Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17704] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to raise a number of points on Part 1. Now that the purpose of the bill has been split according to the subdivision of the legislation as we go to its final stages in the next few days under urgency I start by asking some questions of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope. I want some satisfaction as to the justification for clause 4A(b) which is the clause that empowers the Minister of Conservation to direct regional councils in relation to the allocation of space in the coastal marine area. The reason I am concerned is that this legislation starts a process that sets a precedent by which the responsibility for aquaculture is significantly being passed to regional councils. I have no problem with that. They are the local authorities that have the ability to determine where best to create aquaculture management areas but having passed the authority to regional councils the next thing this Government did was to straightaway insert a clause that gives the Minister of Conservation the right to veto. 
I say to the Minister that that fundamentally destroys the philosophy of the legislation. We are trying to take an industry with huge potential out of the clutches of a moratorium that was imposed then extended because the Government was bereft of ideas for giving the industry a chance to develop. Then we came up with legislation that gave the industry a significant chance to get back on the case and develop and promote before too many of our best brains in aquaculture fled across the Tasman or to South America—to Chile and countries like that—as we heard via the submissions process. 
However as we do that the first thing this Government does is to say that while it is giving the opportunity to regional councils it will rein them in with another check that means that at any time it can via the Minister of Conservation stop the process. One might not be too worried about that given some of the Ministers of Conservation we have had in the past but if we go to an MMP election and God help us the Greens are in a position of deciding who the Minister of Conservation is to be could the industry live with Nandor Tanczos being the Minister of Conservation and having the right to veto every application for aquaculture? That is the sort of nonsense that could develop out of this legislation. 
Our fisheries spokesperson Phil Heatley will be moving an amendment to delete clause 4A(b). I see no justification at all for the Minister of Conservation having those veto powers. This legislation gives every opportunity for fisheries to be involved as they should be. It gives every opportunity for the Minister of Conservation to be involved via the Resource Management Act process and I have no problem with that. But having gone through the community Resource Management Act process to give the Minister of Conservation yet another opportunity gives the industry no satisfaction at all that we are passing legislation today that will give it the opportunity to progress. That is the first point I want the Minister to comment on. 
For my second point I want flick to Subpart 2 “Privately initiated plan changes” in Part 7A inserted by clause 21. I ask the Minister to explain and to assure the Committee that the promotion of significant changes in that area by the select committee will enhance the system of giving the operators currently in the industry who want to move relatively minor private plan changes to expand their operations a fair opportunity to do so under this legislation. Those are the questions I want answered.