Aquaculture Reform Bill

We move on to another very important part of the legislation, whereby we amend the Fisheries Act 1996 and develop a system that recognises the ever-competing interests of aquaculture with the other uses of coastal space. The Primary Production Committee was inundated with submissions from people who were concerned about the Ministry of Fisheries’ role, particularly with regard to the undue adverse effects test. I can sympathise with the submitters. They have had years and years of management—or more correctly mismanagement—by the ministry. There was a distinct lack of confidence that Part 2 could, if enacted, be competently carried out.

I have become very familiar with the legislation, and I think this is one aspect of it that the bureaucracy has got right. The bureaucracy has acknowledged that there would be competing interests for aquaculture space. Having accepted that, it has tried to develop a mechanism whereby the most economic use of space will come to the fore over a period of time, and I support that. As we got into the debate, it was clear that when aquaculture was proposed as a use there were three sectors of rights that could be adversely affected: customary fishing rights, recreational fishing rights, and commercial fishing rights. Most of the committee members were of the opinion that if customary fishing rights and recreational fishing rights were to be severely affected, then aquaculturists had to consider finding somewhere else to go. There was an interesting debate around the possibility of a conflict of interest between existing commercial fishers and a proposed aquaculture use. That is an interesting issue, when we consider the property rights that are being conveyed on to commercial fishers via the quota management system.

I would also like to pick up on the comments made by Jim Peters earlier in the debate, when he talked about the 1992 deed of settlement. I say to him that the 1992 settlement was very explicit about what it was for. It was a settlement to enable quota management to occur, and a settlement of all issues regarding commercial fishing, whether it was on shore, offshore, or coastal fishing. Therefore, it quite clearly included aquaculture. But it was also a settlement whereby at that stage, in recognition of Māori interests in commercial fishing, 20 percent of all the species that were to go into quota would go to Māori. The National Party has no objection to that, at all. In clarifying what Mr Jim Peters said, let me say that we certainly object to the folklore that has developed at present around unfinished business, but I will talk about that at later stages.

With regard to the undue adverse effect test, that acknowledges that if the Ministry of Fisheries recognises that an application for aquaculture will severely impact on commercial fishing rights, then we have to develop a process whereby there can be some settlement of that. The legislation as it has come back from the select committee goes a long way towards doing that. The first hurdle the committee had to overcome was a distinct recognition that a property right was associated with people who own quota. In my personal view that was not a problem, but I think many members on the select committee had a problem in grappling with the importance of that property right. Once we had achieved recognition that there was a property right, then the ministry test had to judge whether the property right was affected adversely enough, and we discussed through the select committee processes whether undue adverse effect and the wording associated with that was a strong enough test. At the end of the day, I accept what the officials told us—that the test was severe enough—and I hope that proves to be the case.

The undue adverse effect must be significant. However, the solution to the recognition by the Ministry of Fisheries that there is an undue adverse effect is a process of negotiation between the commercial fisher whose property right is affected and the proponent of aquaculture. The bill as it came before the select committee was, in the opinion of the committee members, unworkable, in that the proponent of aquaculture had to obtain 100 percent agreement from all affected commercial fishing property-right owners. After long deliberations, and with considerable input from the submitters who appeared before us, the possibility of getting 100 percent agreement became a threshold that was too high for the select committee to accept. We therefore developed a significant change in that area, whereby a 90 percent acceptance on the part of each and every quota holder by quantum is enough for the test to be satisfied.

We then dealt with the issue of the remaining minority 10 percent. The Green member Mr Ewen-Street—who, I must say, put an extremely large amount of work into this legislation, and I thank him for that—was of the opinion that maybe that 10 percent had had the opportunity to come to an agreement and, if it had not, that was simply tough luck. In my opinion that was miles too tough. In many cases, it is actually relatively easy to get 90 percent agreement between quota holders, because one is dealing with only a couple of them. Maybe some people who own a limited amount of quota would be in that 10 percent group. They have a right to some satisfaction, and through the select committee process a mechanism was developed whereby they will be paid out. It is a little like the takeover situation that occurs regularly on the stock exchange now, whereby once an acceptance has been reached with 90 percent of shareholders, the remaining 10 percent of shareholders are compulsorily wiped out. The select committee has provided a mechanism whereby the people who own the remaining minority 10 percent of quota interest at least have the protection of the High Court. The High Court has the opportunity to measure whether the amount of compensation being paid to the other 90 percent of quota holders is a fair and reasonable amount.

