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

I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Marine Farm Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill now be read a second time.

About nine months ago, it occurred to the party that I belong to, New Zealand First, that we can create so much more wealth, jobs, export earnings, and regional resilience if we can give confidence and certainty to investors and owners of assets in the marine farming sector. Why is that important? It is important because, in the nature of our economy, $420 billion - odd worth—unlike Australia that can start turning the diggers on and expand the size of the quarry, otherwise known as their mining sector—we need every single engine of growth developing positive outcomes every single day.

We’ve inherited a situation in this industry where, despite our international reputation for high-quality food, despite the fact that we have an inordinately large ocean environment, we are only using a fraction of it. Many of the people in this industry are approaching a point where the level of red-tape burden is destroying not only their confidence but squashing initiative. So, as a consequence of the election result, the inevitable coalition discussions, we set upon, as a part of this Government, delivering that confidence and that certainty and introduced this bill. I remind the House that this bill enables every single owner of a marine-farming permit at the moment to enjoy confidence and greater certainty because their permits will be extended until 2050. Now, that may actually not seem a great achievement to people who don’t understand the challenges of running these types of industries, but it is an industry that can go well into the billions of dollars’ worth of returns. This is a small step to make.

Now, the Primary Production Committee did hear various submissions. I want to refer to some of those submissions. I also want to remind everyone that this will amend the Resource Management Act. Sadly, it will be one of many hundreds of amendments that have been afflicted upon that largely unworkable piece of legislation since 1991. But the effect of it is to give the director-general (DG) of primary produce, which is where fisheries is located, the ability to work with regional councils where there are egregious cases where farms need their conditions revisited. But they’re not going to be able to hand on the costs of that particular level of activity or those investigations to the long-suffering farmers, the council, or, indeed, the DG will have to ensure that they meet those costs themselves, and that will be an inordinately overdue discipline, because we’ve got a situation where far too often we see in regional and local government where, under the auspices of the various statutes, risks are overstated and costs are understated. This is an attempt to invert that particular equation.

Where there are cases that a farm has to go through a process of having its conditions reappraised, that can still happen, but it can only happen if the ratepayers, through their council, pay for it themselves. Boy, you will then see how actually necessary that is, and there will be a cost-benefit analysis, as opposed to some indiscriminate reaction to a lot of nimbies who don’t want this type of industry to exist in New Zealand.

In addition to that, there was a concern that somehow this would lay in concrete or calcify an industry that’s got a lot of bad habits. That reflects a very negative, jaundiced view, which we cannot afford in New Zealand. In New Zealand, we need pro-industry, pro-development, no more hand-wringing, no more locking things in a time capsule inversely related to whatever the challenges are that we’re trying to deal with in order to create more jobs, keep our people in New Zealand, and boost our export receipts. This small bill will actually unlock that confidence. Sure, there are some people who fear that this might, as I said, concrete bad habits in. Stop attacking industry. Stop depreciating entrepreneurialism. Stop diminishing this particular sector where, in parts of New Zealand, it is the only area that has great potential for growth. Why is it being supported by this side of the House? It’s because we are pro-growth politicians. We don’t catastrophise all these apparent risks, that it’s going to ruin the environment; that’s the other side of the House.

As I wind this speech up, I want to acknowledge that the select committee did its level-headed best. Sadly, it split on ideological lines. Those lines were driven by, as I said earlier today, quackery from the Greens, who don’t believe in development, who don’t believe in jobs, who don’t believe in using our natural resources. They contemplate that New Zealand is a people’s paradise. But if you live in a people’s paradise and you’re poor, you’re going to wake up tomorrow, believing you might be in paradise, but you’ll still be poor. That’s not the view of the party that I represent. But I accept that those are the ideas that were contested through some of the debates around this particular bill.

The date of 2050 is when the permits will expire. Sadly, I wanted it extended but I had to be reasonable, so I settled upon 2050. I think it’s a reasonable compromise when you balance not only the need for economic growth but, in many cases, marine farming and aquaculture. It’s infested by nimbyism. It’s a case where allocation of space has to run the gauntlet of a host of other stakeholders who may not want to ruin amenity values. Amenity values should play second fiddle to jobs, economic growth, and industry in coastal New Zealand. We don’t want a situation where, if you are blessed with owning a flash house, you decide that you don’t want to see King Salmon expand in a particular area of the Sounds; that type of power should no longer be permitted to be exercised to benefit only a tiny minority of the public.

Nowadays, those members of the public will not be able to undermine—those members of the anti-growth brigade sitting on that side of the House will not be allowed—to weaken the ability of regional communities to use resources, like open space for the purposes of mussels, oysters, salmon, kingfish, and a host of other types of marine species that entrepreneurialism and investment will unlock in the future. That’s the recipe that underlies this bill. That’s the recipe that will keep our young people in New Zealand, living in regional locations because they’ll see a future; not this climate alarmism, not all this catastrophising of “the risks are so big that we can’t have another marine farm”. What about the risks to the country’s wealth? What about the importance of trade-offs being made so that those who don’t want growth meet the costs by being confronted by their fellow New Zealanders of zero growth.

This small, modest bill reflects pragmatic thinking on my part as a representative of the party I belong to, and, as an emissary of the pro-growth Government that we have in place I commend the bill to the House. Long live the profitability and the opportunities for greater growth and regional wealth through the aquaculture sector. Thank you very much.

Before I call the next speaker, I note that the Minister moved the second reading without using the precise words shown on the bill. I’m taking it as read that the Minister’s moving the second reading of the bill as it is listed on the Order Paper. That is the only bill the Minister could be referring to. The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For a moment there, I sensed déjà vu. I think that when this bill was last in front of the House, we had the same sort of issue from what is clearly an incompetent Minister for Oceans and Fisheries who just cannot even get the basics right.

This is a shambles in terms of moving forward. On this side of the House, we know that aquaculture is important. The Minister thinks that it’s an anti-growth brigade over here—it is far from it. He talks about confidence and certainty through to 2050, but the question that the Minister has not touched on is at what cost does that come, when we consider the environment. Listening through the Primary Production Committee process, that confidence and that certainty can still be achieved, just without the extent of the changes that are listed in this particular bill.

