Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium) Amendment Act 2002 to extend the moratorium on new applications for aquaculture activities in New Zealand’s coastal marine area until 31 December 2004. Further clauses relate to the time constraints on the Department of Conservation in relation to the early expiry of the moratorium over specified areas, and to reviving those consents.

The moratorium was introduced to enable the Government to reform the law that governs aquaculture, and to enable councils to begin to plan for aquaculture under the new framework. The moratorium has ensured that councils have not been flooded with marine farm applications in a “race for space” prior to the new legislation coming 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 issue has introduced late and unexpected complications to the aquaculture policy process. Both issues concern public, commercial, and Māori interests in coastal space, and the Government intends to deal with them in an integrated and consistent manner. The Government has striven to avoid the need for an extension to the moratorium. However, the issues are profound and complex, and an extension now will ensure that we can get right the legislation and the policy. That will provide certainty and a clear framework for the future, and that is in the best interests of all stakeholders in the long run.

The bill, as reported back, includes two important changes. I thank the Primary Production Committee for its suggested amendments to clauses 6 and 7, which significantly improve the bill.

Clause 6 originally removed the time limit that currently applies to the Minister of Conservation when the Minister makes a recommendation about the early expiry of the moratorium. Under the Resource Management Act, a council can apply to the Minister of Conservation to have the moratorium lifted in specific areas, provided that the tests in the Act are met. The current time limit of 20 working-days for the Minister to make a recommendation on early expiry is insufficient to complete the Order in Council process. The bill as introduced would have replaced that time limit with a general duty to avoid all unreasonable delay. The committee agreed with submitters that there should be some time constraint, and suggested 40 working-days, with a possible extension of a further 40 working-days where additional information is required. That is a reasonable time frame to allow a proper assessment of a regional council’s request, and the preparation of the necessary Cabinet papers. I support the recommended change.

Clause 7 deals with a problem that has arisen as a result of the present dual permitting process for marine farming. Some coastal permits issued under the Resource Management Act for aquaculture activities have lapsed, or are due to lapse, while applicants obtain the necessary marine-farming permits under the Fisheries Act. To remedy that, the bill deems existing coastal permits to have been given effect to, for the purpose of section 125 of the Resource Management Act, by the application for a Fisheries Act marine-farming or spat-catching permit. In addition, the bill revives certain coastal permits for aquaculture activities that have lapsed because they were unable to be given effect to, or until the required Fisheries Act marine-farming or spat-catching permits have been granted. Having those consents lapse would be unjust, could cause hardship for some, and could create unnecessary conflict and disruption. The effect of the bill will be to allow the fisheries permit to be decided without the coastal permit lapsing. The committee suggested changes to wording in clause 7 to make it clear that all consents for aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area are included, and are able to be saved from lapsing—not just consents granted for occupation of coastal space. I agree with that.

The Government supports this bill as amended by the select committee, and currently does not intend to move amendments at the Committee stage. In summary, this bill provides for some expeditious changes to the Resource Management Act to deal with the need for a limited extension to the aquaculture moratorium. It also deals with specific process problems that are being experienced by marine farmers, particularly in Marlborough, which arise from the current dual permitting regime.

I rise to say that National certainly will not support the extension of the moratorium. We will not support an extension that effectively puts the handbrake on all aquaculture development in this country. The handbrake has been on for 2 years already. I remind the House that National opposed the original moratorium, way back in 2002. It was discussed, I remember, at a select committee late in 2001, it was passed in 2002, and we are disgusted to see that, after a moratorium of 2 years and 2 months, no progress has been made.

We pointed out at that time that the moratorium was something we needed to oppose. We would have had some sympathy for it if the Government had been going to put forward reforms, and had made that clear to the general public, to the regional councils, and to aquaculturalists. The Government did not do that. In effect, the 2-year moratorium resulted in regional councillors and aquaculturalists walking around in the dark, not knowing what the Government’s plans for the industry were. Therefore, they were unable to put into place aquaculture plans for their regions—and they still cannot. The current moratorium on coastal permit applications will expire on 25 March 2004—that is, in a few weeks. This bill will extend it by 9 months to 31 December 2004.

