Tana, Darleen - New Zealand Parliament
DARLEEN TANA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have several concerns, questions, and, depending on how the debate fares, I also have some proposed amendments tabled. Because I can understand the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries' appetite for growth, I'd like to ask the Minister for his reflections, please, on how this bill will serve or relates to our seafood sector requirements to meet our international trade obligations. I am thinking of free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU and their chapters on trade and environment, when they talk about kaitiakitanga and mauri.
In a similar vein, we are aware that our international trading partners have increasingly rigorous expectations around the credible, sustainable food production—be that terrestrial or marine. So I'd like to understand how the Minister regards the passing of this bill, as currently proposed, will support our marine farm consent holders in modernising, perhaps, to actually keep abreast of these increasing standards over the next 20-some years. Because 20-some years is a long time, as the Minister has said, and I just do wonder at the wisdom of issuing consents for such a period with such massive changes happening climatically—rising sea water temperatures is one example.
I ask these questions because I wonder whether, firstly, a blanket extension is appropriate for all 1,200 marine farms, or whether some form of nuancing might be appropriate, in case, for example, where we do have existing marine farms that do fall short of our regulations of national environmental standards maybe based on their location. Secondly, I wonder whether the review provisions are strong enough, or whether it might be appropriate if only to signal some kind of a direction of modernisation intent.
My other area of concern relates to the appropriate locus of decision-making power. I would like to acknowledge the submissions of the learned officials, among them tangata whenua, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Environmental Defence Society, and, notably, the regional councils' consenting authorities themselves for highlighting the very practical realities that the appropriate locus of decision-making power, and in terms of this bill, Subpart 1B should be local or regional.
The whakapapa in each rohe moana, rohe whenua is unique and, yes, fish are whanaunga too. The mauri, even if we were to define it crudely as the state of biodiversity of each of those rohe moana, rohe whenua, are also specific to place. The kaitiaki ahi kā, those with mana i te whenua, mana i te moana, have obligations to tiaki—to care for—the whakapapa of those places.
My third question to the Minister is, therefore: why are we introducing a central government actor, why is that needed—in this case, the Director-General for the Ministry for Primary Industries—when regional councils have been doing this work since the beginning of the Resource Management Act and are best placed to assess the adequacy of existing consent conditions and make recommendations according to best practice, if not to the national environmental standards for marine aquaculture?
I do have other concerns relating to appropriateness of cost recovery provisions. But I think our colleagues on this side of the Chamber have covered those, so I won't venture into that territory. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
