Locke Keith: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11601] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make this contribution on behalf of the Green Party and particularly on behalf of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who cannot be here today. He is a member of the Primary Production Committee which has heard the submissions on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The Greens support the passage of the bill although not entirely uncritically. It is clear that before the imposition of the marine-farming moratorium 2 years ago the aquaculture industry was going through something of a Wild West phase with many regional councils being inundated with applications for water space. Councils responded in a variety of ways and the confusion amongst the participants in the aquaculture industry was reaching crisis point. Uncontrolled expansion of the industry was inappropriate not only because of the unknown effects of aquaculture activity on inshore and offshore ecosystems but also because of the waste of effort and resources that results when sunrise industries overshoot sustainable levels of activity as has happened in many other production sector industries in New Zealand. 
The intention of the original moratorium was to give councils and central government some breathing space in which to plan for the orderly development of the industry rather than for them to have to continually deal with a flood of new applications while simultaneously trying to plan for the future. The former Minister of Fisheries made it clear at the time of the earlier legislation that he wanted councils to develop aquaculture management areas—or “AMAs”—inside which marine farming could operate with a degree of freedom. The aquaculture management areas are intended to come into effect with the passage of the aquaculture reform legislation which was scheduled to be completed by now but is still to come before the House. There are a number of reasons for that of course including the complexity of the aquaculture management areas scheme and more recently the additional complication of the foreshore and seabed issue. 
In the circumstances there seems to be little alternative to supporting the extension of the moratorium though the Greens are very conscious that the former Minister of Fisheries has broken his earlier assurances to the industry. When the moratorium was put in place 2 years ago he gave a categorical assurance to the industry that in no circumstance would the moratorium be extended. It was he claimed just a 2-year breather and would be enough to enable the substantive legislation to be drafted without becoming a long-term de facto brake on aquaculture development. Although the foreshore and seabed issue has recently become a significant complicating factor it was clear even before then that the reform legislation would not be ready before the expiry of the moratorium. 
The development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand is a complex process. It has the potential to be a significant contributor to the national economy and to reduce the intense pressure on wild fisheries. The level of productivity from a confined space can be exceptionally good and it is an industry that is booming in Australia and in many other parts of the world. The very high-quality growing conditions in New Zealand and the greenshell mussels which are unique to our shores mean the products of the industry are already in considerable demand overseas. However in many places where the expansion of aquaculture has been uncontrolled aquaculture has had severe negative impacts on ecosystems. Almost all aquaculture takes place within coastal waters so the industry is competing for space with recreational fishers boaties and other users of that space. That does open up a philosophical debate about the extent to which people can exclusively use open space for the making of private profit. In the past there has been a tendency for marine farmers to believe they own their patch of water and have the right to occupy it in perpetuity. Presumably the tension between the need of individual farmers for certainty for the foreseeable future and the needs of other users for water space will be addressed in the aquaculture reform legislation. 
In addition there is the inescapable reality that aquaculture is a process that exists only within biophysical limits. Mussels will grow only when they have sufficient food and the nutrient level of the water is in turn affected by the number of mussels feeding from it. Already marine farmers are aware that individual mussels in the middle of a farm or at the end of a farm downstream from the tide grow significantly more slowly than the individual mussels that have access to waters of a high nutrient level. When other farms are placed between an existing farm and its source of nutrients the impact of that on the existing farm can be considerable. 
Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that the ecological impact of marine farms is poorly understood. For instance what is their long-term impact on the biological communities on the seafloor below the farms and what is the impact of their nutrient draw-down on other wild communities that have been dependent on the same source of phytoplankton for nutriment? What is the impact of farms on the reproduction of fish species because of the consumption of eggs and other zooplankton? 
The simple reality for marine farmers is that they exist in something of an uncertain world both in terms of the food supply for their product and of the tenure of the space that they occupy. What they and other primary producers need is certainty. The Greens are hopeful that the extension of the moratorium will provide for the development of regional plans pertaining to aquaculture management areas and that that will be accompanied by a plan for the study of the ecological impacts of activities carried out in the aquaculture management areas. Only in that way will aquaculture be able to develop sustainably. 
In terms of the detail of this bill itself the only real point of contention within the Primary Production Committee was on the question of the time constraints on the Minister of Conservation when making recommendations on the early expiry of the moratorium in certain areas. Officials urged the members of the committee to completely remove the 20 working-day time limit on the Minister but although we acknowledge the present good record of the Minister we were reluctant to remove all time restrictions. The Greens agreed with the committee that 40 working-days plus the potential for a further 40-day extension should be sufficient for the Minister to make those decisions. The Greens support the passage of this bill and look forward to the early tabling of the aquaculture reform bill.