Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its final report by Monday, 1 March 2004.

The bill amends the Resource Management Act of 1991 to extend the current moratorium on coastal permit applications for aquaculture activities. The moratorium has been in place since 28 November 2001, and is due to expire on 25 March 2004. The bill extends the moratorium to 31 December 2004. The moratorium was introduced to enable the Government to reform aquaculture law, and to enable councils to begin planning for aquaculture under the new framework. It has ensured that councils have not been flooded with marine farm applications, in a race for space, before the new legislation comes into effect. An extension of the moratorium is now unavoidable, due to a delay in the introduction of aquaculture reform legislation.

The foreshore and seabed issues have introduced late and unexpected issues to the aquaculture policy process. Both concern the use of, and access to, coastal space. The Government intends to deal with them in an integrated and consistent way. The Government is driven to avoid the need for an extension to the moratorium. The issues are profound and complex, but an extension now will ensure that we get the legislation and policy right. The Minister of Fisheries told the marine farming industry in July that an extension of the moratorium might be necessary, and that if it were, it would be for a defined period—measured in months, not years. Consistent with that, the extension proposed in the bill is for 9 months only.

The Government is committed to aquaculture law reform because the current legislative framework is outdated, overcomplicated, and dysfunctional. The new legislation will allow for the expansion of marine farming, while ensuring that it is managed sustainably, allowing for recreational, environmental, customary, and commercial interests. The bill also deals with a problem arising from the present dual permitting process for marine farming. Some coastal permits issued under the Resource Management Act for aquaculture have lapsed. To remedy this, the bill deems existing coastal permits to have been given effect to, for Resource Management Act purposes, by an application for a Fisheries Act permit. The bill also revives certain coastal permits for aquaculture that had lapsed under the current conditions.

Finally, the bill removes the time limit within which the Minister of Conservation may recommend the early expiry of the moratorium in the specific area that it cancels requests. The current time limit of 20 working-days is insufficient to complete the Order in Council process. The bill does not impose a new time frame, but gives the Minister a general duty to avoid all unreasonable delay.

In summary, this bill provides for a limited extension to the aquaculture moratorium, and deals with some process problems arising for marine farmers from the current dual permitting regime. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that we opposed this moratorium when it came in 2 years ago. I want it on the record that the National Party opposes it now. It is with some irony that the Government puts up the Minister of Māori Affairs to introduce this bill to extend the moratorium. Clearly, he never read the commentary on the bill for the original moratorium that went before us 2 years ago. Had he read it, he would know that the commentary says that we received 143 submissions—how many?

💬 John Carter: 143.

All Māori groups opposed aspects of this bill. The following key issues were raised by Māori when it came to the moratorium in 2001. They said it had negative impacts on Māori development—and I ask, what has changed? It still has negative impacts on Māori development. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is of concern. Māori said back then that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—there still are, so what has changed? They opposed the moratorium then and I assume they oppose it now. Māori said there had been a lack of consultation by the Crown when the moratorium came in, and I assume that is the case now. So I ask why the Minister of Māori Affairs has so much confidence bringing this bill—an extension of that very moratorium—into the House today. Is he out there batting for his people? Does he know what they believe in, or does he not?

The aquaculture industry is a multimillion-dollar industry. It benefits Māori who are involved in it, it benefits all New Zealanders who are involved in it, and it benefits the wider economy. I am led to believe by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council that with managed expansion this industry could achieve export earnings of $1 billion by 2020 through 17,000 hectares of aquaculture farms—just 17,000 hectares, which is not a lot considering the water space available to New Zealanders.

The Aquaculture Council says that these forecasts are dependent on this one assumption: that new legislation put up by this Government would be enabling, and that there would not be undue delays in developing coastal plans. All we have seen from this Government are undue delays. It has put in place a moratorium of 2 years to enable it to get its act together, and another 9-month moratorium extension.

Here is a question that was put to the Minister in March 2003: “Given that the Government’s moratorium is due to end on 31 March 2004, is the Minister able to confirm that the moratorium will absolutely end on that date?” Who asked that question?

💬 John Carter: Who did?

Jim Peters asked that question. He asked in March whether the moratorium would absolutely end on that date. What was Pete Hodgson’s answer to Jim Peters?

💬 Jim Peters: Yes!

Yes, it will absolutely end on that date. That is why Minister Hodgson is not fronting this bill today in the House of Representatives, because he said yes, and the Minister of Māori Affairs said no.