The Minister also refers to the select committee process—and I’m going to spend a bit of time on that in a moment. It’s interesting, though, that he chose not to delve into the depth of some of those concerns that were raised. And why might that be? Well, quite simply, it’s because this is a Government that signed off on putting to this House a truncated select committee process, shutting down the opportunity for communities to have their say, because they are simply not interested in any other views that are dissimilar to their own. Well, the message from this side of the House is: that is not how things work in terms of this Parliament and democracy.

This blanket extension of 20 years that the Minister has proposed is not only excessive but unreasonable. This is an extension process for a lengthy period where there will be no room for any assessment—or, indeed, any reassessment—opportunities when it comes to existing farms, or if circumstances change, or, indeed, if mitigation might change as well. What this bill simply does is change the expiry date on existing permits. It does not have any sense of change to reconsider the nature of the changing environment in these particular localities or any further conditions of consent that might mitigate some of that change.

Now, when we talk about or reflect on the select committee process, on this side of the House, the last time this came to the House, we expressed concerns about that limited opportunity for the select committee process. I do want to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee that has worked extremely hard to progress this bill in a short period of time. But, really, they were constrained in that sense because they were given a time frame from this House, because that is what the Government wanted. There were only 13 days that submitters had an opportunity to submit. I do want to congratulate and acknowledge the fact that, despite that, there were 1,100 submissions that were received from individuals and from organisations all around the motu. That was hard work for those individuals and organisations to meet that time frame. But what’s really significant there is that because this is such an important piece of legislation, they were committed to ensuring that their views were made known.

The overwhelming majority of submissions—the overwhelming majority—actually 1,000 of the 1,100, were absolutely opposed to this bill—absolutely opposed to this bill. This shows a lack of public confidence in what this Minister and this Government is wanting to ram through this parliamentary process. The overwhelming majority do not want this bill.

When we look at the report from the select committee, there were a number of amendments that were proposed in the spirit of making this more workable, and I want to just run through some of them that were proposed—certainly by Labour members on the committee. The first was in light of the fact that we do not support this blanket 20-year ban. There were many submitters—many submitters—that thought that a five-year extension might be the way to go. Now, we were very happy to support that. That was not the view of the majority of the committee, however. But in the spirit of trying to get some compromise around this, we offered up a 10-year extension period, albeit reluctantly. Again, that did not find favour with Government members on the committee. It’s also interesting that with the reduced number and time frame, that would allow for existing use opportunities, but that would be for a shorter time frame.

The second—and I acknowledge the Greens promoting the exclusions around finned fish farms, and that was something that we were very happy to support. But I think that acknowledges significant environmental aspects of that operation—there needed to be some stuff there that could have been worked through. That, again, did not find favour with the committee.

The Minister talks about this sort of sense—well, we infer—of distaste or dislike for anyone involved in local government—anyone involved in local government. As a committee, we heard eight councils who submitted to this process, many of them from areas that have coastal permits in operation in their particular rohe. Seven of the eight were in opposition to this particular bill. Now, if we think about the seven out of the eight, across the motu, that submitted, that reflect quite a significant sort of stretch of coastline—that is significant. The key focus from many of those councils was around this need for a cost recovery mechanism for any reviews that are undertaken. Now, again, we sought to provide some compromise in that space to perhaps limit the cost recovery opportunities by identifying maybe what might be fair and reasonable in those circumstances, and even went to the extent of offering up an opportunity, by way of amendment, to, effectively, cap the cost of review at 50 percent. So 50 percent of the total cost would be the maximum figure that could be recoverable by the council. Again, that found no favour from any of the Government members that sit on that particular committee.

Let’s be very clear, Minister: Labour members on this side of the House are of the firm view that there must be a provision for councils that are involved in the issue of these permits to be able to initiate a review, and that that actually needs to be without the consent or the permission of the director-general. This is extraordinary that the director-general would somehow be involved in a resource management process at that particular level. So we do have some concern around that. It’s certainly something that we were rather concerned with.

This is a bill that is going to be detrimental moving forward. The 20-year extension is not required. There is still time, Minister—the committee of the whole House will be the next step, and it might be something that you, on a road to Damascus, perhaps see the light on. But, on this side of the House, we remain of the view that this is a bill that we will not submit. But there is still time for the Minister to consider, through the committee, some of the changes to make this not just workable but sensible. On that basis, at this stage, we will not be supporting this beyond second reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The oceans is a commons; it belongs to no one. Māori have customary rights; the rest of us benefit from the rich ecology of the ocean. It’s the major absorber of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. That ecology feeds not only multitudes of species but, of course, us. The licence to use the ocean for commercial purposes, because it is a commons, should rightly be subject to local input and mana whenua input. And because it’s an incredible ecosystem, it should be subject to the input of independent environmental experts.

When we consider use of the ocean for commercial purposes, we should think about the customary, the recreational, and the commercial use of that space by other interests in the ocean—fishers, tourism, those not wanting—

Hon Shane Jones: Mining—mining!

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, that’s right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Parliament voice, please, Mr Jones.

STEVE ABEL: It’s interesting, given that the Minister has raised mining, it is the fishing industry who are very opposed to his proposal to destroy the seabed for mining in Taranaki. That is exactly the sort of consideration that a regional council can take into account when it assesses the validity of any given application for resource consent to utilise the ocean. It can say: “What is the impact of this marine farm on the local crayfish harvesters; what is the impact of this deep-sea mining operation on the local fishing industry; what is the impact of this massive marine farm on tourism operators who might also have commercial use; and, what is more, what is the impact on the ecology? What is the impact on the customary use? What is the impact on the recreational users?” Those are all legitimate considerations when we are talking about how we as a society utilise our oceans and our commons.

This bill explicitly removes any say of locals in how their local oceans are used. It takes away the right of iwi, it takes away the right of local users, and it takes away the right of other commercial users to have a say. It takes away the right of local councils to have a say. And that is why every single regional and local council in this country opposed this legislation—every single one of them, even the Marlborough regional council, which has, incidentally, 80 percent of the commercially grown seafood in New Zealand, in Marlborough; 600 marine farms, half of all of the marine farms since the 1970s, a very significant industry. The regulatory impact statement for the bill, they quote, confirms “the status quo is working efficiently and effectively and provides for better environmental and Treaty outcomes than the other [proposed] options.” To proceed with the extension proposal would be worse than doing nothing.