The moratorium, I know, does not affect land-based aquaculture, but it affects everyone else, and that accounts for about 98 percent of aquaculture in this country. We oppose the extension. The Government should get on with the job of making public the aquaculture reforms, so that the regional councils are no longer flying in the dark when trying to develop aquaculture management areas. Although the Government says that the intention of the delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed debate, the reality is that the regional councils need more time to establish aquaculture management areas. In fact, only four regional councils to date have been able to make any progress, and only one, the Northland Regional Council, has made any significant progress.

I point out to parliamentary colleagues that Local Government New Zealand itself said, in confidential papers I tabled in the House last year—effectively, I leaked them because I wanted to put this issue to Parliament—that the moratorium regime is unlikely to result in any success, because when it is lifted there is likely to be a de facto continuation of the moratorium on new aquaculture areas. That is because there is an inability to plan for aquaculture management, in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries, along with the gaps and inadequacies in that information. In other words, the Ministry of Fisheries is holding back information from the regional councils, so the councils cannot plan, and even if the ministry tabled all that information for the regional councils, it would be inadequate. So, regardless of whether there is a moratorium or no moratorium, the reality is the regional councils cannot plan for aquaculture, because the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister are holding back important information from them.

The regional councils also believe that the moratorium is a blunt and inflexible management tool such that no new aquaculture activities can commence until aquaculture management areas are created. I bring to members’ attention that the industry is broken into various sectors. I will break it into two, just for simplicity, in talking about shellfish. There is no doubt that there was a gold rush when it came to mussel farming in and around the Marlborough Sounds area, but there has been no gold rush for space when it comes to oyster farming in the rest of the country. Why has oyster-farming development been put on hold in Auckland, where there is no problem, just because there have been mussel-farming problems in the Marlborough Sounds? It is absurd to use such a blunt tool that stops every aquaculturist in this country from producing a livelihood from a marine farm. Why do that when the problem occurs only in pockets around the country? I raise that with the chair.

The National Party has no confidence that the additional time frame of 9 months will be sufficient to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue. There is no way that, within the next 9 months, all New Zealanders will suddenly jump on board with this Government and agree with its proposals for the seabed and foreshore. We have 80 percent of New Zealanders disagreeing with the Government that they should hand over, in some way, ownership of the seabed and foreshore to Māori. There is no way that New Zealanders will change their mind about that. They believe that all New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori alike—own the seabed and foreshore. They will not change their mind, and certainly will not change it in 9 months. We have no confidence that in 9 months the issue will be resolved.

We have no confidence that the Minister will enact the aquaculture reform legislation. In fact, we have not even seen it in this House. It has to be drafted, tabled, have its first reading, and go to a select committee. Then it has to come back to the House for its second reading, its Committee stage, and its third reading. In that time frame we have to receive submissions from a large number of people in the sector. There is no way that reform legislation will go through in 9 months. There is no way that the regional councils will be able to develop their aquaculture management areas. I put this to the Minister of Fisheries. I asked him late last year, and I have the notes here: “What extra resourcing will be put in place to ensure that the extension to the moratorium on new marine farms will be sufficient to complete the Ministry’s required tasks and goals?”. The Minister replied: “A moratorium extension requires no additional resourcing for the Ministry of Fisheries.” He is saying that he will extend the moratorium for 9 months because the ministry has not been able to get the job done, but that he will not give it any extra resources, because it does not need them. So the ministry has not been able to get the job done in 2 years and 2 months, it will be given an extension of time to do the job, but it will not be given any further resourcing. That seems absurd to me. The Minister should at least show some proactiveness when it comes to meeting the restriction that he himself has put on, which extends the moratorium a further 9 months.

I notice we have a new Minister of Fisheries. He has to learn what a mussel is, what an oyster is, and what the other marine-farming issues in this country are. I have met the Minister. He can use words of two syllables or less, but he will not be able to come up to speed in 9 months, let alone drive his ministry to meet these goals.