The Government would have us believe that the foreshore and seabed issue is the sole reason that it has to extend this moratorium. That is what it said in the House last week, and that is what the Minister of Māori Affairs says now. I have a document leaked by Local Government New Zealand that clearly puts the blame on the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister, because regional councils have not been able to cope with aquaculture development in their areas through the course of this moratorium.

Here is the story of three people. Last week the Minister was asked in the House why he had not delivered the promised legislative framework for aquaculture, and why it was necessary to extend the moratorium. This is what the Minister said: “It is important to ensure that the proposed aquaculture law reforms are consistent with the resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue.” This is what I asked in the House last week: “Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has been helpful to regional councils in planning the future of marine farming, and that the moratorium was not extended simply because councils have no faith in the Ministry of Fisheries?”. This is what the Minister said: “I offer that assurance. It is due to the seabed issue, not because regional councils have concerns.” Yet this report by Local Government New Zealand states: “There are considerable uncertainties surrounding the shape and detail of the new aquaculture regime, and this has caused almost all regional councils to put their planning of aquaculture on the backburner. They want more clarity; there is considerable uncertainty. Additionally, regional councils believe that the delays in transition to the proposed aquaculture regime will be compounded by fundamental weaknesses in the Government’s proposed model.” That is what regional councils said, and that is what the Minister told us in the House—clearly, someone is not telling it straight.

Last week in the House I asked: “Can the Minister confirm that the moratorium was extended, not because of the seabed and foreshore fiasco, but because regional councils throughout New Zealand have consistently told him they have no faith in the draft aquaculture reform legislation, that the Ministry of Fisheries has been unhelpful, and that, consequently, they have had to put all of their aquaculture planning on hold? Can he confirm that the complication is not just with seabed, foreshore, and Māori, but with regional councils?” The Minister denied it. He said: “No, I certainly cannot confirm that.” He said it was all about the seabed and foreshore.

I turn to the document written by Local Government New Zealand. The Minister of Māori Affairs should sit up, stop slouching, and listen, because this is what regional councils say. They say that the weakness in the Government’s plans is the inability to designate aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries being shared with them, along with the apparent gaps in, and the inadequacies of, that information. Regional councils have been flying blind. The Government demanded that regional councils plan for aquaculture over the last 2 years. Local Government New Zealand says the Ministry of Fisheries has not shared essential fisheries and planning information. Further, what information it does hold, is entirely inadequate.

Local Government New Zealand says that little progress has been made under this 2-year moratorium. Most regional councils have put planning on hold. They are afraid that they will look to allocate space with no direction from the Government, that the Government will give space to Māori without informing them how much space will be given to Māori, how it will allocate it to Māori, how Māori will pay for that space—if they pay for it—and how that affects aquaculturists currently in the industry.

I put this issue to the House: regional councils have been flying blind. The Government should front up and admit that this moratorium is because it is not working closely with, and helping, regional councils throughout this country.

I stand here to support this bill unreservedly. It is an absolute response to an environmental issue that needs to be sorted. As far as the Minister of Māori Affairs is concerned, he is also the Acting Minister of Fisheries at this time. I am sure that I needed to add that correction.

Phil Heatley has already picked up on the question that I asked in March, and I ask it again in relation to looking at the resource management aquaculture moratorium extension, and the original legislation as well. The question to the Acting Minister that I wish to begin with is: can he confidently tell us and the industry whether applications that are lodged after 1 January 2005 can be processed? That is the initial question that I asked in March, and the answer was yes. Unless he can give a confident and clear-cut yes answer now, then we may as well put this in the rubbish bin, and go away and have tea, for all the value that is there. The disappointing issue about that would be that this is a major growing industry in this country. Some regional councils—one that I have been working with, in particular—took the Minister to heart, and are now in the second planning stage with regard to the draft aquaculture marine areas, or the areas to be set aside. They were well prepared to have started on 1 April to process applications, if the ministry had done its work. I said “if the ministry had done its work”, and that is really the key here. The ministry obviously has not done its work, at all.