So here we have a Government not listening to the locals, not listening to the experts in marine farming, in our biggest marine-farming area in the country, but what is also concerning, the Law Society—and to quote them—“Legislating for particular circumstances risks undermining democratic values and the legitimacy of Parliament, and in some cases may be seen as biasing the system towards interests that are well funded or well-connected and able to lobby for their interests.” Does it smell like vested interests lobbying to us? It smells like a bucket of fish guts left in the sun for a week. That’s how much it smells like vested interests lobbying to us—this extension of the marine farm.

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy—democracy!

STEVE ABEL: It’s the opposite of democracy. You should look up “democracy”, Mister Minister. We made some quite reasonable—some quite reasonable—propositions. I had this excellent bit of feedback from a former National Party member when I was inducted to Parliament in 2020. He said that the purpose of one on a select committee in Opposition is to try and make good legislation. Well, in our select committee, we did try and make good legislation. And I thought we had some quite useful conversations across the best select committee in this House, and those conversations struck upon a couple of very reasonable proposals that my colleague Mr Utikere has touched on. One of them was finfish farms.

Finfish farms are one of the most controversial forms of marine farming and one of the most impactful. Not all marine farms are alike. Finfish farms are banned in some jurisdictions. They have a huge impact on the ocean. They involve large fish in battery-like cages. We heard, on the impact on the fish, that they are probably risking being against our current code of welfare, in terms of animals. They are a sentient species. They also produce a lot of waste and excrement. There is also, actually, in the assessment of this legislation, the impact of antibiotics—the impact of fish food that is given to those farms. So we made a very simple proposal: not that fish farms should be banned, but that fish farms should be subject to the status quo scrutiny of local councils when assessed. They just should not be given this free consent, and they represent a tiny percentage of the total number of farms but with a potentially large impact. That was voted down by the Government members.

We also made another very reasonable and nominal proposal, which was that given that regional councils have designated certain marine farms, not just fish farms but marine farms, to be in inappropriate areas, perhaps those ones—a very small percentage, I would say; fewer than 2 percent of all the marine farms in this country are designated already by regional councils to be in inappropriate areas—we shouldn’t give the extension. They should be subject to the same assessment. No—voted down by the Government members. A very reasonable proposal.

Cost recovery: why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for the assessment of a commercial activity where that local council believes that it needs to be reviewed and assessed? Why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for that? Surely it’s appropriate that there be cost recovery against the industry who has benefited from the right to use that commons that is the oceans.

Hon Jo Luxton: The industry didn’t mind.

STEVE ABEL: The industry actually expressed that they didn’t have a problem with cost recovery. They agreed it was fair. It was voted down, unfortunately, by the Government members.

Where a review is designated to be appropriate by the regional council under this new legislation, we also suggested—it was supported by my Labour colleagues—that the director-general need not have a determining say on whether that review could proceed. If a local council decided they were going to review a given consent, surely they should be allowed to make that decision? Why does the director-general need to get in the way? That was also voted down by the Government side. And as my colleague Tangi Utikere pointed out, the five-year extension proposal was voted down. The 10-year extension proposal was voted down.

This is a sad situation where a very bad piece of legislation was attempted to be made slightly better, with some very reasonable modifications and amendments and they were voted down. Well, I will put it to the Minister, and I will put it to the Government side, that we will bring those amendments to you in the next stage, and we would like you to seriously consider them as important improvements and modifications to this law that is otherwise terribly undemocratic, anti - Te Tiriti, bad for the environment, tramples on local decision-making. It’s all the bad things that we should disdain and we should not like.

Finally, we heard that 91 percent of the submissions were against this legislation, including the Iwi Chairs Forum, including numerous iwi, including ocean users, the New Zealand Angling and Casting Association, New Zealand Sport Fishing Council, the New Zealand Underwater Association, because, of course, the ocean is used by multiple people and it is appropriate that regional councils should have a full say and local people should have a full say. This bill tramples all over that and throws it out. We absolutely do not support the bill. We call on the members opposite to see common sense and vote against it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. I want to sort of touch on a couple of notable remarks from the Opposition members—I think they’re very salient, a couple that I absolutely agree with, and that was the collegiality of the committee and how we worked, I would say, to progress the bill forward. I note some of the language in and around “constrained” was used. I have a slightly divergent view. I imagine that thus doing our work in a tight time frame could be viewed as constrained, but equally I would argue it was constructive.

We had a varying degree of views. And I do note in the submissions process, there was a heavy voice in opposition. But I also make the remarks of the 10 percent that were for it. Now, just to put some context on the 10 percent that were for this legislation—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: I thought we were all about equality.

MARK CAMERON: And I think it’s salient to the Opposition member that’s just commented there. A lot of the people that were in support of this bill were iwi Māori—they were iwi Māori in the fisheries space. Coastal commercial—

Hon Jo Luxton: Oh, not that many, Mark.

MARK CAMERON: I respect the member Jo Luxton for her remarks, but I have a slightly divergent view—iwi Māori that spoke to tino rangatiratanga, self-determination, to run their business and afford themselves economic activity in their practice. Now, withstanding, as we would all agree, some of the submissions that we heard were considered fraught. And I know the member Steve Abel was very pressing when he was concerned about the animal welfare issues. Salient remarks to make, I argue, but equally then, the submission process—we might say, we also heard remarks from those in the industry.

If we could, I’d ask the House to indulge me further and let’s delve into the sentience, the animal welfare issues, the benthic nature of sedimentation, the nutrient loading in the localised area, especially in the finfish space. I think a lot of the controversy that we heard was predicated on that concern. Industry had a different view on how they could alleviate that. They felt that innovation and investment surety that this legislation brought them allowed them scope of operations; talking to the fact that we have afforded, we might say, a greater period for them to go through that practice and that consentable regime, 20 years or out to 2050.

Now, I do note—being in the role of the committee chair, and appreciating the varying degrees of views that were heard—there were some in iwi Māori that were divergent from me and this side of the House that said it was too prescriptive. It didn’t afford them the flexibility that they needed. Waikato-Tainui noted that they were in opposition to the bill. They maintained that that was problematic. We heard language like “bespoke” and/or “compromised” by some of the councils when it was being discussed.

I think, moving forward when we reconcile those that were against and those that were for—trying to find a balanced argument. I became cognisant of the fact that many in the industry—and it was the industry I was most interested in, notwithstanding we have to, I think we would all agree, balance our language and the policies of this House to afford better environmental outcomes. I think we would all agree, we are a country constrained by red tape. We have seen the productive sector across the primary industries fraught with difficulty when it comes to physical activity, economic investment, and their economic surety and innovation. This bill certainly speaks to that.

