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

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

SPEAKER: That is published by the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

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

It’s my privilege to bring this bill to the House as a template for economic growth. The Government has identified aquaculture growth as a priority. The sector has enormous potential to contribute in the rebuilding of our economy, but current regulatory and policy settings are inversely related to the growth ambitions for the sector and the clear vision of economic rehabilitation shared on this side of the House. By extending consents by 20 years, this bill will enable the sector to realise uninterrupted, untapped growth, contributing to the export-led recovery and supporting the regions that rely on aquaculture for jobs and wellbeing, freeing them from eco-babble, green tape, and those blowfish aspirations which are hobbling industry in New Zealand.

This bill delivers on the—wait for it—New Zealand First - National Party coalition agreement, a document that is embedded in the political heritage of New Zealand already. Essentially, it will deliver longer durations for marine farming permits. It will also give an enormous amount of certainty to current enterprise owners. Without certainty, there is no confidence. Without confidence, there is no investment. In the absence of investment, we will not meet our A-game in terms of turning around the mess that we’ve inherited, in terms of our obligations to uphold and meet the aspirations of garden-variety Kiwis—who want to use the resources of our country, not be guilt-tripped into believing that such utilisation is going to worsen the planet or, indeed, drive their children to Australia. Investors need confidence. Investors know the importance of sustainability, and there’s no greater sustainability apostle than my good self on matters of marine affairs. Because we have a balance. We do not serve up eco-bile.

Of course, there are some important matters to be attended to as this discussion rolls on. Not only is aquaculture a win for all Kiwis, it has been blighted because of weird, strange, and unsustainable interpretations of the law. So we’re going to free every single Kiwi who currently holds a coastal permit for marine farming purposes. Their permits, as a consequence of this bill, will be rolled out to 2050. That’s the quality of commitment that this side of the House has through this bill. We create some of the world’s leading seafood exports to over 60 countries, indeed 80 countries—they cannot get enough of it. Sadly, we’ve inherited a complexity like beeswax. We today are cutting through that wax with this bill.

The $700 million we have visions to expand to $2 billion. That will not happen in the absence of certainty and engendering greater confidence so Kiwis and appropriate stakeholders from overseas can put their hard-earned cash into expanding this industry. Of course, the Government understands the importance of balance. There has to be due consideration for whether or not the farms that currently exist are located in the proper and correct location. Can they cope with the vagaries of weather? Can they cope with the changing circumstances both of weather, of communities?

For those reasons, regional councils will be able to address whether farms have egregious historical conditions, but they must do it at their own cost. No more sneaking around of regional council bureaucrats by circuitously imposing suffocating costs on God-fearing Kiwis trying to make a living in this important sector. They can only make that decision with the concurrence, the acquiescence, of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. That’s to ensure that regional councils are not captured, as is the case in Otago, by a small group who continue to frustrate the ambitions, democratically mandated, of our Government. We’re not having that for marine farming. We are building in, through this bill, a safety valve.

Now, innovation. Innovation has been stifled. There has been an enormous amount of sloganeering, false promises—

Scott Willis: You want to kill local democracy. So much about localism.

Hon SHANE JONES: —and more exaggeration from the unemployable corner over there. Pay more attention to the rare birds that fly from Rongotai to the Chathams than to my speech.

One particular point I want to make, as I draw this speech to an end: what is the point of not using our resources and hoping that only rhetoric tinged with climate alarmism is going to turn economic fortunes in our country around? There is no more appetite in regional New Zealand for alarmism, exaggeration. People know unless aquaculture and related industries generate an economic dividend, solvency will be threatened. For those reasons, I say even to my own people on the Māori side: stop being cultural busybodies and interfering with genuine enterprises in the coastal environment. In the event a regional council feels that a marine farming enterprise needs its conditions looked at, there will be the opportunity for them to consult the affected iwi. I expect the iwi to be in the industry, not hobbling, not impeding, and actually move from co-governance—a discredited concept—to co-investment. And this bill will actually create that opportunity.

Of course, the iwi must not look to Parliament for high-quality examples in terms of aquaculture and economic development, if they stare at the empty seats. Look at yourselves. Use laws such as this, which is going to do an extraordinary thing. This is going to save millions of dollars. No more regional council overreach, no more Department of Conservation meddling. This bill rolls over all existing resource consents held by the aquaculture sector till 2050. It frees them up to use what cash, what resources they have within their businesses to deepen their capacity to further invest and create innovation and productivity. That is real reform.