What are some of the issues that the ministry would have to look at? The most important one, and this is the reason why this is a nonsense sort of bill, is that absolutely no help is given to the industry at all on the key issues, and they are: how can marine farming rights within the aquaculture marine areas be allocated, and what is the principle under which they will take place? The strange thing is that in the foreword to the bill we have all this loose talk about reforms. I see no evidence, in the whole of the moratorium period, of any processing of reform implications in any way at all over the last 18 months. Nothing is forecast in this bill that will give any help to the industry at all. The industry is ready and out there, waiting to move. It is very appropriate that the Minister of Māori Affairs was the one who came to the House with the bill, as he knows, and I know, that there is no doubt out there that hapū and iwi all over the country are willing and waiting to start now.

That brings me to the second issue that has happened in recent times. Members on the other side of the House have hawked around a ridiculous idea of a 20 percent allocation. They have gone around, from marae to marae, and suggested a Cabinet fall-back of a 20 percent allocation to Māori of the aquaculture marine areas. That is patent nonsense. I was up in Parengarenga Harbour recently. They expect, and could expect, 100 percent in that area, not 20 percent, which is a useless type of threshold argument developed somewhere down here. But that has been developed, and the member knows it has been developed. That is evidence of the walk-over by Cabinet on the Māori members on the other side of the House. Accept a Cabinet idea; take it. It is an easy way out. Do it, and move on to the next matter. It is expedient, but it is not good enough.

The other issue, of course, with regard to marine farming rights in the allocation, is how the tendering will work. That is the key factor for the industry. How does the tendering system really work? There has been no help here. What criteria would a successful tenderer be required to set out in an application to establish a marine farm? No help has been given at all; nor has any help been given with regard to the alternative ways to allocate rights. Will we have a “first come first served” basis? Prior to this aquaculture moratorium that, effectively, was the way the system worked. Will all applicants, Māori and other applicants, have the certainty that they will have the opportunity to develop their application and have a reasonable chance of success? We know that a mini gold rush has taken place in marine farming, which has caused this to come into being in the first place, particularly with regard to the Marlborough district.

There has been no advice at all to the industry about those who were not well resourced being able to have the same opportunity as Sanfords or any other major players in the marine farming industry. There is no knowledge at all about those who hoped, particularly iwi and hapū, that they could in their limited way—in their harbour or coastal space—be able to meet their aspirations. There was not a bit of help at all, apart from one little visit by the Minister of Fisheries recently to Whangaruru Harbour. There has been no help at all to the industry as to what will be the agreed criteria for applications, with regard to the assessment. Do we go on the past record of the industry participant? Do we go on the financial stability of the successful or would-be successful applicant? Do we take it, as we would wish to in most of these cases, that the contribution to the local and regional economy will be taken into account in the final application? Those are all very important matters that will guide the future of this industry, and there has not been one word at all in the body of opinion sought from the Ministry of Fisheries. The ministry has been silent.

We come to the time when a mini-bill has been flipped into the House at late notice, without any certainty about the future at all for an industry that has the capacity with regard to oysters. From a hectare block of well-grown oysters one should be able to produce about 6,700 dozen oysters per year. The return to the oyster growers would be about $20,000 per hectare. The indirect return—the off-site return—would be about $17,500. The return on mussels is almost the same. It has a huge potential. In a small region like Northland at the present time we have roughly 700 hectares in aquaculture. We could, with correct planning, have upwards of 20,000 hectares available as from the date that this bill ceases to have any impact. That is the size of the industry. That is the potential. That is the opportunity. There are the jobs. There is no doubt that in many of our rural districts this is a unique opportunity either for direct or joint venture or for other ways to get into a long-term, profitable, and sustainable industry.

The last thing, in that regard, is that there has been adequate time for regional councils to have done their work. There has been adequate time for them to have met with their communities. In this country, as members know, we have a long-term direct link with the coast, the beach, the sand, and the salt spray. That has all been part of our past, it is part of our present, and will be part of our future. The marine farming industry would not wish to disturb that long-held belief, and the activity that is part of the coast and the sea. The marine farming industry wants to have an opportunity. It wants to be part of an income-earning capacity that is known and that is just beginning to emerge. But the moratorium is a step in the development being canned.

The last thing with regard to the industry, though, is this. Why did the Government ever impose a national moratorium? Why did the Government not work with those areas that were known to have marine farming potential? Why did parts of Otago and Southland, which will never be involved, have the same universal and national stance imposed upon them? It was very wrong indeed.

💬 Pita Paraone: It was dumb!