I would maintain it is not perfect. I think we would all agree, in all legislation there is the ability to only further the conversation, add to better lawmaking, and I think that will be afforded to this House in the committee stage. But I will tie up with my reflections about what the industry was really asking for, and that was investment surety. A consentable regime that in some instances—and there were many of these farms that were actually very, very small. They were mum and dad operations, and they spoke to their inordinate sums of money, exorbitant sums of money—whatever adjectives you want to use—to invest, to innovate. They were huge sums of money to get that consentable regime over the line, and thus have a projected future forward that offered them surety. I think that was the counterfactual that I was struck by as a Government member.

I go back to my previous remarks. Many of the people that saw the benefit of this legislation were iwi Māori. Iwi Māori live in coastal communities, often found with small businesses trying very, very hard to circumvent—wrong wording you might say, but certainly cope with the huge amounts of red tape that they are affronted by that costs them in terms of their productivity and their future out the other side. This bill speaks to expediting a process to afford them better insights, better opportunities in terms of innovation. I can only support the bill at this stage moving forward. Let’s see where it lands with the committee stage, but I maintain investing in our people in regional New Zealand is only a good thing.

Without over-litigating the point, I would make my final remarks as this: we’re a country that has been built on our primary industries. The people that this industry supports are absolutely gold, and anything that we can do that makes their tomorrows a little bit easier than today is only a good thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.

Look, I rise in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill because this is a great bill, because it will drive productivity and it will help our Government achieve what we want to in the next 10 years, and that is doubling the value of our exports.

Aquaculture is going to play a very large role in this. The sector generated, in 2023, $763 million, including $575 million of export revenue; and the sector employs over 3,000 people—3,225 people to be exact. The aquaculture sector has huge potential to grow and it has potential to be a multibillion-dollar industry. As the chair of our committee who has just spoken has said, we did hear from a lot of industry players during the Primary Production Committee process. We heard from the marine farms and many of them spoke to us about the cost, the red tape, and the regulation that they were all facing as industries at the moment, which was obviously very, very restrictive for the industry. They spoke about the bureaucratic process and just the restriction in terms of being able to grow as an industry.

Officials actually spoke to us and said that it was costing about $6 million at the moment in terms of these reconsenting processes. So this is a cost that these industries could be putting back into innovation, into technology, into rebuilding—and building—their industries. The industry representative groups, as we’ve already heard, did speak about some of this innovation that they could be investing in. The Marine Farming Association spoke about the King Shag research project and the mussel bed restoration project—all examples of things that they could be refocusing a lot of that potential cost into, these projects.

Then we heard from Moana, which is the largest Māori-owned seafood company, a fully integrated oyster farming operation with 28 farms. They spoke about their concerns around the consenting process and then having to go through these processes over and over and over again with the same information, kind of the same bureaucracy, they were going through. They spoke about how this was really restrictive in terms of being able to grow as an industry. And, you know, this is a company which is providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs and opportunities in provincial New Zealand, as the member has already spoken about. These businesses talked about wanting confidence and certainty to be able to reinvest. This bill is all about creating confidence and certainty and driving productivity in this sector.

I must say, there was one couple who did come up from the Marlborough Sounds during the submission process, and they are a couple that I will remember. It was the first time that they had submitted, and they just spoke about the hard work that they had been doing over decades in this industry. They were creating hundreds of jobs down there in the Marlborough Sounds, and they just talked about the red tape gone mad, the bureaucracy gone mad, and the cost. It’s businesses like this that we want to be aspirational for. We want to be aspirational for our food producers and for our primary industries in New Zealand. That is why this is a good bill. It supports aquaculture in New Zealand, and it supports us moving forward and driving productivity. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to this bill, and it’s a shame, actually, that the Minister presenting it is not here, because I take on board the absolute importance of speaking to climate deniers in this House. We continuously hear the fermenting and the maturing of a bucket of stale fish heads coming out of this House, where we have Ministers who are threatened by the freshness of innovation and sustainable futuristic investments. That is what we continuously are put back and are relegated to hearing, and, really, the prospect here is something that has so ripened for too long, it is actually rotten. This bill is another rotten part of the crumbling empire that we’ve seen all year of bloated capitalism.

This isn’t a prospect for growth. In fact, it’s the desperation of twilight politicians whose random retorts in the House remind me of a boar that’s been captured and has just been told to get its snout out of the trough. I can’t think of a better way to prescribe exactly what it is that we continuously have to be affronted by with this particular Minister. Actually, it’s interesting: did you know that alligators have snouts too? That’s just a side issue.

There were 1,100 submissions heard and 1,000 were against this bill. We continuously hear that side of the House talk about democracy and the importance and power that, in a democratic sense, they have been awarded since the election last year, but then every day since then, they’ve ignored democracy. That is why we have select committees, that’s why we have hearings, and that is why we ask our people for their views. A thousand out of the 1,100 submissions opposed this, and if that’s not democracy, what is it?

Again, I put it to you that we are continuously exposed to the desperation of twilight politicians whose retorts sound like desperate boars, because their snouts have got no other direction but to take, take, take. From the very perspective of Māori, this bill undermines tangata whenua rights. It undermines community autonomy. It undermines environmental protections. It shifts the clean-up costs and the pollution costs of anything to the public—to the public. That’s not growth. Where’s this boar’s retorts now?

In fact, it’s an example of why this Government is amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. It is an example of why you’re going and taking us back down towards the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, because the whole plot and plight, which is so lacking in any innovation, is for this Government to use what’s left of our natural resources, all the whenua under the moana, to exploit and to contain and run with the only game in capitalism that colonisers know, which is—what? Muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru, muru—muru raupatu. Who cares how our mana whenua feel? Who cares how the thousand who actually took the time to submit feel?

Stop calling this growth. This is not growth; this is climate deniers fermenting in the maturing of a bucket of stale fish heads, and it’s rotten to the core. Ngāti Toa pointed out that, potentially, this creates new grievances under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—new grievances. Environmental experts highlighted the severe potential impact on marine biodiversity, but who cares? We’ve got a Minister whose snout is just saying, “Mine, mine, mine; milk mother Earth; take everything we’ve got.”, because by 2050, when these permits are finished, this Minister is not going to be here. We’re not going to be here. This is the legacy of bloated capitalism which doesn’t give a heck about this next generation. This is going to be the mess for our mokopuna and the future generations to clean up.

