Third Readings

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) Link to this

I move, That the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. I am delighted to propose the third readings of these bills. This legislation will enable New Zealand’s marine aquaculture industry to achieve its potential for sustainable economic growth.

We need to take advantage of the international demand for high-quality, sustainably produced products. New Zealand has the ability to meet this demand, but our legislative framework needs to change. It must support growth while ensuring that environmental limits are respected and that aquaculture activities are balanced with other uses of our coastal space. Aquaculture needs only a small fraction of our coastal space, but for the past decade marine farming development has been held back by moratoria and legislation that have not worked well in practice. Good spatial planning that provides for aquaculture activities in appropriate places is critical.

The legislation simplifies 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 enable councils to plan for it in a similar way. Removing this requirement for aquaculture management areas means a return to a consent-based regime for aquaculture, but with some important improvements over the pre - aquaculture management area law to help councils better manage demand.

The Resource Management Act requires a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects as part of the consenting process, and I fully endorse those provisions. The legislation will foster environmentally sustainable aquaculture development overall and will enable the farming of new, higher-value species informed by research.

The legislation balances the industry’s desire for certainty with the rights of councils and communities to decide how their coastal space is used. The legislation provides measures to enable the backlog of consent applications, including those frozen under the current law, to be processed. In most cases processing will be able to be resumed on the commencement of the new law.

The legislation makes changes to the Tasman and Waikato regional coastal plans to enable applications for consent to farm a wider range of species, including finfish, in areas where aquaculture is already established. The legislation has been the subject of informed debate in the House, so important changes were introduced by way of Supplementary Order Papers.

In Coromandel achieving substantial growth in the industry is important. It requires a shift to higher-value species, including finfish. Coromandel is not the only place where this needs to happen; there is potential for hāpuku and kingfish to be commercially farmed in the Waikato region. Research indicates that this can be done within environmental limits and while maintaining a balance between aquaculture and other uses of the coastal space. This legislation provides an opportunity in this area by establishing the Coromandel marine farm zone as a site specifically for finfish species. The Government has taken a cautious approach to the management of environmental impacts. The legislation therefore provides for staged development of the zone, with some particular consent conditions and careful monitoring to ensure that any unwanted impacts can be identified and addressed early on.

At the first reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) I signalled that the settlement provisions might be revised if engagement between the Crown and iwi found a better mechanism for delivering the Crown’s obligation for any new space created by commercial interests. That mechanism has been identified in Supplementary Order Paper 264, introduced on 8 August, to ensure that the Crown is able to deliver through new space, cash, or other agreed terms. The bill now enables the settlement to be delivered through regional agreements in a way that benefits iwi aspirations and preferences. This mechanism is the outcome of a process of engagement over several months. I thank iwi leaders, I thank their teams, I thank the Ministry of Fisheries staff for their work, and I thank the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri.

The impact of aquaculture on fishing is managed under the Fisheries Act through the process of the undue adverse effects test. That process will remain. However, the legislation now provides a firmer footing and strong incentives for both parties to reach agreement. The existing Fisheries Act protections for non-quota management stocks and customary and recreational fishing remain unchanged.

Many people and organisations have contributed to the aquaculture reforms and this legislation in particular. I thank Aquaculture New Zealand—in particular, its chairman and, of course, its Chief Executive, Mike Burrell. I really appreciate the input they have had on this. I thank members of the House, particularly of the Primary Production Committee, for their work on this legislation, and I thank Shane Ardern for his knowledge and ability to see the difficult process through. The Aquaculture Technical Advisory Group and the more than 200 individuals and organisations who made submissions on the group’s report provided the initial framework for this legislation.

I also mention the valued contribution made by the local authorities, particularly Waikato Regional Council, Hauraki District Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, and Tasman District Council. I acknowledge science providers, particularly the Cawthron Institute and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, whose analysis and research underpins policy advice and informed decisions. Finally, I particularly recognise the work of the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith; the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson; and the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, who took particular interest in this legislation.

