Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee, and I thank the chair of that committee for his work on this general area.

Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004, a number of issues with the legislation have arisen. These issues, relating to the Environment Court’s decision in SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council, were addressed in the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill that has already been passed. This new bill, the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2), aims to facilitate the creation of new aquaculture marine areas, known as AMAs, and aquaculture space.

The bill amends the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 to provide an opportunity for a person who has made an application under the Fisheries Act 1983 to negotiate an aquaculture agreement with the relevant commercial fishers, where the permit would have previously been declined due to its undue adverse affect on commercial fishing. The amendment brings transitional processes more into line with the current law for new aquaculture marine areas. A preliminary assessment is that the impact of aquaculture in the Tasman area suggests that a large part of the area proposed for aquaculture may have needed to be declined without this bill.

Experimental aquaculture is limited in scale of occupation to a maximum of 2 hectares and for a maximum of 5 years. Applications for experimental aquaculture must be assessed for any undue adverse effects on fishing under the Fisheries Act 1996 and be authorised by a resource consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The bill makes a number of other minor technical amendments. These include addressing issues with the time frame for review of deemed consents, amending the process for lodging aquaculture agreements, providing clarification that an area deemed to be an aquaculture management area remain an aquaculture management area unless expressly removed by a later plan change, and correcting definition problems in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

The bill aims to ensure that the planning framework for aquaculture is up to the task in providing environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture, and that it enables the industry’s potential to be realised. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : The National Party will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) being referred to the Primary Production Committee. We believe that it is worth supporting it and getting some progress in aquaculture.

I remind members of the facts I told the House yesterday regarding the lack of progress in marine farming throughout New Zealand. The Government and many others are heralding this industry as a billion-dollar industry, and the National Party hopes that that will be the case by 2025, but the reality is that the number of new aquaculture management areas—that is, new areas where marine farming has not occurred before—created in the last 3½ years has been zero. There have been no new significant marine farm areas created under the new legislation in 3½ years anywhere in New Zealand, and that is a disgrace. Have there been new marine farm areas? Yes, but they were created under the old legislation. There has been none for 3½ years under the new legislation, which is absolutely appalling. So we have a situation here where, clearly, the new legislation needs serious amendment.

We had the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, which I will call the No. 1 bill, a couple of days ago. It came back to the House after having been through the select committee, and National supported that bill because it made some incremental improvements to the legislation of 3½ years ago. We now have this legislation, which I will call the No. 2 bill, which makes some more incremental improvements, and we will support those. However, I must emphasise that these are incremental improvements. They are nothing like the reforms of the reforms that we need in order to get aquaculture up and going and becoming the billion-dollar industry that surely everyone wants it to become by 2025.

In moving on to the details of the bill, I point out that essentially the legislation does four things. It facilitates the creation of new aquaculture management areas, it addresses issues relating to invited private plan changes, it enables experimental aquaculture, and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation. I would like to touch on those last two points.

I think that one of the important issues is that, under the old legislation, areas where marine farming was proposed to take place were subject to an assessment by the Ministry of Fisheries to see whether that would have any effects on commercial fishing. If a marine-farming space is set up, one cannot generally fish in it. One cannot take a trawler or a longline through that area. It is very difficult to seek out any scallops or any other such fish underneath the marine farm. So the marine farm could very well have an impact on commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or customary fishing. Under the old marine-farming law a fisheries test was undertaken, and if the effect on commercial, recreational, or customary fishing was significant, the marine farm could not proceed, and that was the end of it. Essentially, if a marine farm is applied for, the question is asked as to whether it would affect commercial or recreational fishing; if it would, the marine farm does not proceed.

Under the proposed changes before us, if it was assessed that there would be an effect on, in this case, commercial fishing, and marine farming could not proceed, marine farmers can go to commercial fishers and say they know that their marine farm would have an impact on the commercial fishing business. Marine farmers could suggest doing a deal, negotiate in some way, or change the shape or the arrangement of the space they would occupy. They could change the seasonal occupation they have, or pay some sort of financial compensation to the commercial fishing business. The question is what deal the marine farmers could do with commercial fishers. If agreement is reached following negotiations, the marine farm can proceed; an aquaculture management area can be created, and marine farming can continue inside it. The commercial fishers will be happy because, clearly, they will have received some sort of compensation, or a change will have been made to the proposal that suits them. The aquaculturists will be happy because they have some marine-farming space to work on. Essentially, the provision gives them an opportunity, a way out, rather than there being just a big red light and words saying “No marine farming here”. I think that is a good change and National will be happy to support it.

