Baldock Larry: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15120] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of this Aquaculture Reform Bill. United Future welcomes this bill being debated here for the first time in the House today. It is long overdue in being able to provide a way forward for the aquaculture industry. Earlier this year when United Future gave support for the extension of the moratorium we made it absolutely clear that there had to be a bill in the House this year in order for provision to be made for the growth of the aquaculture industry before the expiration date of the moratorium which is now set at December of this year. What is going on in the aquaculture industry is truly amazing as is the way in which we are able to farm fish—that is both fin fish and shellfish: mussels kina paua and so on. As the honourable Gerald Eckhoff the speaker before me said it really does offer us hope for the future in this valuable food resource because we know that natural fish stocks are being depleted internationally. So it is important that New Zealand is able to take its place in developing its own aquaculture industry. 
Various figures have been stated as to the worth of the industry and the speed at which it will grow. It is estimated in some cases that there will be up to $1 billion of export earnings in the next 10 years which would be an amazing feat if it were accomplished. 
This bill transfers from the Ministry of Fisheries the responsibility for marine farming permits under the Fisheries Act to regional councils which will be able to manage aquaculture space under the Resource Management Act. For this reason I would have preferred to see the bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee where we are soon to be engaged in handling the reform of the Resource Management Act. Because a lot of this bill is about that legislation it would have been useful if we could have handled those two bills in tandem and been able to make sure that the way in which they would work together was synchronised. But we have left this bill in the good hands of the Primary Production Committee and we trust that its members will not do to it what they did to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) when they came to a few sticky points. 
However marine farmers will no longer require a marine farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983 and I think that that is good news. It is important that they can develop this industry under the Resource Management Act and under regional council control rather than under Ministry of Fisheries control—given some of the problems that have occurred in the last 10 or 15 years. They will simply have to register as a fish farmer and we trust that that will expedite the progress of the development of the industry. 
I particularly welcome the provisions in the bill for existing marine farming activities to be given priority when marine farmers apply for that activity to continue on the expiration of their permits. In fact the explanatory note on the bill makes it very clear that they will have that priority over their space unless of course the council has established an aquaculture marine area in a different area and has decided that that space will no longer be used in the marine area for aquaculture—in which case it will not apply. 
 But otherwise recognition is given to those who have begun aquaculture marine farming and they will not have to queue up like everybody else to get a renewal of their permits and I think that very important step is being addressed in this bill. 
It is important though to note some of the other comments in the explanatory note and for the benefit of the House I quote from it: “The Bill provides mechanisms to reconcile any conflicts between aquaculture and commercial fishing.”—because there will be conflicts in that regard—“Under the new legislation the Ministry of Fisheries will assess whether an AMA proposed by a regional council will have an undue adverse effect” not just on commercial fishing but also on customary and recreational fishing. This is very important and I believe there will be many submissions to the committee on it so that a balance is found in those competing priorities. 
It is a concern amongst the recreational fishing community that suddenly marine farms will be cropping up everywhere and large areas will be dedicated to being aquaculture management areas. It would be another exclusionary zone where they will not be able to exercise their rights as New Zealanders to fish in this wonderful piece of paradise that we have. 
So I am sure the committee will be listening intently to those submitters who come and seek to address their concerns about that balance between recreational fishing customary fishing commercial fishing and now marine farming activities and I trust that the committee will be able to find that balance. 
With regard to the 20 percent allocation to Maori United Future accepts that it is a continuation and completion of the settlement of 1992 negotiated by the National Government. Given that it is simply an allocation of space it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to enable the industry to move forward without being hamstrung by further litigation over the interpretation of that 1992 settlement. Otherwise we might be here in 10 years’ time still trying to see this industry develop. We accept that it is a pragmatic solution and we welcome the fact that Maori have accepted it so that all parties can move forward. It will offer Maori opportunities to engage in this very lucrative industry and we welcome that because they ought to have that right to participate in it. 
We also support the handling of the allocation through the mechanisms established for allocating the assets from the settlement that will be debated next week I believe in the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill and all the structures that have been set up by that legislation because it does fit well. Although it may as the co-leader for the Greens said be another imposition upon Te Ohu Kai Moana it is the right place I believe for it to be handled and we look forward to all those assets ultimately being released into the hands of iwi throughout the country so that they may develop economically and make even greater contributions to the nation’s economy. 
The bill introduces a new form of private plan change. I do not think this is ideal. It would have been much better if the regional councils had used the 3 years they have had during the moratorium to establish aquaculture management areas. I think there will be some complications in going forward in such a piecemeal fashion where individual commercial interests have to undertake the plan change themselves. Therefore the committee will have to put its mind to how to allocate the 20 percent to Maori when the aquaculture management area is not established right from the beginning but done in this fashion instead and there may be some other complications that arise with that piecemeal way forward. 
But nevertheless it is good to see that we will go forward with this. I hope to see some submissions come in and from discussions I have had I believe there will be some that suggest the aquaculture management area concept should be expanded to being an aquaculture marine park. This would include not just the sea environment but also the adjacent land because often there is a need for land-based activities to support marine farming. It would make sense I believe if the consent process could be handled under one set of rules that would be managed by the regional council. So we will see whether the committee will accept submissions on that through the committee stage. But I thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to give United Future’s support to the first reading of the bill and we wish the committee well in its deliberations through the submissions stage.