King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19237] 
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 Maori 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 Ngati 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.