Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19232] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) being referred to the Primary Production Committee. We believe that it is worth supporting it and getting some progress in aquaculture. 
I remind members of the facts I told the House yesterday regarding the lack of progress in marine farming throughout New Zealand. The Government and many others are heralding this industry as a billion-dollar industry and the National Party hopes that that will be the case by 2025 but the reality is that the number of new aquaculture management areas—that is new areas where marine farming has not occurred before—created in the last 3½ years has been zero. There have been no new significant marine farm areas created under the new legislation in 3½ years anywhere in New Zealand and that is a disgrace. Have there been new marine farm areas? Yes but they were created under the old legislation. There has been none for 3½ years under the new legislation which is absolutely appalling. So we have a situation here where clearly the new legislation needs serious amendment. 
We had the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill which I will call the No. 1 bill a couple of days ago. It came back to the House after having been through the select committee and National supported that bill because it made some incremental improvements to the legislation of 3½ years ago. We now have this legislation which I will call the No. 2 bill which makes some more incremental improvements and we will support those. However I must emphasise that these are incremental improvements. They are nothing like the reforms of the reforms that we need in order to get aquaculture up and going and becoming the billion-dollar industry that surely everyone wants it to become by 2025. 
In moving on to the details of the bill I point out that essentially the legislation does four things. It facilitates the creation of new aquaculture management areas it addresses issues relating to invited private plan changes it enables experimental aquaculture and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation. I would like to touch on those last two points. 
I think that one of the important issues is that under the old legislation areas where marine farming was proposed to take place were subject to an assessment by the Ministry of Fisheries to see whether that would have any effects on commercial fishing. If a marine-farming space is set up one cannot generally fish in it. One cannot take a trawler or a longline through that area. It is very difficult to seek out any scallops or any other such fish underneath the marine farm. So the marine farm could very well have an impact on commercial fishing recreational fishing or customary fishing. Under the old marine-farming law a fisheries test was undertaken and if the effect on commercial recreational or customary fishing was significant the marine farm could not proceed and that was the end of it. Essentially if a marine farm is applied for the question is asked as to whether it would affect commercial or recreational fishing; if it would the marine farm does not proceed. 
Under the proposed changes before us if it was assessed that there would be an effect on in this case commercial fishing and marine farming could not proceed marine farmers can go to commercial fishers and say they know that their marine farm would have an impact on the commercial fishing business. Marine farmers could suggest doing a deal negotiate in some way or change the shape or the arrangement of the space they would occupy. They could change the seasonal occupation they have or pay some sort of financial compensation to the commercial fishing business. The question is what deal the marine farmers could do with commercial fishers. If agreement is reached following negotiations the marine farm can proceed; an aquaculture management area can be created and marine farming can continue inside it. The commercial fishers will be happy because clearly they will have received some sort of compensation or a change will have been made to the proposal that suits them. The aquaculturists will be happy because they have some marine-farming space to work on. Essentially the provision gives them an opportunity a way out rather than there being just a big red light and words saying “No marine farming here”. I think that is a good change and National will be happy to support it. 
The second change is an interesting one. At the moment if people want to set up marine farming it has to be inside what is called an aquaculture management area that is accepted by the regional council or unitary authority. The problem is that if someone wanted to experiment in aquaculture—say someone wanted to try farming a new species of fish or shellfish; or secondly to try a new way of marine farming using new technology; or thirdly to investigate a new space that is not currently marine farmed but may be a very successful area as it is nutrient rich which would be helpful for marine farming—at the moment he or she would have to go through the arduous process of going through the regional council or unitary authority and setting up an aquaculture management area. As I said at the commencement of my speech it has been 3½ years since any new aquaculture management area has been set up so even to experiment is very very difficult indeed. This legislation allows people to do experimental aquaculture with a new species in a new space or using new technology. 
This is a very interesting amendment because it entirely reflects my member’s bill which is currently in the ballot. I was disappointed that my member’s bill was not taken out of the ballot and debated before the close of this 3-year Parliament. 
Simon Power 
: Seek leave! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not need to seek leave because it appears in this No. 2 legislation. My member’s bill allowing experimental aquaculture to occur outside aquaculture management areas has essentially been photocopied slipped nicely between the staples of this legislation clipped up and sold back to the National Party as a good idea. Do members know what we say over here? We say it is a great idea. It is an excellent idea. The fingerprints of Phil Heatley and the National Party are all over this bill and we support it. 
What I did in my member’s bill and it is reflected in this legislation that we are supporting tonight was put some restrictions around experimental aquaculture. We cannot have marine farmers saying they want to do some experimental aquaculture outside the general rules but that they want to use heaps of space and make it really commercial. That is not experimental at all. So we said that the area that the experimental aquaculture would occupy could not exceed 2 hectares and the experimentation if one likes—the study—could not be undertaken for more than 5 years. So there was a 5-year limit in terms of time frames and a 2-hectare limit in terms of the space it could occupy. 
We also said the study needed to be alongside a research organisation which we thought was quite a good idea. In that way we could truly claim that in some way it was in fact experimental aquaculture. What the Minister for the Environment has done in the No. 2 bill in terms of the experimental aquaculture amendments is slightly different which is fine. 
We will be very interested for the new Parliament to look at this legislation—if it is decided that it will be carried over—and at the slight differences in approach between my member’s bill which has essentially been slipped in here and this legislation. Nevertheless we will support this legislation being referrred to the Primary Production Committee. The National Party will be voting for it this evening and we commend the Minister on even an incremental change.