Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18729] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The bill is a central feature of a package of reforms intended to reduce costs delays and uncertainty and to promote investment. The bill will reform aquaculture legislation after a decade of roadblocks and missed opportunities. It will provide an efficient legislative framework to enable marine-based aquaculture to fulfil its economic potential. This will advance the Government’s economic growth agenda through increased export earnings and the creation of new jobs. At the same time the Government recognises that growth in aquaculture must be environmentally sustainable and balanced with other uses of our coastal space including commercial and recreational activities. 
There is growing worldwide demand for protein foods including those farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner. New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is well placed to meet that demand. New Zealand is a very small player on the global stage but has some considerable advantages: a robust resource management framework outstanding water quality strict food safety and biosecurity rules and strong research and development capability backed by Government funding. All these position New Zealand well to be a supplier of high-value high-demand products. 
The Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House on 9 May. It recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I agree with the proposed amendments and consider that they will improve the workability of the new law. I thank the members of the committee and its chair Shane Ardern for their work. I also thank the many people and organisations who took the time to make submissions on what is a very complex bill and contributed to its development through earlier consultation processes. I am particularly proud of the Ministry of Fisheries and its staff for the way they have worked with the industry and with interested parties both inside and outside Parliament. 
The central change to the planning process removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas will streamline planning and processes and put aquaculture on an equal footing with other activities in the coastal marine area. Removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas does not mean at all uncontrolled growth. In fact councils will still be able and encouraged to concentrate aquaculture activity where it is appropriate and exclude it from areas where it is not appropriate. In all cases aquaculture applicants will still need to apply for resource consent through the Resource Management Act processes. 
Marine farming will continue to occupy only a small fraction of our coastal space. This bill will enable careful managed growth. Growth will also come from existing production which will be increased in value making better use of existing space from research and innovation. New space is only one part of the equation. Our encouragement of farming high-value finfish species as well as sessile shellfish species is part of that story. 
The proposed power enabling the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to amend aquaculture-related provisions in regional and coastal plans attracted comment from many submitters. The committee has recommended changes to clarify the scope of the proposed power and to more clearly establish the requirement for public and iwi consultation. I fully commend and fully support the committee’s recommendations. The undue adverse effects test which protects the interests of commercial customary and recreational fishers will also remain. The committee has recommended changes to clarify and improve the aquaculture decision and undue adverse effects test processes. Those changes will allow the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consult on preliminary decisions where he or she considers this is warranted. The proposed time frame within the judicial review of an aquaculture decision that may be sought is extended from the 15 days proposed in the original bill to 30 days. I agree that this is a sensible change. 
Aquaculture industry submissions raised a number of matters relating to the security of tenure. This is a complex issue and it involves balancing the industry’s desire for certainty—which is entirely understandable—with the need to ensure that the continued use of a public resource for aquaculture remains appropriate. The bill as introduced aimed to reduce the time and cost associated with the re-consenting process by limiting the range of information that applicants must provide. However it is unlikely that this in practice would achieve much at all and the Primary Production Committee has therefore come back and recommended the deletion of the relevant provision which I support. I consider that re-consenting would be better addressed on a comprehensive basis for all sectors not just marine farming and that will happen through the latter stages of phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms. 
I said when I introduced the bill that the Government was committed to ensuring that the Crown continues to uphold the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Act and this bill retains the core components of that settlement. 
The proposed changes to the Tasman and the Waikato regional coastal plans will enable the industry to diversify into higher-value species and will enable some expansion of existing farms in the Waikato. This will provide much-needed stimulus to investment and to growth. 
This bill addresses problems with the current law and streamlines processes. I am very pleased with the work of the select committee. Committee members picked up issues that I had overlooked and I appreciate their input. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.