Coalition Government’s other fast track bill supported by some iwi Māori
Monday, 24 June 2024
A coalition Government bill to automatically extend all marine fish and mussel farm consents by 20 years is supported by fish farm-owning iwi Māori even though other iwi and environmental activists oppose it.
The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Forest & Bird oppose the bill, which was tabled in response to a “bottleneck” of over 500 fish, mussel and oyster farm consents coming to an end this year.
The coalition Government sees the bill as a way of bringing certainty to the industry, and sparing the aquaculture industry the $20,000 to $100,00 cost for farm owners to extend their consents.
But those opposed to the bill see it alongside the controversial Fast-Track Approvals Bill as an example of the Government undermining existing environmental defences, and promoting profit over the environment, the primary production select committee heard on Monday.
But the committee also heard that iwi Māori were split on the bill, with some seeing it as “riding roughshod” over the Treaty of Waitangi, while others which owned marine farms supported it.
When challenged by Labour MP Jo Luxton that the bill might infringe Treaty of Waitangi obligations, Harry Mikaere, a trustee of the The Hauraki Māori Trust Board and veteran of the aquaculture industry, said: “If anything is likely to be out of kilter with it, I would know about it.”
“Our relationship with Tangaroa needs to be exceptional in capturing this sea food we need to keep our country going forwards in the current world economy,” he said.
David Mair, chief executive of Sanford, which is 19.87% owned by Ngāi Tahu Holdings, supported the bill, saying it would bring certainty to marine farm operators, enabling them to make long-term investment decisions.
The select committee heard from Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones that the marine farming industry could grow into a $3 billion expert industry from less than a billion dollars today.
Tom Hollings, from the Coromandel Marine Farming Association, said many Māori supported the bill, and did not see it as being contrary to Treaty obligations.
“A key part of the treaty is property rights, and this is upholding property rights,” he said.
He said he spoke often with iwi Māori that operated marine farms, and said: “I give them more regard than those who do not.”
Green Party MP Steve Abel was concerned the bill would extend consents indiscriminately both for good operators and bad.
Sally Gepp, counsel for Forest & Bird, said some existing farms which would have their consents extended were having significant detrimental effects on marine ecosystems.
Some submitters said if there was consenting bottleneck threatening the marine farming industry then consents should be extended by just two, or five years, to get past that bottleneck, not extending consents by 20 years.
Ross and Kelly Dockery from the family-owned Aotea Marine Farms at Kawhia said extending consents gets harder every time, and can be very costly when there is opposition.
They said the importance of marine farms to some small communities was very important. Aotea Marine Farms employs five people from their small town of 350 people.
Resource planning lawyer Douglas Allan said the bill was elevating marine farms over every other business type when it came to resource consenting, including people wanting to add an extension to their homes.
Re-consenting cost between $20,000 to $100,000, according to the explanatory note to the bill.
Allan said that resulted in a relatively small per annum cost for businesses that did not have to pay rent for using public commons.
“This is an area where we are dealing with genuine environmental concerns,” Allan said.
“National needs to be very careful its environmental policies are not being run by ACT and by Shane Jones,” Allan said.
“Your reputation in this area is struggling,” he said.
The Government was heading in the opposite direction to Europe on resource consenting,“ said Ireland-based resource consenting expert Virginia Loughnan from Loughnan Consulting.
“We are concerned this Government considers consenting processes are a waste of time and money,” she said.
Nick Eade from the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board told the committee that blanket consenting was a retreat from science-based decision-making, and there was no evidence the current resource consent processes were failing.