For those reasons, the National Party will not be supporting this moratorium. I have a selection of headlines here: “Marine farmers threaten to go overseas”; “Further delay on new marine farms”; “Aquaculture delays will cost millions”; and, from an editorial in the New Zealand Herald: “Get on with the business of sea farming”. The whole country is asking why the Government is stopping this successful business by extending the moratorium, which will mean, effectively, that it is in place for 3 years. The brakes will be on for 3 years. Why is the Government doing this? Why is it not resourcing the Ministry of Fisheries to deal with the issue? Why does it not just give the regional councils the information they need, let them get on with the job of developing aquaculture management areas, and let these farmers farm? That is what the National Party says and we will be voting against the bill for those very good reasons.

The million-dollar question here is obviously: what would the National Party do if it were in Government? We are hearing that it would continue with the same ad hoc approach to the issuing of consents for aquaculture in New Zealand. We have seen the consequences of that. The whole industry—and the whole of New Zealand—is not asking that we continue with that regime. In the submissions that were received by the Primary Production Committee, most of the submitters supported the extension of the moratorium. They all said that it was important that we proceed and apply some haste to that process. Instead of the moratorium ending in March, it is to be extended to December. It is a short extension to allow regional councils the opportunity to prepare their coastal plans and to allow us to create some organisation in an industry that, at the present time, is ad hoc and not managed well. The industry recognises the need for this legislation. Most of the submissions supported a short extension of the moratorium, and the Government is very confident it is dealing with the matter in an appropriate way.

The Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill, which is before the House for the second time in recent months, comes at a crucial juncture in the regulating of aquaculture in New Zealand. But lest we think that is a recent occurrence, I can tell the House that the paper that first set out future proposals for the industry was written in 1989. A discussion paper was put out at the same time. Throughout the 1990s, under the previous administration—which is no longer giving support to this moratorium—those proposals foundered. They were passed on, and passed on. In other words, there was delay after delay. The industry, and the people who really know about fishing, have been long, long concerned about that. When I took the opinion of my learned friend Mr Doug Woolerton, who sat on the Primary Production Committee and heard the substantial submissions made in support of the moratorium, reluctantly I had to agree with him that New Zealand First should support this bill. Reluctantly, we came to the opinion that it required support because of the delay in addressing previous proposals, and also for another reason. We have Ministers of integrity. Earlier this year when I asked the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr Hodgson, he categorically assured me in the House that this moratorium would cease on 31 December 2004. So one waits in wonder for that.

Let me go back to the more recent history of the industry. In August 2000 the current process began, and the comment was made that aquaculture could make a greater contribution to the economy if the legislative framework under which the activity operates was updated. That was August 2000. It was said that—and how true it is—the challenge identified by the Government was to update the legislative framework for aquaculture, so as to provide more certainty to all the participants. It was said the framework should enable the greatest benefit to be obtained from the use of coastal space, without undermining the rights of existing fishers or allowing an undue adverse impact on the aquatic environment. That was August 2000. Then, in July 2000 at a mussel industry conference, the Minister said that the chances of enacting legislation by March of this year were less than certain, but he still felt they were favourable. He advised that the extension in the moratorium would be required.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Come on! Be positive.

He advised the Hon Dover Samuels, an ex-fisher, that the extension would be measured in months, not years. No less than 5 months later there was a bill before us to extend the moratorium by 9 months.

Now we have the Hon David Benson-Pope, a very, very new Minister who is inexperienced in these matters, speaking with some confidence—one may say over-weaning confidence—and saying that more clarity is needed around the outcomes, given the implications of the foreshore and seabed issue, and that regional councils need more time to develop aquaculture management. First, I say to the Minister who read that statement out, that the latter part is just not true. Regional councils, if they require more time to develop their management of aquaculture, are solely awaiting the pleasure and thinking of this Government and this Minister. They waited all last year for that. Regional councils believed the Government’s thinking would be clarified some time last year—it has not been—they are still awaiting the final outcomes of that process.