I think that the select committee has come up with a vast improvement to the legislation as it was originally submitted to the House, and that the officials have developed a mechanism that well and truly recognises the competing interests. But at the end of the day it is a matter of the most economic use of the space for New Zealand incorporated, and that comes down to who can make the most money out of any particular spot. In saying that, I have little doubt that if one measures that on a hectare-by-hectare basis, then, because of its intensity, aquaculture will win the day. Having said that, I say that a property right is a property right, and that if quota owners are significantly affected, then they must be compensated to an extent that makes it worthwhile for them to give away their property rights in order to allow aquaculture to develop.

I think that is the major change that has been developed in Part 2. There are a number of other minor changes that I want to take the opportunity to speak to through the Committee debate, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to the questions I have raised. I note we now have the third Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs. We hope she understands the bill somewhat better than the Minister does. He clearly does not understand it at all. That was shown by his answers to an earlier point in Part 1, which I will take the opportunity of re-raising in Part 5, regarding the 20 percent and the patchwork-quilt effect.

I refer to paragraph (b) of clause 36A, “Purpose”, which states: “require all fish farmers to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996;”. I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs: why? It is not a difficult question. Why do we not require all farmers on land, for example, to be registered? The principles of farming are pretty much the same in both contexts. Why do we not require everybody to be registered, and have a huge Big Brother to keep an eye on things? Why do fish farmers need to be registered? Once they have been allocated space in an aquaculture management area, why on earth should they then have to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996? What useful purpose will that serve? Will it determine whether a fish farmer is a good, a bad, or a mediocre fish farmer? What are the sanctions—

💬 Simon Power: A sufficient fish farmer?

Exactly. What are the sanctions if someone is deemed to be a poor feeder of fish or a bad fish farmer? The mind starts to boggle. Will the Animal Welfare Act be invoked against fish farmers if they do not feed their fish adequately? What is the purpose of that measure? Why are we adding more bureaucratic structures to the industry, when they are not needed?

I can only assume that it is all part of a bureaucratic structure that ensures that everybody is registered and accounted for. We will have people poring over information to ensure that everyone is registered and up to date. That raises an interesting question: are fish farmers to be registered on a yearly basis, or a 5-yearly basis? How often are they to be registered? And what happens if they let their registration lapse? What will occur then? What sanctions will there be against fish farmers if they are deemed to be unregistered? One finds the situation is quite extraordinary, when one thinks about it. I ask those questions of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, who seems to be busy with her Christmas cards and is not overly interested in this debate. [Interruption] I withdraw and apologise to the Minister. She is actually doing some writing. It is nice to know that that is keeping the Minister occupied. I am not really getting an answer on that matter.

The other issue is that of fishers unduly affected by the proposed aquaculture agreements—the management areas—and of persons who wish to undertake aquaculture activities in their area. Let me inform the Committee of the comments made by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council, which essentially said that the undue adverse effects test on fishing that is to be carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries uses a process that, to marine farmers and fishers, is not transparent. The council said that the process cannot be appealed on substance, but only via judicial review, and that there is also an option for an aquaculture agreement to be entered into with affected fishers, although every quota holder and every fishing-permit holder in the area must agree. I understand that that has been altered somewhat and that there is now a provision for 90 percent acceptance, which, of course, is perfectly reasonable. However, I can foresee a time when even that change will not be sufficient. The New Zealand Aquaculture Council believes that the provision is unrealistic and unworkable. I cannot see an opportunity for even a 90 percent agreement to occur in many areas. So what will happen when we get a Mexican stand-off type of situation? As far as I can see, there is no mechanism in the bill that will enable some movement to occur.