This legislation provides a sound framework for the future of an important and growing industry. I am confident that this legislation gets the framework right, and I look forward to an exciting future. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Let the records for this night show that although this side of the House agreed to support these reforms in the legislation arising from the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), largely because we saw the immediate value in enabling the industry to free itself up and a process to stop it fighting amongst itself, we had the unedifying spectacle of the putative leader of the industry in a political sense, the Minister of Fisheries, standing with his hand going rapidly in and out of his pocket, whilst he mumbled very awkwardly over amendments upon amendments upon amendments. That is not an example of fine constitutional practice. For reasons we on this side of the House cannot actually account for, his collar continually curled up. We cannot rationalise as to what stimuli that collar was responding to, but I can assure the House that it was not a pretty sight. I only hope that as a consequence of the changes we have acquiesced in and supported this evening, the industry goes on to stronger things.

As I have said earlier, it has been a target for a long time to achieve a billion dollars from marine farming. There will be no billion dollars unless, firstly, there is monetary policy governing high-quality exports and the ability to repatriate overseas earnings back to New Zealand at a decent rate. Secondly, neither will we generate the billion dollars if we continue to starve this part of the New Zealand export sector of suitable levels of research and development funding, because it is only through research and development funding, whether or not that side of the House likes it, that we will move what is a basic commodity up the value chain. Thirdly, yes, it is important that central government exercise a suitable level of supervisory control over how and when resource consents are allocated, especially in those cases where there is intractable opposition. But that will not happen if it ends up generating such a level of discontent and such a level of hostility in local communities that it goes to an irrational level. With those sorts of admonitions, naturally we will support the passage of this legislation, as I give this third reading speech.

We have had a few unremarkable things come from Sandra Goudie about this legislation, and I accept that—like the area I hail from of Tai Tokerau—the Hauraki Gulf, etc., is her area. But there is a portion in schedule 1 that talks about marine mammals becoming entangled in marine farming structures. It also talks about endangered species. Indeed, in schedule 1 the term “turtle” is used. So she needs to ensure, as does that side of the House, that no epithets are used, a great deal of charity is shown, and respect is shown for the fact that this evening Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has been prepared to overlook these gratuitous insults flung across this side of the House, whilst we show inordinate levels of statesmanship. We are prepared to overlook whom we could symbolise on that side of the House as either a turtle or an entangled marine mammal, and what part of the anatomy might be suffering damages of consequence of such a collision. We are prepared to overlook all those sorts of things.

And we are prepared to overlook the imperfections of the Minister’s contribution and, unfortunately, the unravelling of that slender bit of knowledge he has about constitutional practice. We are prepared to pretend that the industry is relying upon him, but in actual fact the industry is relying on the entirety of Parliament, and the majority of Parliament has made a very useful contribution. We have had a characteristically aloof contribution from the Green Party but that is their life force—to try to generate jobs not out of our natural resources, but taking a very preservationist view of the environment. Thankfully I am distinguished from that view because we need to rely upon the infinite inventiveness of human beings and their ability to derive a livelihood and derive wealth out of the environment, but to do it in such a way that it enhances the rights of people to participate and of us to earn a living overseas as both Māori and Pākehā. This shows we support the legislation.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the legislation arising from the Aquaculture Amendment Bill (No 3) tonight. It was interesting to listen to the previous contribution from the other side of the House. The member Shane Jones made a fine contribution in the Primary Production Committee, I hasten to add, and I thank him for that. But we must wonder when we listen to that contribution what that member and his party were doing for 9 long years in regard to aquaculture amendment and the development of aquaculture in New Zealand. We must wonder about that very elusive contribution.

This legislation amends the Resource Management Act, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. That has been long overdue, I hasten to add. The select committee received the bill on 16 November 2010. The closing date for submissions was 11 February 2011. We received 120 submissions from interested groups all over New Zealand, and we heard 57 of them, including during a day in Auckland. The end result of that was, as the previous member described, a fractured submission process and a fractured industry that clearly needed to see some leadership.