This is one of the most dramatic levels of improvement that this sector has seen for many a long time. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the Government—with appropriate modesty—to aid the sector and, on that note, commend the bill to the House. I look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Primary Production Committee—and, hopefully, escape unnecessary debate when I do move the referral motion. Thank you very much.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker Well, some may consider such rhetoric as that we’ve just heard to be that of a false prophet—we are here on the weekend. But isn’t it interesting that we are here progressing a piece of legislation during urgency for something that actually could have fallen on the Government’s legislative agenda—if they were so serious about it—at an earlier time. It is very, very interesting indeed.

The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill at the first reading this evening, and that is because this is simply a blanket approach to simply extend all marine farm coastal permits. This is lazy. This is irresponsible on the part of the Minister who has just moved this particular bill, and it is yet another example of this Government simply lifting and shifting, not wanting to actually address any issues, not wanting to take any responsibility; wanting to lift and shift and park it for someone at a future date or period in time.

Now, we agree that there needs to be some certainty for marine farm operators—that’s important—but when the Government just simply throws a complete blanket 20-year extension without any consideration around what might need to be in place for mitigation, any consideration about the element of change in the environment over that period of time is simply short-sighted.

The general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill talks about the fact that there are 1,200 existing marine farms in New Zealand that do require one or more resource consents in order to operate. Now, if you look at the 300 in that statement that have consents that might expire by the end of this calendar year and then a further 150 due by 2030, there are around 750 that continue to fall within that particular mix. This is not something that we can support under urgency because of the sweeping element of change that the Minister is wanting to be able to deliver.

We’ve heard from the Minister about the ability, or, actually, the inability—let’s be honest about this—of councils to undertake a fair and reasonable review. We’ve heard him wax lyrical this evening about the nature in which regional councils and other councils actually go about this. Now, when I have a look at the explanatory note of the bill, it talks about the way in which those review consent conditions of extended consent, which would apply en masse as a blanket opportunity there, could actually be undertaken. And the second bullet-point on that talks about the fact that it needs to be with the concurrence of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries

It might be interesting to find out, when this bill does go to select committee—and we will, Minister, be talking about the debatable motion on the shortened period. I’ll leave that until we get to that—you’re not going to get a free ride in terms of thinking that we’re just not going to put up any suggestions on this side of the House.

Hon Shane Jones: Don’t be personal—don’t be personal.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, you said it so I’m just responding to it. But what this raises, as a matter of interest, is the level of involvement that the director-general would have and the nature in which the director-general would follow instructions or directions from the Minister in relation to this regard.

I note that it does talk about an agreed scope. The question would be the agreed scope obviously between the council, but perhaps the director-general, and, I understand, the applicant, or, actually, the person who holds the extended consent as well. But the other point of interest is that this will also be something that is not cost-recoverable. Effectively, this is an expectation on councils to undertake a review without having any recompense in any shape or fashion.

This is just another cost that this Government is wanting to put on councils. We’ve already heard about the parking fine infringement tax that this House has already dealt with today in terms of that. This is another cost that the Minister and the Government are seeking to do. Now, the Minister might think “Maybe, just don’t do it.” Well, on this side of the House, we think it’s appropriate that consents that have been extended for a period of 20 years into the future should be subject to some form of review. The question about how that cost is recoverable or not is something that needs to actually take place. So we look forward to continuing this conversation, but in terms of the Labour Party, we cannot support this blanket approach to roll out an extension of permits as they relate to coastal areas, and so we will not be supporting this beyond the first reading.

Just before I call the next speaker—Mr Jones, you’ve been blessed with a very loud voice. I just hope you can be blessed with some judicious use of it as the rest of this debate goes on, with some optimism.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. You know, there’s really something very special about our shared natural common areas here in Aotearoa. They’re places that we hunt out—you know, when we’re not stuck in a building such as this. They’re places we go for some space alone, or with our friends and whānau, to actually enjoy our forests, our rivers, our beaches, our national parks, and our coastlines. Setting aside the fact that this Government is doing a really terrible job of protecting and restoring those places, we do all treasure them—across the House; we do. And we know that the safeguarding of these commons—for everyone, but especially for our kids and grandkids and for younger generations—is really foundation to our identity as Kiwis.

That’s why it’s super disappointing that this blanket extension is locking in 1,200 existing consents for another 20 years—and having that brought to this House. It’s every marine farm without exception—without community input or assessment of environmental effects, which would usually happen on a case by case basis when these consents come up for renewal or if they’re a new project. The community actually get to have their say, and that’s not what’s happening here.