Under the present legislation, if people want to establish a marine farm they have to get resource consent and then go to the Ministry of Fisheries for a fishing permit. This legislation proposes that those two steps be amalgamated into one, so that the input from the Ministry of Fisheries is much earlier in the decision-making process. If a council wants to declare, or to increase the area of, an aquaculture management area, it invites the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Fisheries to make an aquaculture decision about whether there is an undue adverse effect on quota holders or other fishers—and it is not just quota holders; it is people who have fishing permits for non-quota species, as well. The hurdle to jump over is actually quite high. The chief executive officer has to say, firstly, that there is an effect, secondly, that it is an adverse effect, and, thirdly, that it is an undue adverse effect. As the bill was reported to us, if the chief executive officer said that yes, there was an adverse effect—in other words, said no to the council—it was a “black box” decision. The council invited the Ministry of Fisheries to make a decision and, if it said no, that was the end of it. There was no recourse except for, perhaps, judicial review.

We did two things at the Primary Production Committee, and I think they were very positive steps. First, we allowed people to appeal the chief executive’s decision to the High Court on matters of substance as well as process, so that substantive issues could go to the High Court. Second, we provided that the alternative the applicant has is to seek the aquaculture decision that my colleagues have described, whereby the person who is seeking to have a marine farm goes to the affected fishers, whether they are quota holders or permit holders, and seeks their agreement, whether by paying them money or by some other agreement—

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: That’s bribery.

No, it is a commercial decision; it is not bribery. The applicant seeks their agreement to allow aquaculture in that space. I need to point out that we are not talking about fin-fish species—the migratory or the mobile species that can just swim away. If fishers have a quota for kahawai, tuna, or something like that, it is very unlikely to be affected by a marine farm. The kinds of species that we are talking about are the sedentary ones. I guess that species like scallops and oysters are the main ones, but it also applies to crayfish and other relatively immobile species like that. Those quota holders and permit holders have to be consulted by the people who want to get the aquaculture management area, whether it is by the council or the individual applicant.

My colleague David Carter said that I was a bit tough on the people who were left out when the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people was reached. My argument at the time was that if the applicant for a marine farm had been around to everyone and had got the agreement of 90 percent of the affected people, we did not really want the last 10 percent to hold out just for a better price. My argument was that they had had their opportunity, and that they could either accept the price that was offered or miss out completely. On reflection, I think I was wrong in making that call originally—I think it was a bit tough. But I do think that the remaining 10 percent of affected people should not have an incentive to hold out. Those people should get the same price as the other 90 percent—the average price—or a price that is equivalent to what they got. The fall-back position, if no price can be agreed on, is recourse to the High Court.

As we are aware, to make aquaculture a realistic occupation and business we had to make changes. There was a need for changes to the Fisheries Act 1996, and Part 2 relates to that. I want to just touch on two or three things. This whole part, in the way it has ended up, is very workable and worthwhile, and I think the industry will be a lot stronger for it.

One of the things that came across very early related to section 186E, “Chief executive to make aquaculture decision”, in clause 41. Originally, that provision stated that the chief executive had to make aquaculture decisions “as promptly as was reasonable in the circumstances,”. The select committee saw fit to put a deadline on that, rather than to allow him just to go on and on. The submitters told us many, many times about a sort of death by no answer, and they did not want that again. So we put in “Within 6 months”. I thought that was a good threshold of time within which everybody could put in requests. It would allow time for everybody to examine and put some legs to this legislation, with particular reference to the fisheries part of it.

The second thing I make reference to relates to the undue adverse effect on fishing. A number of speakers have made reference to that. It really is the hub of certainty for commercial fishers, who have been alluded to and talked about, but I recall that the chief executive has to ensure that customary fishers as well as recreational fishers are satisfied. The undue adverse effect test is put in so that everyone can ensure he or she is covered and is not neglected in the negotiations or the inquiry to have an aquaculture management area. My friends the recreational fishers are very, very happy that there is room for them to state their case and have the chief executive stand by and apply that test to the entire process of establishing an aquaculture management area.

We think that, with regard to the undue adverse effect test, if the elements illustrated in new section 186G(a) to (f), inserted by clause 41, are not picked up by the regional councils and the chief executive, then they are failing in their duty. By the councils and the chief executive applying those things as their duty, the aquaculture farming industry should go ahead without as much default as in the past. So this is good legislation.