What did we have in mind when we first faced the moratorium? Some of us who were not in the House at that time have had a look at marine farming. We were told there would be a changed interface between the Resource Management Act and the fisheries legislation, so the regional councils would have all the ability that they required to consider all the environmental effects of aquaculture, including the impact that aquaculture has on the aquatic environment and on the use of fisheries resources. Regional councils were told there would be a single permit-approval system that would operate under the Resource Management Act. They were told that aquaculture management areas, which were marine farming zone areas, should be set in place, and that they, and they alone, were the areas where marine farming could take place. Regional councils were told that the Government of the day would provide them with additional rule-making powers, to deal with the competition for coastal space. They were told there would be some guidance given with regard to how coastal space could be allocated to single space-holders, to competitive space-holders, or to a range of space-holders. All those issues were being advanced and talked about last year.

Then the regional councils, the ministry of the day, and other bodies came to the very interesting concept of how to decide the tendering process. The Minister may learn some things if he listens carefully to me. How were the regional councils to go through the tendering process? That is a very interesting concept. Would space go to the highest bidder? Could multiple owners put their hands up together in the tendering process? Would there be any priority for those who lived in the region, or for iwi? All those matters that were talked about last year are still waiting for further clarification and a decision.

Lastly, and this is very important in the minds of the industry, there was the question of what system would be set in place to take out the existing farm permits that were already there for aquaculture. Marine farms had been operating under the old Act of 1983 administered by the Ministry of Fisheries, and instead were to operate under the present Act. That brings me to a very important matter that the members from Northland are very well aware of: the rights of existing permit-holders. The answer is that those people will be told that in the future. If those permits are to be transferred, what regime are they to be transferred into, and what type of permit will they be? What certainty is there for existing permit-holders with regard to both the 1983 Act and the Act of 1996? All those matters were being given ample consideration during last year and the previous year. Throughout that time the Minister of the day, and the Ministry for the Environment as well, were giving some belief to people out there that those matters would be known. I suggest to the Minister that at this point of time he does not have one clear, definitive answer to give on any of those issues—not one—and he should have.

We support this bill in the full knowledge that this moratorium should cease on 1 January 2005. Why should that be so? Out there is an industry that has long awaited resolution of these matters, and it is an industry that has already in the last decade—particularly in the last 5 years—had a huge expansion in the demand for its product, especially for mussels. The industry could have done much more than it has, and it could bring much more to our local and regional economies, yet it is being denied the right to do so by ministry and Government inaction. That is an urgent issue for those who are involved in aquaculture. In Northland, as the Hon Dover Samuels knows, much work has been done with regard to setting out in the community the spaces that should be allocated for marine farming. That process has not been without concern being expressed by those who arrive with the latest house or bach in the area, and who do not understand or appreciate the effect a farm 3 miles off the coast can have. Those people do not appreciate the methods that are inherent in modern aquaculture, and do not appreciate that it is not like the fish farms of the past—the type of European experiences—which we would have real concerns about. Instead, modern marine farms can be productive and environmentally sustainable, and are a very, very sound use of our marine water space. Most of all, aquaculture provides opportunities for the rural economy to get real productive benefit, real income, and real long-term gain, especially for Māori who are contemplating getting money from the Fisheries Commission.

I hope the Government takes very seriously the whole concern that is felt, and the infrastructure that is needed in legislative form, to make this industry operate in 2005. I am not altogether heartened by the fact that the Ministry for the Environment is right now advertising for people. That indicates to me that nothing has yet been done on its behalf, given that it is advertising for 10 people for a marine-farming sector group of interest. Marine farming can, and should, operate. It operates with planning and with community goodwill, and it operates because there is out there the ability to generate real income. New Zealand First supports the absolute ending of the moratorium on 31 December 2004.

