O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15314] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) going to a select committee because we too understand the need to clarify a number of things that have bogged down the aquaculture industry. None the less the reality for many in the industry is that the international markets have not been great over the last few years and in some bizarre way the lack of any further space development has probably helped protect those who are currently producing to get a slightly better return in the market place. 
I would like to follow on from the Hon Nick Smith who needs to have a few points clarified because it is not often that he comes to the House to clarify things and he certainly confused things. The dilemma we face in aquaculture is a direct result of the National Government’s Resource Management Act which left regional councils regardless of their capability or knowledge to develop plans to manage all of the things in the coastal areas that strictly speaking they did not have responsibility for but had been asked to manage. In Tasman where there was a unitary council Nick Smith campaigned to get rid of the unitary council and a whole lot of people there think that that was a major blue I have to say. The unitary council in Tasman had not foreseen the growth potential in aquaculture and had not put in place a coastal management plan and a resource plan that adequately addressed the huge number of applications for coastal space. Under the Resource Management Act passed by the National Government there was a clear obligation to manage the applications on a “first come first served” basis. Some regional councils that did not have huge pressure from aquaculture put in place some basic requirements. Marlborough on the other hand moved forward and developed a reasonably robust scheme for managing applications. In fact it moved on and— 
Hon Member 
: It was under a unitary authority. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes some work well; some do not. It addressed the issue. But in Tasman there was a flood of applications by a bunch of speculators who thought they would rush out to get the space and that someone would come along later on who might want to grow some mussels or do something else. Mr King knows the truth of this. So when Labour was in Government there was a huge amount of litigation—expensive litigation. The personal cost was quite high for a number of people involved in that and I offer them my sympathy. They were caught up in a legislative vacuum perhaps in the absence of any clarification by Tasman District Council in the attempt to sort out who got first rights and where these applications should be approved. The spaces were huge in area so something had to be done. We got in and attempted to do that keeping in mind and we put in place the obligation for 20 percent of new space to go to Maori as has happened with quota. We got to that point put in place a few principal positions and said there had to be a process for developing aquaculture management areas and then a process for applying for space within those. 
Yes hindsight would say that we did not get that quite right. We would admit that but it was with the best of intentions. This legislation addresses a number of those problems; I accept that. But it also hands over a huge amount of responsibility to a Minister and that will not offer investors or industry much certainty. We were reluctant in Government to have ministerial discretion and preferred to have in place a robust and independent process. We attempted to provide that through aquaculture legislation. We know that if we hand over ultimate responsibility and decision-making to a Minister it will be all right if we are in Government and can trust our Minister but if as happens in a democracy another bunch of loonies gets into power we do not know whether the new Minister will have the knowledge or the right ethical and moral judgment to make the right decisions. If we look at what has happened within the National Party in the last few weeks we would have to say there are some Ministers who do not have the best guidance on ethical and moral judgments so how will any investor ensure that they get a fair assessment of their application and a fair go at getting a positive decision on their application? In the end it is up to the Minister. 
That is one area we will scrutinise closely in the select committee because we still believe that an independent transparent process is the fairest way for all business in this country to operate so that businesses are not battered around by the winds of ignorance different ethical judgments or politicking so that they get a fair go to develop a business get access to a bit of space and get on to develop some exports for the country. Although this bill makes some progress in some key areas ultimately it leaves ministerial discretion as the last port of call for decision making and in our view that is a big worry. 
There are some existing problems within the aquaculture industry that really need to be addressed and I take the opportunity during the debate on this bill to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who has come into the House what he is doing about scallop management in Golden Bay. In both Tasman and Golden Bay there has been a programme of management and enhancement with 20 percent of the industry’s income coming back into enhancement and it has worked OK for quite some time but for the last few years it has been disastrous. Something needs to happen to improve the commercial potential—not the commercial business because there is none in Golden Bay and the industry cannot take any out—of scallops an industry that has been established and has huge potential but is now failing. The Minister needs to give us some steer as to how he will improve that situation before we embark upon a new wave of aquaculture that without the right safeguards and proper management might result in a whole lot of businesses falling over or failing. We do not want to see that. We want people who are prepared to invest to go out create exports and get some good returns and profits on their investments. 
I will go through a few key provisions in the bill. There have been changes. The fact is that there is now no requirement for aquaculture management areas. There are some interim areas under the Tasman District Council that are almost through to completion point; they will still be in place and I think that is a good call provided for in this legislation. The 20-year minimum requirement for aquaculture consents is OK. It gives some certainty for investment but it is a long time and it effectively gives up to 35 years which is the maximum allowed of private property rights over what is I guess the seabed and the foreshore and particularly the seabed. We still have major legislation to pass through the House to establish some rights in that area so it is an area of uncertainty for the industry I would say. 
The re-consenting process for marine farmers has been simplified. That is smart and we welcome it. The undue adverse effects test asks whether an activity affects anyone else and that is really at the heart of the problem here. Those people who have wet-fish quota and those who might be scallop farmers for example do not like green-lipped mussel farms coming in over the top of them. The real battle in this area is within the industry. It has not been between the Government be it Labour or National and industry; it has been within the industry over who has preferential rights to sea space. The test of undue adverse effects and the removal of the right to take a case right through to the High Court are good things. Litigation and big money have bogged progress in aquaculture as much as inadequate legislation has done. 
I have spoken about the power of the Minister. I think it is alarming and indeed Treasury itself has spoken of that danger. Treasury has stated that the power is not consistent with the Resource Management Act and the wider resource management reforms that are currently under development. Referring to the Government’s own adviser through Treasury we see there are some dangers in this legislation. We will support the bill going to the select committee but we will be scrutinising it very carefully.