I really want to make the point—as someone who does have a background in ecology and consenting and regulatory processes, through my time on a regional council and as a commissioner—that this bill is not only irresponsible and dangerous to our environment and to our communities’ wellbeing; it’s just plain lazy policy. Firstly, the official advice makes it really clear that the case for change is unclear. Official advice confirms that the existing national environmental standards for marine aquaculture have been effective in managing marine farms while ensuring that environmental effects are properly managed. No applications under these rules have been declined, and applications processed under plan rules have tended to continue to be notified, so the community can have their say, and all have been granted with no appeals. I think that’s a really important point.

Secondly, it’s not even good policy for industry. We had the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries talking about certainty, but we know the only certainty is that these activities need to adapt, they need to innovate, and they need to change, not be locked into existing footprints and practices. We have our oceans warming; we have them acidifying. As a result, the habitat tolerances for species in these aquaculture activities are changing. For example, we know that for salmon the difference of just a few degrees in the ocean can be the difference between optimal growth for industry, and disease, biosecurity risk, and death. That’s, sadly, already happening in the Marlborough Sounds in summer months—it’s not something conceptual; it’s something the industry is grappling with now. We know that a lot of these consents and activities that were acceptable in the past may no longer be appropriate today. Extending these consents without periodic review risks significant and possibly irreversible environmental harm.

Thirdly, I want to point out that the official advice, again, says really clear where the considerations and priorities of this Government lie. None of the five options considered promotes sustainable use of the environment, none uphold the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations, and all but one provides certainty for industry. Protecting the commons is about safeguarding our shared environment for everyone. To toss that in for a quick buck for industry is lazy, it’s irresponsible, and it’s the antithesis of what the Green Party stand for.

I want to just pick up, particularly, on this quote in the official material that says “the delay removes key mechanisms for Māori to protect taonga and realise their environmental aspirations. More broadly, it can be interpreted as undermining Māori expressions of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in the resource management”—and that’s exactly what we’re not about. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won’t apologise for the brevity of my remarks, but I just want to highlight a couple of key points of the left—our colleagues on the right of us, but on the left of us, you might say—constantly lamenting about the wellbeing of the working class. This is an industry worth $700 million—goodness gracious me! How would we not want to support them?

The members of that side of the House—I point out frequently—have something that I would call a grievance culture that somehow a success in an industry is a bad thing. This is nonsense—$700 million that we would not want to consent with some certainty, some productivity and investment, and, by virtue, I say to that side of the House, of outcomes—outcomes for the working class that you always extol that you care about. This is a great bill. I absolutely support it, and we, the ACT Party, support the National-ACT coalition Government putting it through. I commend it to the House.

It’s a sensible bill and I commend it to the House.

Great—probably one of the most thoughtful speeches we’ve heard from the National Party in recent times!

Over on this side of the House, we’ve got no problem with aquaculture. We know it’s a great way to grow food. It’s great for our exporters. But that’s not what the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill is about. This bill is about giving it carte blanche.

We’ve got about 1,200 marine farms in New Zealand, and this gives them a global extension. What that means is that you are assuming there are no farms which are having a material adverse impact on our environment. And we know that can’t be true. You’re telling me that there’s not one of those 1,200 farms which aren’t having a really difficult and detrimental impact on our marine environment? We know our coastal marine environment is under threat, but that Government over there doesn’t care.

We heard Mark Cameron talk about the money that’s involved, and that’s great, but you need to strike a balance. You need to strike a balance, because you need a sustainable environment, because if you plunder your environment for everything you can right now, it won’t last for ever. It might not last for us; it certainly won’t last for our kids and our grandkids. So this is classic lazy legislation, the legislation of a lazy Minister who really doesn’t care about the things that really matter. The economy is great, but it can’t exist outside of the environment. It’s a subset of the environment.

