Jones ShaneRESOURCE MANAGEMENT (EXTENDED DURATION OF COASTAL PERMITS FOR MARINE FARMS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon SHANE JONES: I move that the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Marine Farm Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill now be read a second time.About nine months ago it occurred to the party that I belong to New Zealand First that we can create so much more wealth jobs export earnings and regional resilience if we can give confidence and certainty to investors and owners of assets in the marine farming sector. Why is that important? It's because in the nature of our economy $420-odd billion worth—unlike Australia that can start turning the diggers on and expand the size of the quarry otherwise known as their mining sector—we need every single engine of growth developing positive outcomes every single day. We've inherited a situation in this industry where despite our international reputation for high-quality food despite the fact that we have an inordinately large ocean environment we are only using a fraction of it. Many of the people in this industry are approaching a point where the level of red-tape burden is destroying not only their confidence but squashing initiative. So as a consequence of the election result the inevitable coalition discussions we set upon as a part of this Government delivering that confidence and that certainty and introduced this bill.I remind the House that this bill enables every single owner of a marine-farming permit at the moment to enjoy confidence and greater certainty because their permits will be extended until 2050. Now that may actually not seem a great achievement to people who don't understand the challenges of running these types of industries but it is an industry that can go well into the billions of dollars' worth of returns. This is a small step to make.Now the Primary Production Committee did hear various submissions. I want to refer to some of those submissions.I also want to remind everyone that this will amend the Resource Management Act. Sadly it will be one of many hundreds of amendments that have been afflicted upon that largely unworkable piece of legislation since 1991. But the effect of it is to give the Director-General (DG) of Primary Produce which is where fisheries is located the ability to work with regional councils where there are egregious cases where farms need their conditions revisited. But they're not going to be able to hand on the costs of that particular level of activity or those investigations on to the long-suffering farmers the council or indeed the DG will have to ensure that they meet those costs themselves and that will be an inordinately overdue discipline because we've got a situation where far too often we see in regional local government under the auspices of the various statutes where risks are overstated and costs are understated. This is an attempt to invert that particular equation. So where there are cases that a farm has to go through a process of having its conditions reappraised that can still happen but it can only happen if the ratepayers through their council pay for it themselves. Boy you will then see how actually necessary that is and there will be a cost-benefit analysis as opposed to some indiscriminate reaction to a lot of nimbies who don't want this type of industry to exist in New Zealand.In addition to that there was a concern that somehow this would lay in concrete or calcify an industry that's got a lot of bad habits. That reflects a very negative jaundiced view which we cannot afford in New Zealand. In New Zealand we need pro-industry pro-development no more hand ringing no more locking things in a time capsule inversely related to whatever the challenges are that we're trying to deal with in order to create more jobs keep our people in New Zealand and boost our export receipts. This small bill will actually unlock that confidence. Sure there are some people who fear that this might as I said concrete bad habits in. Stop attacking industry. Stop depreciating entrepreneurialism. Stop diminishing this particular sector where in parts of New Zealand it is the only area that has great potential for growth.Why is it being supported by this side of the House? It's because we are pro-growth politicians. We don't catastrophise all these apparent risks that it's going to ruin the environment; that's the other side of the House.As I wind this speech up I want to acknowledge that the select committee did its level-headed best. Sadly it split on ideological lines. Those lines were driven by as I said earlier today quackery from the Greens who don't believe in development who don't believe in jobs who don't believe in using our natural resources. They contemplate that New Zealand is a people's paradise. But if you live in a people's paradise and you're poor you're going to wake up tomorrow believing you might be in paradise but you'll still be poor. That's not the view of the party that I represent. But I accept that those are the ideas that were contested through some of the debates around this particular bill.The date of 2050 is when the permits will expire. Sadly I wanted it extended but I had to be reasonable so I settled upon 2050. I think it's a reasonable compromise when you balance not only the need for economic growth but in many cases marine farming and aquaculture. It's infested by nimbyism. It's a case where allocation of space has to run the gauntlet of a host of other stakeholders who may not want to ruin amenity values. Amenity values should play second fiddle to jobs economic growth and industry in coastal New Zealand. We don't want a situation where if you are blessed with owning a flash house that you decide that you don't want to see King Salmon expand in a particular area of the Sounds; that type of power should no longer be permitted to be exercised to benefit only a tiny minority of the public. Nowadays those members of the public will not be able to undermine—those members of the anti-growth brigade sitting on that side of the House will not be allowed to weaken the ability of regional communities to use resources like open space for the purposes of mussels oysters salmon king fish and a host of other types of marine species that entrepreneurialism and investment will unlock in the future. That's the recipe that underlies this bill. That's the recipe that will keep our young people in New Zealand living in regional locations because they'll see a future; not this climate alarmism not all this catastrophisation of the risks are so big that we can't have another marine farm". What about the risks to the country's wealth? What about the importance of trade-offs being made so that those who don't want growth meet the costs by being confronted by their fellow New Zealanders of zero growth.So this small modest bill reflects pragmatic thinking on my part as a representative of the party I belong to and as an emissary of the pro-growth Government that we have in place—commends the bill to the House. Long live the profitability and the opportunities for greater growth and regional wealth through the aquaculture sector. Thank you very much.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Before I call the next speaker I note that the Minister moved the second reading without using the precise words shown on the bill. I'm taking it as read that the Minister's moving the second reading of the bill as it is listed on the Order Paper. That is the only bill the Minister could be referring to. The question now is that the motion be agreed to."