Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): 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 submission 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.So 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 fin fish 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 mine and on 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.So 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. So 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. And 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."