Ardern Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15321] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). It has been interesting to listen to the speeches from both sides of the House and particularly to the reasons of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for coming forward with the bill. As the chair of the Primary Production Committee I tell members that the committee undertook a study tour of South Australia last year and one of the things that overwhelmed me—I do not know that it overwhelmed anybody else but it overwhelmed me—was the massive growth we saw in aquaculture in South Australia. It has got to the point now that it represents about one-third of the South Australian economy. So the obvious questions to ask in that process were: at what environmental cost was that growth and at what other costs? I have to report back to the House that from the amount of research we were able to do with the people we spoke to who were from both scientific backgrounds and environmental backgrounds and of course at the meetings we had with parliamentarians there we learnt that the amount of environmental impact has been at the best very minimal. 
So from that I can answer some of the concerns raised by the Green Party in its contribution earlier on and by the Hon Damien O’Connor who said that he feared the powers that the Minister might have under the proposals of this omnibus bill which at a later stage in the parliamentary process will be divided up into more than one bill. I guess that to some extent I can sympathise with those concerns. But if New Zealand were to have a Labour Government with a Green Minister then the aquaculture industry would not progress at all. There would be no progress at all in this industry. In fact if we look at what has happened in recent history we can see that there has been no progress in this industry—an industry that potentially has up to $1 billion worth of export earnings. 
If we look at what New Zealand’s low-hanging fruit will be in terms of potential for growth going forward we see that it will be—without a doubt in my mind—the export of high-quality protein products with integrity and traceability; we can tick all of those boxes. The concept of the triple bottom line which is touted much by those on the Green side of the political divide is not a new concept to those of us who have been involved in the farming industry for years. The idea of having a balance between economic social and environmental concerns is something that is absolutely fundamental to the New Zealand economy to our way of life and to the farming systems we employ. 
Under the current legislation there are aquacultural management areas which in the last 5 years have had no new developments at all under that regime—none zero nothing. Surely that meets the concerns that the Green member raised about the potential environmental impacts—there are none because there has been no development. But we cannot have a growing dynamic economy at the bottom of the South Pacific that is dependent on exports for its way in the world and for the standard of living that we have all come to appreciate and demand from successive Governments—health care education high-quality communications and a high standard of living—without economic development. Those things do not exist when we do not have economic development. So the purpose of the bill is to try to clear some of these regulatory roadblocks that exist in the development of aquaculture in New Zealand. 
Aquaculture can be done in a sustainable way and I am reminded of one of those who spoke to us in South Australia a person of German descent from about five generations ago. I will not use names because that would personalise it too much but this person said to us: “We left central Europe five generations ago because of bureaucratic persecution but last year after having invested millions of dollars in development in New Zealand—millions of dollars worth of economic development in that country—we left New Zealand for South Australia to escape bureaucratic persecution.” So we need to reflect on that a little bit. 
As we grow and develop as a First World country we need to learn the lessons of our forbears and of our origins. I include tangata whenua in that. Some examples were given by our colleague from the Maori Party of early development in New Zealand that was not and never would be environmentally sustainable. Those lessons need to be learnt along with what we know now through modern science about the potential for us in terms of developing a sustainable dynamic and economically viable aquaculture industry. 
Different members have touched on the different types of aquaculture farming. One of the things that was very very obvious to us when we looked not only at the Australian example but also at our own example here in New Zealand was that technology has moved on and we can now farm finfish in areas where it has been identified that these fish will grow and thrive without having a major environmental impact. They can actually be fed on land-produced feeds and not on captured wild fish which of course would not be sustainable. So a range of options is now available that were not available even 10 years ago. 
I think that members should wait until the bill gets to the select committee. Members should bring their concerns to the committee as I am sure submitters will. I look forward to the process going forward.