The second change is an interesting one. At the moment, if people want to set up marine farming, it has to be inside what is called an aquaculture management area that is accepted by the regional council or unitary authority. The problem is that if someone wanted to experiment in aquaculture—say, someone wanted to try farming a new species of fish or shellfish; or, secondly, to try a new way of marine farming using new technology; or, thirdly, to investigate a new space that is not currently marine farmed but may be a very successful area as it is nutrient rich, which would be helpful for marine farming—at the moment he or she would have to go through the arduous process of going through the regional council or unitary authority and setting up an aquaculture management area. As I said at the commencement of my speech, it has been 3½ years since any new aquaculture management area has been set up, so even to experiment is very, very difficult indeed. This legislation allows people to do experimental aquaculture with a new species, in a new space, or using new technology.

This is a very interesting amendment because it entirely reflects my member’s bill, which is currently in the ballot. I was disappointed that my member’s bill was not taken out of the ballot and debated before the close of this 3-year Parliament.

Simon Power: Seek leave!

PHIL HEATLEY: I do not need to seek leave, because it appears in this No. 2 legislation. My member’s bill allowing experimental aquaculture to occur outside aquaculture management areas has, essentially, been photocopied, slipped nicely between the staples of this legislation, clipped up, and sold back to the National Party as a good idea. Do members know what we say over here? We say it is a great idea. It is an excellent idea. The fingerprints of Phil Heatley and the National Party are all over this bill and we support it.

What I did in my member’s bill, and it is reflected in this legislation that we are supporting tonight, was put some restrictions around experimental aquaculture. We cannot have marine farmers saying they want to do some experimental aquaculture outside the general rules, but that they want to use heaps of space and make it really commercial. That is not experimental at all. So we said that the area that the experimental aquaculture would occupy could not exceed 2 hectares, and the experimentation, if one likes—the study—could not be undertaken for more than 5 years. So there was a 5-year limit in terms of time frames and a 2-hectare limit in terms of the space it could occupy.

We also said the study needed to be alongside a research organisation, which we thought was quite a good idea. In that way, we could truly claim that in some way it was, in fact, experimental aquaculture. What the Minister for the Environment has done in the No. 2 bill in terms of the experimental aquaculture amendments is slightly different, which is fine.

We will be very interested for the new Parliament to look at this legislation—if it is decided that it will be carried over—and at the slight differences in approach between my member’s bill, which has essentially been slipped in here, and this legislation. Nevertheless, we will support this legislation being referrred to the Primary Production Committee. The National Party will be voting for it this evening, and we commend the Minister on even an incremental change.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I was looking for someone else to take a call on this important matter—

Nathan Guy: You’d think the Government would be into it. They’re running out of puff.

ERIC ROY: Yes, well I actually thought it was the Government’s bill. There was a reasonably abbreviated response from the Minister when he introduced this, and I was looking for something a little more full, because, being a little underdone on what is quite a complex bill, I was hoping for some elaboration. But I am very happy to talk conceptually about what this bill will do, given that the detail is quite complex.

The issue, quite simply, comes down to this. New Zealand has a significant advantage compared with the rest of the world in putting in place fisheries legislation in terms of our wild fisheries, but in terms of where we sit with the rest of the world and our role with agriculture, it has been the sunrise industry for about a decade. We are all waiting. When I went to a seminar about 6 or 7 years ago we were told that it would be a $2 billion industry by the year 2015. I think it has grown about 3 percent in that period. The nuts and bolts are that we are significantly behind. The Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, is shaking his head. I ask the Minister what the figure is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can’t give it off the top of my head, but it is certainly more than that.

ERIC ROY: No, it is not very much more than that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There has been good growth.

ERIC ROY: There has been minimal growth, and the Minister knows that. Not only that, but there have been some endemic problems that have not been addressed by this Government. We have had a situation that was largely what might be termed a gold rush, if we can say that. It is a spatial rush. Limited areas have been designated, people got in and registered, and some of those areas have been developed and some of them have not. In a way, we have not had the best possible ways of apportioning space to the industry, and in a lot of ways we have not best matched that space to the best species.

We had a significant number of difficulties around experimentation, and this is addressed to some degree in the bill. We have also had some issues around things like spat catching and being able to transfer spat into areas where the mussel industry has been operating as aquaculture. We have before us a No. 2 amendment bill. It is a kind of omnibus bill: it picks up four different Acts. There will have to be consequential legislation to these four different Acts, and I understand that at the end of the day this bill will be divided into four separate Acts. The select committee is keen to move forward and to progress this. The Minister nods his head; he knows—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am just having a laugh because I thought the member was supporting it.