It is irreversible damage that is being proposed environmentally, but it is also irreversible damage that is being proposed politically, and we are here to be part of an Opposition that has defied a Government trying to bring out the Foreshore and Seabed Bill for us all. This Government is so intent on its one-way track and it’s so intent on its anti-Māori, anti-Tiriti, anti-environment, climate-denial fermenting greed that it cannot see any path other than taking us backwards. There is nothing innovative. It’s harmful.

Te Pāti Māori will continue to fight this Government and show our mokopuna what true, true innovation looks like, and it is nothing that is being proposed in this House. We are adamantly and vehemently opposed to this bill. Kia ora rā.

Tēnā anō tātou katoa. The Green Party opposes this legislation as we know that it’s going to provide a blanket extension, to 2050, for marine farms. Now, there’s some 1,200 marine farms across the motu and we know 60 percent-odd are oyster farms. As mokopuna of the Bay of Islands and also Whangaroa, I have grown up around oyster farms, and many whānau have benefited from having jobs. But, ultimately, there is a desecration of our marine spaces if we do not take the time to review resource consents.

The rushed process that this Government is implementing undermines the ability for community, for iwi Māori, to input into these resource consents. Because we know some of them are ancient, before I was even born—they’re from back in the 1970s and have not been tested, have not been reviewed. The environmental impact has not been assessed nor any cultural impact assessments completed, so how can we say we just let them carry on doing what they’ve been doing for so long, to 2050? It is abhorrent and it disrespects the local haukāinga and communities who continue to be impacted.

Ultimately—ultimately—we know that our iwi Māori have largely opposed this. They have affirmed that it’s a clear breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Many of us are before the Waitangi Tribunal right now, and in urgency, for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA) takutai moana; and we are, in Whangārei, in front of the High Court for our MACA takutai moana rights as well. We participate but we oppose that legislation that seeks to raupatu our takutai moana. Iwi and submissions have defended the right for kaitiakitanga. They are worried about our marine spaces and they also want to exercise their rangatiratanga according to their own tikanga, acknowledging many iwi are already in this space. They receive benefit and so do their people.

Ultimately, if we look at the way that this Government implemented this consultation—if you can call it that—one month of consultation targeted and focused; one hui on 1 March with iwi. What was it?—1,100 submissions, in the end. Iwi had one week to reply and get notice that they’re going to call the one hui for iwi to be consulted on this legislation. How disrespectful is that to iwi, as mana o te whenua, mana takutai moana. The process has been rushed. Our people have been locked out. But 1,100 people mobilised, and 1,000 objected.

The voice of council was also strong and worried. They are very cautious—and may I go to Marlborough District Council who provided their opinion saying that this proposal, in its blunt form, involves risk of “unintended consequences that will be detrimental to Marlborough’s coastal environment.” Marlborough would know. They’ve got 324 marine consents due by the end of 2024—324 marine consents, that’s huge. These guys know the business. But they started in 2019 reviewing these resource consents, because they’re a proactive council, and they’ve got 101 left for this year to review. Now, they’re saying that “Actually, the existing legislation is fine; let us do the work that we need to and these guys who have huge numbers of marine farms in their rohe are doing the work right now.” The Ministry for Primary Industries has also warned that this legislation could cause unintended consequences. You cannot rule it out.

Te Tiriti impact is real. Settlements could be prejudiced. And, as Ngātiwai Trust Board’s chair, they oppose this—based on the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There has been no meaningful engagement, only one who is not good enough. It’s a breach of good faith. This bill cannot be used to advance private marine interests at the expense of the environment and at the expense of Māori rights.

May I go to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, another iwi of mine. They are in this industry, they’re doing the mahi, but, ultimately, they are saying that this legislation is Trump-esque. This bill does not represent all the voices of the aquaculture sector. This blanket approach by this Government puts our marine environment at risk. That is the voice of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki; that is the voice of Ngātiwai. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill delivers on the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to extend the duration for marine-farming permits. I want to thank Minister Shane Jones for his foresight and courage in introducing this bill, and for clearly articulating the purpose and intent of this piece of legislation when he spoke to the Primary Production Committee. I’d like to thank all those who made submissions on this bill during the select committee process.

It’s a great bill—great for aquaculture, great for regional development and regional New Zealand, and another step on the ladder in this Government’s determination to double export receipts from our primary industries in the next 10 years. This bill removes barriers to growth and investment in the aquaculture sector, and we heard this message loud and clear from businesses and organisations during the select committee process.

We heard from Gary Hooper, the chief executive at Aquaculture New Zealand, who reminded us that the aquaculture sector earns $780 million annually in revenue, employs over 3,000 people, and has the potential to grow exponentially. The aquaculture sector is estimated to be facing $28 million in expenditure to renew the consents of 300 farms. The 20-year extension will provide the certainty and confidence needed for the industry to invest in its productivity, its places, and, ultimately, its people.

We heard from Elizabeth Redwood, a second-generation mussel farmer in the Marlborough Sounds whose passion for what she does was infectious. Elizabeth said the costs involved in “securing existing space have stifled new developments and other opportunities for growth, like investment in spat techniques and [new] technology. … This extension … [will] have huge benefits in growing not only … [their] operation but the aquaculture industry as a whole. The world is constantly looking for protein sources … [which] have a low impact on the environment and … [as mussel farmers that] is exactly what … [they] provide.”

David Hogg, also a mussel farmer in the Marlborough Sounds for over 26 years with interests in three farms, said this bill will “improve productivity and resilience”, and “in turn free up resources for ongoing investment into innovation and productivity initiatives”.

Jesse and Kirstie Calhoun of MT Farms Pahi also highlighted the fact that “Farming seafood is one of the most environmentally efficient ways of producing animal protein.” and “New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is well placed to be part of our future sustainable, lower emissions economy.” They describe the duration of marine farm consents as a handbrake on the industry.

