Clendon David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the aquaculture legislation. The Primary Production Committee suggested in its report back that the legislation provides “an efficient legislative and regulatory framework that would enable the sustainable development of aquaculture within the coastal marine area.” One cannot argue with the aspiration behind that—to develop a sustainable aquaculture industry in New Zealand—but sadly the legislation falls far short of giving us any confidence that the outcome would or could be achieved under the provisions within it.  
The debate around this issue has been highly coloured by the constant reference to the billion-dollar industry emerging and the claim that aquaculture is the next big thing. I think there has been a lack of a reality check around that. There seems to have been very little analysis of where that number came from. It would require something like a threefold increase in the current earnings which sit at around $370 million - odd. It is not entirely obvious where that threefold increase would come from. The market has not been waiting for New Zealand to sort out its industry. This unexamined proposition clearly has blinded a number of participants in the debate to the more sober and measured assessments and submissions that pointed out at length again and again that this proposed model will not provide the long-term solution to the underlying weaknesses in our present marine management system.  
The total water space currently occupied by marine farms is in the order of 5800 hectares or thereabouts. It is estimated that the area needed to generate this hoped for billion dollars would similarly need about a threefold increase to something like 17000 hectares. The Minister referred to a relatively small imposition on the total marine space surrounding New Zealand and at one level he is quite right. But that clearly overlooks the fact that the waters that will be required and sought after for this activity are waters that are also sought after for numerous other activities. There will be significant competition for a relatively small amount of water.  
The proposed legislative regulatory measures to manage the allocation are very unlikely to have any chance of managing the legal regulatory and practical challenges that the level of demand for this water will throw up so have little chance of achieving their stated purpose. It is clear that the very narrowly defined notion of economic efficiency that has been driven has seemed to be the guiding light in this debate and in the proposals within the legislation. We can talk at length about the relative efficiency in ecological terms of the activity of farming particularly finfish farming. The proposition is that we will import large volumes of fish food which are already depleting existing wild stocks and will convert this to higher-value fish product at a ratio of 1 kilogram of product for 1.8 kilograms of input. Ecologically this is nonsense. As short-term economics it may make sense but that economic return relies on us effectively mining ecosystems—not our ecosystems but in the larger scheme of things we will be mining ecosystems. That is seldom a recipe for a long-term return.  
There have already been numerous local challenges to councils and the Environment Court asserting that many of our more popular waters are already farmed beyond capacity. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd our Crown research institute has already stated on many occasions that we simply do not know enough about the complex processes and interaction within and between the farmed areas and the unmodified or wild environment to have any confidence about the future of this. Systematic environmental monitoring has not been undertaken. We simply do not have the robust scientific data and knowledge that would inform good management decisions. That is not an imagined view; it is an empirical view put forward by our Crown research institutes which are clearly disinterested in the economic sense in this.  
The oft-repeated message from our scientific and ecological community is that there is an absolute and urgent need for good quantitative and qualitative data to inform a truly sustainable approach. Allowing the second gold rush—and inevitably that is what we will see in the absence of that underlying science—is guaranteed to undermine efforts to establish a sustainable industry. We are told that this new legislation will normalise aquaculture to the extent that it will put it within the ambit of the Resource Management Act. It will remove the aquaculture management areas and put it in line with other decision-making processes around resources. The immediate and obvious objection to that of course is the proposition that the area in question—the space in the marine environment—is currently common area it is public domain and it is public space that is otherwise available and accessible to all. Assigning exclusive use of public domain to a commercial venture—and remember that to achieve the wished-for billion-dollar bonanza we need to alienate from public domain something to the tune of 12000 hectares of marine space—can in no way be considered normal or desirable practice especially given that the management and regulatory regime will inevitably be dominated by a very few well-funded and determined interests.  
Arguably we are seeing what is a new normal under this Government. In the same way that this Government is doing its best to eliminate opportunities for public participation to reduce reasonable safeguards and opportunities for assessment of resource management applications so too are we seeing a determined push to drive open the gates to exploitation of the marine area but without real thought or consideration of the longer-term damage that could be done here.  
New section 186D inserted by clause 35 makes provision for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries for example. It says he may consult before making decisions in respect of aquaculture. It is the belief of the committee “that proceeding without consultation would be appropriate in most cases to help speed up the process.” I have never seen such a clear enabling statement that will license future chief executives to be very very miserly in their approach to consultation. We will see ambivalence to consultation and likely a very hostile approach to engaging with legitimate concerns and interests around us.  
The chief executive is empowered but absolutely not obligated to consult and indeed under the wording from the select committee is probably discouraged from consulting “persons and organisations that the chief executive considers represent the classes of persons who have customary commercial or recreational fishing interests that may be affected …”. In short the chief executive is given considerable licence again not only about whether to consult—with a preference to not consult—but also about whom he or she consults.  
We are told that the Resource Management Act application process will be conducted in an integrated fashion with any process deemed necessary undertaken to establish the existence or otherwise of an undue adverse effect on commercial customary or recreational fisheries. The mechanisms proposed here are complex they are multilayered and they require the engagement and indeed at some level the cooperation of numerous competing and often conflicting interests. I would confidently predict that if there is an economic bonanza in this legislation it will be a bonanza for the lawyers. This so-called integrated approach is almost certain to generate highly charged and expensive litigation with appeals counter-appeals and claims for costs and compensation. This proposed legislation takes real risks with our environment. It absolutely works against ecological sustainable best practice. It establishes very weak provisions for democratic process. We are relying on some very highly questionable regulatory mechanisms to lead us to this hoped for dreamed for billion-dollar future. All this to use the Government’s favourite phrase is balanced by economic opportunity so the substance of that proposed economic opportunity bears some investigation.  
Aquaculture is not an industry for the faint-hearted or the undercapitalised. There are very few companies within New Zealand with sufficient capital to bear the inevitable high cost and interrupted return of a very vulnerable primary production industry like aquaculture. It would be our sure forecast that in time this industry if it goes ahead will be dominated by very few interests probably overseas. There will be very little benefit to New Zealanders or to our environment. Thank you.