I thank the Hon Shane Jones for his contribution. It was too late coming but we have it now. I thank him for his support. I look forward to the passage of this bill through Parliament.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the aquaculture legislation. The Primary Production Committee suggested in its report back that the legislation provides “an efficient legislative and regulatory framework that would enable the sustainable development of aquaculture within the coastal marine area.” One cannot argue with the aspiration behind that—to develop a sustainable aquaculture industry in New Zealand—but sadly the legislation falls far short of giving us any confidence that the outcome would or could be achieved under the provisions within it.

The debate around this has issue been highly coloured by the constant reference to the billion-dollar industry emerging, and the claim that aquaculture is the next big thing. I think there has been a lack of a reality check around that. There seems to have been very little analysis of where that number came from. It would require something like a threefold increase in the current earnings, which sit at around $370 million - odd. It is not entirely obvious where that threefold increase would come from. The market has not been waiting for New Zealand to sort out its industry. This unexamined proposition clearly has blinded a number of participants in the debate to the more sober and measured assessments and submissions that pointed out at length, again and again, that this proposed model will not provide the long-term solution to the underlying weaknesses in our present marine management system.

The total water space currently occupied by marine farms is in the order of 5,800 hectares or thereabouts. It is estimated that the area needed to generate this hoped for billion dollars would similarly need about a threefold increase, to something like 17,000 hectares. The Minister referred to a relatively small imposition on the total marine space surrounding New Zealand, and at one level he is quite right. But that clearly overlooks the fact that the waters that will be required and sought after for this activity are waters that are also sought after for numerous other activities. There will be significant competition for a relatively small amount of water.

The proposed legislative regulatory measures to manage the allocation are very unlikely to have any chance of managing the legal regulatory and practical challenges that the level of demand for this water will throw up, so have little chance of achieving their stated purpose. It is clear that the very narrowly defined notion of economic efficiency that has been driven has seemed to be the guiding light in this debate and in the proposals within the legislation. We can talk at length about the relative efficiency, in ecological terms, of the activity of farming, particularly finfish farming. The proposition is that we will import large volumes of fish food, which are already depleting existing wild stocks, and will convert this to higher-value fish product at a ratio of 1 kilogram of product for 1.8 kilograms of input. Ecologically this is nonsense. As short-term economics it may make sense, but that economic return relies on us effectively mining ecosystems—not our ecosystems, but in the larger scheme of things we will be mining ecosystems. That is seldom a recipe for a long-term return.

There have already been numerous local challenges to councils and the Environment Court, asserting that many of our more popular waters are already farmed beyond capacity. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, our Crown research institute, has already stated on many occasions that we simply do not know enough about the complex processes and interaction within and between the farmed areas and the unmodified or wild environment to have any confidence about the future of this. Systematic environmental monitoring has not been undertaken. We simply do not have the robust scientific data and knowledge that would inform good management decisions. That is not an imagined view; it is an empirical view put forward by our Crown research institutes, which are clearly disinterested, in the economic sense, in this.

The oft-repeated message from our scientific and ecological community is that there is an absolute and urgent need for good quantitative and qualitative data to inform a truly sustainable approach. Allowing the second gold rush—and inevitably that is what we will see, in the absence of that underlying science—is guaranteed to undermine efforts to establish a sustainable industry. We are told that this new legislation will normalise aquaculture to the extent that it will put it within the ambit of the Resource Management Act. It will remove the aquaculture management areas, and put it in line with other decision-making processes around resources. The immediate and obvious objection to that, of course, is the proposition that the area in question—the space in the marine environment—is currently common area, it is public domain, and it is public space that is otherwise available and accessible to all. Assigning exclusive use of public domain to a commercial venture—and remember, that to achieve the wished-for billion-dollar bonanza we need to alienate from public domain something to the tune of 12,000 hectares of marine space—can in no way be considered normal or desirable practice, especially given that the management and regulatory regime will inevitably be dominated by a very few well-funded and determined interests.

Arguably we are seeing what is a new normal, under this Government. In the same way that this Government is doing its best to eliminate opportunities for public participation to reduce reasonable safeguards and opportunities for assessment of resource management applications, so too are we seeing a determined push to drive open the gates to exploitation of the marine area but without real thought or consideration of the longer-term damage that could be done here.

