Choudhary Ashraf: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18741] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 There are a few minutes left before the dinner break. I have been listening very carefully to members on the other side speaking on this bill. We worked very hard in the Primary Production Committee and I acknowledge the chair. We do a good job in the Primary Production Committee. We work together in a bipartisan way and try to make the legislation that comes our way as acceptable as we possibly can. 
The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) amends four current Acts: the Resource Management Act 1991 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. 
The committee members had an opportunity to visit South Australia last year and as has been said before we had a good look at aquaculture in South Australia. In particular we wanted to know what it is that makes aquaculture in South Australia so successful as compared with New Zealand. I am quite sure that a number of the recommendations that we brought back at the time were helpful in bringing to this House a third amendment bill on aquaculture. We have made quite a few improvements to the current Acts but certainly there is a lot more to be done in the future. I do not believe that this bill going forward albeit we all support it will solve all the problems that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture claims it will solve. I would not be surprised if within a year or two we come back with another amendment. I think there are areas particularly the area of undue adverse effects where there has been a lot of submitters who— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: When we adjourned earlier on I was talking about aquaculture being an industry in which when compared with our other agricultural industries—dairy farming meat and others—we have not done very well in this country. However in Australia and in South Australia in particular aquaculture is doing very well. Hopefully though this bill which we on this side of the House are supporting will help to promote this industry which in the next 10 to 15 years we hope will be worth about $1 billion. I hope that this bill will go some way to help promote aquaculture. 
As we went through the submission process we saw that a whole lot of people were opposed to a number of issues in this bill. One issue with which those people had reservations was in relation to the regulatory power given to the Minister to change regional coastal plans without public input. We had a lot of submissions on that issue from customary fishers recreational fishers and the ordinary public who were not happy because they thought that this legislation gave too much power to the Minister. In fact some submitters even said that a Draconian and undemocratic power was being given to the Minister in giving him the power to change regional coastal plans without any public input. I think that the Minister and the Government should seriously note that this could be another problem going forward. If public input is not there then we could have the same problem as we had earlier. It also reflects on the Government just as it has in the case of Auckland City or Canterbury because it shows some kind of dictatorial attitude towards doing things without proper public input. 
Another key provision of this bill removes the requirement for aquaculture management areas to be in place before consents are given. A lot of submissions were opposed to that requirement in respect of aquaculture management areas. So I must say that we did have problems in relation to the requirement for the establishment of aquaculture management areas. Particularly at the regional council level we had a problem in respect of the establishment of aquaculture management areas. I am pleased that this bill allows us not to require aquaculture management areas prior to gaining consent for aquaculture. 
Another issue was in relation to the length of time given for coastal consents which is from 20 years to 35 years. The maximum limit given is 35 years but the minimum can be 20 years. That is appropriate for ensuring that we have a process that gives investors the opportunity to invest money with the hope of a good return over a long period. In terms of relicensing or re-consenting if you like the process in this bill is simplified and hopefully the requirement will require less information. Any entrepreneur or investor who wants to re-consent will after the first initial consent have to provide less information to make sure the consent is forthcoming. 
Another issue is with regard to the clause that regulates the powers for the Minister of Conservation to approve the use of an allocation tool by regional councils for managing high and competing demands. I think that it is important that the Minister of Conservation has been given that power. 
A lot of submitters were opposed to the powers given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This bill gives very broad powers to change introduce or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan without the requirement to consult the community affected although the Minister is required to consult the relevant regional council. This particular clause was opposed 2:1 by submitters because they thought the powers given to the Minister to change the requirement provisions were too Draconian. A lot of people particularly environmentalists and customary and recreational fishers were all opposed to that particular power. 
A further issue in this bill relates to Maori aquaculture. This bill I am pleased to say retains the core component of the aquaculture settlement in respect of the Maori commercial aquaculture claims and the 20 percent allocation of new space. 
The final issue was the test for undue adverse effects as explained earlier by other speakers. This bill retains the Fisheries Act requirement to assess whether a proposed aquaculture activity will have any undue adverse effects on commercial customary and recreational fisheries. 
With those comments I suggest once again that Labour will support this bill. Apart from a couple of areas—the test for undue adverse effects and the lack of having a commitment for consulting the people affected—the bill is very good. Thank you very much.