Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I wish we could extend the analogies of Genesis but just to recall that elegant second verse of the first book of the Bible where the spirit of God moves across the deep where in life was created". I made the point in the earlier legislation that this is something where science and religion agree: even before light began the first interaction of the force of creation was with water and that waters of the deep is a commons it does not belong to anyone in a sense; though some have the right of customary claim to it based on the use over generations and generations.This is a blanket piece of legislation that gives a free pass a free licence to 1200 marine farms for 20 years no matter whether they have been there for five years or they've been there since before the Resource Management Act was created in 1991 no matter whether they are a very good operator whether they're a questionable operator whether they're a problematic operator the good the bad and the ugly get a blanket licence—a blanket licence—no matter whether they're in the right location no matter whether they're a form of marine farming that has a much higher impact than other forms of marine farming. So we know mollusc farming mussel farming for example has a lower impact than finfish farming.We had hoped that this might be a Government—this was a forlorn hope it turned out but "hope springs eternal" as the Prime Minister said—we had hoped that the Minister might be open to suggestions of improvement of this blanket licensing of everybody so we brought a number of amendments. As my colleague on this side of the House Tangi Utikere pointed out we brought an amendment to suggest that maybe it should be five years. Five years was well supported by iwi throughout the country; there was a consistent feedback on that being a good thing to do. No that was not an option. We brought 10 years as a suggestion; no that did not happen.We suggested that perhaps given that finfish farming has a particular impact on the environment a much more significant impact than other forms of marine farming and makes up a tiny fraction of the marine farms in the country—fewer than 2 percent are in fact finfish farms—that perhaps this free licence should not be given to finfish farms. We made the proposal that they be excluded from the free pass; no that was not accepted by the Government because this Government is not open at all to any changes or amendments that are sensible whatsoever to these reckless pieces of rushed legislation as this one is before us.We also made a suggestion that perhaps those farms that were designated by regional councils to be in inappropriate areas—not many of them again; there's 18 in the Marlborough Sounds out of 600 in the Marlborough Sounds; two in the Waikato—we suggested that maybe those ones that are in the wrong places should not be given a 20-year licence to continue being in the wrong place. It seems like a pretty nominal sensible suggestion. No way. There's no way this Government's making any amendments to any bad piece of legislation even when they're good amendments that most New Zealanders would think were sensible.Hon Shane Jones: Ideological—ideological.STEVE ABEL: Far from it. I wish you would not speak about yourself so much Mr Minister.The point is that this is amendment after amendment to try and make good of a bad bill that the Government said no to. I had been told actually by a former National member of this House when I was first inducted into Parliament that the job of the Opposition was to hold the Government to account and try and make legislation better if you can even if you disagree with it. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Government to actually consider reasonable amendments to a piece of legislation for that to be possible. The effect of their attitude particularly around this bill is to lock in a basic cynicism of the attitude of this Government and of politics in general. When we cannot have a reasonable process in the select committee a large number of very well-thought-out and sensible submissions and an utter unwillingness to even countenance making amendments that would improve the legislation.I want to talk a little bit more about what the Environmental Defence Society said about salmon fish farming which is that it can have serious effects on the seabed beneath and around farms because of the addition of feeds and associated nutrients which contribute disproportionately to organic enrichment and smothering. Anoxic and hypoxic benthic environments are one of the consequences.Another criticism of fin fish farming is that it can be done in a way that is cruel to the fish frankly. As dogs like to run as the Minister of racing says so fish like to swim—Hon Shane Jones: They're cold blooded!STEVE ABEL: I don't want to suggest the Minister is still speaking about themselves but I would say that fish may be cold blooded Minister but they are also sentient. They like to swim and they should not be crammed like battery chickens into cages at sea. That is one of the submissions that we heard a lot from members of the public who said we have to have an ability to recognise that fish are sentient. And actually our legislation fortunately does do that.In recent years marine heatwaves have repeatedly caused mass mortality of salmon farmed at shallow sites in the Pelorus Sound and Queen Charlotte Sound. The coastal permits authorising salmon farming at these sites are due to expire this year—those coastal permits are due to expire this year. Despite evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts and limited if any productive capacity the bill would allow farming to continue at these sites for an additional 20 years. The good the bad and the ugly—the good the bad and the ugly—gets a free licence. If this is not corporate welfarism I do not know what is—if this is not the utter overriding of any say of local people of iwi of regional councils of those who are most affected by these sorts of consents. And it takes no care for the other users of the marine environment. What about the recreational users? What about the commercial fishers in the wild fishery? What about the crayfish harvesters? What about the recreational users? What about tourism users? What about the customary rights users?Carl Bates: What about the businesses we need to pay taxes so we can do stuff?STEVE ABEL: Half of what I'm talking about are businesses—half of what I'm talking about are businesses—and this bill says that no other business interest but marine farming gets a free licence even if that business is more profitable and less impactful on the environment. This bill explicitly favours—perhaps it favours the people who bought the 24 oysters for the Minister the other night I don't know? Perhaps he paid for them himself. But the point is that this bill is not about balance. It is not about considering that there are multiple interests in the commons that is the marine environment. Is central government going to make all of the decisions on the part of local government? Is central government going to come down and just determine the consents on everything or is it just on marine farms?Hon Shane Jones: Now that's a good idea.STEVE ABEL: And where there is the need for a review—I know that's your idea Minister. It's good that you're upfront about it. But where there is a need for a review who should pay for that review? Hon Shane Jones: Mining—coal!STEVE ABEL: Under this legislation it is the—Hon Shane Jones: Coal!DEPUTY SPEAKER: Too much noise. Tone it down.STEVE ABEL: Under this legislation it is the ratepayer that will pay for any review of the marine consents. So not only are the rates going to go up because of that water bill that is going to take away the ability of local councils to pay for their water infrastructure the rates are also going to go up because if the regional council decides to review the consent the consent holder is not going to pay for it.The Minister spoke about a $100000 cost for a consent. Some of those consents last for 35 years. That's a $3000 a year cost. It's the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to pay that perhaps you're not a viable economic entity. I thought you guys believed in the market. That is the cost of doing business and I have to say the public watching this sort of outrageous legislation going through the House will be knowing that this is a Government that is anti-environment anti-localism anti-iwi and we do not commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before the next member Mark Cameron starts speaking interjections are fine but some of the noise is getting a little bit loud to my right. So if we can just keep it to interjections. Thank you"