The last provision I make reference to is section 186ZD, “Fishers whose consent is necessary for aquaculture agreement”, which relates to the owners of commercial fish quota. That has been spoken about before. When the bill came to us initially, the proposals were fairly weak and draconian, and possibly left a no-win situation for everybody. The present bill gives a clear 90 percent quota arrangement. If people cannot meet that, then the 10 percent can be bought out, as in a stock exchange parallel. But there is a process beyond that; if people wish to appeal, they can. I think the High Court process that has been put in place strengthens this Fisheries Act and makes the position certain for everybody within the industry.

So I am glad that Part 2 has been modified and strengthened from the provisions we first saw. I think we have taken account of the views of virtually all of those who objected by way of submissions.

I have to say that the issues regarding undue adverse effects and how commercial-fishing interests meet—and in many cases collide with—aquacultural interests were of intense interest to us on the Primary Production Committee. We had quite robust discussions with submitters as they presented their views.

On the one hand, aquaculturalists came forward and said, on the whole, that although they acknowledged that commercial-fishing interests have a part to play in the marine area—which is clearly obvious—they felt that the powers given to commercial fishers in terms of thwarting aquaculture were far too tough. On the other hand, commercial fishers, on the whole, put forward their property rights and their concern that aquaculture should not develop too rapidly and too well in too many areas such as to impede commercial fishing, particularly where sustainable commercial-fishing takes are proven and have been consistent over time. The committee members listened to those contrary views. We had robust discussions with proponents of both sides of the debate and came to some agreement, as outlined in the clauses before us now.

However, there are still some unanswered questions on how aquaculture interests will be balanced with commercial-fishing interests into the future. National Party members support greater interaction between the two sectors. Together, they must have timely, fully transparent, and cost-effective processes in order to come to some conclusion about the future of both in a particular area. The process as it stands is a split one. Marine farmers came to the ministry many years ago and said that the two-stage process whereby they got a fisheries permit under the Fisheries Act then a resource consent under the Resource Management was too time consuming, exhausting, and costly. They needed a one-stop shop. I know that the ministry looked hard at giving them a one-stop shop. It has not come up with a one-stop shop, but with a process that is probably as close to it as one can get.

If we explore the clauses here, we discover that the process is still in two stages. The regional councils will look at the environmental effect that aquaculture may have on commercial fishing, and the Ministry of Fisheries will look at what spatial restrictions aquaculture places on commercial fishing. When the regional councils go to the ministry for an aquaculture decision, it will simply ask how the spatial element of an aquaculture management area will affect commercial fishers. How will it affect the access of commercial fishers to their fishery? One can imagine that with highly mobile fish stocks such as kahawai, as I think the Green member mentioned, or snapper, or with those fish that are way offshore where there is no aquaculture issue, such as tuna and that type of thing, a marine farm will not have too much spatial impact. The fish are mobile; they will simply go elsewhere and be caught elsewhere. There is not much argument around that. But with largely immobile species, such as crayfish or scallops, or species that are inshore where marine farms are likely to be, such as flounder or mullet, there will be some sort of spatial impact on commercial-fishing interests.

The Ministry of Fisheries has to make that decision, but it is restricted solely to that spatial element. It has no say on what environmental effects marine farms might have on commercial fishing, at all.

I wish to follow on from where my very good colleague Phil Heatley finished off and talk about the undue adverse effects of aquaculture on fishing. In the Marlborough Sounds, at the moment the farms are really quite small in relation to what is being proposed with deep-sea farming. Deep-sea farming is quite experimental and as yet has not really been trialled because of the moratorium, but it is the next big step for marine farming in New Zealand. If it goes ahead and proves to be successful, those undersea farms will not have a visual impact but they could take up a large amount of space. If they do, we will see more effect on the actual fisheries process.

Marine farmers are happy at this time to see some finality so that their industry can move ahead, but they certainly are not happy that a one-stop shop process has not been delivered by this Government. That was the other major issue they wanted. The first issue was first right of refusal, so that those who had invested in the industry could maintain their business; the second was a one-stop shop. Those who have been around the aquaculture industry will know that the process at the moment, whereby people have to go through a Resource Management Act process then through a fisheries permit process, is extremely frustrating. The Ministry of Fisheries was taking over 2 years to process applications for just small—in some cases—extensions to marine farms, and, during that time, the resource consents under the Resource Management Act would run out. When the Government extended the moratorium, it had to pass special legislation to capture those people who had gone to the time, trouble, and effort to get a new resource consent only to find that, because of the process through the Ministry of Fisheries, it had run out.

