Jones Shane; McAnulty Kieran; Pugh MaureenInstruction to the Primary Production Committee Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): For purposes of completeness and thoroughness the referral motion I shall now read. 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 Produce 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.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Despite the Minister's desire to do it completely he's actually read it incorrectly. He's moved for a second time this evening that it be read for a first time. The instruction to the committee is part of that motion but by commencing it with I move that this be read a first time" he's actually moved that incorrectly and so I'm not sure the motion actually stands.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I thank you for that clarity. I think the Minister has read the first statement rather than the second.Hon Member: Details matter.Hon SHANE JONES: It would appear. I move That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment 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. Let me elaborate that Madam Speaker. A challenge was put forward by one of the honourable members from the Labour Party as to why this is necessary. A challenge was stated that there was not enough explicitness in my speech. I want to draw everyone's attention to the dire uncertainty that faces this industry the large number of applicants that are waiting in line and are anticipating a positive result when and after the select committee undertakes its constitutional duties. Obviously it'll be up to the select committee to hear the submissions and come back. The key point is that if we are able to proceed with haste and enable those consent holders who currently enjoy existing legitimate permits for the purpose of occupying the coastal environment—which has rightly been pointed out are not tradable property rights; they do represent however an exclusive entitlement under the law to occupy a portion of the coastal environment. They—not all; a host of them are due to run out and expire at the end of 2024.The challenge for the Government indeed the industry—why I'd go broader given the rather withering assessment from Treasury about the problems that we're going to face with the growth of our GDP—is moving this bill frees them up from the obligations largely unnecessary in my view of lodging replacement consents. The farms aren't going anywhere and enabling them to dedicate time energy and investment resource into gaining greater productivity greater positive economic outcomes from existing enterprises and ensuring that those costs that they face through protracted consent processes—largely superfluous; a hangover from poorly drafted law from times gone by—that is why I and our side of the House see it as a positive development.The other final thing I'd say given that I was challenged is that a compressed period of time enables the bill to be passed by the end of July. And it is a balance between certainty for the consent holders and an opportunity which I've already covered off on my speech which is available in the bill in terms of other stakeholders. Therein lies the explanation behind the referral motion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to."