Longer-duration consents give industry the confidence to invest long term, and that’s good for business and it’s good for New Zealand. This Government has a plan to grow the economy. We’re about promoting business. We’re about cutting unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. Just like we’ve passed legislation delivering Kiwis tax cuts for the first time in 14 years so they can keep more of what they earn—one more sleep—so too are we delivering for the aquaculture industry so businesses have the confidence, the opportunity, the certainty, and the resources to grow, to innovate, and to thrive. Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. This bill is just another example of rushed legislation by this Government riding roughshod over the democratic process, only allowing people 13 days to make submissions on this bill. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement itself talked about the fact that this had been rushed—well, “rushed” is the word I use. There had been inadequate time frames for appropriate consultation. There was some consultation, and it was a targeted consultation between 26 February and 4 March with local councils. As we have heard today, the majority of local councils oppose this piece of legislation.

The advice that the Primary Production Committee had was that given the fast pace of policy development for this bill, the environmental impacts of the bill have not been fully assessed. I think that is absolutely irresponsible of this Government to not fully assess the environmental impacts.

We heard from many Māori, as my colleague Mark Cameron alluded to before, and he said there were some that were in support of this bill. But I want to highlight a couple of submissions that we received that represent thousands of Māori across New Zealand. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I just would like to take a little quote out of a couple of these submissions. The first submission I want to read a quote from is from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and I quote, “The engagement on this proposal has fallen well short of Cabinet guidelines and our expectations as a Te Tiriti partner. Te Rūnanga is deeply disappointed in the processes of engagement with iwi in respect of these proposals.” And on behalf of Waikato-Tainui, the submission by Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Inc.: “While the Government has committed in its coalition agreement to deliver longer durations for marine farming permits, it has also committed to honour the undertakings in the Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This proposal is a clear breach of that commitment.” So, once again, we are having the voice of iwi Māori disregarded and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being completely disregarded.

We had 1,100 submitters on this bill. I give kudos to those that managed to pull the submissions together that they did, in a matter of 13 days. One thousand submitters opposed the bill—opposed the bill. What we have here is a Government that is ignoring—ignoring—the voice of the people, the overwhelming majority of people that submitted on this bill, in opposition to this bill.

We know that there are several farms that are in inappropriate areas, particularly in the area around Marlborough. One of the issues that we’ve heard quite clearly, in Opposition, from councils is the fact that if a council wishes to review consent, it is to be at their own expense, thereby at the ratepayers expense, and only if the director-general approves for them to review that consent. I do not see any need, and members on this side of the House see absolutely no need, for the director-general to be involved. I think it is irresponsible that councils should have to foot the bill should they choose to review these consents. Many consents were granted in a time—well, before some of us in this House were even born. At that time, when those consents were given, there was no consideration given to environmental impacts—

Ryan Hamilton: That’s not true.

Hon JO LUXTON: That is true. There was no consideration given to environmental impacts, and yet those consents will now have an automatic rollover of 20 years, disregarding—absolutely disregarding—any impact on the environment.

Hon Simeon Brown: More jobs.

Hon JO LUXTON: “More jobs.”, says Mr Brown. At what expense? If there is no environment, there will be no jobs, Mr Brown. But, you know, in wanting to be collegial—the select committee is a very collegial select committee—we on this side of the House came up with some propositions to the legislation as it was introduced to us. Many submitters thought that 20 years was too long and they thought that five years would be enough. As my colleague Tangi Utikere mentioned before, in the spirit of collegiality, we came up with 10 years as a medium, as a way that we thought would meet the needs of giving the sector certainty. But the Government members voted that down.

We heard quite clearly that finfishing does have quite an impact on the environment. So we thought—well, we agreed with the Green member’s proposal that perhaps the rollover shouldn’t occur for finfish farms, and so we supported that as well. Again, voted down by Government members opposite me.

This bill is a rushed bill. The overwhelming majority of submitters opposed this bill. Once again, we have a Government that is riding roughshod over the democratic process of allowing submitters voices to be heard and listened to and taken notice of. We do not support this bill.

I rise to speak in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I think it’s very clear. The objective of this bill is to extend the duration of existing marine farm—and I just will re-emphasise the “existing marine farm”—consents to give consent holders certainty and greater confidence to invest in assets and improvement.

Now, we have heard many, many things this afternoon, but, really, I think what I’m going to focus on is kind of the uncertainty that the current aquaculture industry faces. If you were building a house and only had five years to use the land, I don’t think you’d invest very much in it at all. Even if you had 10 years—

Hon David Parker: It’s not your land.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —you wouldn’t use much. No, it’s not land. Thank you very much. Space—the space you would use. If you knew you couldn’t use a space, you wouldn’t invest very heavily on it. There’s a lot of technology coming in the aquaculture space, and we’ve heard that from some of the previous members.

I mean, we have to bear in mind—and we’ve heard about the finfisheries that the other side want to get rid of. Marine farms came around in the late 1980s when the wild fish stocks were actually plummeting, and since then nearly all the increase in fish protein that we consume has come from aquaculture. If the world wants to continue to eat fish—and I think it’s probably a healthy thing to do—we need more aquaculture; we don’t need less.

If we want to think about it, actually, farm bivalves—things like oysters and mussels—are probably some of the cleanest source of animal protein we can produce, if we’re looking at greenhouse gases. Just having a little bit of a look, if we want a kilogram of beef, it’s probably going to emit about 20 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Now, that is from a New Zealand farm, and that is probably half what the world average actually is. If we look at something like a kilogram of salmon, those greenhouse gas emissions are down to about 6 kilograms, and if we look at something like mussels, it’s probably about 600 grams. That is what we’re talking about, about being environmentally friendly. That is just putting out a little bit of numbers. We can say we’re plundering our resources, but, actually, if we’re talking long term, this is actually going to be better. Once again, I will actually re-emphasise the words “existing consents”, because the way some of the other people are speaking in this House, you’d think we’re turning our whole marine area into aquaculture, which is clearly not the case.

This is a very, very important bill. We have actually crippled this industry. We’ve put one foot in a watery grave and the other foot on a banana skin. The thing is, as we said, it brings in about $763 million a year, but that is when we have handicapped this industry. This industry could really do a lot, and you know what? We need that money, because we need it to have the public services that we want in this country. We want to make sure that our kids can have the absolute best, can reach all their aspirations and their potential, and that includes having a clean environment. That’s why we need to remove the greenhouse gases.

