Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): 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 on 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 sports fishing 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."