Ewen-Street Ian: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ewen-Street Ian: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The aquaculture regulations up until this point have been a source of enormous frustration for marine farmers. In greenshell mussels they have a unique species that is endemic to New Zealand. It is found nowhere else in the world. It has fantastic market opportunities. But those opportunities have been frustrated by a mixture of regulations and other things. We have had a gold rush. As soon as people realised the potential for aquaculture there was a gold rush mentality for water space. We had moratoriums and we had regulations imposed by the regional councils and by the Ministry of Fisheries. The mixture of regulations controls and moratoriums has led to confusion and delays and it has led to frustration. Many people in the aquaculture game have looked overseas. I have colleagues who have gone to South Australia to look for opportunities and they have been welcomed with open arms. They have gone there and found that instead of facing barriers they have been confronted with a Government that has said: “Look we have already done the science. We have allocated spaces that we believe are good for aquaculture. Please come and develop aquaculture here.” They have welcomed Kiwi ingenuity. 
I know of one group that successfully applied for 300 hectares of sheltered water space. It is absolutely unknown in this country. They also got a land-based facility for virtually no cost. This is extraordinary. What is it that Australia Chile and other countries can do that we cannot? I would have to say that the first draft of this legislation certainly was not the answer to that question. Submitters came to us and said that they would rather have the existing situation than the scenario outlined in the first draft of this legislation. So it is very gratifying to see reports in the newspapers from marine farmers now saying that this is very good legislation and thanking the Government and the Primary Production Committee for changing the legislation from being unworkable into something that is now seen to be quite good. 
I think we can all take pride in the fact that submitters have had a profound impact on the legislation. This is democracy in action. This is people who are affected by the legislation coming to where the decisions are made and being able to have an impact on that legislation which in turn affects them. I think it has been a very very good process. 
I would like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee and particularly the chair David Carter who I think did an excellent job. I believe that we treated this problem in a non-partisan way. We accepted the problems as they were presented to us and I think we worked in a very collegial manner with the committee staff and the officials to come up with a non-partisan resolution to the problems. Obviously we put on our party political hats when we come into the House and maybe that is unfortunate but that is the way politics goes. 
I also would particularly like to thank the officials a number of whom are here today. They have all worked extremely diligently under very tight time constraints and I think they have done a very good job. I say the same to the committee clerks who did an excellent job. 
This bill addresses quite a number of different needs—a lot of which we have heard about during the debate. But not least of these needs have been those of the wider community and of the environment itself. People are concerned about the ecological sustainability of marine farming. These people have legitimate concerns. Marine farming is not a panacea; it is a very good use of water space but it is not the only use of water space. There are competing needs. We have recreational users boaties and people like that. We also have the environment itself. What happens to the plankton on which the filter-feeders feed? There are visual impacts and a whole range of things. 
Up until now—before this legislation comes into play—the regulations have meant that anybody who has objected to a marine farm has had to oppose an application on a case by case basis because it is a resource consent process. Individuals who oppose a marine farm have had to turn up at their local council offices day after day opposing different applications and they are suffering from burnout. But they have had legitimate concerns. The good thing about this legislation is that it puts all those concerns into one big hearing. It says: “Let’s get an area—we will call it an aquaculture management area or an AMA—in which people can apply for space for farming and outside of which they cannot apply.” They can change the coastal management plan but that is a much longer term process. It is a higher hurdle to jump over. But what this legislation is doing is giving people certainty—not just the marine farmers but the community as well. We have the science upfront. 
People who have an established farm also get a degree of certainty from this legislation. It is one of the things they really wanted. But what they wanted was a right of renewal in perpetuity. Of course with public open space with the commons we simply cannot do that. But I think what we have done is to give them a degree of certainty that is fair. We have said: “You get a coastal occupation lease or right and that allows you to farm that space for 20 years. At the end of that 20 years if you have been a good corporate citizen—in other words you haven’t breached the conditions of your permit—then you go to the front of the queue. You get your permit renewal application heard first. If you are successful you get another 20 years. If you are not successful obviously the space you have been occupying goes to tender.” The only other way that space can be lost is if the community through the regional council says: “We no longer want that to be used for marine farming.” 
It also gives marine farmers a message that they are using that space only by the grace of the community. It is commons and what we have done is introduce the idea of resource rentals. People occupying public open space pay for the privilege. We have also said that they have had to be good corporate citizens during their incumbency. 
Probably the most contentious issue surrounding the legislation has been the 20 percent to iwi Maori. I have discussed that issue a number of occasions during the debate and I do not want to go into it further although I do reiterate the problem I see with the Government trying to legislate for a full and final settlement without having had full consultation with iwi Maori. There is also the problem that the 1992 deed of settlement stated that of new species going into the quota management system 20 percent will go to Maori. These are not species going into the quota management system. It is not a trigger for that. 
Three practical problems remain to be resolved. One is the patchwork quilt effect the second is the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee and the third is the representative space. 
I conclude by wishing my colleagues the officials and the select committee people the very happiest of Christmases. To you personally Mr Speaker as this is your last Christmas in this House after approximately 100 years I think I wish you all the best in your new job. I wish you well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The member was doing very well right up until that phrase!