Hon Simeon Brown: And they need jobs—our children need jobs.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Absolutely right—our children need jobs. There’s over 3,000 people employed by this industry, and there could be more if we could actually give it the chance. But we also need to think about our challenged coastal communities that need this employment. We could double our exports if we could just give it a chance, and that’s why I rise to support this bill. I think it is a great bill.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Nōku te whiwhi ki te kōrero anō i roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i tēnei pō.

[Thank you to the Speaker of the House. It is my good fortune to speak again in this House of ours this evening.]

I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.

As I return to the Whare, a children’s song came to mind:

One day, a taniwha

went swimming in the moana.

He whispered in my taringa,

“Why don’t you come with me—

—and we’ll extend permits across your kāpata kai [pantry].

Taniwha are lurking, whānau, and here’s the problem with taniwha: they’re sneaky. Sneaky. They only give you 13 days to have your say. Didn’t even let me finish—you know, get to reply with a verse and here they are.

Hon Simeon Brown: Encore!

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, you just listen up, mate. It’s coming. Here’s the thing. Only 13 days to consult, and, once again: different topic, same thing. “We’re not going to listen to you, 91 percent of the people; we are not going to listen to you.” This is the problem, Aotearoa. Ahakoa te kaupapa kōrero. [No matter the topic of discussion.] No matter what we’re talking about in this House, the message is the same: you can come, we’re going to open up for submissions; you make them; we will ignore them. One thousand people who took the time—experts in their field, Māori experts in their field who took the time—Government don’t care. Kāre rātou e paku whakarongo ki a koutou. Heoi anō. [They don’t listen to you at all. Anyway.] Don’t just listen to me; there’s other people with other amazing songs, like Rangitāne Tini Whetū. Rangitāne ki te Whenua. [A myriad of stars in the sky; so are Rangitāne on the land.]

Now, there was a comment made earlier about people resisting this bill, resisting wealth. You show me one tangata whenua; one Māori; one anybody who submitted opposing this bill who doesn’t want wealth—who doesn’t want to be wealthy—for their whānau and ngā uri whakatipu, for generations to come. I will defy you to show me one. Yet when the moana and the whenua are prioritised, our colleagues from the Greens get called wishy-washy and anti-wealth. Ridiculous argument—absolutely ridiculous argument.

Hoi anō rā. Let’s actually listen to some mana whenua—Rangitāne. Mana whenua and mana moana is the basis of Rangitāne values, tikanga, traditions—which are important aspects of Rangitāne. Rangitāne, by the way, are a post-settlement group entity in charge of the wealth; in charge of creating and growing wealth for their iwi, for their region—not just Māori; the whole region will benefit. “We do not support this Bill in its current form, for the following reasons: … the Trust records its concerns about the timeframes proposed and set for implementation of this Bill; … (b) the rolling over of extant coastal permits has impact on mana whenua ability to undertake our kaitiaki responsibilities in this space, we thus oppose options three to five in the [regulatory statement]; (c) there has been a lack of information, adequate engagement and consultation, especially in regard to environmental and cultural impacts that this proposal brings; … we are concerned with the lack of robust analysis of the Bill; … although we agree with reviews on coastal permits, we are concerned with the expectations of the councils to undertake reviews without having any recompense in any way from Government; … we are also concerned that there is a lack of balance between commercial and environmental interests and protections. Economic growth and industry or business assurance should not be at the expense of our environment”.

Now, that sentiment was echoed through many submissions. I just want to say, as my colleague the Hon Jo Luxton pointed out, this side of the House was not completely, vehemently opposed. All we ask for was more time, as are the submitters. I do not—not to serenade you; that’s for real, Mr Speaker—commend this bill to the House.

Look, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m standing to support the second reading of this bill, and I do so having not sat on the select committee, so I wasn’t part of that process. But listening to speeches in the House today, members of the public who might be watching this debate on television or listening on their wirelesses, would be thinking that, actually, this was about the difference between a Government that wants to get things done, to get things moving, to get growth in the economy, to make it easier to create jobs and business and opportunity for people in a sector like aquaculture that has become so important to not only our nation but to regions like mine in the beautiful Coromandel—then, to hear Opposition members talking about why they can’t do things. We’re a Government that can do things and wants to do things. We’re a can-do Government. We’re not a can’t Government. We’re not a Government that says, “You can’t do this, you can’t do that.” and find every reason in creation not to do things.

I invite members of the Opposition to start thinking more broadly about how to do things. How can they help contribute to the urgent need for our country to be back on track, to get back into some sense of fiscal sensibilities? I think, when I’m speaking on this piece of legislation, of the wonderful aquaculture sector in the beautiful Coromandel, the electorate that I have the privilege to represent in this House. I think of people like Gilbert James, who was one of the founding fathers of today’s modern aquaculture sector, who through his imagination, inspiration, and gritty determination was actually really the founding father of what we now know as the muscle farming sector, not just in the Coromandel but using his processes throughout the entire muscle-growing sector, whether that be in Marlborough or in any other part of the country.

It’s people like Gilbert James that are actually the inspirations for this Government wanting to get things done, because we know that people like Gilbert James have an inspiration, have an idea, and they want to see growth and development. Actually, on this side of the House, we don’t see the environment and the economy as necessarily being binary or mutually exclusive. We think that, actually, if you have a strong and growing economy, then you can better protect the natural environment by maintaining, enhancing, and protecting it. But you can only do that if you have an economy that is big and bold enough to allow you to do that, because we all know on this side of the House that it’s very difficult to be green if you’re in the red. So, we support this bill on this side of the House, and I do commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, there’s no doubt that aquaculture plays an important role in New Zealand and around the world. I agreed with the comments that Hamish Campbell made that, increasingly, the world is reliant on aquaculture for fisheries output, both shellfish and finfish, and that most of the additional production is coming from farmed fish, and that’s not a bad thing. There’s also no doubt that New Zealand can accommodate some more aquaculture in New Zealand, and that’s a good thing.

There’s also no doubt that the planning restrictions around increased aquaculture have been problematic in some parts of the country. In my own opinion, the answer to that lies in more spatial planning rather than relying on individual consents. We need to have high-level spatial plans delineating the areas which are suitable for more aquaculture and then finer-level decisions as to what might be the rules for uses of those plans. Indeed, as a country we’ve already made some progress around a minor part of that, where we have a national environmental standard that we didn’t used to have that helps in that space. But the spatial planning part of that is still not well activated in New Zealand, and it’s a sadness for me that that Spatial Planning Act that was part of the suite of reforms that we had in the last Government has been ditched. I hope that it will come back in some form, because I think that’s actually the essential point of the puzzle when it comes to more aquaculture.

