensible. It is not benign. It is not just about stopping bach owners from complaining about aquaculture; it is saying, “If there is a discharge that is dangerous to the environment, the regional councils can’t do anything about it, and that is fine because somebody is making money.”

Well, they are only going to be making money in the very short term, and this will have financial consequences for the wider community as well. It is shameful, and I call on all those members on the opposite side, who now appear not to be looking at me and are very quiet, to take a call on this matter and say what National’s position on this bill is. I’ve not heard one speech on it in this committee stage. People are jumping up and down to take a vote, but are you listening to what the Minister is saying? He is saying that there should be no environmental protections for 18 years—18 years.

💬 Hon Member: He’s doing an outstanding job—outstanding Minister.

Ah, the members are happy about this now. This is shameful, and I hope that your voters are listening to it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the advice of the Minister that I’ve been speaking to the wrong section. I’d better polish up that law degree that I didn’t do.

I’m speaking to new clause 5AA in Part 2, which inserts clause 5, page 8, before line 25, to section 36 amended. And it’s about administrative charges, after section 36(1A)(b) to insert “(c) section 165ZFHI in relation to the review of conditions for a coastal permit extended under subpart 1A of Part 7A.” This is to give effect to the consent authority being entitled to recover costs and it’s about administrative charges. That is what I would like to correct and put as an amendment to this committee. We’ve probably heard the Minister’s view on it already but I would like to echo, while I have a brief moment, the consternation and distress of my colleague on this side of the Chamber at the sort of blatant acceptance of the narrative that it’s OK to make money at any cost. Clearly that is not the view of our society and it is right that we have a balance and we take into account the ecological and environmental effects of activities such as marine farming. Thank you.

When are we going to hear an end to these snowflake-prize falsehoods? Think about the New Zealanders today who have lost their jobs and who may also lose their jobs in this sector, unless we give greater certainty and greater confidence to this area of natural resource development.

All this talk about administrative charges—sadly, that was dealt with last night. If a council officer is possessed of information requiring him or her to intervene in the legal operations of an enterprise—and these people love their enterprises; they love the environment; they’re not quietly plotting and scheming, at 11 o’clock at night, that they’re going to go tomorrow and release toxic material into the environment. It would destroy the fact that they’re growing food. This is the catastrophisation that we’ve seen for far too long from that side of politics.

This, I say again, is a benign, insignificant, and inoffensive portion of the bill that simply creates clarity for the small number of permit holders who may go beyond what is contemplated in this bill. It makes their rights legal. It assures them that they are involved on behalf of the broader New Zealand society in regions where it would appear that side of the Chamber has nothing but detestation for them. They’ve found a champion in me.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There’s not much left to go, but I’m looking forward to hearing something new, Mr Utikere.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has provided a response, I want to pick up on what the Minister has just said, because he has said that there are people who are losing their jobs. That is correct—that is absolutely correct. It is the one thing, actually, that I agree with that has come from this Minister through this committee stage, is that people are losing their jobs. And why is that? Why is that? It’s because of the decisions that this Minister and his Government are taking, that’s what is leading to that. If this particular bill is seeking to address some of those issues, and this is a direct response to—

💬 Hon Nicola Grigg: What’s your question? Very political statement.

Well, Ms Grigg seems to have a lot to say. Perhaps she could take a call on this. Actually, any of the members could take a call on this. The Minister is right, people are losing their jobs, but if this is the context in which he is painting and saying that capitalism is the answer around that—well, people will form their own views on it.

I’m thankful to my colleague Mr Abel for his clarity around his Amendment Paper, because I didn’t want to be discourteous and speak to his own thoughts here without hearing what he had to say. I will now address Amendment Paper 58, which is in his name. My question to the Minister is: why is he not prepared to consider in a positive way the introduction of a reference to administrative charges as part of this part—which is entirely in order—given the fact that he has referenced that people are losing their jobs, given the fact that this will be an additional cost that is borne by the ratepayers. I’m still to hear from the Minister about his view.

A maximum of 50 percent could have been borne by the ratepayers in terms of cost recovery—just one aspect, if things were fair and reasonable. Why is the Minister not prepared to incorporate administrative charges on Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper, given that this will be an additional cost on ratepayers? Rates are going up, people are losing their jobs—that’s out of the mouth of the Minister himself. So consider that, actually, that is something that is related to Part 1A. The Minister thinks that this is a benign piece, as my colleague—

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: We’re in Part 2, aren’t we?

Well, it’s actually Subpart 1A. We are in Part 2, as I’ve heard from members opposite, but this relates specifically to Subpart 1A, which is referencing both the costs and the ability for decisions to be made about coastal permits, and others.

My question to the Minister is: in light of his comment and his acceptance that people are losing their jobs, that this is an additional cost on the ratepayers, that there are provisions available for it to be capped—although he’s not keen to explore that, I infer; although he hasn’t addressed that previously. Rates are going up. Why will the Minister not signal support for Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Steve Abel’s amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AA set out on Amendment Paper 58 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Darleen Tana’s amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AAA set out on Amendment Paper 77 is out of order as being the same in substance as an amendment previously not agreed to.