Horomia Parekura: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15311] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 We support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) going to a select committee but there are a whole lot of questions on the journey through and after the select committee that we would like answered. 
The bill makes some significant change to the current regime. We have serious reservations regarding the regulatory power being given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to change regional and coastal plans without appropriate public consultation. As he said the group that went out to consult and travel around the country has come back with a report that still needs to be worked over. 
The bill supposedly aims to provide a legislative and regulatory framework that enables the sustainable development of aquaculture. We are certainly supportive of that. This bill is an omnibus bill which amends the Resource Management Act 1991 the Fisheries Act 1998 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. It will be divided into four separate bills during the Committee stage. The majority of the bill is due to come into effect on 1 July 2011 and if we are able to support that objective we certainly would be interested in the Minister’s answers. 
This certainly spells out the complexity of this bill and the activity as we have seen in past years. The bill incorporates some of Labour’s Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) which was reported back from the select committee in September 2009. However as this bill removes the requirement for aquaculture management areas the crossover between the bills is limited. 
The major change in this bill is the removal of aquaculture management areas. The bill gives the Minister significant new powers. Specifically it gives him or her the power to override regional coastal plans that have been developed and agreed to by councils and locals. Essentially it undermines the process of developing a regional coastal plan. Treasury itself expressed some significant reservations about the creation of this power: “The power is not consistent with the RMA and wider resource management reform is currently under development. This power is a fundamental departure from devoted regional decision-making and integrated resource decision-making.” We have heard heaps of talk especially in the health area about taking it to the front to where the local regions develop things. This bill seems to be more of a centralising and pulling back of those powers that had been developed when local communities and regions were trusted to ensure that what is imbued in any progress for this great industry is something that they helped to design and develop. Treasury also notes that this power only adds to uncertainty for investors who will be unsure—and this is a critical and crucial part—about whether or not the Minister will exercise the power. That is one of the big questions. It also ties the hands of councils in the consent process by requiring them to grant consents for a minimum term of 20 years. 
The changes in this bill are part of a wider programme that includes the establishment of an aquaculture business unit which is to be supported within the Ministry of Fisheries. But Cabinet papers released by the Minister are not clear on just how much the total cost of establishing and running the unit will be given that we have seen the Public Service purposely run down. It is certainly a concern that the risks at minimum include issues such as the fact that it could have unintended impacts on other Government objectives—for example the ability of councils to consistently manage the coastal marine area—it could encourage councils to act more conservatively leading to a greater propensity to decline consent applications and it could use other means to manage uncertainty such as placing special limits on development of farms. 
We need to ask some interesting questions about the supposed well-repealed foreshore and seabed legislation and the relevance to the takutai moana legislation. One has to ask how this impact on that legislation. Where does it line up with that if surety is to be given to iwi? It was certainly interesting to hear that the Minister was engaged with iwi so we look forward to seeing how that will line up with the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Very well. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am pleased to hear the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations say it will line up pretty well. I am very encouraged by that but I am not too sure whether he has read this bill and understood the difficulties and complexities in it. We need to ask how this will get Maori into the industry. There are no guarantees. What the Labour-led Government did do was lead and sign off the allocation to iwi. 
The other question is how the industry will be established if there is no time line for the establishment of actual aquaculture areas. That is the guessing within this legislation. How will they be set up if there is no time line? It just seems that there is quite an unbelievable allowance available to the Minister to just do what he or she wants to do. 
The other issue is in relation to fishing quota holders. The holders may be weakened if there is inadequate compensation for the aquaculture areas that are designated. That could be dangerous for iwi given their big economic stake in the industry. It is critical to watch that and understand whether this bill will lighten and speed the process up. 
The bill gives the Minister broad powers to change introduce or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan. He or she can do that without a requirement to consult the community affected although he or she is required to consult the relevant regional council. I think we are seeing the start of one of these hand-ons to Ministers where irrespective of the consensus view the Minister has this autonomous stand-alone power. 
Interesting statements came out in the writings in the supporting papers about the fact that there is some risk that amendments made through the exercise of this power will have unintended consequences. It is critical to have that understood at the outset before we go to the select committee because there are a whole host of things that need to be redefined. I am afraid that some of them have not been redefined and it just seems to be a kludge of some people’s thoughts but the complexity is added to in relation to giving the Minister that autonomous power. 
Treasury does not support the creation of that power which is very interesting. It is Treasury’s view that the power does not offer anything substantial beyond what already exists. That is the big question. Within the Resource Management Act central government already has a full suite of options for intervening. Those options can be used to achieve the same outcome as the proposed power but there is the important difference that they fit within the Resource Management Act framework. That is a huge question that needs to be answered. The tools and the means in the legislation are already there so what is this bill about? Is it just about allocating unbridled power to an individual Minister to ensure that he or she can choose to do what he or she wants to do whenever? The power is not integral to achieving the aims of the reforms. The package of reform options already significantly removes barriers that exist for aquaculture and provides measures for promoting the industry. This option provides a signal but it does not achieve anything substantial. I repeat that the tools and passageways via the present legislation are already there. 
We certainly will support the bill going to the select committee but on the way we want those questions answered. What are the unintended consequences and how will the Minister ensure that there is a commitment and recognition of what local communities and councils need? We certainly will be watching this bill with interest and we look forward to the debate and discussion.