When they rang up and asked questions they were charged $200 an hour. That was the charge-out fee with which the ministry tried to stop angry, frustrated marine farmers from ringing up and asking what the ministry was doing. When I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries about the issue, he said he had offered the ministry more resources, and it had said it did not need them—that it could cope. Two years later, it is having to put in a whole lot more staff to deal with these permits.

Members can understand an industry that was growing at 20 percent and is now growing at 0 percent becoming extremely frustrated. The men and women who forged an industry and developed it for New Zealand, and who were way ahead of the game—way ahead of Chile and other areas, like Australia—have been basically stalled at the gates of the 21st century. They are pleased to see this bill being debated tonight, but they are not pleased that they still do not have just one process. They have to go through the Resource Management Act process for a consent, but the Ministry of Fisheries can still stop a process from going forward. It can look at the spatial effects and stop the process if it feels there is an undue adverse effect on fishing.

I know that the recreational fishers in the Sounds will be happy. We love those marine farms, because there are always lots of snapper around them—but I should not give away the places where everyone should go and fish. The main effect will be on the commercial fishermen, and they will have concerns about large spatial areas, because they want to be able to fish in that space themselves. However, aquaculture does make a lot of money for Marlborough—it was our highest income-earner—and it could make a huge amount of money for New Zealand. But the fact is that Australia and Chile are now getting into the game in a very big way, and we have lost quite a lot of our intellectual capital to those countries because people have been so frustrated by this Government.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 2 of the bill, as previous speakers have said, is all about the tensions that exist for competing space—

💬 Simon Power: Tensions is a big word.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Tensions is the word—in public land. We are talking about the water column and the sea bed. We are talking about what people can do in it, what its most profitable use is, and also, to a degree, what is fair and how one goes about that. If it were perpetual lease, as proposed by the ACT party, one could just tell other people to go away. If it were fee simple, one could tell them to go away: “This is mine, and we don’t want to have anything to do with you.” But because it is not, a mechanism needed to be worked out, and I think that those of us on the Primary Production Committee, at least, have agreed that we have come up with the best we possibly can. We think it is fair, we think it serves the commercial imperatives that are inherent in this business, and we think that it is as good as we can get for the environment. Those are the things we have to worry about, and those are the things that make it such a difficult business. When we are talking about other marine life and fish—scallops, oysters, flounder, and other fish that hang around in the shallows—

💬 Shane Ardern: Making my mouth water.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Exactly.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: I’d rather be fishing.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I cannot speak because my mouth is watering so much. All those things must be taken care of. I will go back to the fact that one of the reasons New Zealand First supports this bill is that it is balanced, and it does all those competing things and takes all those interests into account. We believe that it does a very difficult job well. That is why we support it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will continue on from my previous speech regarding the tension between the interests of commercial fishers and the interests of marine farmers. I pointed out that the Ministry of Fisheries, in making an aquaculture decision, is to be focused only on spatial issues; that is, how a marine farm, or an aquaculture management area, will spatially affect commercial fishing interests—how much commercial fishers will be displaced from a particular area by marine-farming activity so that they no longer have access to a fishing resource. We were particularly interested in submitters who talked about scallops, simply because there is an enhancement programme in which the farmers seed scallops, they grow, and recreationalists have access to those scallops, as do the commercial fishers. There is a concern that that enhancement programme could seriously be affected by marine farms and the industry developing excessively in that area. That was a good point made to us by submitters. Also, inshore fisheries representatives, such as flounder fishers, put up a good case, as did others that would be affected.

The regional council, on the other hand, takes an aquaculture decision and lays upon it consideration of the effect that marine farms have on commercial fishing with regard to environmental impacts. Those environmental impacts might somehow affect water quality—because, clearly, if marine farming in any way deteriorates water quality, and that affects the fish, that will have an adverse affect on commercial fishing. If marine farms in some way are affecting spawning or stock development, then that will adversely affect the fishery and commercial fishers, as well.

