Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17711] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In my earlier contribution I raised questions with the Minister regarding the power of the Minister of Conservation under clause 4A(b). I now want the Minister to take note of new section 165O inserted by clause 21 concerning the power of the Minister of Conservation because it is even more dramatic or more draconian than the clause I referred to earlier. We have here legislation that gives the Minister of Conservation the ability to affect Government policy. If Government policy was all about the genuine promotion of the aquaculture industry then I would be completely satisfied. But submitter after submitter came to the Primary Production Committee and said that although they hoped the select committee would be able to tidy up the mess around security of tenure they were equally focused on and concerned about the power of the Minister of Conservation. 
As a number of my National Party colleagues have already said at the moment the power of the Minister of Conservation rests in the hands of one Kevin Smith the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society man in the Minister’s office. What about after the election? God forbid that this occurs but if Sue Kedgley were to become the Minister of Conservation— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Very good call. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Ian Ewen-Street says that that would be a very good call. I am not so sure about that. We have seen reports in the paper over the last 24 hours that Sue Kedgley says it is bad to eat strawberries. Here we are a week away from Christmas and the Green Party has a policy that it is bad to eat strawberries. Why is it important for the Minister to be concerned about that? What if the next thing she says is that green-lipped mussels are bad for us? We could then have the Minister of Conservation—who could be Sue Kedgley—saying we should not eat mussels. For God’s sake! I say to the Minister that under this legislation the power exists for that to become Government policy and to stop aquaculture in its tracks. 
So if the Government is not putting those provisions in the legislation for good reason it should take them out. It should support the amendments that will be advanced by Phil Heatley the excellent fisheries spokesperson for the National Party and get rid of new section 165O. It should listen to the submissions of the likes of the New Zealand Law Society which told the select committee that in terms of all the legislation it has made submissions on that provision was as draconian as any provision it has ever seen. Submissions like that need to be taken note of yet the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope will not justify why a provision like that in new section 165O(2)(a) needs to be in the legislation. 
I also want to refer to new section 165W and the subpart associated with private plans. This legislation allows an avenue whereby aquaculturalists who want to expand their operations can do so by means of a private plan change. But the industry said to us that if it goes down that path it must gift 20 percent of the space to Maori. That is fundamentally wrong. Why should an industry player have to go through the process at huge cost of promoting a private plan change and then lose 20 percent of the space to Maori? Not only do aquaculturalists lose 20 percent and bear all the associated costs but Government policy is even more stupid than that. What benefit is it to Maori to pick up 20 percent of all the little private plan changes around the Marlborough Sounds? The answer is that it is of no value to them at all. 
Those are the two points that I want the Minister to answer. I see the Chairperson is indicating that we have to get closer to the debate. He should pick up the legislation and look at it because he would see that that is in Part 1. New section 165W starts off new Subpart 2 “Privately initiated plan changes”. What privately initiated plan changes are all about is that people who want to expand their operation will have to go through a process with the local council and if they are successful they will then lose 20 percent of the space to Maori. That is wrong. The Minister David Benson-Pope can sit in his chair if he wants but I call on him to stand today and justify that. Why should an industry player have to pay the costs associated with going through a private plan change and then gift 20 percent of the space to Maori?