It was a very dumb decision. It was unneeded. What the Government should have done, instead, is worked with those areas that were potentially known and had development—worked with them with regard to the marine farming issues that I have outlined, particularly the ones with regard to marine farming rights and tendering. The New Zealand First view would be that we should foster and encourage those. We could have had the situation today where, on 30 March or 1 April 2004, marine farming applications could begin to be processed. Members of the House will not be aware of the intense pressure that will come ahead, because this moratorium bill is not wanted and not needed. It will only impose a long-term impasse upon what could be high income and high development. New Zealand First opposes the bill absolutely.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a report from Local Government New Zealand dated November 2003 criticising the Government’s 2-year moratorium.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I will take a moment to reflect on the previous bill that we have just passed in this House. It is one of the extraordinary ironies of this Parliament that here we are trying to get a moratorium through on an industry that is potentially worth $4 billion to this country. That is one of the estimates that have been made by the industry. Here we are trying to slow that down or almost stop it. On the other hand, we are fast tracking Project Aqua, which will probably have one of the most deleterious impacts on one of the great rivers in this country. Perhaps I am a little off track on this particular subject, but it just strikes me as something of an extraordinary irony. The aquaculture industry accounts for 15 percent of New Zealand’s seafood exports at this time and is growing very, very rapidly. But perhaps I should correct myself; it used to grow very, very rapidly until the Government stepped in and said: “We can’t keep pace with this industry. We’re going to place a moratorium, but don’t worry about it. It will be for only a short period of time.” We are now back in the House extending that moratorium for another 12 months. I suspect that in 12 months’ time towards the end of 2004 we will be back again extending that moratorium.

For a moment or two it is also worth reflecting on the fact that there are some problems associated with this industry, not the least of which, of course, is that it is controlled by three Acts—the Resource Management Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Marine Farming Act. There is a real need for this legislation to be either modified, or placed under one overall controlling body, to ensure that this industry has real growth, and the potential can be realised. But to stop this industry for another 12 months is absolutely outrageous. This basically is saying to an industry that is chomping at the bit to get going: “Wait, because we officials have not put in place this wonderful, overall, overarching plan that we feel is so essential to ensure continuity and growth in the industry.”

It strikes me as being quite perverse. No other major industry is held in abeyance while the Government tries to catch up with what is happening. The House could reflect on what could have happened when the settlers, or, indeed, Māori, came to this country and the Government of that time said: “Let’s stop everything and develop a plan for agriculture in this country.” It would have been totally dumb to do that, but that is in fact the effect of what this Government is doing to this country at this time. I repeat: a $4 billion industry—an industry we desperately need—is being put aside while the Government and its officials desperately try to catch up on the problems that are real or perceived.

This is not a new industry, and this is what I find quite extraordinary. We have had 25 years of experience in aquaculture from the very first salmon farm in Takaka in the Nelson region. This is not a new concept and a new technology, and once it was applied to the ocean, then new technologies came away and it was progressing very, very favourably. Technology advances at a huge rate, and essentially does not wait for Governments to catch up.

One of the great problems is the lack of experience within the Labour Government to actually understand how industry works. The Government should not place this vital industry into a vacuum for another 12 months. Basically, the Government has said: “We’re suspending this industry. Wait until we decide what to do.” It is quite simple. I would have thought one of the most important things the Government could do is to say: “Let’s look at an area—say, for example, off the Otago coast.” There has been a coastal plan in place for many, many years—I think up to about 4 years now—and the Government could have said to Otago: “Let’s proceed just in your region as a model for what could happen, or, indeed, what should happen, and if mistakes are made we can rectify them in every other area. But a working model is needed to show what can happen or what should happen in other areas.”

The pleas of the Otago Regional Council were ignored, when it virtually pleaded with the Government: “Let us proceed, with certain cautions, of course, and have this working model that we can work out terribly well and see how this impacts on the rest of New Zealand.” That seems to me to be an extraordinarily sensible thing to have done—or it should have been done, but, of course, it has not been done. Why is that? It is basically of the Government’s own making. The Government has said: “We want to develop an oceans policy because our old friends in the Department of Conservation decided that what they want in the oceans is more important than what industry wants.”