We raised a particular concern at the select committee, and we have raised it again here tonight—perhaps the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, would like to take a call on it—which is the issue of regional councils actually having the ability to measure the environmental impacts on commercial fish species. We know that the Ministry of Fisheries often subcontracts research to the National Institute of Atmospheric and Water Research on the environmental effects on commercial fishing species in various areas around New Zealand, but where are regional councils to get that skill base from? Are they going to contract out? They will have to, because currently no regional council in New Zealand—even Northland Regional Council, which is far in the lead when it comes to aquaculture development and research—has staff skilled in that area. [Interruption] The Minister suggests that the Ministry of Fisheries will be contracting to regional councils—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: The Ministry of Fisheries will be providing that support.

The Minister chipped in to suggest that the Ministry of Fisheries will be supplying that service to regional councils. Well, I hope that the Minister’s assurance does come to pass. Regional councils certainly do not have the staff, skills, scientists, or research base at the moment to measure the environmental effects on spawning, on stock development, on whole fishery development, on the interaction between various fisheries, aquaculture, and marine farms, and so on and so forth.

So I thank the Minister for that, and I put it to the Committee that there is a promise there from him as the Minister of Fisheries that his ministry will be available to regional councils, and I hope that that is the case. My concern is that if all the regional councils, or a fair number of them, come to the ministry all at one time, I hope that it has the ability to meet that scientific need. Certainly, there will be a demand for that, as required in this legislation.

The ACT party is against this bill. It is a bill that shows how the Government and—after hearing Doug Woolerton speak—New Zealand First lack vision of what aquaculture could achieve through the years ahead in New Zealand. It also shows how they lack insight into what an industry needs so that it can develop. It is very, very simple. Members should try to imagine—I would not expect the Minister in the chair to understand this, but I would expect Mr Doug Woolerton to appreciate it—a dairy farm operating under rules like these. They should try to imagine developing the farming industry on land under rules like these.

R Doug Woolerton: Dairy farmers have twice as many rules as there are in here, my friend. You wouldn’t have a clue.

Doug Woolerton calls out and says: “Hang on—the dairy industry has twice as many rules as the aquaculture industry has.” Well, we are not about defending those rules for dairy farmers; we are about getting rid of them. But here is the thing: dairy farmers at least have some security of tenure on the land and some security of tenure on their investments.

It is true to say that the socialist Government David Benson-Pope and Dover Samuels represent is marauding dairy farmers’ land, and other farmers’ land, with their “right to roam” legislation, which I see that New Zealand First supports. We have tried this experiment before in New Zealand, and it failed. We tried this experiment in the high country of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: When?

Yes, we did. I know that Dover Samuels would not know, but I expect other members to know. When the high country of New Zealand was put out at short lease like this, what was the result? It was a failure of investment, of over-grazing, and of the destruction of the land. That is what happens when farmers do not have secure title.

We have an enormous coastline and vast ocean resources out to the 200-mile limit for deep-sea farming. If we had a Government—indeed, a Parliament—that had some vision for what New Zealand could achieve in this country with aquaculture, we would not be debating this bill; we would be debating something far, far better. Its basis would be secure property rights for aquaculturists, just like those rights provided so that farming can develop in New Zealand. Mr Samuels should try to imagine these rules applying back in 1840 to the farmers who cut farms out of the bush of New Zealand. They would not have done it. They would not have invested and they would not have worked to develop their markets. Can we not learn from that lesson? Dover Samuels sits over there, but he would not apply these rules to his wonderful motel in Matauri Bay, because he would want to have secure property rights. He will not work away in an industry in which, potentially, he will lose his rights after a few years—where the Government can come along at any time and change the rules.

This bill lacks insight into what an industry needs to develop, and it lacks vision. It lacks the vision of what this country could achieve by looking ahead 10 or 20 years. I think that in the future, when aquaculture around the world is a standard way of rearing and harvesting fish, New Zealanders will look back at this legislation and wonder what Parliament was thinking of. How dopey could it be to repeat the mistake that had already been made on the land in the high country of New Zealand? Just as we look back on what was done in the high country, we can ask how the Government could create such a perverse set of incentives that would fail to see an industry take off. Well, that is what David Benson-Pope’s legacy to New Zealand is. I know that Dover Samuels has such a short-term horizon that he just thinks this is funny. However, here we are standing at the dawn of a wonderful industry that could do so much for our country.

