Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): 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 take read a quote 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 1100 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 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 fin fishing 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 fin fish 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."