Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3)

The debate on Part 1 includes schedule 1.

This part includes measures to transition the existing marine farming industry into the new law with minimal disturbance and no loss of rights or certainty. The processing of the last remaining pre-moratorium applications, which are now a decade old, will be able to be completed from the commencement of the new law. The processing of applications frozen under the current law will, in most cases, be able to resume on the commencement of the new law. The aquaculture unit within the Ministry of Fisheries—which has now been merged with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—has worked closely with local authorities to help them get ready for this. The amount of space that is created for aquaculture from those outstanding applications will depend on the decisions of applicants and the outcome of the consent process. What is important is that the process can now move forward.

I would like to inform the Committee that I am not proceeding with the following amendments: on Supplementary Order Paper 264 the amendment entitled “New Schedule 2: paragraph 4”, and on Supplementary Order Paper 265 the amendment entitled “Schedule 1: new Schedule 2”. These changes are superseded by the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 278.

Labour members will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). I note that we are at the Committee stage, and I want to work through a number of important issues. As is often the case when we support legislation pertaining to a particularly important industry, it is capable of generating more employment, which is a rather rare phenomenon given the stewardship of the Government in its broader economic obligations.

But putting that aside, there are two areas in which, despite our reservations, we will back this bill. I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has made a considerable effort to address the broad array of interests. On one side we have residual Māori concerns, and on the other side we have concerns pertaining not only to the industry with its investment in both aquaculture and quota ownership but also, in particular, to those who fear arrogating to central government in the form of the Minister the ability to influence and allocate consents relating to the occupation of space. We have all these kinds of apprehensions, but we do feel, despite the fact that the Minister will have the ability to effect these resource management and coastal plan changes, that the deeper challenge is something that is really a “New Zealand Inc.” story. I mean that it is a bold challenge. It is $1 billion a year worth of export receipts. Unfortunately—the Minister may not recall it; I think it was in 1992-93—the Hon Doug Kidd had a similar heroic goal in mind way back then, to generate $1 billion worth of export receipts. Not everything we did in our golden reign of the last 9 years kicked a goal. This is an area in which changes were made, and I think the rule of unforeseen consequences reminds us that what we do in Parliament and what we delegate down to our bureaucrats to do does not necessarily make sense in relation to people investing, taking a risk, and growing an industry. We always need to be vigilant if we are to crimp the ability of people to enjoy participative democracy. That is the model we have for resource management in New Zealand. We have sought to marry an ideal of social democracy against resource management. We need to be vigilant that we do not swing too far, because if we do, then nothing will ever happen. All sorts of parties believe they have an almost divine right to participate, and end up hobbling those who, with the greatest will in the world, burn too much money before they can go to consent.

Secondly, I, and no doubt my colleague as well, will talk about the test on how we strike a balance between the people who have legal rights to harvest fish within defined areas, and those who want to occupy those areas for marine farming. I think this Minister has the balance about right—well, to the extent that we are prepared to back it. It is important that an industry like this maintains the reputation that when we sell our product overseas—and this is why the allocation of resource consents is essential—we are selling not just the commodity or the organism but also a brand and an experience. At all times, irrespective of who is enjoying the privilege of holding the benches of Treasury, when we compromise that we worsen our ability to make inroads into the market.

There is no shortage of competitors around the world that are more than capable of disgracing our New Zealand name by taking our product and passing it off as something that in actual fact does not reflect what we are capable of generating and selling. It is important that the host environment that creates the produce is subject to a high level of vigilance, but that vigilance must not turn into an opportunity for far too many nit-pickers to participate in the process. Unfortunately, I have had experience of this. In the 1990s we sought to create a marine fish farm off the coast of Whangarei. After we had blown, as I recall, $600,000, $700,000, and still counting we were still no further ahead and no closer to establishing it, as a consequence of the bike-riding, spectacle-wearing, and book-reading Queen’s Counsel lawyers from Auckland who had baches there. They denied us, who were taking a risk and creating, in this vacant space of the ocean, a business. What were we going to do? We were going to generate jobs and try—odd as it might sound to the current Government—to generate wealth through the export in value-added form of New Zealand’s clean, green produce. A number of these hapless individuals who have far more money than sense visited their connections and networks upon us struggling Northlanders—largely of Māori extraction—as we sought to create this marine fish farm. That is what I mean. Too many parties were enjoying, as a consequence of being of privileged status—that is, being Queen’s Counsel lawyers, being married to Queen’s Counsel lawyers, or seeing Queen’s Counsel lawyers on the side, but that is another matter—the ability to frustrate that development. I fear that if we are not vigilant, then some of the innovations that are being made here could also fall prey to similar excesses.

Having said that, we should back the industry, because how will we create the jobs for our mokopuna, for our children in New Zealand, unless from time to time, with a focus on primary produce, we back it? There will be elements in the industry who will be hōhā, as we say in the Ngāpuhi language, or exasperated, that they do not get everything they need, but the fishing and aquaculture industry cannot be driven exclusively for the benefit of the big end of town. This particular industry represents an opportunity for tangata whenua, and this is part of what has been fixed up in this bill. It was started in our time and has been refined by the current Minister and his officials. I say to the Minister that one day, hopefully very soon, he will be gone from that chair. It will be left to bureaucrats and to the future. I see a rising sun in the future, shining with powerful rays of wealth on the industry.

💬 Shane Ardern: Eternal optimist.

There is a member from over there in Taranaki. His head is starting to look like the snowcapped peak of Mount Taranaki. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, Mount Taranaki did not have flecks of grey hair; it was all white. Anyway, I come back to the bill and remind members that there is a brilliant opportunity for Māori to advance in this industry, but the signal needs to go out to our own Māori people. Fortunately, the hearing aid that Mr Quinn uses is not working in the Chamber. The Committee will travel a lot more smoothly as a consequence of that, and it might sound a lot more lucid as a consequence, so whoever has given him that hearing aid should please repeat it. We need multiple hearing aids, and we might need a special one for Tau Henare, but that should probably be put in the mouth, not the ear.