New section 186D, inserted by clause 35, makes provision for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, for example. It says he may consult before making decisions in respect of aquaculture. It is the belief of the committee “that proceeding without consultation would be appropriate in most cases to help speed up the process.” I have never seen such a clear enabling statement that will license future chief executives to be very, very miserly in their approach to consultation. We will see ambivalence to consultation and likely a very hostile approach to engaging with legitimate concerns and interests around us.

The chief executive is empowered but absolutely not obligated to consult and indeed, under the wording from the select committee, is probably discouraged from consulting “persons and organisations that the chief executive considers represent the classes of persons who have customary, commercial, or recreational fishing interests that may be affected …”. In short, the chief executive is given considerable licence again, not only about whether to consult—with a preference to not consult—but also about whom he or she consults.

We are told that the Resource Management Act application process will be conducted in an integrated fashion, with any process deemed necessary undertaken to establish the existence or otherwise of an undue adverse effect on commercial, customary, or recreational fisheries. The mechanisms proposed here are complex, they are multilayered, and they require the engagement, and indeed at some level the cooperation, of numerous competing and often conflicting interests. I would confidently predict that if there is an economic bonanza in this legislation, it will be a bonanza for the lawyers. This so-called integrated approach is almost certain to generate highly charged and expensive litigation, with appeals, counter-appeals, and claims for costs and compensation. This proposed legislation takes real risks with our environment. It absolutely works against ecological, sustainable best practice. It establishes very weak provisions for democratic process. We are relying on some very highly questionable regulatory mechanisms to lead us to this hoped for, dreamed for, billion-dollar future. All this, to use the Government’s favourite phrase, is balanced by economic opportunity, so the substance of that proposed economic opportunity bears some investigation.

Aquaculture is not an industry for the faint-hearted or the undercapitalised. There are very few companies within New Zealand with sufficient capital to bear the inevitable high cost and interrupted return of a very vulnerable primary production industry like aquaculture. It would be our sure forecast that in time this industry, if it goes ahead, will be dominated by very few interests, probably overseas. There will be very little benefit to New Zealanders or to our environment. Thank you.

HILARY CALVERT (ACT) Link to this

The ACT Party is concerned about property rights, and members should make no mistake about it: this legislation is intended to force quota holders to relinquish property rights. Our caucus is splitting its vote on this legislation, not because we do not all believe in fundamental property rights, but because for some of us the advantages of this legislation just outweigh the disadvantages.

My speech tonight expresses the particular concerns we have about the reduction of property rights for quota holders introduced through this legislation. As a result of recently tabled Supplementary Order Paper 265, those who wish to carry out aquaculture in an area currently used by a quota holder need only show that the aquaculture use is of materially greater economic value to New Zealand than the use by the quota holder. They then are obligated to engage in an arbitration process to determine what will be paid for the compulsory taking. Compulsory arbitration was opposed by submitters, including the Seafood Industry Council, during the select committee process, for good reason.

Firstly, compulsory arbitration will reduce the value of quota rights—individual transferable quotas—and the fisheries settlement. The fundamental contract of the current test, commonly known as UAE—undue adverse effects—is that if there is an undue adverse effect on commercial fishing, then aquaculture development cannot proceed unless agreement is reached with quota holders. Compulsory arbitration alters this fundamental contract by replacing the absolute legal protection of commercial interests from undue adverse effects with balancing competing commercial interests, resulting in a compulsory arbitrated taking.

The security provided by the undue adverse effects test has been built into the value of the individual transferable quota over the last 25 years. Compulsory arbitration allows the value of the industry’s quota assets, which are currently about $4 billion, to be reduced without the consent of the quota holders. This reduction in quota value will be immediate upon enactment of a compulsory arbitration provision, as quota holders will increase the risk premium to reflect anticipated loss of access to some fisheries. Compulsory arbitration fails to uphold the integrity of the full and final fisheries settlement, as settlement assets allocated to iwi could have their value unilaterally reduced without the consent of quota holders.