Where these marine farms are is of critical importance. What impact they have and whether they’re well managed is of critical importance. And we want people to look at that, look at the impact it has on the environment and the communities, all of the communities—

Jamie Arbuckle: It’s already been done.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You say it’s already been done, but you know what? Things change. Life changes. The use of the local environment changes. The health of the fish stocks change. You’re frozen in time. In fact, you’re worse. The New Zealand First party are dinosaurs. They think we’re still under the Town and Country Planning Act. The fact is that this is typical of the New Zealand First approach to oceans and fisheries. The first thing they did was to get rid of the Kermadec sanctuary. What have they got to say about our most precious sea lions? Don’t worry about them. What are they doing with cameras on boats? Getting rid of them, reviewing them—not that important.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I’ve taken on board your advice that my voice is moderated. Nowhere in this bill is there anything to do with sea lions or other strange mammals. If it’s cool for you to give me that admonition, please spread it around.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Speaking to the point of order—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I’ll deal with Mr Jones. For a man who provided ample context during his own presentation, I think it’s a little ripe for you to be upset by what is a relatively narrow broadening of the scope of the bill by the current speaker. Was there any time taken off during that?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, the clock was stopped. Thank you. That was a great intervention by that strange mammal over there.

And there we have it—there we have it. I mean, the fact of the matter is that we have a war on the environment coming from that coalition, from the New Zealand First Party in particular, who is basically an extractive party, extracting what they can get from the National Party, extracting what they can get from the environment. It’s shameful that here they are. We absolutely think we should be encouraging aquaculture, which is sustainable and high value, but it does nothing for our international reputation or our exports if we are lowering the environmental standards of the products we produce.

Climate change is down in Canterbury even, where they have salmon farms. They are struggling because of climate change. And yet this does nothing to address the fact that water temperatures are changing and we need to readdress what the best locations and placing of those salmon farms and other aquaculture is. That is exactly the process that should be undertaken. I know that Mr Jones is at war with the World Wildlife Fund as well and that they’ve suggested—

Hon Shane Jones: Goldfinger!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —said that they should give him perhaps a frozen finger because he’s frozen in the past. I think that’s quite apposite. So here you go, Mr Jones, like your heart, come and get yourself a finger.

Mr Speaker, the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill is a superb piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Hon Members: Wrong one!

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Welcome back, members. We are debating the first reading of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. We’re up to call number eight. I call Rachel Brooking.

Thank you—thank you, Madam Chair, for that and to take this opportunity to speak on, as you said, the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. Not a “bill about trees”, which is what the previous speaker before me at dinner time, Tom Rutherford, referred to. And that may be fair, because in his mind, both these bills might be related to Shane Jones and Shane Jones loves talking to business and doing whatever it is that they ask him to. So perhaps that is why.

So we had an interesting speech, Madam Speaker—you may have missed it—from the Minister in his first reading where he talked about “eco-bile”, among other things. But I want to go to the main point, which is, of course, that this is terrible legislation, and I say that as an ex - Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and an associate environment Minister. Because, of course, there was a lot of movement in the aquaculture with the Natural and Built Environment Act—and that was repealed in December. There was a body of work that could have been worked on with this bill but, alas, it has not. Instead, we have just a hammer to deal with this issue. The Minister said that he was cutting through wax—cutting through wax with a sledgehammer.

There was also talk about how it might be balanced; there is no balance to using a sledgehammer. There’s nothing here that does anything for sustainable management, which, of course, is the purpose of the Resource Management Act, and this bill is amending the Resource Management Act. Nothing—no interest by the Minister in anything to do with looking after our environment, which is, of course, consistent with his other legislation, the Fast-track Approvals Bill, that wants the facilitation of development to trump all other environmental rules.

Hon Shane Jones: Growth—growth.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And he’s saying now “growth, growth” and that’s right—growth at what cost? Growth at the cost of not considering the environmental effects of environmental issues such as: we can see with marine farms if you have a whole lot of shellfish—and most marine farms are mussels. There’s also, of course, the fin-fish farms that we’ve heard about tonight as well. We know that they can cause environmental effects. If you have too many in one area and you don’t rotate them enough, you can add to a lot of nutrification in that environment that can lead to environmental effects.

Hon Shane Jones: Details—details.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And the Minister says it’s “details, details”. They are details and they are important details—in my submission and opinion. They are important details in that they are ones that can be assessed if required. Now, I know the Minister will likely say, “Well, despite this blanket 25-year extension, councils are still able to review those consent conditions if they think that some of these details need to be addressed”. But he’s also been very clear that that regional council cannot require any payment for that review of those consent conditions. He’s called these “suffocating costs” by regional councils. Regional councils, when they’re looking at the effects of a farm—a muscle farm or a fin-fish farm—they are looking at those effects because this is a common resource that we are talking about. We are not talking about things that are happening on the land here. We are talking about things that are happening in our common resource—

Hon Shane Jones: Far too academic.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —of the sea. Apparently, it’s “academic” to discuss the difference between land and ocean, which is curious, particularly coming from that Minister, who has sublime academic credentials. If only he cared as much about the environment as he did language.

