Pham LanLAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Now this Government are making some truly terrible decisions and I must say this bill is actually up there with some of the worst of them. This bill and its blanket exemption approach of locking in existing marine permits till 2050 is plain wrong and the people have voiced it. They didn't actually have long to voice it but they made the effort and voiced it. Now 90 percent of the 1100 submitters actually opposed this bill and why did they oppose it? They opposed it because it's plain wrong. All councils—sorry all councils bar one—opposed it and they opposed it because it's plain wrong. It is wrong to lock out communities and iwi and hapū from having a say on activities that take place in our precious coastal areas for decades. That is wrong.It is wrong to give industry a completely free pass in disregarding and denying the actually very real environmental impacts that exist with some of these activities—not in every operation but absolutely in some of them and especially for those operations that have been in place since before the Resource Management Act was even enacted which have never had any form of environmental scrutiny on their operations.It is wrong to progress a bill where official advice made it clear that it does nothing for sustainable management of our environment that it does nothing to uphold the Crown's obligations under Te Tiriti and the best it does is provide what we've heard of as so-called certainty for industry.The truly perplexing part of this is that at no point in this whole process has it become clear what exactly the policy problem is. Even the official advice itself says the case for change is unclear and it outlines how the existing national environmental standards actually have been effective in managing marine farms while ensuring that environmental effects are properly managed.I think the really key thing to note with this is that no applications under these rules have been declined. The applications that have been processed under them continued to be notified communities could have their voice and all were granted with no appeals within existing time frames. I think that is really important for the House to note that this is purely a bill that's put in place because industry wanted it.Now we've heard even tonight about the so-called crippling costs that industry would face if they had to go through these consenting processes. The regulatory impact statement quite erroneously claims this $100000 cost of re-consenting and we heard it from the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries tonight but Auckland Council made it really clear in their submission the actual costs that these applicants face. They quoted that replacement resource consents for 100 percent of the applications—that again they have been granting under the national environmental standards—were processed at an average cost of $3844.The other aspect that I'm hugely disappointed about with this bill is it undermines the local voices and existing local planning processes. It is so wrong for the environment and it shows a total ignorance or wilful negligence in understating the impacts of aquaculture on marine species. Now again the official advice made this all really clear that the types of aquaculture can differ in terms of the actual environmental effects but it's been well documented that mammals like New Zealand fur seals Hector's dolphins bottlenose dolphins and dusky dolphins have been reported entangled in marine permit gear in the Marlborough Sounds just as one example.This bill is wrong and the Greens will continue to oppose it.