The Government has to decide what areas will be set aside for conservation purposes, what areas could be set aside for just ordinary recreational opportunities, and what areas should be set aside for Māori. Surely, therein lies the nub of the problem. If the Government said: “We’re treating everybody in this country exactly the same.”, it would not have a Māori problem. There would be no foreshore and seabed claim. That would have just totally gone off the radar screen. All the Government had to do was to work out where the areas are for these marine reserves, where it could put aside areas for recreation, and the balance, for example, could be left entirely for the industry to decide whether in fact the technology is sufficiently advanced to place marine farms even 10 kilometres off the coast.

That could have been done, and should have been done, but it is because we put these impediments in front of ourselves as a nation that we now find this industry being held in abeyance yet again. It is absolutely unnecessary to have done so. For example, we hear that there are criticisms of what is perceived as some sort of gold-rush mentality. Where is the problem? If people wished to develop an area of 20,000 acres or 15,000 hectares, for example, after a period of time and they do not use this area, it is quite simple for the Government to say: “Unless this is up and working within this period of time the licence will lapse and it will go to the next tenderer so he or she can put capital into this area.”, and away we go again.

There certainly is some element of gold rush in it. Everybody who is interested in this particular industry is having a crack, knowing there is a huge resource out there from which some dollars can be made. But, most important, we can actually employ another 10,000 or 15,000 people in this industry if we develop it the way it should be developed. It must be developed along the lines of ensuring that the security of investment is 100 percent. It is absolutely essential to ensure continuity of this industry so that it can fulfil the destiny that the fishing industry really does have.

The demand for seafood is exponential, and New Zealand is beautifully placed to meet a huge portion of that demand, but one of the great fears I have is that the technology and knowledge will be lost overseas during this moratorium.

On behalf of the Green Party I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill and to signal that the Green Party is supporting this legislation. The Green Party thinks that it is very unfortunate that the aquaculture legislation has been held up. Crucially significant issues have got in the way and become a temporary obstacle to progressing the legislation, in particular the issues around the foreshore and seabed. Those policy issues have implications in terms of whether we will see another Treaty of Waitangi breach in our modern times as a result of Government policy, and what the role of tangata whenua will be in making decisions and participating in making decisions around resource management in that marine environment.

Those are crucial decisions that have to be resolved by this Government, and the aquaculture legislation cannot really progress until those things have been resolved. The moratorium was originally put in place and needed so that a proper regulatory system could be put in place. That system is not yet in place. The Greens believe that there is no alternative but to extend the moratorium until such a system has been properly developed. As I say, that is why we are supporting this bill, unfortunate though the need may be.

We understand that the industry is impatient to get on to develop the aquaculture industry, and there are huge prospects, as Mr Eckhoff has mentioned. We understand that, but we do believe that return to the unregulated gold rush that was occurring before the moratorium is simply unacceptable. Mr Eckhoff accepted that there was some gold-rush mentality and he said that the industry has huge potential if it develops as it should. That is the crucial point. There needs to be some regulation to ensure that it develops in a proper way that maintains the balance between the industry developments and the conservation and ecological values. As I said, unfortunate though it may be, the extension of the moratorium is important. The Green Party will be supporting the bill.

I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The moratorium began in November 2001 and was due to finish on 25 March 2004. This bill will extend it to 31 December 2004—or earlier, if things are in place by that time to enable it to be lifted. The moratorium was implemented to stop a rush towards developing new marine farms before reforms to clarify the aquaculture industry’s ad hoc legislative and administrative framework could be put in place.

The aquaculture industry itself is strongly opposed to any extension of the moratorium, as it was to the original moratorium, and United Future understands that position. In fact, United Future considers a 9-month extension of the existing moratorium on new marine farms to be highly undesirable. However, we understand that the long-awaited aquaculture reform legislation that will make it possible for the moratorium to be lifted cannot go ahead until the seabed and foreshore issue has been satisfactorily resolved.

The aquaculture industry has the potential for huge growth, and there is a huge opportunity cost in preventing that growth for any period of time. The industry currently earns approximately $312 million per year and it definitely has the potential to be generating $1 billion per year by 2020 if the Government lets it. It was experiencing very rapid growth before the moratorium was put in place, but is now in danger of stagnating, and falling behind our overseas competitors.

There is also the very real possibility that would-be investors in New Zealand aquaculture will start taking their investment dollars off shore to places like Australia, South America, and Europe. However, as unfortunate as the extension of the moratorium is, United Future knows that the foreshore and seabed issue has to be resolved before any new aquaculture legislation can be completed.

