O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18730] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour to be the first speaker for the Opposition in the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). This is the third round of aquaculture amendment legislation in this House and it may not be the last round. 
I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the intent of the Primary Production Committee the Government and indeed the Opposition is to facilitate the growth of aquaculture across the country. In the early stages we saw growth particularly in the green-lipped mussel area and salmon farming was going quite well. We then went through a period where there was a rush for space. So we arrived at a situation in Tasman and Golden Bay in particular where there was a gold rush effectively for space on the understanding that it would be valuable in the future and that those who controlled the space would control the industry. A little like in respect of fishing quotas it was considered that the value would be in the space not necessarily in the production. That created a dilemma that the last Labour Government attempted to resolve. 
I was and intend to be after the next election the MP for West Coast - Tasman. I saw the ratepayers of the Tasman District paying a lot of money to try to resolve an issue that was effectively an industry battle. The previous Labour Government seeing this as a potential dilemma around the country introduced the previous aquaculture legislation. We did not get it quite right. It was a very complex task as the Minister rightly said about this legislation. We attempted to create aquaculture management areas that would have allowed and facilitated the passage and growth of aquaculture in those areas quite easily. The problem was that we had allocated responsibility to regional councils as the community organisations rightfully elected in most areas—except of course Canterbury—where local values local aspirations and local concerns for the environment would be considered along with applications for economic development in the form of aquaculture. We thought regional councils were the right place to park this responsibility. As it turned out they had neither the expertise nor the inclination—in hindsight of course—to progress the space. So we did not see a huge amount of growth in aquaculture. 
The lack of growth happened to coincide with a period of declining demand in the market and some in the industry would say that it actually allowed the industry time to mature and avoid the gold rush in production that we have seen in other primary industries which effectively led to the market collapse of prices. In some ways I guess the changes that we made did not quite work out the way we hoped but they have allowed time for the industry to mature. 
In making submissions on this bill the submitters I think came with the best of intent. They knew the pitfalls around space around environmental safeguards and the rest of it and I hope we have arrived at a better outcome. There are and were some concerns that Labour had when the bill was introduced—for example in respect of the Minister’s right to override coastal management plans. We have seen that with the National Government before when it overrode the Canterbury Regional Council. So we did not underestimate the potential for inappropriate interference by a Minister in respect of a coastal management plan that might have been hard won hard fought and negotiated with all local people. We have recommended some changes we looked at the issues and the select committee under Mr Shane Ardern’s chairmanship—and I think he always does a very very good job—made some adjustments to make sure that if the Minister does intervene it is for the good outcome of protecting environmental issues as well as facilitating economic growth. 
As I said I think this amendment is round three. But we were reminded through the submission process that in Tasman and Golden Bay there is an ongoing battle—in fact the ongoing battle—between industry players and that will go on for another 3 years. I am very very sad about that because it is a waste of money. If people in the fishing industry—fin fisherman quota owners or aquaculture developers—have as much money as that to throw around then they should give it back to the Government for health and education or they should pay some more tax. If they want to throw it around the courts rather than sit down and negotiate a sensible solution then I guess Parliament will continue to be frustrated by the actions of the fishing industry. 
The second concern we had was in respect of the undue adverse effects test which has been at the heart of the problem here. To go back to my reference to Tasman and Golden Bay and the crisis in the courts that led to our changes I say that those undue adverse effects remain because those who hold the quota believe they have absolute rights not only to the quota and its quantum but to all the water space in which they can catch their fish. I think that goes one step too far but they have lawyers who are happy to challenge that in court on a regular basis. 
When someone applies for space they will have to go through a Resource Management Act application and they will have to look at all the environmental outcomes of that application which relates to the progress we are making in this bill. At the same time the applicant can sit down and talk with other industry players—those who have quotas and those who have an interest; in Tasman and Golden Bay it relates to scallop fishermen who have scallop quota fin fish and applicants who are most likely to forward a proposal in respect of green-lipped mussel. Those applicants will work with the Resource Management Act process and hopefully arrive at an agreed solution—that is that they can mitigate any effects on the quota or on their rights that they can reduce the environmental impacts and that they can allow each other to operate side by side. I have absolutely no doubt that that can happen in every single case—absolutely no doubt. The issues of whether one gets to saturation point in say the Marlborough Sounds will be environmental issues dealt with under the Resource Management Act. But in respect of the undue adverse effects test fishing industry participants working alongside one another should be able to negotiate. It is pigheadedness it is arrogance and it is the worst of commercial behaviour that cannot allow them to see the vision and the wisdom of negotiating a sensible solution. I guess it comes down to corporate pride as well. The committee hopes that the changes we made to the undue adverse effect test will allow a fair process although I do not want to get bogged down in the detail. We stopped what we thought was the industry’s proposal to have domination by the big players and we wound that back a little bit. All the small quota holders owners and fishermen will have a fair say in any application. 
The undue adverse effects test has been at the heart of the hold-up in the whole of aquaculture development and will remain at the heart of the hold-up if the industry chooses to leave it that way. However the changes we have made will provide a sensible solution to allow coastal management plans developed by regional councils to give some guidelines to allow for individual applicants to apply for resource consent given the environmental guidelines and safeguards and to allow the applicant to work through the undue adverse effects test with other industry players. They can then say that they share the space that it is public domain and that all can benefit from it. 
If we get this bill right we will see sensible aquaculture development and growth in this country. We need those export earnings. Labour has been happy to work with the Government on the bill. The concerns we had at the time of the bill’s introduction have been addressed through the select committee process. Therefore Labour is happy to support the passage of the bill through the House.