However, I come back to reminding members that those Māori investors who want to advance their Treaty settlement interests that are advanced in this bill need to ensure that their decisions are not like an island unto themselves. There is no way in the world that we will develop this industry without that, and neither should we rely on large dollops of overseas investment alone to develop this industry.

There is a proposal off the coast of Ōpōtoki. This is a free-ranging debate. I see that a member on the other side of the Chamber—I know she is Pākehā and from the South Island—is trying to practise one of those little hakas that were happening at Sir Paul’s mate. She is bringing her hands close now; I presume that means she is clapping the fact that for once the member for Whangarei has been able to convince his fellow Northlander to agree with something, but that is reflective of the feedback that we have taken from the industry.

We commend this bill and we will not be protracting the contributions, as befits parliamentarians who know that they really have to work hard to earn their living here, unlike members on the other side of the Chamber. Thank you very much.

In the short time before the break I will make a speech supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), as my good colleague Shane Jones has, but I will point out a couple of things.

I went down to look at a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. There are about six of them, and that is very much the nature of fisheries legislation, I have to say. Try as we might in this House to make good legislation, time and time again in fisheries and aquaculture we have made mistakes. Everyone in this House wants aquaculture to develop and move forward, and I commend the Minister for his attempts, but having to table in the Committee at the last minute another three Supplementary Order Papers and amendments would indicate that there are probably within the bill other mistakes. They will be exposed by the industry, no doubt in a court of law, as we move forward.

We want to see aquaculture grow. In fact all the indications internationally are that aquaculture is where we will get a large amount of fish protein to fill the growing world population. It will be through good aquaculture. We have some of the best science in the world, and we have some of the best water, but we have been hampered not by politicians necessarily, and not by bureaucrats, but by the industry. We have a quota management system that has allocated rights to individuals and companies to fish amounts of a set quota, laid down by the Minister, in the wild fish fishery. When aquaculture proposals come and impact on that area, we end up with some debates that have been lengthy and protracted. There have been some very sad outcomes for individuals through the long legal battles that we have seen, and in fact those battles have not finished.

There is one key Supplementary Order Paper. It is Supplementary Order Paper 265, and it is the Minister’s attempt to try to resolve the battlefield that has hampered aquaculture development, involving the rights of existing quota holders versus the intentions and wishes of those people who want to further develop aquaculture. I set aside the speculators. No way in the world do I want to support people who just want space to sell on—they can take a walk. But where there are people who genuinely want to put ropes in the water and develop new, innovative ways of growing aquaculture, we want to help them. This Supplementary Order Paper lays down a process whereby the holders of quota will have their rights upheld, but must accept some compromise to allow aquaculture to move forward. Without this compromise, and without the arbitration laid down in the Supplementary Order Paper, we could still be battling in the courts for another 10 years.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

It is my pleasure to speak on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), which Labour supports. This legislation was really started by the Labour Government.

This whole issue of aquaculture has, in a way, bothered me, because although this country has done very well with animal farming—with dairy farming, sheep farming, and all that—we have not, so far, done as well in the aquaculture area. We have been saying that aquaculture is a billion-dollar industry and that we are hoping to achieve a billion-dollar export industry by 2025, but still, despite a lot of work going on in legislative terms, the industry has not really achieved the status that I would have liked to see it achieve years ago. Successive Governments have tried to improve aquaculture, but there have been difficulties not only with the legislation but also on the ground. We established aquaculture management areas, but they have not really worked. This bill will remove the requirement for aquaculture management areas, and I think that is a good move, but, having said that, there are a number of issues.

As we go through the Committee stage, we will note there are concerns for the industry. Clearly, one of those concerns is about the undue adverse effects test. My colleague Damien O’Connor has put forward an amendment to ensure that that part of the bill is improved. The industry has not been very happy with the process, if you like, and proposes that the legislation should require a collective action process for negotiating aquaculture agreements, and should provide flexibility. That is one of the areas that really has not worked in the aquaculture area as well as it has done in the meat and dairy cooperatives. The aquaculture industry has not come around to working together, and I hope that with this bill the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will have achieved some balance. I commend him for achieving that balance, and I think he has done well in trying to get more flexibility going forward.

Of course, there are other issues, which will come up later, in terms of the power of the Minister. I think that some industry players, some recreational fishers, and some other people are saying that the bill gives the Minister a dictatorial power, but, overall, I think this bill will allow, and we are hoping it will allow, for additional aquaculture farming, which this country definitely needs going forward. We have not done well compared with Australia, for example. The Primary Production Committee went to South Australia a while ago and we looked at what the industry is doing there. It appears that, at least in South Australia, the industry does very well, but New Zealand has still not really made major strides in promoting aquaculture. I would call this bill a work in progress and, going forward, we need to continuously work on this area. I hope that with the passing of the bill we will have a much-improved aquaculture industry in New Zealand.

With those few words on Part 1, I think it is important for us to realise, once again, that the Minister has, overall, done a good job in bringing this bill to the House. We did quite a bit of work in the select committee, obviously, in terms of improving the bill. I thank the chair of the select committee, too. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have some amendments. The question will be that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 and Supplementary Order Paper 265 be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just have a point of clarification, please? Are these amendments—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will explain. The Minister in his speech explained that two amendments on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 would be withdrawn, so we have amendments to the amendments.

So he has amended his amendments?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Correct.

I just wanted to be clear.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We are not getting into a debate. I will now put the question.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 in his name be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264s 265 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.