Also, once the moratorium has been lifted, and all the pre-reform regulatory hurdles and structural roadblocks to growth have been removed, we are confident that the New Zealand aquaculture industry will be able to recover its rapid growth track. With the pristine New Zealand environment, and the highly profitable marketing opportunities that come with that, aquaculture investors will not be able to pass up a good thing and will come flooding back. When those further regulatory and legislative measures are put in place, as United Future we hope to see aquaculture marine areas extended to become aquaculture marine parks, so that they will be not only aquaculture marine areas developed by regional councils but they will also incorporate land-based areas as well to enable those involved in aquaculture farming to develop land-based activities necessarily connected to their marine activities that would receive the same resource consent processes as would apply to aquaculture marine areas. We will be continuing to discuss that with the Government as we approach that legislation in the New Year.

In the meantime United Future will be monitoring developments closely and we urge the Government to take all measures possible to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue and to enable this moratorium to be lifted as soon as possible. We will be supporting this bill through its first reading.

I rise in support of this bill, and after the previous speaker, with an eminently sensible approach to the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. This is obviously a reality that this Government is prepared to face, and I support this bill.

Following on from that contribution from Steve Chadwick I wonder whether she would also like to take the opportunity to explain why on 31 March this year Mr Pete Hodgson said: “The Government has no wish to extend the moratorium on consideration of new resource consent application for aquaculture which expires in March 2004.” He went on to say: “We still intend to ensure the aquaculture reform legislation is introduced and considered by Parliament by then.” Pete Hodgson had one of those years from hell. He was the great strategist of the Labour Party who undertook to make sure aquaculture reform legislation was presented to the House. He struck a first problem, so did the easy thing and imposed the moratorium, guaranteeing to Parliament and to the industry that under no circumstances would it be extended beyond March 2004. Here we are in December, 4 months before the expiry, and all of a sudden we are rushing through further legislation in the name of Marian Hobbs to extend the moratorium, and consequently constrain the potential of one of those really interesting industries of New Zealand. So it is no surprise to me that Mr Hodgson has not yet taken a call on this legislation, because he is as embarrassed by it as he was over the flatulence tax issue—

💬 David Benson-Pope: He’s also in Italy.

He is so scared to present the legislation that he jumps on a plane to Italy thinking that that will be an excuse for not having to justify the extension of the moratorium. I bet while he is in Italy he will be talking about climate change. The other big embarrassment for Pete Hodgson is that he guaranteed there would be no “fart tax”. Mr Benson-Pope did not remember this. Mr Hodgson guaranteed there would be none, and then imposed the “fart tax”. Farmers got up in arms. He guaranteed there would not be a back-down, said something in Parliament to the effect that there might be a back-up. Well, a couple of weeks later, after Shane Ardern took his tractor up the steps of Parliament—dear old Myrtle—there was Mr Pete Hodgson again backing down on that, just as he is backing down tonight on his guarantee to the industry not to extend the moratorium.

Mr Benson-Pope, the senior Government whip, would be better to stop interjecting with inane comments that Mr Hodgson is on important public business in Milan as he tries to convince the Russian Prime Minister that he should rethink his commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

Without doubt the National Party will oppose this legislation, and we will do it for two reasons. The first is the issue I have just been talking about. We expected the country to believe Mr Hodgson when he stood in Parliament and in front of the industry on a number of occasions and said: “Read my lips. Legislation will not be required to extend the moratorium.” So we know how good the word of Mr Pete Hodgson is! The second reason that the National Party stands here tonight to oppose this legislation is that—

💬 David Benson-Pope: That’s stupid.

I could not agree more; this is very stupid legislation. [Interruption] They will be whipping down shortly and asking him to shut up.

The second reason is that this Government has on a number of occasions stood in the House and said it seriously wants to address the potential decline of New Zealand’s ranking within the OECD. The economic growth rate of New Zealand is not satisfactory. The Government talked about getting us back into the top half of the OECD by 2011, and when that got a little bit difficult it forgot there was a target. Helen Clark said that, no, she had just signed a piece of paper but had not read the context. In actual fact there was no target date of 2011.

What I say is that this country has no chance at all of getting itself back into the top half of the OECD growth rankings if it continues to stifle an industry as important as aquaculture. What I hope Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have learnt after the imposition of this moratorium is that moratoriums are the easiest things in the world to impose. If one cannot see a solution to a problem, then rush down into the House and put on a moratorium—as the Government did with genetic engineering, and as it has done with aquaculture—and then think about how to get out of the moratorium.

