Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Labour members will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). I note that we are at the Committee stage and I want to work through a number of important issues. As is often the case when we support legislation pertaining to a particularly important industry it is capable of generating more employment which is a rather rare phenomenon given the stewardship of the Government in its broader economic obligations.  
But putting that aside there are two areas in which despite our reservations we will back this bill. I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has made a considerable effort to address the broad array of interests. On one side we have residual Maori concerns and on the other side we have concerns pertaining not only to the industry with its investment in both aquaculture and quota ownership but also in particular to those who fear arrogating to central government in the form of the Minister the ability to influence and allocate consents relating to the occupation of space. We have all these kinds of apprehensions but we do feel despite the fact that the Minister will have the ability to effect these resource management and coastal plan changes that the deeper challenge is something that is really a “New Zealand Inc.” story. I mean that it is a bold challenge. It is $1 billion a year worth of export receipts. Unfortunately—the Minister may not recall it; I think it was in 1992-93—the Hon Doug Kidd had a similar heroic goal in mind way back then to generate $1 billion worth of export receipts. Not everything we did in our golden reign of the last 9 years kicked a goal. This is an area in which changes were made and I think the rule of unforeseen consequences reminds us that what we do in Parliament and what we delegate down to our bureaucrats to do does not necessarily make sense in relation to people investing taking a risk and growing an industry. We always need to be vigilant if we are to crimp the ability of people to enjoy participative democracy. That is the model we have for resource management in New Zealand. We have sought to marry an ideal of social democracy against resource management. We need to be vigilant that we do not swing too far because if we do then nothing will ever happen. All sorts of parties believe they have an almost divine right to participate and end up hobbling those who with the greatest will in the world burn too much money before they can go to consent.  
Secondly I and no doubt my colleague as well will talk about the test on how we strike a balance between the people who have legal rights to harvest fish within defined areas and those who want to occupy those areas for marine farming. I think this Minister has the balance about right—well to the extent that we are prepared to back it. It is important that an industry like this maintains the reputation that when we sell our product overseas—and this is why the allocation of resource consents is essential—we are selling not just the commodity or the organism but also a brand and an experience. At all times irrespective of who is enjoying the privilege of holding the benches of Treasury when we compromise that we worsen our ability to make inroads into the market.  
There is no shortage of competitors around the world that are more than capable of disgracing our New Zealand name by taking our product and passing it off as something that in actual fact does not reflect what we are capable of generating and selling. It is important that the host environment that creates the produce is subject to a high level of vigilance but that vigilance must not turn into an opportunity for far too many nit-pickers to participate in the process. Unfortunately I have had experience of this. In the 1990s we sought to create a marine fish farm off the coast of Whangarei. After we had blown as I recall $600000 $700000 and still counting we were still no further ahead and no closer to establishing it as a consequence of the bike-riding spectacle-wearing and book-reading Queen’s Counsel lawyers from Auckland who had baches there. They denied us who were taking a risk and creating in this vacant space of the ocean a business. What were we going to do? We were going to generate jobs and try—odd as it might sound to the current Government—to generate wealth through the export in value-added form of New Zealand’s clean green produce. A number of these hapless individuals who have far more money than sense visited their connections and networks upon us struggling Northlanders—largely of Maori extraction—as we sought to create this marine fish farm. That is what I mean. Too many parties were enjoying as a consequence of being of privileged status—that is being Queen’s Counsel lawyers being married to Queen’s Counsel lawyers or seeing Queen’s Counsel lawyers on the side but that is another matter—the ability to frustrate that development. I fear that if we are not vigilant then some of the innovations that are being made here could also fall prey to similar excesses.  
Having said that we should back the industry because how will we create the jobs for our mokopuna for our children in New Zealand unless from time to time with a focus on primary produce we back it? There will be elements in the industry who will be hoha as we say in the Ngapuhi language or exasperated that they do not get everything they need but the fishing and aquaculture industry cannot be driven exclusively for the benefit of the big end of town. This particular industry represents an opportunity for tangata whenua and this is part of what has been fixed up in this bill. It was started in our time and has been refined by the current Minister and his officials. I say to the Minister that one day hopefully very soon he will be gone from that chair. It will be left to bureaucrats and to the future. I see a rising sun in the future shining with powerful rays of wealth on the industry.  
Shane Ardern 
: Eternal optimist.  
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There is a member from over there in Taranaki. His head is starting to look like the snowcapped peak of Mount Taranaki. Unfortunately the last time I checked Mount Taranaki did not have flecks of grey hair; it was all white. Anyway I come back to the bill and remind members that there is a brilliant opportunity for Maori to advance in this industry but the signal needs to go out to our own Maori people. Fortunately the hearing aid that Mr Quinn uses is not working in the Chamber. The Committee will travel a lot more smoothly as a consequence of that and it might sound a lot more lucid as a consequence so whoever has given him that hearing aid should please repeat it. We need multiple hearing aids and we might need a special one for Tau Henare but that should probably be put in the mouth not the ear.  
However I come back to reminding members that those Maori investors who want to advance their Treaty settlement interests that are advanced in this bill need to ensure that their decisions are not like an island unto themselves. There is no way in the world that we will develop this industry without that and neither should we rely on large dollops of overseas investment alone to develop this industry.  
There is a proposal off the coast of Opotoki. This is a free-ranging debate. I see that a member on the other side of the Chamber—I know she is Pakeha and from the South Island—is trying to practise one of those little hakas that were happening at Sir Paul’s mate. She is bringing her hands close now; I presume that means she is clapping the fact that for once the member for Whangarei has been able to convince his fellow Northlander to agree with something but that is reflective of the feedback that we have taken from the industry.  
We commend this bill and we will not be protracting the contributions as befits parliamentarians who know that they really have to work hard to earn their living here unlike members on the other side of the Chamber. Thank you very much.