ERIC ROY: We are supporting it. In actual fact, my message to the Minister is quite clear: he has sat on his hands for too long. We have known about the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) for some months, yet it has just appeared on the last day of Parliament.

Hon Member: They had 9 years.

ERIC ROY: They had 9 long years. We heard the term “9 long years” frequently spoken today in Labour’s valedictory speeches. We have been in Opposition for 9 long years, and on the last day in urgency the bill is suddenly put in. We do not know the shape of the next Primary Production Committee, but the current one would have loved to get its teeth into this and sort out these issues—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Eric, I’ll just give you a comment. I wanted to do this as part of the first bill, but David Carter turned me down.

ERIC ROY: No, that was a separate issue. We needed to have this bill in well before that other bill. That was a specific issue, and the Minister knows that. We are supporting this legislation.

I am sure the select committee is looking forward to resolving some of these issues. I am not sure who the members will be, but the new select committee, with most probably a new chair and new membership, will have this bill to cut its teeth on. I just put out this little warning. Fisheries legislation is in some ways more complex than tax legislation. It is hugely difficult, so we do not want any shortcuts.

I say to the Minister, in the dying days of this Government, that we should have had this bill before now. We support it. We look forward to hearing the submissions and to progressing this omnibus bill, which will step forward—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Omnibus?

ERIC ROY: It is an omnibus bill; it says so in the explanatory note. We look forward to progressing it. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker, who will be Dr Pita Sharples, can I just ask the House to settle down. Eric Roy kept on calling things out, which meant that Trevor Mallard kept contributing. It is two-sided. Can we just have a little bit of quiet.

Eric Roy: But it’s a debate!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): It is a debate in turns and speeches.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : We are pleased that after many months of waiting we have had not just one but a whole series of amendments in two separate bills relating to the marine-farming rights and interests held by iwi in aquaculture. The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) is an omnibus bill amending the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. The bill is important in the way it seeks to make progress on resolving iwi aquaculture claims in a manner consistent with the 1992 fisheries settlement.

The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) amends legislation to facilitate the creation of the new aquaculture management areas that everyone has been talking about. If the House hears a sigh of relief it is from the aquaculture industry, for whom, finally, the end is in sight. The goal of being a billion-dollar business by 2025 might actually come to fruition.

The bill does a whole lot of things that we in the Māori Party are pleased to support. It responds to issues relating to invited private plan changes, it will enable experimental aquaculture, and it supports environmental monitoring and other technical amendments relating to the 2004 aquaculture reforms. We see these developments as very positive indications of a partnership with the aquaculture industry.

Yesterday the Māori Party brought to the House the tremendous possibilities inherent in the project envisaged for the seafood and aquaculture sector in Te Tau Ihu. The project contemplated by Wakatu Incorporation is one of many projects that we know will drive innovation in aquaculture and create a reputable profile internationally and at home that places aquaculture firmly as a growth industry.

We know that aquaculture has incredible potential for business growth and prosperity, and we believe that the amendments in this bill may help stimulate the industry to achieve these outcomes. But there is much more at stake than simply clarifying the policy intent of the aquaculture reforms. The bill will correct problems with the current law and improve operation for businesses, iwi, and local government. In doing so, we can be optimistic that the role of tangata whenua in aquaculture reforms may finally be treated with respect by the Crown.

The Waitangi Tribunal, of course, had concluded that the original proposed aquaculture reforms would breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its finding was that Māori have an interest in marine farming that should be encompassed within the rights of the coastal marine area. It concluded also that marine farming represents a taonga protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Given such an important Treaty context, it is, of course, disappointing that the bill lacks a Treaty clause, but we are ever hopeful that that will occur during the select committee consideration of this bill.

The Māori Party has been following the developments in aquaculture closely. Many different aspects to the framework for aquaculture activities should be considered. The one that is frequently mentioned is, of course, the oft-quoted statistic that New Zealand’s farmed fish and shellfish production is now worth $390 million a year. Tangata whenua have every right to benefit from that success just as much as any other New Zealander, but there are other additional responsibilities and obligations that we as Māori consider to be an essential part of the discussion around aquaculture. There are significant cultural aspects for Māori in aquaculture development in the context of kaitiakitanga—that is, our guardianship role in relation to the management over marine resources.

We welcome the straightforward way in which this bill describes how aquaculture areas can be created. The bill specifies that aquaculture management areas can be created by developing a regional coastal plan that provides for aquaculture management areas under the Resource Management Act 1991, by the interim aquaculture management area process set out in the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, and by deeming marine farms approved under old legislation as aquaculture management areas under section 45 of the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. Well, perhaps I will need to revise my original description of the process as being straightforward! But it is positive that these details around operative regional coastal plans, coastal permits, and other technical interpretations are at least set out in the legislation for all to see.