That is where the Government has got itself into a bind. It has found it is a little harder to settle this issue—made harder by itself—because it has confused it with the seabed and foreshore ownership issues, which again Helen Clark rushed down into this House and said she would solve instantly by introducing legislation. That was months ago. As we embark on our Christmas holidays in the not-too-distant future, now we have threats from Māori, saying they are going to occupy the beaches and protest when people use the beaches. That is the reason Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have not been able to find a solution to the aquaculture issues. That is the reason we have this bill placed before us today extending the moratorium until at least the end of the next calendar year. The point I want to make justifying why nobody should support a moratorium, is about the potential that this industry has. It is a $260 million export industry, with huge potential to increase that with aquaculture sites, many, many of which are available in the Marlborough Sounds, for example—an area I know very well, but which is unable to make progress, because this Government has slapped a moratorium on permanent applications.

I listened with interest to United Future, which made the comment that would-be investors might be tempted to go off shore. Well, I can tell the United Future party tonight that I have spoken to investors who have made the decision to go off shore; they had money they wanted to invest in the New Zealand aquaculture industry, but the Government said they could not and that it was slapping on a moratorium. Those people have taken their money and gone off shore and invested in aquaculture out of New Zealand.

💬 David Benson-Pope: That’s off shore.

David Benson-Pope laughs and says aquaculture is off shore. Well, if he thinks that is funny, I do not. I am more worried about creating wealth in New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks it is good to pass legislation that chases our investors off shore, that is his opinion but it is not mine. We have an industry that has come before Parliament, has come to the Government, and said: “Give us the chance and we could quadruple this industry in a matter of a decade.” They say it could be a billion-dollar industry, and all they need is the legislative framework to get on and do the job. But, no, this Government is so anti-business, so anti - wealth creation, that here, 9 months after a solemn promise from the Minister of Fisheries that he would not extend the moratorium, we are back in Parliament debating the issue again, extending the moratorium until the end of next year.

The Government has got this issue wrong. The Government should solve the issue around aquaculture. It should realise the potential it has for growth creation. It should solve the seabed issue, and do it with the gumption that the Prime Minister showed when the issue first arose, when she said: “We’ll change the law. We’ll clarify this issue.” But she has gone to ground ever since. The real reason we are here extending this legislation is that the Government has not resolved the foreshore and seabed issue.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. I support its further progress through the House.

I am privileged to represent one of the largest aquaculture centres of New Zealand, where 360—

💬 Jill Pettis: Not for much longer.

Well, the member for Whanganui speaks! What happened to the member for Whanganui’s majority at the last election?

💬 David Benson-Pope: Stay calm! Stay calm!

I say to Mr Benson-Pope that if he spent some time focusing on the bill, rather than playing dirty personalities in this House, this country might have a future.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s playing with the member.

I come back to the bill. Oh, that disgusting member who bonks boys; I do not know about him. I come back to the issue of the bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you going to deal with that, or not?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. [Interruption] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. It serves the member right for what he said earlier in the day.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. [Interruption] When I am on my feet there will be silence. The member cannot comment after he has been asked to withdraw and apologise.

I want to speak to the bill, and to say this bill is about stopping growth in one of the most important industries for my community of Nelson. The aquaculture industry, over the last 12 or 13 years, has grown from an industry that employed a few hundred people to an industry that employs thousands. What this Government did, 2 years ago, was to introduce a moratorium that has frozen the growth of the industry. My concern is that this Government has failed to meet its own timetable, and is taking away the opportunity for communities like Nelson, and communities in other parts of the country, to be able to grow and create wealth.

That brings us immediately to the mess that the Government has made of the foreshore and seabed issue. If there is any area in which this Government has failed to provide leadership, it is on that issue. This is a country in which much depends on fishing and the ocean environment in terms of wealth creation, yet this Government is prepared to see the aquaculture industry subject to huge uncertainty in terms of the legal rights in that marine space. This aquaculture moratorium simply engages those involved in the industry in further uncertainty. People in the aquaculture industry have said to me that they feel under siege on every single front. Whether it is with regard to the Resource Management Act, the moratorium, or the foreshore and seabed issue, this Government is killing one of our most important growth opportunities.