I move, That the question be now put.

Is it not interesting that the two calls taken by the Labour member who sat on the Primary Production Committee, the Hon Dover Samuels, have both been to close the debate down? That was the member who promised to table documents before the select committee that set out the unfinished business, yet we are still waiting.

I shall talk specifically to two parts of the bill: section 186G and then section 186E, inserted by clause 41. It is section 186G that proves the point of having a robust select committee hearing, because this provision is all about the matters that must be considered before an aquaculture decision is made. I will not read them all out, because that would take too long, but Minister David Benson-Pope had originally included in the list of those matters, under paragraph (g), “any other matter that the chief executive considers relevant.” Well, members can imagine the response we got from the industry. There was enough of a test regarding the undue adverse effect that has to be gone through to establish equity between commercial fishers and a proponent of aquaculture, but in that provision we were meant to give the ministry carte blanche to consider any matter at all. It did not have to be justified before it made an aquaculture decision that put that aquaculture proponent into huge difficulty.

I have to say that submissions were unanimous in that regard. I cannot think of one in favour of the provision. Maybe we had one from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, or from somebody who may have been saying that it should remain, but there certainly was not any relevant submission arguing that it should not be deleted. So in that regard the select committee resolutely argued and agreed, and I thank Dover Samuels for his intermittent attendance at the committee, when he too may not have been aware that we argued successfully for section 186G(g) to be deleted.

The other thing I want to speak about is the way the Minister, David Benson-Pope, presented the legislation to the select committee. The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries was required to make an aquaculture decision but, under the legislation proposed by the incompetent Minister, he had as long as he wanted to make that decision. So a proponent for aquaculture would come along with a proposal and would have to go through the process of having it checked to see whether there was an undue adverse effect, and then the Ministry of Fisheries could sit on that proposal absolutely forever.

As was said earlier in the debate, there was not a lot of confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries. That could be related to the Minister, or it could be related to past history within the industry, which would equally be absolutely excusable. But, again, the select committee worked hard to ensure that there was a time limit within which the Ministry of Fisheries had to act. That time limit is 6 months. Some people argued that it should be less. Why should the ministry not get off its chuff, do the work, and come up with a decision? I was one of those who felt that there had to be a reasonable period of time, because too often I have seen in bureaucracy that if the decision is hard to make and the clock is ticking, then the easiest thing in the world for the bureaucrats is just to put a rejection through and have the proposal not proceed. So I think the select committee has come up with something workable.

The issue then arose as to whether, if there is insufficient information, the ministry should be able to go back and seek more information. The select committee supported that. In the event that that happens, the legislation as it is now reported back means that, for the ministry officials themselves, the clock stops ticking. So there is a 6-month time frame, and if at any time throughout that process the ministry says it genuinely does not think it has enough information, then it goes back to the proponent, and the clock goes on hold.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I notice that the size of Parts 3 and 4 is, shall we say, a bit on the tight side—that is one way to describe it. I wonder whether it would assist the Chair, and perhaps the Government whips, if we were able to minimise the number of calls on these two parts, for obvious reasons—largely, that we are dealing with only five clauses between the two parts. I note that Part 5, which deals with Māori commercial aquaculture claims settlement, is a substantial part of the legislation. Although this is probably technically out of order, just to assist you, Mr Chairperson, I advise that the Opposition will take a minimal number of calls on Parts 3 and 4 but I seek your indulgence in going through Part 5, as a substantial part of the bill.

I thank the honourable member for his contribution and just say that that is entirely up to the member. Of course, when it comes to closures, that is a matter for the Chair to decide, but I am sure that what the member has made obvious will be taken into consideration.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I just offer New Zealand First’s cooperation. We would be happy to put Parts 3 and 4 without debate.

Of course, that is up to the Committee. The member must—

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a matter for the member himself to decide.

Part 3 Conservation Act 1987