Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17725] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have to say that the issues regarding undue adverse effects and how commercial-fishing interests meet—and in many cases collide with—aquacultural interests were of intense interest to us on the Primary Production Committee. We had quite robust discussions with submitters as they presented their views. 
On the one hand aquaculturalists came forward and said on the whole that although they acknowledged that commercial-fishing interests have a part to play in the marine area—which is clearly obvious—they felt that the powers given to commercial fishers in terms of thwarting aquaculture were far too tough. On the other hand commercial fishers on the whole put forward their property rights and their concern that aquaculture should not develop too rapidly and too well in too many areas such as to impede commercial fishing particularly where sustainable commercial-fishing takes are proven and have been consistent over time. The committee members listened to those contrary views. We had robust discussions with proponents of both sides of the debate and came to some agreement as outlined in the clauses before us now. 
However there are still some unanswered questions on how aquaculture interests will be balanced with commercial-fishing interests into the future. National Party members support greater interaction between the two sectors. Together they must have timely fully transparent and cost-effective processes in order to come to some conclusion about the future of both in a particular area. The process as it stands is a split one. Marine farmers came to the ministry many years ago and said that the two-stage process whereby they got a fisheries permit under the Fisheries Act then a resource consent under the Resource Management was too time consuming exhausting and costly. They needed a one-stop shop. I know that the ministry looked hard at giving them a one-stop shop. It has not come up with a one-stop shop but with a process that is probably as close to it as one can get. 
If we explore the clauses here we discover that the process is still in two stages. The regional councils will look at the environmental effect that aquaculture may have on commercial fishing and the Ministry of Fisheries will look at what spatial restrictions aquaculture places on commercial fishing. When the regional councils go to the ministry for an aquaculture decision it will simply ask how the spatial element of an aquaculture management area will affect commercial fishers. How will it affect the access of commercial fishers to their fishery? One can imagine that with highly mobile fish stocks such as kahawai as I think the Green member mentioned or snapper or with those fish that are way offshore where there is no aquaculture issue such as tuna and that type of thing a marine farm will not have too much spatial impact. The fish are mobile; they will simply go elsewhere and be caught elsewhere. There is not much argument around that. But with largely immobile species such as crayfish or scallops or species that are inshore where marine farms are likely to be such as flounder or mullet there will be some sort of spatial impact on commercial-fishing interests. 
The Ministry of Fisheries has to make that decision but it is restricted solely to that spatial element. It has no say on what environmental effects marine farms might have on commercial fishing at all.