Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17721] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I thought I would bring a little bit of reality to the debating chamber this evening on the issue of aquaculture and the progress of marine farming over the last decade. It is true to say that the amount of marine-farming space has increased as is evidenced by those figures the Minister put forward but that increase came largely from applications under the old legislation. In fact the setting aside of marine-farming space since Labour’s reforms in 2004 has brought the creation of aquaculture space or marine-farming space to a grinding halt—a grinding halt. No new significant aquaculture management areas have been created since 1 January 2005— 
John Carter 
: You’re joking. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: None have been created since 1 January 2005. Labour members will be digging around for their calculators to work this out but members of New Zealand First and the Maori Party have already worked it out. I can tell those Labour members that since 1 January 2005—3½ years ago—there have been no nil none zilch aquaculture management areas created anywhere in New Zealand. Not a single regional council has created a new significant aquaculture management area anywhere. 
I will explain to Maori Party members what that means. In 2004 Maori were promised 20 percent of new aquaculture space but none has been created. Labour members need not scramble for their calculators to work out 20 percent of nothing. It is nil zilch zero nothing. Maori have not received their aquaculture settlement and that is an absolute disgrace. 
The aquaculture reforms of 2004 to be kicked off on 1 January 2005 were supposed to boot along aquaculture and to put a rocket under the industry. But that has come to a grinding halt. Members will recall that in 2004 Maori were appeased over the foreshore and seabed issue with the offer of 20 percent of aquaculture space but that has not eventuated. We are here tonight with legislation to amend those reforms. 
So that there is no confusion in the public domain I point out that two aquaculture bills are coming into Parliament in the next few weeks—this one and another one. The Labour Government through a pincer movement has decided it will introduce two bills to try to fix the reforms of 2004. I say that it is too little too late. 
Will National vote for this bill? Yes we will because any progress is good even if it is as minimal as this. Even if we are just creeping ahead inch by inch foot by foot at least it helps. Hopefully this bill will deliver something over and above the big nothing that has come after a wait of 3½ years including nothing for Maori. 
This bill deals with a court decision where essentially the Tasman District Council went to court against SMW Consortium which is made up of Sealord’s Maclab and Westhaven Shellfish marketing. The SMW Consortium which is involved in aquaculture anyway applied for aquaculture space or marine-farming space under the coastal control of the Tasman District Council during the period leading up to 9 May 2006. Of course 9 May 2006 as people will know was my 13th wedding anniversary and on that date the court ruling was made. 
Marine-farming activities under the current law—Labour’s legislation—can occur only in aquaculture management areas. Essentially that is zoning just the same as if we were talking about land in a district council. Land is zoned residential commercial or heavy industrial. The same applies with the sea. There are areas called aquaculture management areas which are zones where aquaculture can occur. 
SMW Consortium argued that it could apply for space outside aquaculture management areas but the Tasman District Council argued that one could not have marine farms outside aquaculture management areas. SMW Consortium argued it was just applying for the space and was not intending to farm inside that area. It was just “applying” to farm in the area but not intending to farm it physically. Some would argue that the consortium was splitting hairs. Then a whole bunch of marine farmers decided to apply for space outside aquaculture management areas. The law states that they cannot farm outside aquaculture management areas but the applicants said they were not farming they were only applying for space. 
This court process highlighted a loophole where one could apply for marine-farming space outside aquaculture management areas. One cannot farm there but one can apply for space. This bill makes it very clear that people cannot apply for space unless it is within an aquaculture management area and that they cannot marine farm unless they are on space that is inside an aquaculture management area. That is the crux of this bill. 
If the SMW Consortium and other marine farmers were allowed to apply for space outside an aquaculture management area then they would not have to pass 20 percent to Maori. Where they applied for and got space that later became an aquaculture management area they would not have to give 20 percent to Maori. Interestingly if they applied for that space outside the aquaculture management area then they would not have to go through a fisheries test either. The test makes sure that the marine farming does not impact on fishing activities such as searching for crayfish trawling for scallops trawling for other fish species or any recreational fishing. If they applied for marine-farming space outside a aquaculture management area then they would not have to pass 20 percent to Maori they would not have to consult commercial fishers and in the future when it became a aquaculture management area they could merrily go on and farm that space. 
Of course it was the intent of the law that 20 percent should go to Maori. How much has gone to Maori? 
Eric Roy 
: How much? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: None because no marine farms have been created since the new law was passed. Setting that failure aside if some marine-farming space had been created in the last 3½ years instead of the process coming to a grinding halt then those particular groups would not have had to pass 20 percent of that space to Maori. So Maori would have missed out anyway. Are Maori currently missing out under the current reforms? Yes they are. That has been happening for about 3½ years. What is the go-forward for them? It is very little. Will this change in the legislation help? Incrementally it will but essentially we need to see much more significant change in aquaculture legislation than we see here. 
I reiterate that National will support this bill being referred to the select committee. We will look at the issues but we do not think the bill goes far enough. The industry wants this legislation supported and the National Party actively supports the industry. John Key made a speech to commercial fishers and the aquaculture industry recently where he actively promoted and pushed to help this industry. Even if this bill helps only a little bit we will support it for that reason. Thank you.