That’s not actually what we’re debating today. We’re actually debating the terms of existing aquaculture, and, in that, I think some of the criticisms that we’ve heard from other speakers today are justified. How can you say that you have had thorough consultation with councils if you have consultation with them that goes from a period of 26 February to 4 March? It really is pretty inadequate, particularly when you’re taking away their ability to charge for the services that they provide to the industry. I don’t think that many people listening to this debate would think that that is reasonable—similarly, the truncated select committee process which prevented those councils and others from coming to the select committee and presenting their concerns.

Now, one of the things that I have a problem with the Government on in terms of their attitude to environmental issues is that they over-interpret private property rights. We heard from Hamish Campbell saying, “Why would people invest if they didn’t have a longer period of consent?” Well, the first point is they already have invested. We’re actually not talking about new consents; we’re talking about renewals.

Dr Hamish Campbell: New innovation in technology.

Hon DAVID PARKER: But we’re—well, that’s fair; you do need security of tenure in order to innovate, but the idea that you would confer an additional private owner-occupier of the marine space—which is not their space; they have a licence to occupy it. The idea that we would just, in a universal sense, extend that for another 20 years and take away councils’ right to charge for proper environmental oversight seems to me to be wrong, both from an environmental perspective but I also have a problem with the privatisation of the public commons. Now, there will be a debate within Māoridom as to what share of that commons should be used by them and what share should be used by other participants in aquaculture, and that’s a proper debate to have, but it ought not to get in the way of a proper recompense of the public for the use of that public space.

Now, since the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, there has been the ability to have a resource rental charge for the use of coastal space, but it’s never been done, and now what the Government is doing is, effectively, preventing that happening in respect of these areas for another 20 years. I personally think that that is wrong, that you would take a decision now that would, effectively, forestall a proper charging regime for the use of that space. Now, people would say, “Well, what, would you do if this was your private land?” If this was my private land and people were leasing it for an agriculture thing, I would charge for it, and if I’m the Government holding that resource on behalf of the public, I think they should charge for it. They should extract a fair rental. Now, that will encourage competition and innovation. We hear the other side saying that they want productivity and innovation. Well, if you want efficient use of that resource, you should have a market mechanism that allocates that space in a way that is more efficient.

In respect of the issue that was raised by Hamish Campbell—again, a fair point—in respect of greenhouse gas emissions of aquaculture compared with other forms of protein production, that’s exactly the reason why we should actually have an open debate in New Zealand about whether we should be pricing these externalities, because we want to be driving the capital into the areas that produce protein with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, not the highest greenhouse gas emissions. We have that signal—

Grant McCallum: More farming—more farming. More farming in New Zealand, then.

Hon DAVID PARKER: More farming in New Zealand? Well, that might be the eventual outcome, but in terms of the question as to whether we should have more aquaculture farming or whether we should have more dairy farming, that is a proper question for New Zealand that should involve an economic question as to the cost of greenhouse gas emissions.

At the moment, on the other side the Government has again pushed that off for ever in the pricing of greenhouse gas emissions and the 50 percent of our emissions that come from agriculture. The rest of our economy pays a price. The rest of our economy allocates capital as between a greenhouse gas - producing electricity production facility, like a coal-fired station or gas-fired station, compared with renewables. The transport sector—you know, all the other sectors of the economy face a rational price signal, and yet we haven’t got this rational price signal that would encourage more capital into agriculture rather than more into dairying, if the only difference was the greenhouse gas emissions. The paucity of economic logic carried forward by the National Party worries me at times.

I won’t recount all of the other issues that have been raised by other people before me, except to reinforce that I do think that it is unfair on ratepayers that they have to subsidise their councils in respect of this class of activity. I can’t see a rationale for treating this particular activity different from any other activity that councils have to monitor. Why should this one get a free pass at the cost of ratepayers that, effectively, passes the cost on to other ratepayers and to other productive ratepayers, other businesses in the district? That is wrong and cannot be justified, and for those reasons, the Labour Party will be opposing this bill.

I rise in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill in the second reading. As with my colleague from the Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, I also acknowledge that this is a bill that’s been in front of the Primary Production Committee, so it’s a great privilege to be able to speak on it, being from the Environment Committee. And having had experience in the last couple of bills that we’ve had through the Environment Committee that add some context to this bill, to talk about the fact that, obviously, this is an extension to existing marine farm permits or consents, and really the rationale behind that is to be rebuilding our economy as fast as we can. And to acknowledge that aquaculture is a burgeoning, if not already really strong, sector for our primary sector as well.

It is really important for us, and we heard in the Environment Committee how burdensome the reconsenting process is. These organisations, and specifically in context of this aquaculture sector, have gone through the process of consenting. They have established management practices in place, and they have to then go through that process again to continue operating in the way that they already are. We have heard from many—and not just in this sector, but in all primary production sectors, whether it’s on land—how long this process takes and how disruptive it is and how truly costly it is to the output, and in this case in export as well. So we want to do whatever it takes to make sure that this sector is able to operate well, bring money back into our economy to grow our economy back to where it was and beyond so that we aren’t continuing to burden ratepayers so much so that they have an inability to be able to fund the exciting activities that they might do in their own areas.

I just want to also make mention of the fact that this is not just occupying but maintaining and managing. We heard this at length during the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, that some of these operators do more for that space that they occupy than would be if it was left by itself, and that is a really important thing to consider. This is productivity. This is, as my colleague Hamish Campbell mentioned, about the ability for businesses and organisations to invest. You don’t invest in innovation if you don’t have certainty of tenure. These organisations have made a huge investment in what they’re already doing, and a lot of them need to invest in updating and improving their equipment, their plant, and the sites that they already have maintained and are managing.

Look, as has been made quite clear through the last many speakers today, this is about section 87(c) and consents that relate to the replacement of permits under section 165ZH of the Act. It is a very tight amendment to this bill, and it is a really important one for us to have certainty going forward in the recovery and rebuilding of our economy. This is a sector that we support as a Government. It shows a lot of promise. It does a lot for our reputation internationally. As I said, with our experience hearing in the Environment Committee in the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, they do a great deal to maintain and improve and protect the environments that they occupy as well. So with that, I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Members, it is time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.