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

Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Member: A bit slow.

We were waiting, hoping that the Minister may have something else worthy to say—yeah. I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister around potential title names that maybe the Minister would like to consider.

I think one of the things we have heard throughout this entire debate is the fact that the Minister gives very little regard to local government. Indeed, one of the things we did see during the select committee stage is the fact that 90 percent of the submitters were opposed to this bill. I wondered if the Minister has considered the amendment that rather than the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, we may get the “Resource Management Act (We Don’t Care About Local Government) Amendment Bill”.

It’s not just the local government, both in terms of the submissions that the local government made but also the burden that it places on them in terms of the extra duties that local council and ratepayers will have to be responsible for. We also heard from iwi Māori that this is something that they do not agree with, and we’ve heard from Ngātiwai, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, just to name a few that did not agree with this bill. I wondered, again, if the Minister had considered not just that we don’t care about the local government amendment bill but also iwi Māori. Frankly, in the select committee, we heard that this is a violation of Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

More broadly speaking, we have found that the Minister spent more time during this debate criticising us and also our position and the evidence that we have put forward and evidence that the Minister’s own ministry has put forward. The Minister has mentioned a number of things around, you know, the greenies and all of these people, Greenpeace and all of those, but I wondered if this is just a simple case of the fact that the Minister has his head in the sand and this is a bill that is more accurately referred to as the “Resource Management (Head in the Sand) Amendment Bill” or “Tunnel Vision Amendment Bill”. Or even the fact that we live in an alternate universe where there are not so much as ecosystems, because the Minister does not believe there is any impact to the ecosystem or anything ecological, and it’s better to call it, rather than ecosystem, “ecosilos”, because that’s what we think that the suggestion here is going to do without any sort of accountability.

When we are looking at this particular bill, and the extension we’re giving for a lot of those permissions, for a lot of those permit holders, they may be yearning to make those kinds of changes, the kind of review that will incentivise them to make those kinds of changes, undergo modern environmental assessments, but this particular bill will not address that. It also does disregard the effect on current national environmental standards. Very much so, I think: if the Minister would consider renaming it to the “Resource Management (Rather than Ecosystem but Ecosilos) Amendment Bill”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been in the Chamber for most of this bill, this committee stage of this bill, and have been listening closely to the Minister. I also have some suggestions for the title, and it’s the title clause that I’d like to talk on.

Of course, we had a lot of discussion in the committee about how it is the council and, therefore, ratepayers that are going to have to pay for any review of these extended consent conditions. But, of course, they can only do that for the first two years. My suggestion is—I’ve got it, again, in this title that I’m going to suggest, and that is because, of course, I’ve spent a lot of time yesterday, as well as in the House, talking about the water bill, and there we see, as well, more and more money being put on councils and ratepayers. My suggestion is that it’s the “Resource Management (Costing Ratepayers Again) Amendment Bill”. That’s my first suggestion. That is, of course, because it is shameful that it is councils that have to pay for any review when the Minister has explicitly said that his concern is that it’s those wealthy bach owners who are requiring reviews. That is his justification for the consent holders not to be paying for those reviews, which is the standard resource management process.

Of course, he already has a mechanism to get over that, because the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has to agree to any review in the first place. We’ve also heard that they can only do a review in those first two years, leaving an additional 18 years, so a further title that the Minister might want to consider is the “Resource Management (Justified by Nimby Wealthy Bach Owners, but Actually Stopping Review of Discharge Conditions for 18 Years) Amendment Bill”.

Another suggestion related to that particular point of these 18 years of no review on discharges—I’m not talking about the occupation consent, but the discharge consent, so that is pollution in our commons—is that it should be the “Resource Management (Allowing Unchecked 18-Year Discharges) Amendment Bill”. I think that is an appropriate name for the bill.

Then, of course, we’ve heard, in very florid language, about the importance of jobs and people making money from the commons, and “capitalism” was used by the Minister as well. Another suggestion, of course, is that it could be the “Resource Management (Taking Capitalism to the Commons and Allowing Pollution) Amendment Bill”. That, I think, would much more correctly explain what it is that this bill is doing.

We also, earlier in the debates last night, heard about the aberrant councils, and we heard, of course, about the Minister’s disdain, in particular, for the Marlborough council, despite his whip hailing from, or still being a member of, that council. I was suggesting, if this is all being driven because of that particular dislike of that council, it could be the “Resource Management (Punish Aberrant Marlborough Council) Amendment Bill”. That seems to capture a lot of what the Minister was talking about.

We heard from the Minister about “indiscriminate detritus”, and by that, I think he was talking about, maybe, people involved in the resource management system. Of course, being a proud holder of an ecology degree, I think of “indiscriminate detritus” as being very important. Detritus can be very important in our ecosystems. Of course, there could be detritus from these fish farms—as we heard from Steve Abel, particularly the finfish—that do cause negative environmental consequences that would normally be controlled by consent conditions on discharge consents but will not be able to be reviewed by these changes. Of course, it could be the “Resource Management (Permitting Indiscriminate Detritus) Amendments Bill”.

Then, finally, my final suggestion for now is that we also heard from the Minister about trade-off politics. In resource management and planning law, you often hear about trade-offs in the planning sense—so, do we want to protect landscape over wind farms? That’s the most obvious and easiest one to talk about. We do not generally hear about environmental bottom lines, which seems to be what this Minister is intent on doing in this and other pieces of, legislation, so my final recommendation that I’d like the Minister to consider is the “Resource Management (Trade-off Politics by Getting Rid of Review Rights) Amendment Bill”. This bill is a disgrace and should be renamed.

