Aquaculture Reform Bill

I certainly want to speak to Part 3, “Conservation Act 1987”, which contains clauses 54 and 55 and the consequential amendments. I want to do so for two reasons, because this part is unique in two ways. First of all, amongst 141 submissions we got no submissions on this part at all. To date we have been debating all the controversial parts of the legislation, with reams and reams of submissions received from people who knew that the Minister had made a mess of the legislation. Finally, we come to a little bit in the middle of the bill—Part 3, “Conservation Act 1987”—with only two clauses, and, lo and behold, even the industry had nothing to complain about in this regard.

But this part of the legislation is also unique in another respect. Since the debate has started, the Minister has had to table four separate detailed Supplementary Order Papers, because of his incompetence, and not one of them has to correct clauses 54 and 55. So I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister. Good on him; he has finally got one part right—the only part in 200 pages of legislation that he can say he presented to the Parliament with any competence at all.

While I congratulate the Minister, that is a dreadful record. The Minister of Fisheries, who is meant to be in charge of the aquaculture reform legislation, presents to Parliament 240-odd pages that are a diabolical mess, and causes the select committee to work for, I think, 34 hours of deliberation—34 hours of hearing submissions. And here we finally come across a little snippet in Part 3 whereby we find two clauses that the industry had no objection to and, more important, two clauses that the Minister has not had to bring a Supplementary Order Paper into the Committee for us to correct his incompetence with.

The Minister might like to tell members how he got Part 3, “Conservation Act 1987”, so right, when it is not even his portfolio area, yet he got every other part of the bill into one unholy mess. I do not think that the credit can go to Chris Carter—I do not think so. I think the credit does not go to the Minister, either. I think that this is one where officialdom has done well.

💬 Simon Power: No!

I think that it is. I do not think that David Benson-Pope even realised—[Interruption] Ian Ewen Street mentions that I should wash my mouth out, but I think we have to realise that in legislation like this, if somebody gets something right, it is fair to acknowledge it. That is the purpose of the Committee stage of the House. So in amongst—

💬 Hon Member: If they had a decent chair!

Well, Darren Hughes is saying that the chair is at fault—the chair is at fault, because there are two clauses in the bill that did not require altering through a select committee. So that is the chair’s fault! Well, I say to Darren Hughes that he is a new member and he will not be here for much longer, because Nathan Guy is out there tonight. He is door-knocking in Ōtaki. He will be here and he will be an excellent member. Everybody says he will be an excellent member, because they have expressed a lot of disappointment with Darren Hughes. But Darren Hughes will realise, when he reminisces on his short parliamentary career, that one does not blame the chair of a select committee when two clauses out of a couple of hundred come back unchanged. That is not something one praises the chair of the select committee for, and it is certainly not something one blames the select committee chair for. It means that somebody presented that little part of the bill to the Hon David Benson-Pope, and that little part was right. So I say to the Minister, congratulations on doing that, at least.

I also rise to discuss in detail clauses 54 and 55 in Part 3, “Conservation Act 1987”. Members will recall that this legislation is to be cut into seven different bills. One of them will be in relation to the Conservation Act 1987 specifically, which is represented by Part 3 of this bill. Clause 55(2) proposes to substitute section 26ZG(2)(c) of the Conservation Act, which provides: “(c) The taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of any freshwater fish under the authority of the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts.” The new section 26ZG(2)(c) will provide: “(c) the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of—(i) the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts; or (ii) the registration of a fish farmer under Part 9A of the Fisheries Act 1996.”

That is what this clause does. It repeals those provisions relating to the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish, and replaces them with those provisions in clause 55. Why this is of interest to the marine farming and aquaculture sector is simply that the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act, and a third Act, the Fisheries Act 1996, all impinge on freshwater fish, which may or may not be farmed, may be wild, or may be somehow in an aquaculture business. All those Acts impinge on those species.

So under this reform bill, there is a bringing together of the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal regulations under that one provision. Those reforms bring it all together. Having it spread out amongst the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act, the regulations under those Acts, and also Part 9A of the Fisheries Act 1996 made it all the more confusing. This is why we have general support from the industry on this. We have support from regional councils, the Department of Conservation, those on the Primary Production Committee, and officials, as well. There was no argument on it. It is nice to come across a provision in this reform bill where there is no controversy and there are no last-minute changes. As the Hon David Carter pointed out, it is something we can, indeed, agree with.

It is interesting that through the course of this debate the Department of Conservation has come under a fair bit of flack, because of the amount of interference that it can have in marine farming under this reform legislation. We know that it can effectively veto the allocation of marine-farming space at the last hurdle if the department’s officials do not succeed as objectors to the consent being granted, or succeed as objectors to the original aquaculture management area. So after the department has a go at the aquaculture management area that the regional council is keen to set up and it fails, and after having a go at the resource consent that the individual farmer applies for and it also fails there, the department can then have another slap at getting a veto in the end.