Finally, we make reference to the inclusion in the bill of environmental monitoring—using marine organisms to monitor the state of the marine environment. This section in the bill will be of particular relevance to the iwi of Tasman Bay, namely Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua - Ātiawa Iwi Trust, and Wakatu Incorporation. The House will recall that these iwi were affected by the invasive South African brown mussel, which was discovered following the de-fouling of the oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. We in the Māori Party raised that event in the House earlier this year and helped to raise the profile of the need to ensure a more rigorous scrutiny of biosecurity standards for the aquaculture industry. Although efforts to keep Aotearoa free of invasive horticultural and agricultural pests have been extremely tight, it appears that quite a different benchmark has been allowed for the aquaculture industry.

I want to commend the iwi of Te Tau Ihu, particularly Ngāti Kōata, which has applied pressure on the Government to initiate biosecurity standards that would apply to aquaculture. It is obviously good that the bill provides for environmental monitoring to take place not just in aquaculture management areas but also in the wider marine environment.

We believe that this bill will assist in the advancement of the rangatiratanga as demonstrated by organisations such as Wakatu Incorporation and its Horoirangi initiative. We believe the amendments will enable research and innovation to take place in the industry. They will allow experimental aquaculture to take place outside aquaculture management areas, and in doing so they will support the livelihood of many of our iwi and whānau involved in aquaculture. We support this bill. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : Yet again another aquaculture bill has come before the House, and one gets the impression that it is getting all too difficult for the present Government. However, I take comfort from the direction of the National spokesperson on aquaculture, Phil Heatley, that National supports the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2).

It is concerning that it all looks so very easy to sort out, but, as articulated by Eric Roy, this type of legislation is more complex than the taxation legislation—and the taxation legislation certainly is complex. It is very hard to think that we will sort out existing-use rights and competing-use rights with legislation as basic as this, as the explanatory note denotes. I think we are dreaming.

However, it is important that we support this industry, and the wider industry, in the context that aquaculture is operating in a public space. It is operating in an area where people have businesses and they have ownership of quota. It is very complex. There is also that expectation that overlays everything: the right or the privilege of the recreational fisher. It is in that context and within that environment that we are endeavouring to reach the goal of having an aquaculture industry worth $1 billion by 2025. This bill, in a small way, will facilitate progress.

I was quite interested when the Mayor of Marlborough District came to me yesterday and asked: “Colin, have you passed any bills for aquaculture lately?”. I scratched my head. I knew there were a couple of bills coming up but I said: “No, nothing really specific.” But obviously people are very, very interested to see how the way forward unfolds. Aquaculture got started in Marlborough, back in 1971. If we look at the laws we will be making minor modifications to, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, we will get an idea of how complex the way forward has been.

Certainly, as the member from the Māori Party Pita Sharples has mentioned, the aquaculture industry itself is worth somewhere in the region of $300 million to $400 million, and the industry in the top of the South Island probably is worth the better part of $300 million - odd—it is a very, very important industry. But for the councils concerned the way forward has been incredibly complex. I think that highlights the difficulty with the general basis of the legislation; we are trying to just put sticking plasters over a massive problem. Really, what will sort this issue out—although this bill will go some way—is looking at the legislation completely. The bill effectively amends the legislation; it creates the opportunity for the establishment of new aquaculture management areas, it addresses issues relating to the invited private plan change process, it enables experimental aquaculture, and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation.

Again, I make the point to the House that the bill is quite complex, which is reflected in the very fundamental underlying feature of the general legislation. One cannot go past making the point that under Labour over the last 3½ years, absolutely nothing has been achieved. It is a serious concern that iwi in the top of the South Island have high expectations of their Treaty settlement. I recall the foreshore and seabed issue emanated out of absolute frustration. The Ngāti Apa people, having received a finding from the Treaty settlement people, were so far back in the queue that they had to do something to try to halt the way that aquaculture space was being allocated. I hope that as settlements with the various iwi go forward, we will see aquaculture space allocated, whether in the form of cash or as actual space.

The bill talks about Tasman Bay, and it talks about how the process might be improved to find space. There is the issue of undue effects on commercial fishers, and if that is the case, we have to find a way through. The bill effectively sets up the ability to negotiate a way through, and to see whether there is an opportunity for marine farming or spat catching permits, under the Fisheries Act 1983.

