Ardern Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18732] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I start by thanking the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Opposition spokesman for their complimentary remarks about the process that the Primary Production Committee went through. We had a very simple task in my view despite the complexity of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). We had to find a way forward to enable the growth of aquaculture in New Zealand. We had to create legislation that provided the framework for an enabling situation where the industry could start to grow. 
As part of the committee’s research we bid for and won a parliamentary trip to South Australia where we were able to examine what had happened there. What surprised me was that one-third of the South Australian economy is now provided by the export development and processing of aquaculture. That industry did not exist about 15 years ago. A large number of the people who have invested—in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars and certainly large sums in the case of individuals—are ex - New Zealanders. A large percentage of that intellectual property and that investment had been made by them. They had found the process in New Zealand frustrating and had moved to South Australia so they could make progress with the industry they love. 
The select committee received the bill on 16 November 2010. The closing date for submissions was 11 February 2011. We received and considered 120 submissions from a wide sector of the industry from some pan-industry groups and from individuals plus interested parties or stakeholders in the use of coastal and marine areas and waterways. Not everyone was happy with the notion of providing an opportunity for aquaculture to grow. Some people I suggest may have submitted that the industry is a blight on society and that we should stop it at all costs. The committee did not agree with that view but in considering it we certainly played a big role in considering the environmental and local government concerns in terms of finding a way forward. 
The aquaculture industry believes that it can grow—and I believe it is right—to at least a $1 billion industry by 2025. As the previous speaker Damien O’Connor said the country desperately needs growth in our export industries. If we look at what is happening internationally with a growing world population and the demand for high-quality protein foods around the world we see that a very well-managed and considered environmental production system is the space to be in. There are only three areas where New Zealand can produce those high-quality proteins: fish is one meat is another and dairy products are the third. 
I am sure that this legislation will bring about an opportunity for a large sector of the economy to grow. Hopefully the bill will remove some of the roadblocks that have stymied the industry so far. The previous speaker talked about the undue adverse effect test. That part of the bill was the most complex and probably we struggled with it the most. Trying to strike a balance between development and unforeseen consequences one might say in terms of what might happen or might not happen to the environment is always a judgment call. 
There will be those who argue of course that we went too far in enabling aquaculture to develop and others who say we did not go far enough. In that regard I think the select committee has put its best foot forward. I am very very confident that what we have achieved will allow for a far better framework for the industry to work within and for development to take place.