Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17729] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that the two calls taken by the Labour member who sat on the Primary Production Committee the Hon Dover Samuels have both been to close the debate down? That was the member who promised to table documents before the select committee that set out the unfinished business yet we are still waiting. 
I shall talk specifically to two parts of the bill: section 186G and then section 186E inserted by clause 41. It is section 186G that proves the point of having a robust select committee hearing because this provision is all about the matters that must be considered before an aquaculture decision is made. I will not read them all out because that would take too long but Minister David Benson-Pope had originally included in the list of those matters under paragraph (g) “any other matter that the chief executive considers relevant.” Well members can imagine the response we got from the industry. There was enough of a test regarding the undue adverse effect that has to be gone through to establish equity between commercial fishers and a proponent of aquaculture but in that provision we were meant to give the ministry carte blanche to consider any matter at all. It did not have to be justified before it made an aquaculture decision that put that aquaculture proponent into huge difficulty. 
I have to say that submissions were unanimous in that regard. I cannot think of one in favour of the provision. Maybe we had one from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or from somebody who may have been saying that it should remain but there certainly was not any relevant submission arguing that it should not be deleted. So in that regard the select committee resolutely argued and agreed and I thank Dover Samuels for his intermittent attendance at the committee when he too may not have been aware that we argued successfully for section 186G(g) to be deleted. 
The other thing I want to speak about is the way the Minister David Benson-Pope presented the legislation to the select committee. The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries was required to make an aquaculture decision but under the legislation proposed by the incompetent Minister he had as long as he wanted to make that decision. So a proponent for aquaculture would come along with a proposal and would have to go through the process of having it checked to see whether there was an undue adverse effect and then the Ministry of Fisheries could sit on that proposal absolutely forever. 
As was said earlier in the debate there was not a lot of confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries. That could be related to the Minister or it could be related to past history within the industry which would equally be absolutely excusable. But again the select committee worked hard to ensure that there was a time limit within which the Ministry of Fisheries had to act. That time limit is 6 months. Some people argued that it should be less. Why should the ministry not get off its chuff do the work and come up with a decision? I was one of those who felt that there had to be a reasonable period of time because too often I have seen in bureaucracy that if the decision is hard to make and the clock is ticking then the easiest thing in the world for the bureaucrats is just to put a rejection through and have the proposal not proceed. So I think the select committee has come up with something workable. 
The issue then arose as to whether if there is insufficient information the ministry should be able to go back and seek more information. The select committee supported that. In the event that that happens the legislation as it is now reported back means that for the ministry officials themselves the clock stops ticking. So there is a 6-month time frame and if at any time throughout that process the ministry says it genuinely does not think it has enough information then it goes back to the proponent and the clock goes on hold.