The councils will watch this development with great interest because what we are talking about here is overlapping or conflicting resource use, and we have to find a way through it. The explanatory note explains that issue quite well when it talks about overlapping and conflicting resource use: “The Bill enables councils to hold an expression of interest process to identify spatial overlaps. Where overlaps are identified, competing interests will be given a period to negotiate with each other to resolve the competition …”. However, if it does not get resolved, it becomes quite important that under this legislation there is a default situation.

When submissions come in to the Primary Production Committee it will be very interesting to see how robust that debate will be, because the explanatory note states: “Where negotiation fails, the default is that a financial tender will be used to choose between expressions of interest that relate to the same space.” I am sure that the comment will certainly raise the ire of one or two people who have a very strong view. I am sure a number of people will express a view on that in their submissions to the select committee.

From the councils’ point of view, the bill does provide an opportunity for coastal permits for experimental agriculture activities, but those will be issued for a maximum of 5 years with no right of renewal. That scenario could potentially lead to a lack of certainty for the person who had put up that investment. Given that level of uncertainty, I ask members whether we would be able to guarantee that people will put their hands in their pockets to invest.

National will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee. However, the underlying basis of it all is that under Labour nothing has been achieved. We are here now at 10.22 p.m. under urgency and a bill of this nature has come forward. It is too little, too late. It will take a National Government to sort this issue out, and I look forward to that opportunity.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : My colleague Colin King comes from the top end of the South Island where aquaculture was introduced. By my recollection that was more than 30 years ago, in about 1971, and the formation of mussel farms caused a huge row. Subsequently the industry has become very well-established both in Queen Charlotte Sound and in Pelorus Sound. Salmon have now also been introduced. They swim happily in a number of locations in the sounds, and New Zealanders traversing Tory Channel on the ferries can see them.

I rise to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2). I move from the oily calm waters of the Marlborough Sounds to the rather wild waters of my electorate that stretch from Turakirae Head in the southern North Island right through Palliser Bay, past Ngawī, and almost to Cape Kidnappers. One might feel that this area does not have the potential for aquaculture. But I promise Mr Mallard that I have had constituents approach me over the last 3 years of this Government to express their concern. They say that the Minister of Aquaculture, Jim Anderton, has delivered nothing for 3 whole years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He is not the Minister of aquaculture.

JOHN HAYES: He is the Minister of Fisheries. The people in my electorate have the technology to grow pāua. There is now the technology in my electorate to fatten kina. People have developed a feed formula that doubles the weight of kina roe in 30 days or less. That is hugely significant because kina roe command a very, very high price on the Japanese market.

It is for these reasons that I rise in support of this legislation. The bill provides for the facilitation and the creation of new aquaculture management areas. I hope that that will allow my constituents to unlock the potential of the Wairarapa electorate—particularly its coastline—and to establish new industries that will provide employment, processing, and foreign exchange.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sure Denise would have knocked on the Minister’s door by now.

JOHN HAYES: Well, she might have knocked on it last time, but she did not succeed, did she, I say to Mr Mallard. Nevertheless, the people in my electorate have faith in me to represent their views, and that is why I am supporting this legislation. I want to make sure that in the first 100 days of the next Government we will amend the Resource Management Act. One of the reasons that there have been no new aquaculture proposals is the complications of the Resource Management Act, which is totally stymying aquaculture experimentation and research activity, and the establishment of an aquaculture industry in my electorate.

I am also pleased that this bill will provide for transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation, because the whole arrangement has been deadlocked for the past 3 years. My constituents have endeavoured to establish aquaculture projects under one piece of legislation, and they will now be confronted with this new bill, which is very complex. In fact, the whole fishing legislation is totally complicated, I say to Mr Mallard. Progress in creating new marine-farming space has been incredibly slow, and Mr Mallard should stand up and take a bow for inactivity. I do not quite know why the Minister has collected his salary for the last 3½ years. His inactivity has held up the settlement to hand over to Māori 20 percent settlement of all new space. Māori communities—and there are plenty in my electorate—have been stymied by his inactivity as well.

Both these pieces of legislation simply secure the current status of the existing legislation, but we have to see them as interim measures only. As my colleague Phil Heatley has said, the legislation is only a sticking plaster, a temporary solution to consolidate some mechanism for moving forward.

Colin King: We cannot make something crooked straight.

JOHN HAYES: No, we cannot, and when the Government changes in about 7 weeks’ time, we will certainly be busy addressing those problems, and unlocking the economic potential of our coastal areas. I would like to finish by simply saying that this bill will have a big impact in my electorate once it has been modified by a new Government.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.