I would like to take a short call on Part 3. I am not sure I agree with Mr Heatley that clause 55 is a non-controversial clause. Clause 55(2) states that section 26ZG(2) of the Conservation Act is to be amended by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: “(c) the taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of—(i) the Fisheries Act 1983, the Marine Farming Act 1971, or any regulations made under either of those Acts;”. Well, it has just occurred to me while I was sitting listening to the debate to ask the Minister, for example—and I would ask him to take a call on this—where sea-run trout sit in this particular aspect. Are they freshwater fish or saltwater fish? Which category do they come under?

If people decide that farming them is an appropriate thing to do, and some sea-run trout are found in their salmon cage, will the full weight of the law descend on those people? It is a perfectly reasonable question. Salmon swim up rivers. They are freshwater fish, we might say, but they spend a huge amount of time at sea, as well. Are they freshwater fish or saltwater fish? I think those questions are perfectly fair and reasonable to ask, given the fact that there is a horrendous penalty for anybody who dares to challenge the monopoly rights of Fish and Game, for example. Part 3 is really all about the fact that Fish and Game does not want anybody to farm fish that have huge commercial value. Of course, salmon have an enormous commercial value, and they are farmed, but sea-run trout are certainly not allowed to be farmed.

I ask whether they are freshwater fish or saltwater fish, for I am not sure, and I do not have that knowledge. Maybe some member in the Chamber, or an official, knows. Indeed, the Minister, who is meant to know all about this bill, should take a call to tell us exactly how this specific clause relating to the Conservation Act 1987 applies to sea-run trout. I see that the Minister is engaged in heavy conversation, and is studiously ignoring this particular question. It is perfectly relevant. Can the Minister please explain why, or how, it is a silly question? It is perfectly reasonable for a marine farmer to look at farming sea-run trout in one of these aquaculture management areas. I ask why that could not, or should not, be done, if in fact there is a first-rate market for them.

One of the problems we have with this particular bill that this Minister totally fails to understand is that flexibility is part of this whole industry. If one particular fish species that is being farmed is not providing the commercial returns that farmers need, then the marine farmers need to be able to change from that species to another species, to develop a market, and to make some dollars for themselves. That will possibly be outlawed shortly by this Government, as well. Making money for oneself is not an acceptable process, it seems to me, in terms of the thinking of this particular Government, so it tries to stop marine farmers from doing what I think is a perfectly sensible thing. I can only ask this Minister to give me the answer to this question of whether sea-run trout are classified as freshwater fish. It is a perfectly reasonable question, and I yield my speaking slot to the Minister so that he can take a call to tell me the answer.

I am delighted to speak to this rather significant Part 3, which relates to the Conservation Act. An interesting question has been raised by Gerrard Eckhoff. Clearly, the nod from the Minister signified that sea-run trout is defined as freshwater fish, so it cannot be farmed in the sea. That raises concerns around how far the Government wants to go with this issue.

We read in clause 55(2) about the “taking, holding, possession, sale, or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of—” the Fisheries Act or the Marine Farming Act, or “the registration of a fish farmer …”. The reference to “fish farmer” reminds me of the previous provision that looked at the giving of authority. First of all, the fish farmer has to go to the Ministry of Fisheries for that authority, but either a resource consent or a certificate of compliance is required before that farmer can continue. But one does not have to have either of those things to be a fish farmer, if one has a customary rights order. One does not have to have a certificate of compliance or a resource consent, if one has a customary rights order. I would have thought that was a double standard. Given that, largely, it will be Māori who are customary rights holders, compared with anybody else, I definitely see that as a double standard and as the creating of an advantage for one group of persons over others who are required to go through the resource consent or compliance certificate process to be registered farmers as identified under Part 3. So we keep going back to the registration of fish farmers under Part 3. I am just reiterating the parameters by which fish farmers are established. I think it is absolutely amazing that we do have that double standard, and that someone with a customary rights order can become a fish farmer without having a certificate of compliance or resource consent.

Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to clarify the situation in regard to that, and whether it is actually appropriate. He is obviously declining to comment on that one. I think it is a significant issue, and if I had had time when debating the previous part, I would have gone into it more fully.

I just bring members back to the registration of fish farmers, as identified in Part 3, and ask people to think about the preference in law that is being provided here for customary rights holders, who will be predominantly Māori—I cannot think of any instance that the case might be otherwise. They do not need a resource consent or a compliance certificate, if they have a customary rights order. In my view, that is absolutely atrocious. The same parameters should apply to all, regardless of the customary rights order situation. Of course, that is another little gift arising from the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and I am sure we will be confronted with more of these little gifts, which are absolutely atrocious. That is something we are appalled to see, and we will be seeing it throughout the legislation.

I will leave the Minister to respond, and perhaps to address some of the concerns I have raised in regard to the preference being provided for customary rights holders over registered fish farmers.