Secondly, compulsory arbitration is not used in this way in other parts of commerce. In no other sector of commerce do we allow one group of private individuals to compulsorily take away, using the powers of the State, the property of a competitor, on the basis that the price will be determined by compulsory arbitration. It would be unthinkable, for example, that a farmer or horticulturalist on the edge of a town could be forced to sell part of their land to a developer wishing to build a supermarket on that site.

Thirdly, compulsory arbitration will not achieve the claimed benefits. It will not ensure the best use of coastal resources. Negotiated agreements between the affected parties will determine the best-value commercial harvesting use of coastal space, because the parties have the information and commercial discipline necessary to make appropriate investment decisions. It will not provide stronger incentives to negotiate. To the contrary, the prospect of compulsory removal of rights is likely to polarise the industry, and incentivise affected quota owners to take every step possible to oppose the prospect of aquaculture development. It will not provide a more equitable outcome. There is nothing equitable about an existing legitimate commercial use being compulsorily displaced by a new commercial use, and it is not more efficient. The arbitration process will revisit all of the issues traversed during the undue adverse effect assessment.

Finally, compulsory arbitration is inconsistent with agreed seafood industry policy. Seafood industry participants recently confirmed their commitment to retaining the undue adverse effect tests. They agreed that the strong rights needed to support future development of aquaculture do not require a corresponding weakening of commercial fishing rights, and agreed that these rights must coexist in a manner that gives legitimacy to, rather than undermines, other industry participants. In direct contrast, compulsory arbitration alters the undue adverse effects test and weakens commercial fishing rights. Compulsory arbitration is inconsistent with the agreed industry position.

The process of the progress through the House of this legislation is also disturbing. The idea that a major issue, which could have gone to the Primary Production Committee and been properly consulted on, has been introduced in a Supplementary Order Paper after the select committee process is a weakening of parliamentary process, especially in an urgency motion on an issue that is in no way urgent.

The issue is essentially one of competing commercial interests, and the Government is intervening and taking sides. This bill could well encourage others to lobby members of Parliament in the hope that a Supplementary Order Paper could be introduced, after consultation and without proper scrutiny, in the commercial interests of some, but against the interests of current property rights holders. Perhaps most important, industry players oppose this amendment. The Supplementary Order Paper will not sort out problems if the industry has no confidence in this solution proposed by the Government.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Kia ora tātou e te Whare i tēnei pō. I am pleased to stand and take a call on this aquaculture legislation, and I am pleased to say that the Māori Party is supporting it. I am thrilled to be able to talk about this legislation, simply because today has been rather negative on the part of some people who have not appreciated the Māori Party view on some bills. But tonight I can say that we are right behind this legislation 100 percent. We support this legislation, which updates the aquaculture legislation and therefore smoothes the pathway to settlement of Māori commercial aquaculture claims.

We support also the opportunity this legislation will provide to allow trial farming of high-value finfish in the Coromandel marine-farming zone.

Other speakers have spoken about this legislation, but to make sure it is on record for those who are listening in, I say that this aquaculture legislation aims to simplify the allocation of new space for aquaculture activities by removing the need to set up aquaculture management areas. The legislation does this by making amendments to a number of Acts: the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Resource Management Act 1991.

I want to put on record our congratulations to Minister Heatley from Whangarei on the honourable way in which this legislation has been developed. The Māori Party has been actively engaged with the Minister on this legislation, and we have been proud of the way in which iwi leaders have also been actively engaged in the process of the drafting. The iwi leaders’ advisers worked with Ministry of Fisheries officials in the drafting of two amendments, and we believe that the legislation is much better because of their input. The amendment drafted in consultation with aquaculture iwi leaders offers iwi and the Crown more flexibility in negotiating settlements under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

The first amendment focused on Treaty settlements, and confirmed forecasting, gazetting, and consenting of regional aquaculture space for iwi—20 percent of the total aquacultural space.

The second amendment was focused on undue adverse effects tests. It was proposed during the Committee of the whole House that if there was an impact on customary/recreational space, then aquaculture space could not proceed. With commercial space, the threshold for support from fisheries permit holders required drops from 100 percent to 75 percent. The second amendment is basically very technical in nature. It changes the test and facilitates agreements between aquacultural applicants and fishing quota owners. When 70 percent of fishing quota owners who are impacted by aquaculture agree to a proposed aquacultural agreement, then the applicant can apply to the High Court to have the remaining quota owners bound, as well. It concerns, basically, planning and consenting.