I rise to make this contribution on behalf of the Green Party, and particularly on behalf of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street, who cannot be here today. He is a member of the Primary Production Committee, which has heard the submissions on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The Greens support the passage of the bill, although not entirely uncritically. It is clear that before the imposition of the marine-farming moratorium 2 years ago the aquaculture industry was going through something of a Wild West phase, with many regional councils being inundated with applications for water space. Councils responded in a variety of ways, and the confusion amongst the participants in the aquaculture industry was reaching crisis point. Uncontrolled expansion of the industry was inappropriate, not only because of the unknown effects of aquaculture activity on inshore and offshore ecosystems but also because of the waste of effort and resources that results when sunrise industries overshoot sustainable levels of activity, as has happened in many other production sector industries in New Zealand.

The intention of the original moratorium was to give councils and central government some breathing space in which to plan for the orderly development of the industry, rather than for them to have to continually deal with a flood of new applications while simultaneously trying to plan for the future. The former Minister of Fisheries made it clear at the time of the earlier legislation that he wanted councils to develop aquaculture management areas—or “AMAs”—inside which marine farming could operate with a degree of freedom. The aquaculture management areas are intended to come into effect with the passage of the aquaculture reform legislation, which was scheduled to be completed by now but is still to come before the House. There are a number of reasons for that, of course, including the complexity of the aquaculture management areas scheme and, more recently, the additional complication of the foreshore and seabed issue.

In the circumstances there seems to be little alternative to supporting the extension of the moratorium, though the Greens are very conscious that the former Minister of Fisheries has broken his earlier assurances to the industry. When the moratorium was put in place 2 years ago, he gave a categorical assurance to the industry that in no circumstance would the moratorium be extended. It was, he claimed, just a 2-year breather, and would be enough to enable the substantive legislation to be drafted, without becoming a long-term de facto brake on aquaculture development. Although the foreshore and seabed issue has recently become a significant complicating factor, it was clear, even before then, that the reform legislation would not be ready before the expiry of the moratorium.

The development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand is a complex process. It has the potential to be a significant contributor to the national economy and to reduce the intense pressure on wild fisheries. The level of productivity from a confined space can be exceptionally good, and it is an industry that is booming in Australia and in many other parts of the world. The very high-quality growing conditions in New Zealand and the greenshell mussels, which are unique to our shores, mean the products of the industry are already in considerable demand overseas. However, in many places where the expansion of aquaculture has been uncontrolled, aquaculture has had severe negative impacts on ecosystems. Almost all aquaculture takes place within coastal waters, so the industry is competing for space with recreational fishers, boaties, and other users of that space. That does open up a philosophical debate about the extent to which people can exclusively use open space for the making of private profit. In the past there has been a tendency for marine farmers to believe they own their patch of water and have the right to occupy it in perpetuity. Presumably, the tension between the need of individual farmers for certainty for the foreseeable future, and the needs of other users for water space, will be addressed in the aquaculture reform legislation.

In addition, there is the inescapable reality that aquaculture is a process that exists only within biophysical limits. Mussels will grow only when they have sufficient food, and the nutrient level of the water is, in turn, affected by the number of mussels feeding from it. Already marine farmers are aware that individual mussels in the middle of a farm or at the end of a farm downstream from the tide grow significantly more slowly than the individual mussels that have access to waters of a high nutrient level. When other farms are placed between an existing farm and its source of nutrients, the impact of that on the existing farm can be considerable.

Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that the ecological impact of marine farms is poorly understood. For instance, what is their long-term impact on the biological communities on the seafloor below the farms, and what is the impact of their nutrient draw-down on other wild communities that have been dependent on the same source of phytoplankton for nutriment? What is the impact of farms on the reproduction of fish species, because of the consumption of eggs and other zooplankton?

The simple reality for marine farmers is that they exist in something of an uncertain world, both in terms of the food supply for their product and of the tenure of the space that they occupy. What they and other primary producers need is certainty. The Greens are hopeful that the extension of the moratorium will provide for the development of regional plans pertaining to aquaculture management areas, and that that will be accompanied by a plan for the study of the ecological impacts of activities carried out in the aquaculture management areas. Only in that way will aquaculture be able to develop sustainably.