A final and brief contribution. The name of this bill reflects the deep commitment towards giving certainty and confidence to this sector of our economy. Look, I don’t think it uplifts the mana of this House or purpose of this bill by all sorts of extreme suggestions from the other side. This is a time for dry, focused language. I think that we’ve reached a point where the public has exhausted its patience listening to these colourful, fanciful suggestions, and we need to return back to the technical language of the bill as reflected in this very sensible, harmless title.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, for his benign contribution. I do think that the suggestions that have been offered from members on this side of the House—and I do note that there was a wry smile from the Minister when my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was suggesting some of those possibilities there, particularly the nimby aspect—are aligned with what clearly is an anti-ratepayer approach to this. When we think about the fact that rates are continuing to increase in our community—and, yes, let’s be fairly frank about this: the majority of locations where these coastal permits will fall will be from the local consenting authorities, many of whom took the time to share their views with the Primary Production Committee—I do think that it is appropriate that the committee does consider what might be sort of phrased as anti - local government, anti-ratepayers, anti-council sort of definitions or tones for this particular title.

I have a couple of my own that I’m sure the Minister has had an opportunity to reflect on, because they are part of the tabled Amendment Paper. The first one is to call this the “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms Despite Potential Degradation of Environment)” Amendment Bill”. Look, I was actually quite happy to not have that and to vote against that myself—and this side would—on the proviso that the opportunity to reduce the time frame for extensions to that of five years or even 10 years, which was seen as a compromise, was going to be taken up by this Government at this stage, in the committee of the whole House. Sadly, that has not been the case, and so I feel that I have to continue with what was proposed there, because, let’s be honest, there is the potential for ongoing degradation of the environment when this Government, effectively, extends permits and the conditions that are currently operating—not about a review but the actual current operation of the permit over a 10-, 15-, 20-year horizon—and beyond. There is bound to be some potential—there is absolutely bound to be some potential—for degradation when it comes to the environment. Calling it that was certainly an option.

The other was the “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can Down the Road)”, because this has become symptomatic of this particular Government in terms of their approach to, basically, anything and everything these days. That’s on Amendment Paper 55. I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts, given that they have been tabled.

I want to turn now to clause 2, which is about the commencement. Now, it’s proposed that this particular Act, once it’s given Royal assent, will come into force the day after Royal assent is given. As we’ve worked through this committee of the whole House stage, largely around Part 1, we have turned our mind to some of the hurdles and obstacles that applicants; that councils, particularly consenting authorities; and that the director-general themself may actually encounter. Given that there is still an element of some uncertainty—and the Minister might actually refute that there is uncertainty in this particular space—my question to the Minister is: why not consider a time frame post Royal assent? For example, even if it was to be six months post Royal assent to ensure that there are processes that are in place for the director-general to go about consideration.

Yes, there are time frames that are already given in terms of the 20 working days for additional information to be provided, but wouldn’t it provide some confidence and certainty—the very things that the Minister wants to provide in this bill—to ensure that the processes that this Government are wishing to set up and put in place can adequately be put in place? A six-month, 12-month period may do so. It would still provide certainty for the individuals that the Minister seems keen to provide certainty for.

My question is: why is it necessary to allow this bill to, effectively, come—well, once it’s given Royal assent, it will be an Act—into force the day following Royal assent? I mean, we deal with this in this Parliament all the time, where the commencement date can be very different depending on a range of different circumstances. I don’t think that the need for certainty and confidence would be done by providing a further date. I’ll leave that question with the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, well, here we are at the title and commencement. I think one of the striking things about this piece of legislation is that it represents a significant overreach of central government, undermining the local authority, the rights of iwi Māori, the essential environmental protections that we have put in place over many years in this country. It shifts the burden of risk and cost from private entities to the public, and it misuses our common coastal marine area. And I should also add that it’s a violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and, in our view, infringes on the rights of mana whenua and mana moana by excluding hapū and iwi from participating. It disregards the effective and current national environmental standards under which marine farms are being managed, and without a single application being declined, even when they are in inappropriate locations, even when they are the most high-impact forms of fish farming. Not a single thing gets declined. I suggest an appropriate title would be “King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill”—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: “Matua”—“Matua”!

He’s liking it—he’s liking it: “King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill”. Basically, this is an instance when central government is saying, “Here you go; you can have it.”—with no caveats, no obligations—“Here’s a free giveaway of these marine coastal consents.”, irrespective of whether you’re a good marine farmer or you’re a poor marine farmer. Irrespective of whether you are designated to be in an inappropriate location—which is a tiny percentage of the marine farms—nevertheless you will get a free permit. Irrespective of whether you’re a higher-impact activity, like fish farming, you’ll get a free permit. It’s, basically, the “King Jones Giveaway Bill”.

If that is not accepted—and I’m hoping the Minister will appreciate it—I also would like to support Tangi Utikere’s proposed titles for it: “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms”—in clause 1—“Despite Potential Degradation of the Environment)”. An obvious title, and an excellent one. I’d also like to support his other proposed amendment: “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can down the Road)”. I thought that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s suggestions were similarly excellent.

This is a dark day in the relationship between central government and local government, between the Crown and iwi, between the balance that we must strike in providing a living for members of our society and taking care to look after the environment on which all of us rely for generations to come. I’m very sorry to see the likelihood that this Government will pass this piece of legislation. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tangi Utikere’s amendments to clause 1 set out on Amendment Papers 54 and 55 are out of order as not being serious amendments.