Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17775. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Much has been made in this debate of the fisheries settlement post-1992 the aquaculture settlement where Maori have been passed for free 20 percent of the aquaculture space throughout this country as a broad-brush approach to appeasing their concern over the seabed and foreshore issue. We have explored that. We have examined the facts that pre-1992—and that was not very long ago—Maori were still able to claim aquaculture space. In fact five iwi have already done that successfully. The list in the back of the Maori Fisheries Act adds another 70-odd iwi that may soon be coming over the hill to make a pre-1992 claim. So we have not seen the end of the aquaculture treaty settlement process. It will go on for some years now. We will sit and watch on the Opposition benches for a few months and see the whole process turn to custard for the Minister of Maori Affairs for the Minister of Fisheries and for the Minister for treaty settlements. 
I would like though to bring members back to an issue that has not been discussed at length during the debate on the bill and that is the degree to which the Minister of Conservation has powers to gazump or thwart the process of setting up marine farms and aquaculture management areas. There are actually three areas where the Minister of Conservation can come in and thwart a marine farm proposal. The Minister of Conservation has the power to direct regional councils in relation to the allocation of space in the coastal marine area. First the department through the Minister can be an objector under the Resource Management Act to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. That is the first opportunity—the department can be an objector to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. If the department fails there when a marine farmer puts in for a consent to establish a marine farm in that aquaculture management area his or her plans can be objected to by the department. So the department can secondly be an objector under the Resource Management Act to the issuing of an individual consent. So that is the department’s second swipe at marine farmers’ interests—being an objector under the Resource Management Act to an individual consent. The third opportunity for the department is that the Minister of Conservation can effectively veto an allocation at the last hurdle under the guise of “giving effect to Government policy”—that is a quote—if the department initially fails at the first two opportunities. 
We are quite concerned that the allocation of aquaculture space would be at the whim of the Government policy of the day. I was quite intrigued to see that it is not just Government policy that could torpedo an aquaculture application but in fact a requirement to meet some sort of historical treaty grievance in an aquaculture management area. That should be of concern to the Committee. It is not fair that the department and the Minister of Conservation should have three opportunities to interfere with effective vetos in the coastal marine area.