In terms of the detail of this bill itself, the only real point of contention within the Primary Production Committee was on the question of the time constraints on the Minister of Conservation when making recommendations on the early expiry of the moratorium in certain areas. Officials urged the members of the committee to completely remove the 20 working-day time limit on the Minister, but although we acknowledge the present good record of the Minister we were reluctant to remove all time restrictions. The Greens agreed with the committee that 40 working-days, plus the potential for a further 40-day extension, should be sufficient for the Minister to make those decisions. The Greens support the passage of this bill and look forward to the early tabling of the aquaculture reform bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. As I pointed out in my first reading speech, United Future was concerned about the extension of this moratorium, knowing that there are many opportunities existing in the country for economic development within aquaculture farming, but we were resigned to the fact that an extension was inevitable.

The Primary Production Committee has reported back to the House after hearing submitters, and we are pleased that it has attended to some of the details that were raised by them. United Future does not have a member on this select committee; we monitor it from a distance, and we are pleased with the work the committee has done. It has made some useful amendments to the legislation.

The National member who spoke earlier pointed out that there were various concerns about this extension, and how urgently we want to see the aquaculture legislation put into this House so that the proper framework is in place for the development of this industry. We share those concerns. The member asked why there was a delay. It is really quite obvious. We have to do this properly. It is no good if we open up the opportunities too soon, then find we have made some mistakes because we have not put in place proper procedures, or there are environmental concerns, as mentioned by the speaker before me. There are a number of issues that still need to be investigated properly before we begin to allow permits on a wide scale across our marine environment.

There are many people who are keen to get involved in aquaculture, but there are also many who are very concerned about the proliferation of marine farms, particularly around our inshore coastal environment, and their concerns are just as important. We cannot have a mad, headlong rush into making profits without being conscious of what the impacts may be.

While we do want to make sure that this is the final extension—and that, in particular, the regional councils are doing the work that needs to be done, and the Ministry of Fisheries officials are working on the preparation of the legislation so that it will be accomplished this year—we are of the mind that it is necessary. Again I thank the select committee for taking note of the details raised by submitters. We are happy to see this bill process through to the Committee stage.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. This bill will change the timing for the moratorium to end from 25 March of this year to 31 December. This bill represents yet another broken promise from the Labour Government. The Government promised that the moratorium would be lifted by March. What do we find? We find that the moratorium will be extended until 2005. Even that is dishonest. If members of the Labour Government put their hands on their hearts, they would not be able to say that the foreshore and seabed fiasco will be resolved by the end of the year. This bill is dependent upon the foreshore and seabed legislation being solved, fixed, or whatever one wants to say, and every single member of this House knows that that issue is the biggest debacle that this Parliament has seen. Labour members sit there and try to pretend that this is an honest bill for the marine industry and regional councils up and down New Zealand who have a responsibility to decide where their aquaculture areas will be, and it is a lie that is being perpetrated here today—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member is heading down the wrong track with that sort of language.

This bill is simply misleading New Zealanders that, in fact, the moratorium will be lifted by the end of the year. If the new Minister thinks that what I am saying is not correct, I challenge him to get to his feet, or get one of his members to get to his or her feet, and say that I am wrong. I am not wrong. The moratorium will have to be extended by early next year, or later on this year, and it will go on and on.

If we stand back and ask ourselves where the future of New Zealand lies, what sorts of industries are emerging and developing, for sure we would say that the aquaculture industry is one of them; that aquaculture farming, fish management, or whatever one wants to call it, is an industry that New Zealand could do really, really well. We understand that the moratorium was put on in the first place because the Labour Government lost its nerve. There was a bit of a rush of new people putting in applications, and instead of putting in place a process to manage that rush of applications, take it step by step, and do it properly and competently, the Government panicked and brought in a moratorium.

The result of that moratorium has been that a lot of New Zealanders who were going to be investing in marine farming have gone off shore. I know of businesses that were looking to put millions of dollars into marine farming in New Zealand, and when they knew the moratorium was coming on they had no faith that the Labour Government would be able to stick to its time frame. They had no faith that this Government understood the needs of business, at all, or the fact that in business one has to be able to plan, get investment dollars together, and have certainty that a Government will not change its rules midstream. Those investors and business people who had such high hopes for building aquaculture businesses in New Zealand looked at the Labour Government and asked: “Can we trust this Government?”. The answer was no, so they left New Zealand. Many of them are now set up in Australia.