Now, this is a private benefit that these people are getting from a common good. That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen.

Jamie Arbuckle: It benefits everyone.

Hon Shane Jones: Jobs.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We’re hearing that it’s benefiting everyone, that it’s jobs. Well, in that case, if it’s economic and its jobs then there is no harm in proving to those markets that we are trying to get a premium for our very fine products that I’m sure many people in this House will agree, and enjoy from time to time—we need there to be good environmental regulations so that when we are saying that that is a premium product, we can explain that in fact, yes, the environmental effects are considered. This bill does not do that.

I support this bill because it helps drive productivity and increase the value of our exports and strengthen our economy. So I commend this bill to the House.

At what cost? At what cost in terms of creating progress? Because we can. We can improve our productivity. We can improve the way we do business. But at what cost?

I’ve read reports. I am no academic, but I can read, mostly, and there have been reports talking about this piece of legislation in terms of the risk it poses to our international reputation—

Hon Shane Jones: Trifling, trifling.

GLEN BENNETT: The risk it poses to our international reputation—I think that’s really important to consider. As New Zealand First has a go at this and as they kind of cackle across the House, I need to remind them that the Marlborough District Council are actually opposed to this, right? That’s correct.

Hon Shane Jones: They created the Takutai Moana problem in the first place.

GLEN BENNETT: They are opposed to this, and community groups out in Marlborough are very much opposed to this, in terms of their mussel farm there in the Marlborough Sounds. So I find it really interesting that New Zealand First is supporting this when one of their members is a current former councillor on the Marlborough District Council, who is against this piece of legislation. I think it’s really interesting that obviously this, yet again, is running roughshod over our environment, over nature, for the sake of—and I will quote many things that have been said this afternoon about this—economics. “It’s all about economics.”—and we support economics, absolutely, but we support economics when it is done right for people and for the planet. We’ve heard that we’re all about stopping investment—

Hon Member: Red tape!

GLEN BENNETT: —and we are not about stopping investment. We are about encouraging investment in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. We’re about ensuring that investment goes to the right places and the right people to ensure a sustainable future, to ensure that our environment and also our people are cared for.

The other one we’ve had called across the House several times this afternoon is that this is anti-progress—we’re anti progress. Well, we are not anti-progress. We have been focused on progress to make sure that we are doing what is right by the people and by the planet here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This legislation is something that puts our international reputation on the line. The Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill is something that is highly controversial when you look around the world and jurisdictions who watch us, who keep an eye on what we do, and who want to make sure that we are 100 percent pure New Zealand, which, unfortunately, that reputation is—well, I wouldn’t say we’re even 99 percent. We’re probably down to 80, 70, 60 percent. But we need to ensure that we up that game. There was a report recently that talked about this legislation—

Hon Shane Jones: More bureaucracy.

GLEN BENNETT: It was not from bureaucracy; it was actually from stakeholders. It was from stakeholders, and this is what they said—and I quote—“And so we say that this is bad for the environment.” It’s actually bad for our trading reputation as well, because we have free-trade agreements by which we agreed to go backwards on environmental standards.

We are about progress and we are about the economy. We are also about making sure we get our settings right so our fair-trade agreements are correct and are in order to ensure that, when we sell our salmon or our kaimoana to the world, we get the best price we could ever get because we do it right and people pay a premium for our products. I don’t really think the heckling can come from the other side when they were part of a council that opposes this legislation.

In closing, I want to say that my final quote from across the House was “Stop being cultural busybodies.”—stop being cultural busybodies. Now, if you think that this side of the House are playing cultural busybodies and Māori being engaged, local iwi, hapū, mana whenua being engaged in the process—if you think that’s cultural busybodying, there’s something fundamentally wrong with this Government, because I know, on this side of the House, we work hard to engage and support what it means to be Treaty partners. We’re doing what we can, and if they are being cultural busybodies, I think there’s something quite seriously wrong.

This is bad legislation. It’s bad for the economy, it’s bad for the environment, and it’s bad for people. This is just plain bad legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the member for Kaikōura, which includes the aquaculture centre of New Zealand and the Marlborough Sounds, this will be very welcome. It is a practical solution to an issue that needs to be addressed. It will be very welcome and it will be great for New Zealand. I proudly commend it to the House.

The question is that Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Camilla Belich: Madam Speaker, can we speak to this part?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.