Mackey Janet: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17690] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 It is with some relief I think we would all agree that this bill is being reported back and is going to be debated before the Christmas break. I agree with the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee that the schedule was very tight; not so much for the members of the select committee but certainly for the officials who were sent away to get more and more information and for the clerk and support staff of the committee who worked round the clock and weekends to ensure we would be able to see this bill go through the remainder of its passage through the House before Christmas. 
I think the bill has certainly changed in the course of its time with the select committee but that is the reason we have select committees. A committee is given a bill and there is then an opportunity for the industry to comment. I thank those members of the industry who provided their time as expert advisers to the committee. This bill is testimony to the effectiveness of a good select committee process. I thank the chairperson of the select committee because he showed a real commitment to improving the legislation and to working constructively rather than politically to ensure that we brought back better legislation to the House—legislation that certainly now has a lot of support from the industry. 
There were a number of issues that the committee considered vitally important to pass and I am sorry to hear that the National Party will not be supporting this legislation. I think its members will be in a very small minority of New Zealanders in doing so. Certainly the industry wants to see this bill passed. Its members want to see it passed for the reason that we need to create some certainty in the industry. There was a comment about people going overseas. I was certainly impressed by what Australia is doing to encourage New Zealand aquaculturists to take their skills and their investment to Australia and to set up their businesses over there. Many of those people realise the advantage of fish farming in New Zealand and it is important that this bill is passed so that we can create some certainty in an environment in which as the chairman said people are investing millions of dollars. 
There was a real problem created by the need to provide 20 percent of the fishery for Maori and that was that Maori would end up with small 20-percent pieces of the coastline. That would have been neither economic nor practicable and there would have been no guarantee that the areas they got would be any good for fish farming anyway. So I welcome the changes that have been made in that area. 
I acknowledge that there are perhaps still some concerns in the industry and I think there are still some concerns among select committee members over a number of issues. I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed over the private sector paying for treaty settlements. I think that that does create a precedent. However I would probably challenge people to find any other way in which to deal with that issue. Unlike the National Party the Government believes that it as a matter of good faith and in the spirit of the fisheries settlement Maori are entitled to 20 percent of that fishery. We can take that down to the letter of the law we can ask for proof and we can do whatever we want but in the spirit of that settlement I believe that it is absolutely appropriate that Maori are ensured 20 percent of the fishery. I acknowledge those submitters who have expressed concern over the private sector effectively paying for that settlement by applying for 100 percent and receiving 80 percent of the application. However I also say it is perhaps a moot point given that an application is not ownership. I do not think anyone can put in an application for a fisheries permit with any certainty that that application will be granted so we are hardly taking away from people something that they already own. But I do acknowledge the costs associated with the preparation for putting in an application. 
The other concern that I think may require the attention of this House sometime in the future—and it will be up to local government to ensure that it does not—is the ability of some smaller local authorities to manage their role in the fishery. That is certainly the case with coastal plans and with some of the skills and expertise that will be required. I know that smaller councils like my own came to the select committee and acknowledged that it was really beyond them. They did not have a lot of intention of doing anything actually and that concerned me because this legislation will rely very much on the expertise and management ability of local authorities to do their job and to do it well. I do not think we came out of the select committee process with any confidence that the smaller councils would manage that well. 
I welcome this bill coming back to the House. It is a year since we passed the extension to the moratorium. At that time there was a lot of political chest-beating and huffing and puffing over the Government’s inability to come back with legislation to manage this very complex fishery. I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and his staff and I congratulate the officials who have come back to Parliament with legislation that I believe is an excellent beginning to the management of this fishery. I fully expect that in the future we may need to trim the bill or deal with certain issues that arise but the industry certainly welcomes this bill and so does the Government.