I happen to know of one particular business that, within 6 months of taking its investment money and good ideas across the shore to Australia, had its marine farm up and running, with no mucking around. There was no stupid Government intervention to try to prevent it from doing what businesses should be able to do. There was nothing like that—nothing like the absolute total shambles that this Labour Government has displayed to almost anything relating to business and investment in this country.

This bill epitomises the way this Labour Government treats business. This side of the House has called the Government an anti-business Government. The reason the Government is anti-business is that it has no idea what actually drives business in this country. I remind those members sitting there that this country runs on the small-business sector. It is small businesses in New Zealand that create the jobs, the growth, and our standard of living. When a Government mucks around with the small-business sector, as this Government is doing, not only with legislation like this but with our industrial relations environment—the Government is about to stuff that up for most businesses in New Zealand with its new changes to the employment relations laws—it takes the heart out of small business, and a lot of small businesses that had big plans, dreams, and aspirations of moving into different areas, like marine farming, decide they cannot be bothered. They do not want to be mucked around by a Government that does not understand their needs or what it is that drives them.

Because of the moratorium that was originally put on the marine industry, investment has gone and businesses have now left New Zealand. This country deserves better. This country deserves a Government that will come clean if it is not managing to do what it is meant to do, like planning properly and organising itself. But we have a Government that is an expert at spin. It spins everything. I must say that the poll last night on television was really interesting. It asked New Zealanders whether they thought that all the U-turns that had been committed by the Labour Government was because there was a genuine reason to change policy, or whether it was a public relations move by a Government that had been shaken to the core because it suddenly saw that it might lose at the next election. Ninety percent of some groups of voters said that this Government was insincere and it was going about its U-turns because it was panicking. Fifty-three percent of the Government’s own supporters said that this Government was changing policy, doing U-turns, and was not sincere. They said it was simply to try to get its polling up.

This bill is distressing on another level, and not just for the businesses that wanted to invest in marine farming, or for marine industry itself—which has been stuffed around now for years, and under this bill that situation will go on not just until December but next year as well, and probably as long as this Labour Government is in force. The only hope for the marine industry is that we have a change in Government. This bill is also causing a huge amount of distress to regional councils up and down the country. Regional councils have a responsibility to figure out where their aquaculture management areas will be, up and down the coastline. Some regional councils have already started their consultation and planning. Hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders have turned up to those meetings to say what they think of those potential aquaculture areas. I shall tell members what this Government has not done. It has not given instructions to those regional councils on how to go about that process. What has happened is that many regional councils are going to industry first and saying: “Give us your wish list”, and then taking that wish list back to the people, who rightly say: “Hang on a minute. This is in conflict with tourism and recreational activities in our areas.” What has happened with this whole field is that a lot of distress has been caused, because this Government has not given leadership. It has not given any proper planning to that whole area, and because of that the ACT party has to oppose this bill.

I remind the previous speaker that 1 percent in the polls gives a nought-return presentation into this House, but I turn to more important measures about the aquacultural extension to the moratorium. Sadly, all of us are waiting for the opportunities of aquaculture development in this country, but an unintended consequence of the foreshore and seabed issue and a Court of Appeal decision have caused us to pay due regard to the commercial interests and the Māori issues that have arisen from that decision. We will deal with those in a consistent and integrated manner. I support this bill.

After listening to that contribution from the Labour member, I have to say that watching mussels grow would be more interesting. I want to contribute to this bill, and to challenge the Minister in charge by saying what an embarrassment it is. The first bill we have debated with the new Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, is a bill to stop the growth of the fishing industry.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: No.

It is a moratorium, and moratoriums stop things.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: The member has forgotten his pills again, and he knows what happens then.

