Ewen-Street Ian: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17723] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Under the present legislation if people want to establish a marine farm they have to get resource consent and then go to the Ministry of Fisheries for a fishing permit. This legislation proposes that those two steps be amalgamated into one so that the input from the Ministry of Fisheries is much earlier in the decision-making process. If a council wants to declare or to increase the area of an aquaculture management area it invites the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Fisheries to make an aquaculture decision about whether there is an undue adverse effect on quota holders or other fishers—and it is not just quota holders; it is people who have fishing permits for non-quota species as well. The hurdle to jump over is actually quite high. The chief executive officer has to say firstly that there is an effect secondly that it is an adverse effect and thirdly that it is an undue adverse effect. As the bill was reported to us if the chief executive officer said that yes there was an adverse effect—in other words said no to the council—it was a “black box” decision. The council invited the Ministry of Fisheries to make a decision and if it said no that was the end of it. There was no recourse except for perhaps judicial review. 
We did two things at the Primary Production Committee and I think they were very positive steps. First we allowed people to appeal the chief executive’s decision to the High Court on matters of substance as well as process so that substantive issues could go to the High Court. Second we provided that the alternative the applicant has is to seek the aquaculture decision that my colleagues have described whereby the person who is seeking to have a marine farm goes to the affected fishers whether they are quota holders or permit holders and seeks their agreement whether by paying them money or by some other agreement— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: That’s bribery. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: No it is a commercial decision; it is not bribery. The applicant seeks their agreement to allow aquaculture in that space. I need to point out that we are not talking about fin-fish species—the migratory or the mobile species that can just swim away. If fishers have a quota for kahawai tuna or something like that it is very unlikely to be affected by a marine farm. The kinds of species that we are talking about are the sedentary ones. I guess that species like scallops and oysters are the main ones but it also applies to crayfish and other relatively immobile species like that. Those quota holders and permit holders have to be consulted by the people who want to get the aquaculture management area whether it is by the council or the individual applicant. 
My colleague David Carter said that I was a bit tough on the people who were left out when the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people was reached. My argument at the time was that if the applicant for a marine farm had been around to everyone and had got the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people we did not really want the last 10 percent to hold out just for a better price. My argument was that they had had their opportunity and that they could either accept the price that was offered or miss out completely. On reflection I think I was wrong in making that call originally—I think it was a bit tough. But I do think that the remaining 10 percent of affected people should not have an incentive to hold out. Those people should get the same price as the other 90 percent—the average price—or a price that is equivalent to what they got. The fall-back position if no price can be agreed on is recourse to the High Court.