Finally, there is a proposed binding arbitration process for mediation. The legislation requires negotiation and agreement of what might be seen as forced arbitration. Iwi leaders are comfortable with this threshold change and arbitration mechanisms.

I cannot underestimate the importance of aquaculture to our whānau. The Māori Party supports any opportunities and incentives for whānau, hapū, and iwi to enjoy genuine progress in their connections with their maunga, awa, moana, marae, tūpuna, and atua. We believe that aquaculture has great potential to boost our wealth and jobs, especially in the regions. We believe that this bill will help Māori contribute more to the growth of an industry that has huge economic potential to benefit all of Aotearoa.

Iwi already control around 40 percent of fisheries, but further progress in aquaculture has been hampered by the 2004 Act, creating an unworkable solution in settling Māori claims. The legislation we are debating tonight is arguably a work in progress, especially in consideration of the changes that are aimed at simplifying the process around the allocation of new space for aquaculture activities, as well as taking into account the interim measure put in place to allow for continuation of the 20 percent allocation mechanism for Māori interest in aquaculture.

The commitment shown with regard to future consultation with iwi leaders on these issues has been really encouraging. Because of their work, the amendment allows iwi and the Crown to negotiate regional settlements of commercial aquaculture claims, which might involve 20 percent of any new space, cash, or other agreed terms. In effect, iwi can negotiate a package that suits their specific and unique circumstances. We understand that new space will be reserved for settlements for 3 years. We accept that this is important in allowing negotiations to proceed, but the time limit will stop discussions from getting bogged down.

Regional settlements are to deliver space to iwi in more useful blocks, rather than as 20 percent scattered among each allocation that is made. I want to draw attention to the comments made by Te Ohu Kaimoana in its submission on this bill to the Primary Production Committee. The submission states: “Having a positive and sustainable aquaculture sector will not come from getting the legislation correct. It will also need to be implemented well. Te Ohu welcomes that the government has indicated that it will take a more active and coordinated role. This must happen and it must be sustained. One aspect where this is crucial will be in working with iwi in regions to reach and promptly implement agreements on their Aquaculture Settlements. For iwi to receive value from the Settlement this work will need to be anticipatory.”

Another part of the bill I will refer to makes provision to allow a marine farming zone to be created in the Hauraki Gulf by amending the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan. The zone is suitable for trial raising of hāpuku or kingfish in sea cages. These high-value species would boost the industry. Again, iwi will get 20 percent of the new zone.

Finally, as I said earlier, we will be supporting the passing of the bill. Although we will be doing that, there is an outstanding issue of development opportunities that we believe should be promoted for iwi, hapū, and whānau. We would like to promote the development of innovative iwi aquaculture enterprises, including those in the marine environment, in fresh water, or on land. In particular, we want to assist iwi to do two things: first, to maximise the value of assets received under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004; and, second, to contribute substantially to the realisation of the aquaculture industry goal of achieving average turnover of $1 billion by 2025. The Māori Party has taken up this issue with the Minister, and we hope that the Government can see fit to invest in projects that are aimed at delivering significant and sustainable economic value to iwi and New Zealand across the whole aquaculture value chain. There is an enormous amount of potential that we could look to support, including education and skills development, research and development, product development, commercialisation, commercial development, and technology transfer. Within that, if we were to give priority to any projects, they would be those that, firstly, contribute to innovation in the aquaculture sector; secondly, build iwi and Māori capacity to participate successfully in all aspects of the sector; and, thirdly, encourage collaboration between iwi, and between iwi and third-party partners of their choice.

We see the need for investment in iwi development within the aquaculture sector as being really crucial to the future success of the industry, and we will be taking up every opportunity to discuss these issues further down the line with either the Takutai Trust of Te Ohu Kaimoana or the aquaculture unit of the Ministry of Fisheries to provide a platform for advancing sustainable development. With those comments I say that the Māori Party supports this legislation at its third reading.