Chadwick Steve: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18743] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) but we have some reservations. It was interesting to hear the member opposite Craig Foss because I was very closely involved with the Opotiki District Council at the time when it was trying to get consent to aquaculture space. There was a bit of a gold rush on actually during the 9 years we were in Government. It was unfettered access to the coastal margin and that caused us concern. The member may laugh about the lack of progress but I believe that this bill has just gone from one extreme to the other. We were deeply concerned. 
Some aspects of our Labour bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill are in this bill but the crossover and the pick-up as any Government is entitled to have given us concern. The industry is not happy with the process for determining whether an aquaculture project would have undue adverse effects. Representatives from the industry came to the Primary Production Committee. They proposed a mechanism whereby they would work collectively to look at undue adverse effects at any time. I suggested we put that test in during the consenting process but no this Government knew best. The industry thought it had come up with an idea. There is great collective intelligence there but the Government in its wisdom just rejected that request from the industry which of course it has the prerogative to do. 
I think that is very indicative of why we are in the House debating the role of consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act the Coastal Policy Statement coastal plans and the powers of consenting authorities. The legislation gives unfettered powers to the Minister yet again which is very similar to what we have seen in Canterbury with the Environment Canterbury intervention there and in Auckland as well. Again the Minister has powers to override regional coastal plans. Regional coastal plans are not an instrument developed overnight as you know Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. They are developed after some time and at times it is a lengthy process. But we now have a Minister with the powers to override those consenting authorities. The Government is quite wrong to say those powers are controlled; they are unfettered powers. It absolutely arrogantly undermines those who have participated in the development of a regional coastal plan. 
I say that as a previous Minister of Conservation I started to promulgate the Coastal Policy Statement. I have real concerns that the Minister Kate Wilkinson sat on that piece of work for 18 months and released the Coastal Policy Statement in this House only because she was put under pressure by Labour. Labour members started to ask the hard questions in the hard basket about what she was doing about the Coastal Policy Statement. That was a guiding document for regional councils and local authorities. The Minister herself delayed releasing that Coastal Policy Statement. So why would the industry have faith in this Government and the Minister who has the powers in this bill to completely override the regional planning in relation to coastal activities? I think it is a worry. 
We have gone from one extreme where there was a bit of a gold rush for coastal space and for aquaculture development to the other. Labour too wanted to see that $1 billion unlocked and that $1 billion of potential earnings from aquaculture flow back into the coffers of New Zealand. But it has not yet it still has not and now we have given the powers to one Minister to step in override regional councils and override other consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act. I think that this bill is a reflection on the Government which has put its own flavour on it as it can do. 
Giving the Minister that power has added uncertainty for investors in aquaculture space. The Minister lauds in the House the idea of giving confidence to the industry with this bill but now members of the industry themselves are saying they do not know and do not have confidence for investing in the long term in aquaculture and aquaculture development. I think the Government has gone completely to the other extreme. 
It also ties the hands of councils in the consent process by requiring them to grant consents for a minimum term of 20 years. When we look at developments in the coastal margin and we are looking at Petrobras and its issue about access to mineral exploration we see that there are some real problems. If a mineral exploration happens on Ngati Porou’s coastline and they are looking for consenting for aquaculture developments what happens to aquacultural products if there is an oil spill on those very fields of gold? This bill gives power for 20 years and I think we should be worried iwi should be worried and the Maori Party should be worried. The Maori Party is fighting the good fight about Ngati Porou Petrobras and mineral exploration. I would worry very much about the threat of contamination if there was an oil leak on the very aquacultural products we see as gold. 
I have enjoyed taking a call on this bill. We remain deeply concerned about lots of aspects of this bill but we feel too that there is great potential economically in aquacultural space. I have worked with Opotiki District Council and it is ready to unlock some wonderful potential over there on the coast in a community that is really struggling. We have some problems with this bill. I suppose the test will be when we see application after application and the use of ministerial powers in this space. Thank you.