I would like to know from the next Government speaker just what the Government’s policy is in terms of the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Over the last 6 months, we have had a different position every month. We firstly had the position that the Government would legislate for the foreshore and seabed to be owned by the Crown. The Government then changed from that position. The latest idea is that the Government will provide special legislation whereby there will be customary title for iwi around New Zealand. What does that mean for the hundreds of New Zealanders who invest their livelihoods in that industry? What does it mean for them? It means more uncertainty—and uncertainty that is provided by this Government.

This bill is also further evidence of the Government’s mess within the Resource Management Act. Only earlier today we were debating the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Bill, which creates a separate set of rules just for the Government, so that it can build the largest hydro scheme in New Zealand for 30 years. Why does the Government on the one hand want to fast track legislation so it can build six dams on the Waitaki River, yet on the other hand now want to freeze the development of the aquaculture industry? That is mistaken, and it is preferential treatment. Quite frankly, more growth for New Zealand would be derived from developing the aquaculture industry in a sustainable way than from building more dams on the Waitaki River. We should take that economic opportunity, and not extend this moratorium further.

My colleague David Carter has raised the issue of what has changed. Only earlier this year, the Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson, gave an absolute commitment to this House that the moratorium would not be extended. Well, how many more times will it be extended? I will put money on it that before this legislation expires, there will be another moratorium extension bill, and the industry will be frozen again in terms of its growth.

I also want to point out the erroneous approach taken in this bill in terms of the applications that are already in the system. Do members know that only 34 hectares of new marine farms have been approved during the term of this Government? That is a freezing of the industry, and I want to know why it is not possible for districts like Tasman, which have well-developed resource management plans, to implement those plans and allow that sustainable industry to grow. Why is it that the Government, through Pete Hodgson and its other Ministers, wants to overrule the Tasman District Council, which is all ready to go and has spent millions of dollars on sorting out the rules for the development of aquaculture in the Nelson region, and specifically in Tasman Bay and Golden Bay. Why is it that this Government, which gives us repeated lectures about self-government and about local government being able to make local decisions, in the run-up to Christmas is then running a bill through the House that cuts completely across local decision-making and allowing the aquaculture industry to be able to get on and grow?

I say to the Ministers and Government members that they have failed. The Government has failed; Labour has failed. I ask United Future why it is joining the Labour Government in this failure. This Government has had 2 years to sort out a proper process for considering aquaculture. Why is it that for 2 years the Government has not been able to get its act together to meet its own timetable, and is now further freezing the industry? I would like to know whether the Ministry for Economic Development has worked out how many jobs and export dollars this bill will cost New Zealand. It will be a matter of hundreds of jobs and of millions of dollars of lost export earnings for this country. Now, I know Government members do not seem to give a hoot about creating wealth for this country, and are quite happy to see our standard of living continue to decline relative to that of countries like Australia. The reason it is continuing to decline is that the Government is advancing legislation of this sort, which takes away opportunities for New Zealand to create wealth.

The last point I wish to make is this, and it is a challenge to the Māori MPs within this Government. Not one of those members has chosen to participate in this debate, yet the largest number of the applications that are to be frozen under this aquaculture moratorium legislation are from iwi—from Māori. So for all the weasel words from the Labour Government about supporting wealth creation amongst Māori and iwi, here is a bill that will freeze those Māori organisations out of the industry for another year, when they have already been frozen out for 2 years. I want to ask the member for Rotorua why that is.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Because that member from Marlborough—

Well, actually I am not from Marlborough; the member should get her geography right. I would say it is because that member and her colleagues have not advanced a sensible set of rules. Māori are being denied jobs and the opportunity to be able to create wealth, and it is a tragedy for Māori and for all New Zealanders. I say to the member for Rotorua that she should stand up, take a call, and defend this nonsense. This Government has failed, and the member for Banks Peninsula has failed. The Government has failed to provide a sensible framework for the development of this industry.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There’s a very successful deputy leader on his feet.

That member wants to get personal. He does not argue the issue or get to his feet to talk about aquaculture. The only thing that member is good at is bullying and driving down standards in education. He has been successful in that; he is driving down standards in education. He is also good at wrecking personalities, but he will never achieve anything constructive in this House. It is a pity that he did not, as Minister, apply his time to the aquaculture law, so that he could create some wealth and jobs for ordinary New Zealanders.

, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by Monday, 1 March 2004.