Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3)

This part of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) is the part on which the Ministry of Fisheries team worked tirelessly with those in the industry, councils, Te Ohu Kaimoana, iwi across the country, and a large number of interested parties.

This part amends the Resource Management Act 1991 to streamline aquaculture planning and consenting. It simplifies aquaculture planning by removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas to be established before consent applications can be made. This will put aquaculture on the same footing as other coastal activities and will enable councils to plan for it in a similar way.

Part 4 provides for a new ministerial power to recommend making regulations that will enable the Government to help councils change their plans where change is needed and cannot be achieved through the existing mechanisms. This bill provides for a minimum consent term of 20 years, in most cases, to provide the industry with an incentive to invest. However, it is important to note that this is not a default. We want terms to be longer. I will be explicit: 20 years is a minimum, not a target. We would like it to be much higher—up to 35 years.

Achieving substantial growth in the aquaculture industry requires a shift to higher-value species, including finfish. The bill makes changes to Tasman and Waikato regional coastal plans to enable applications for consent to farm a wider range of species, including finfish. In Waikato it also allows applications to be made for small extensions to existing farms.

Changes are proposed to schedule 3 of the bill, which contains amendments to the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan to establish a 300-hectare marine farming zone off Coromandel. This 300-hectare zone presents a strategic opportunity to enable New Zealand’s marine farming industry to develop and achieve its goal of $1 billion in annual sales by 2025.

I apologise to the people of Whangarei who watched their member, the Hon Phil Heatley. We sought to improve his general presentation by warning him about his collar. He continued to keep his hand in his pants. I cannot comment on whether there is a connection in that regard. But it is important that I come back to the matters at hand.

We heard from Sandra Goudie about fish farming, etc., in the Coromandel. How many years has that member wandered around, destroying the roads and worsening the environment? In the final portion of her largely undistinguished career, a small—a tiny—part of the Hauraki Gulf is dedicated to fish farming, and we are meant to see that as some sort of super victory. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was genuine in regard to fish farming up and down Aotearoa, as we say in Māori, there would not be a wahapū, a harbour, a bay, or a cove blocked. This is a very small zone, and unfortunately I fear, because Doug Kidd was involved in establishing the zone, that it could be located in the wrong area.

Having said that, we are prepared to be magnanimous and we are prepared to take into account the overarching interests of our nation and not focus on the member from that Coromandel - Tīkapa Moana area. In all seriousness, though, we wish her well in whatever mangrove tree she might strike in the future.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

We do.

I feel the need for constitutional propriety, having talked about mangroves and that member. That sort of suggests impropriety. It is important that I come back to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), because—I do not need to read the bill; I know exactly what this portion is dealing with—we support the ability of local government, etc., and central government to improve the economic output in the area of Waikato and in the area of Tasman, ensuring that where suitable, we can actually farm.

I want to know when members on that side of the House will consent to the farming of trout. They boast their credentials. Their echo chamber, otherwise known as Federated Farmers, has all sorts of interesting things to say about trout. When will we see a suitable level of boldness in that regard? I predict that in many of the areas set aside we may see kingfish, but, as the Māoris of the far north have learnt, that is an exercise in fiscal self-immolation. We may see hāpuku, and I wonder whether we will see any sea horses. [Interruption] I have been warned by Grant Robertson, the mild-mannered liberal to my left: “Jonesy, don’t go there. Keep going, keep going. You were doing reasonably well until you lapsed in that regard.”

We will be supporting this part. It will not be easy. It will be controversial, but we are prepared to bear the burden. Thank you.

I will make a couple of brief comments on Part 4 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), particularly in respect of clause 66. The clause states that the regional council and Minister of Conservation will effectively keep their hands away from fisheries management in a generic sense, and that is entirely appropriate. However, it goes on to state: “a regional council and the Minister of Conservation may perform the functions specified in subsection (1)(d) to control aquaculture activities for the purpose of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the effects of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.” That brings to my mind a very significant question here: what capacity do our regional councils have to adequately fulfil their existing obligations, duties, and responsibilities? I would be very interested to hear from the Minister or any other member of a regional council in the country that has sufficient capacity, expertise, and knowledge to make considered and appropriate judgments about the likely effect of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.

This has been an ongoing problem with the Resource Management Act since day one. Regional councils have not been fulfilling their existing obligations. Imposing new and complex obligation requirements on them will simply exacerbate that existing condition. I reflect momentarily on the Kaipara Harbour, where I have recently spent some time. The regional council there is under considerable pressure already to consider its baseline monitoring as a follow-on of the consents for the tidal energy project. We have yet to see a regional council in the last 20 years that has been able to employ sufficient scientific capacity to properly assess the condition and quality of its environment within that area of concern.

💬 Sandra Goudie: We’d never satisfy that member or his party anyway, so why bother.

I absolutely challenge any member, even those who enjoy shouting rather than making sensible contributions, to come up with some evidence that any regional council has that capacity. I have genuine concerns that in reality what will happen is that the regional councils will not have the capacity; therefore, this requirement for them to look at the likely effects will not be satisfactorily met.

There is also reference in this part to the development of finfish farming in the Hauraki Gulf, off the Coromandel coast. I hope it has been considered that there is significant local opposition—deep-seated and long-term opposition—to this proposition.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Rubbish.

Once again, we hear that it is rubbish. I am pleased that the member who is interjecting has moderated her language. In an earlier reading of the bill she used a much cruder word to suggest that the Green contribution was below par. The reality is that fishers are objecting. They are seriously concerned about the likely effect that this proposal to farm high-value species will have on the wild fishery. The Hauraki Gulf is a very popular recreational boating area. Again, that could be compromised. We know there are significant iwi and hapū objections to the proposition of finfish farming, based on very sound social, economic, and environmental concerns. Thank you.

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 4 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 Papers 264 and 265 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.