Clendon David: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I will make a couple of brief comments on Part 4 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) particularly in respect of clause 66. The clause states that the regional council and Minister of Conservation will effectively keep their hands away from fisheries management in a generic sense and that is entirely appropriate. However it goes on to state: “a regional council and the Minister of Conservation may perform the functions specified in subsection (1)(d) to control aquaculture activities for the purpose of avoiding remedying or mitigating the effects of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.” That brings to my mind a very significant question here: what capacity do our regional councils have to adequately fulfil their existing obligations duties and responsibilities? I would be very interested to hear from the Minister or any other member of a regional council in the country that has sufficient capacity expertise and knowledge to make considered and appropriate judgments about the likely effect of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.  
This has been an ongoing problem with the Resource Management Act since day one. Regional councils have not been fulfilling their existing obligations. Imposing new and complex obligation requirements on them will simply exacerbate that existing condition. I reflect momentarily on the Kaipara Harbour where I have recently spent some time. The regional council there is under considerable pressure already to consider its baseline monitoring as a follow-on of the consents for the tidal energy project. We have yet to see a regional council in the last 20 years that has been able to employ sufficient scientific capacity to properly assess the condition and quality of its environment within that area of concern. 
Sandra Goudie 
: We’d never satisfy that member or his party anyway so why bother. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: I absolutely challenge any member even those who enjoy shouting rather than making sensible contributions to come up with some evidence that any regional council has that capacity. I have genuine concerns that in reality what will happen is that the regional councils will not have the capacity; therefore this requirement for them to look at the likely effects will not be satisfactorily met.  
There is also reference in this part to the development of finfish farming in the Hauraki Gulf off the Coromandel coast. I hope it has been considered that there is significant local opposition—deep-seated and long-term opposition—to this proposition. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Rubbish. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Once again we hear that it is rubbish. I am pleased that the member who is interjecting has moderated her language. In an earlier reading of the bill she used a much cruder word to suggest that the Green contribution was below par. The reality is that fishers are objecting. They are seriously concerned about the likely effect that this proposal to farm high-value species will have on the wild fishery. The Hauraki Gulf is a very popular recreational boating area. Again that could be compromised. We know there are significant iwi and hapu objections to the proposition of finfish farming based on very sound social economic and environmental concerns. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 in his name be agreed to. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.