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:17761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have an amendment to this particular part that I would like to put before the Committee. It relates to the exorbitant time frames these reforms allow for decisions to be made by regional councils by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries and by the Minister of Conservation. On their own the decision time-frames for each of these particular actors in the process of allowing an aquaculture marine area to proceed seem fine although one would have to ask why it takes 6 months for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries and others involved in the process to make a decision. The officials came to us and said that 6 months is the time it takes to gather together all the information to talk to submitters to process the information to go back to submitters to work through all the science then to come back with clear concise and reasoned answers. So we took their word for it. 
But if we add that 6 months to another 3 months for the regional councils to make their decisions to have appeals and to go through further processes we see that the process from go to whoa to set up an aquaculture management area right through to awarding consents can take many years indeed. So I would like to present an amendment to clause 145 regarding the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries making a decision on an aquaculture management area. I commend officials for the sensible decision to have the Ministry of Fisheries involved early on in the process of setting up an aquaculture management area. A regional council goes to the Ministry of Fisheries and says: “We’d like an aquaculture management area in this particular bay of this size. What do you think—will it affect commercial fishers?”. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries looks at it goes through this process over 6 months then says: “Yes it will affect commercial fishers. Yes the effect is adverse. Yes it is a significant adverse effect.” or that there is no effect whatsoever or that it is somewhere in-between. 
My concern is that the chief executive in taking 6 months can actually go back to the regional council and say that more information is required to make a rational decision. That is not a bad thing; in fact it is common sense. Clause 145(1A) states that the chief executive may request more information from the regional council. But clause 145(1B) states: “… the period beginning on the day when a request for further information is made and ending on the day when the information is provided is excluded from the 6 month period …”. That means that the time from when the request for further information goes out to when the information comes back is added to the 6-month period. My amendment would insert new clause 145(1C): “A regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.” In other words a regional council can elect to say to the Minister of Fisheries: “No we won’t provide you with more information. That is our choice. We would rather you made the decision on the information already provided and if it’s a negative decision so be it.” 
Why I say that is that when under the Resource Management Act process councils endlessly come back for more information the clock stops and time drags on. They go back through the process more information is requested the clock stops and time drags on. Then yet more information is requested. The difficulty is that in a regional council process or even in an Environment Court process going back for further information can be genuine because further information is needed to make a rational decision but sometimes it is a way of slowing down the process stalling a decision and putting it on the back-burner because it is all too hard. I see no reason why in this case a regional council cannot say: “We have provided as much information as we can. It’s very costly to provide further information. In our view we have provided enough information for you to make a decision. Could you please make a decision on merit based on the information we have already provided. We’ll take the punt. If you turn down the application for an aquaculture management area well so be it but we’d rather have the decision resolved as soon as possible.” 
So I put it to the Committee that we insert that new clause. It does not take away from the fact that the chief executive still has 6 months to decide. It does not take away from the fact that he might request new information. It does not take away from the fact that the regional councils might choose to provide that information which would be the sensible course. But it does give the regional councils an opportunity to say: “We’d rather that you made a decision based on the information we have already given you.” That seems reasonable to me and I hope members of the Committee will support my amendment to add new clause 145(1C). It reads: “A regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.” That amendment will be voted on at the end of the debate on this part. 
Interestingly enough we also have issues around clause 140—which I will not be providing amendments to—regarding the revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. There was a huge sigh of relief from freshwater fish farmers when they learnt that the regulations tying them down were to be dropped but they are concerned that they will have to face a new set of regulations in the future. They asked the select committee why that was. The answer that came back from the officials whom I would like to acknowledge today was a sensible answer. There are two reasons. One is that a degree of regulation is needed so that we can police fisheries sensibly. I talked about paua yesterday. We do not know whether someone farming paua has got it legally or illegally. We do not know whether someone claiming to have received paua from a fish farmer has received it legally or illegally or indeed has received it from that farmer. We need a way to track that and to keep fish fees accountable. We need a degree of policing regulation and that seems fair. 
The other good argument that came forward regarded biosecurity and traceability. Freshwater fish farmers on land need a degree of biosecurity protection as well. We do not want our markets to be up in arms because in some way we have had a biosecurity breach overseas that has reflected on our aquaculture industry. So there has to be a degree of traceability when it comes to freshwater fish farming regulations—and I have been drifting into the land-based aquaculture argument as well. That seems fair enough to us. We understand why there is revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. We understand why new regulations are coming into force to cover those farmers. We understand that land-based aquaculture farmers need a fair degree of regulation when it comes to policing compliance and biosecurity and also in regard to discharges. Land-based farmers often take in water—it often is sea-water species if a sea-water species is being farmed—and that sea-water is then discharged and under the Resource Management Act a permit to discharge is needed. 
So I do not think our aquaculturists can argue that they can be completely free of regulations nor should they be. I understand the revocation clause and I understand why other regulations have to be put in place under the auspices of this particular Act.