The Primary Production Committee has examined the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.

New Zealand has about 1,200 marine farms. To operate, each needs at least one resource consent (referred to as a coastal permit) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). As of May 2024, around 200 marine farms have consents that are due to expire by the end of 2024. These are primarily in Marlborough, Southland, Northland, and Waikato. A further 150 consents are due to expire by 2030.

The bill would amend the RMA to extend the duration of all resource consents (coastal permits) required to operate existing marine farms by 20 years but not beyond 2050.

The extension, through new subpart 1A of Part 7A of the RMA, would:

• cover all the RMA consents needed for a marine farm to operate (such as a coastal permit to occupy or a coastal permit to discharge)

• apply to all marine farms that hold a current resource consent at the time the bill commences

• not extend the duration of any marine farm past 31 December 2050 (but any expiry dates currently beyond 2050 would not be changed)

• be granted automatically, without requiring an application from the consent holder.

The bill would also insert new subpart 1B into Part 7A of the RMA to provide a bespoke mechanism for consent authorities (councils) to review the conditions of consents extended under this legislation. Under the bill as introduced, the one-off reviews would:

• be optional for councils and must be initiated within two years of the extension

• not be cost-recoverable for the councils

• not amend the duration, species, or consented area covered by the consent

• only proceed with the agreement of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries

• need to be completed within two years of initiation

• allow for notification to the permit holder and specified groups or persons if the extended coastal permit applies in their rohe, with opportunity for them to make a submission

• limit appeal rights to the permit holder and any party who was notified of the review and made a submission.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss all minor or technical amendments.

The Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill has been subject to a truncated select committee process, allowing only 13 days for submissions to be made. Labour members of the committee consider this to have been wholly insufficient for the purposes of allowing submitters adequate time to make considered submissions on the bill. Despite this shortened timeframe, those 1,100 individuals and organisations who have submitted are to be commended on doing so under such constraints. We acknowledge that more time to prepare submissions would have been a fairer approach for the Government to take when considering the select committee instructions regarding this, following the bill’s first reading.

Of those submissions that have been received, the overwhelming majority (approximately 1,000 of the 1,100 submissions) do not support the passing of this bill. Such numbers, despite the truncated reporting timeframe, provide weight to the argument that there is a lack of public confidence in this bill progressing beyond first reading.

Labour does not support the blanket proposal to extend the lifespan of current coastal marine permits. The suggestion of a lesser timeframe of five years was offered up by many submitters. This would be one way of providing some redundancy to current permit holders and was something, in the absence of support for no further period of extension, we were prepared to support. As a further compromise, albeit reluctantly, we offered up a suggested 10-year extension period to mitigate against a blanket 20-year period. Such a period would have allowed for existing use, but for a shorter period than that originally provided for in the bill.

We were comfortable to support an amendment that would specify that any extensions would not apply to fin fish farms. This was because the proportion of total consents that would relate to this type of farming activity would likely be limited in number, but this exclusion would also seek to acknowledge that there are often significant environmental mitigations that would need to be worked through.

Seven of the eight councils that submitted opposed the bill. Specifically, we heard from local government sector submitters that cost recovery for any reviews of consents would be an important issue that councils would have to grapple with. As the bill is currently drafted, it would serve as a disincentive for councils to consider seeking to engage with the process to seek a review. We are of the view that there must be a provision in the bill that provides for the cost recovery by consenting authorities who undertake a review of a consent.

Whilst we prefer a full cost recovery in this context, we were open to the possibility of providing for no more than 50 percent of costs as a ceiling for recovery from an applicant. In addition, this could have been further tempered by considering an additional rider; the requirement for consenting authorities to consider what costs would be fair and reasonable in determining the final quantum of costs for which recovery would be sought.

On the matter of an application to undertake a consent review, we do not believe that the Director-General should be involved in the decision to commence a review. We do not consider it appropriate for the Director-General to be involved in the resource management approvals process in this way and sought for the provision to be deleted.

It is disappointing that these amendments were not taken up by the committee, as they would have gone some way towards acknowledging the concerns that had been raised by submitters who engaged with the select committee process. As a result, Labour members remain opposed to this bill and are of the view that it should not be passed.

The Green Party strongly opposes the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill.

The bill represents a significant overreach, undermining local autonomy, the rights of iwi Māori, and essential environmental protections. It shifts the burden of risk and costs from private entities to the public, misusing our common coastal marine area.

The bill is a result of a flawed and rushed consultation process, with only 13 days allowed for public feedback. Further, despite overwhelming opposition in public submissions (90 percent against the bill), the select committee has moved forward with minimal changes. This dismissal of public and expert concerns is unacceptable, especially when it serves to prioritise private profit over basic environmental standards and local governance.

The bill is a violation of Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It infringes upon the rights of mana whenua and mana moana by excluding hapū and iwi from participating in consenting processes until 2050. It contravenes section 62A of the Takutai Moana Act 2011, which ensures participation rights in reconsenting processes, and potentially creates new grievances under Te Tiriti o Waitangi through conflicting with existing Treaty settlement legislation (as pointed out by Ngāti Toa).

The bill raises considerable environmental and regulatory concerns. It disregards the effective and current National Environmental Standards under which marine farms have been managed, without a single application being declined. It overlooks the detrimental effects of aquaculture on marine ecosystems, including risks to marine biodiversity and taonga species, nutrient pollution, and the introduction of hazardous substances.

Environmental experts and groups have highlighted severe potential impacts on marine biodiversity, with specific concerns about the effects on seabirds, marine mammals, and benthic ecosystems. Many farms operating since before the Resource Management Act was enacted in 1991 have not undergone modern environmental assessments, and extending these consents could cement harmful practices and risk causing irreversible damage to marine biodiversity. Animal welfare advocates have also highlighted the welfare risks to farmed fish—which are recognised as sentient in the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

The bill purports to be a positive step for industry. However, the bill likely cements outdated and substandard practices, reducing the ability to incorporate new environmental and cultural knowledge into consent conditions. It therefore risks damaging the social licence of the aquaculture industry.

The bill has significant financial implications for councils and ratepayers. It unfairly places the financial burden of reviews on local councils and ratepayers, with no provision for cost recovery from the industry which benefits. This approach disincentivises necessary periodic consent reviews, compromising the integrity of environmental oversight. It should be noted that all regional and unitary councils that submitted were in opposition to the bill, reflecting a broad consensus against the proposed changes at the local government level.

In light of these issues, amendments proposed by the Green Party and supported by Labour—such as reducing the extension period to five years, making the consent reviews cost-recoverable for councils, excluding fish farms, and specifying that extensions do not apply to consents already designated by councils as inappropriately located—were critical. However, these were opposed by Government members.

The bill, as it stands, is not only an infringement on local governance and Māori rights but also fails a basic level of protection for Aotearoa’s coastal environment. It overlooks critical environmental assessments and the voices of those most affected—iwi, hapū, and local communities. It entrenches outdated and potentially damaging activities that prioritise private interests at the expense of ecological health and public commons. For these reasons, the Green Party strongly opposes the bill and, given the lack of any substantial amendment, urges Parliament to reject it in its entirety.