Scott Lynda: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Scott Lynda: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk on the title debate of the Aquaculture Reform Bill. This bill makes changes to the Resource Management Act the Marine Farming Act the Fisheries Act 1983 and the Fisheries Act 1996. I have to pay tribute to some of the very key industry players people such as Jim Jessop. In Marlborough we call Jim the father of aquaculture and the father of marine farming. It was people such as Jim Jessop who absolutely developed this industry from 30 years ago. He forged an industry in New Zealand that has developed into a multimillion-dollar earner. Also Paul Lupi and Terry Schwass are people who have put so much effort into this industry. We had the Marine Farming Act in 1971—23 years ago. That shows that this is a very new industry for New Zealand but it is actually— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: That is 33 years! 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Oh yes 33 years ago. But it has been a long time coming to this point today where we actually have the Aquaculture Reform Bill. We had the previous Minister as the Hon David Carter said who did not have a clue what to do with aquaculture. We have fisheries on one side and the Department of Conservation on the other. We have the Resource Management Act on one side and local government on the other. Here we have the poor aquacultural industry stuck in the middle with no one sticking up for it. Pete Hodgson certainly never did. He never stuck up for the industry which was so disappointed in him. Members should have heard what the industry had to say; it was not very complimentary. 
So there was a change of Minister to try to drive this through. But what happened was that the Hon David Carter as chair of the Primary Production Committee actually managed to make a huge number of changes to this bill. Lianne Dalziel over there squawks and squawks but she does not ever take a call. She knows nothing about aquaculture. She lost her ministerial warrant and all she can do now is come to this Chamber and try to be nasty and criticise other people. Maybe she should try being substantial. 
I thought she was good when she first came in. She has got worse and worse. I was so wrong. I thought she was going to be a good Minister but all she did was get worse and worse. She will be very lucky if she keeps her seat. People are very disappointed in her. It is a pity she does not take a call. But she could not take a call because she knows nothing about this bill. She could not even debate a title clause. 
The moratorium has stalled this industry in the gates of the 21st century. In Marlborough aquaculture was our biggest income earner. It went from 20 percent growth down to 0 percent growth. The industry players were so frustrated. The reason we had the delays on this bill and that we are debating it only now is due to the foreshore and seabed legislation. This Government wanted to do a deal with Maori that was about the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas. It had always been rumoured that this would be the case. But we know that the 1992 Maori fisheries settlement included aquaculture. We have heard that through the debate. We have also heard that Labour promised to come up with some sort of evidence that aquaculture was not included. It never did that. 
The overview in the commentary to this bill states: “the settlement of post-1992 contemporary Maori claims to commercial aquaculture in the coastal marine area”. Well many New Zealanders are going to shudder at that thought of contemporary Maori claims—not the settlement of past grievance. This is a contemporary claim. The Maori grievance industry is never going to end and this bill is one of the reasons why it is not going to end because there is no deed of settlement. It was not negotiated with Maori. We will have huge disputes over which iwi and which hapu will be entitled to this 20 percent. 
The marine-farming industry is very pleased with one thing and that is the first right of refusal. It is very pleased with that because it has invested huge amounts of its time money and effort even though it did not get as much as it wanted. What it did not get was the one-stop shop and it is still very concerned about that. At the moment the industry has to go through a Resource Management Act process as well as through the Ministry of Fisheries. We know that it has been taking over 2 years to get permits from the Ministry of Fisheries and it has been extremely frustrating for those players in the industry. They go through the hugely expensive resource management consent process but then they cannot get a ministry consent.