That just shows us the depth of that Minister—the moment we challenge him on an issue of policy, he gets all personal and nasty. That is his style. He cannot win the debate, so he gets personal and nasty.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries what good will come from stopping growth of the aquaculture industry? Here we have one of the most exciting industries with so much potential for our country, yet all this Government can do is put the brakes on it while it does its hui, talking, and the confusing policy work that is taking us nowhere. I remind the House that when the moratorium was introduced in 2001, we were promised that there would be no extension, and that the Government would have the work done. We now know that it will not be until 2005 at the very earliest that this industry will have the opportunity to grow and develop.

I remind members opposite that we are talking about an industry that contributes $320 million a year to the New Zealand economy. The industry says it is under siege. In every area, this Government has this industry under siege. We have this moratorium bill. We have the confusion over the issue of the ownership of foreshore and seabed, and the extraordinary comments from Margaret Wilson that iwi have customary title to all of New Zealand’s coastline. That will further put the jitters down the spines of those in the aquaculture industry. The industry also faces the Government’s new employment relations changes, which will increase its costs, and it faces all the pressures of a high dollar.

As the MP for Nelson and Tasman, I have been closely associated with the aquaculture industry for 14 years, and I know of no time when it has been in such bad shape. It is under siege because of a Government that does not know, and does not understand, those who are in the engine room of the New Zealand economy.

The House will note that this is a resource management amendment bill. The Resource Management Act is in one diabolical mess as a consequence of this Government. If we reflect back to 1999, a very sensible bill was on the table and ready for consideration by the Government. The Labour Government pulled the plug on that bill, and we have had nothing but piecemeal, inadequate amendments since—of which this is another. What those in the key primary industries seek from a Government is what Muriel Newman properly referred to as “certainty”. People need to know what the rules are, and chip-chopping around all the time on the rules with this sort of bill takes us absolutely nowhere.

We must also mention the huge confusion and uncertainty around the foreshore and seabed. I have noted not less than five different Government positions since the announcement was made in July last year. First of all we were told that the Government would legislate and provide for Crown ownership. The next minute we had a further announcement that said that the Government would provide for a system of customary title. We then had a third announcement prior to Christmas, and then the Government got a hammering in the polls and did a U-turn. Yesterday we had that announcement from Margaret Wilson saying that there would be customary title to all areas of the foreshore and seabed.

Members on this side of the House ask: just where does Labour stand? How many more positions can we expect from the Government on the issue of foreshore and seabed ownership? How many more times will those in the aquaculture industry have to put up with the confusion and the muddle of the Government on that key area?

I want to make a further point in respect of the role of the Minister of Conservation in this bill. It is the view of members on this side of the House that it high time we took the Minister out of resource management decision-making. There is no need for it. Quite frankly, given some of the bizarre decisions of the current Minister of Conservation, the vast majority of New Zealanders would have far more confidence in the decisions of regional councils.

I want to repeat the commitment that has often been made by National—it is time to get politicians out of resource management decision-making, whether it is in terms of the Minister of Conservation’s interference, or the sort of legislation we see for Project Aqua. It is not good policy to have politicians meddling in individual consents. We want to see the base law changed with regard to that, so that there is a greater degree of certainty and a lower lever of political interference in the overall resource management process.

The last point I wish to make in respect of this bill is the potential for job growth and wealth growth. New Zealand is so fortunate—not only does it have a stunningly beautiful coastline, it also has very high nutrient levels and huge potential for the growth of this industry. Right now, in my port of Nelson, there are five large fishing boats tied up and unused because of the crisis in that industry. The potential for the fishing industry is not in catching more wet fish, but in aquaculture. This Government’s policy of putting a freeze on new aquaculture farms for 2001, 2002, 2003, and now 2004, is holding our country back, and it is certainly holding back my own electorate of Nelson.

I challenge members opposite to stand by their word. They said there would be no extension of this moratorium, but that is what this legislation does. I say to members opposite that they have Jim Anderton running around the country giving money to multimillionaires so that they can go on fishing trips wherever, rather than supporting New Zealand industry by removing the barriers to growth. It is not consistent, and it is a matter of double standards for Jim Anderton, as Minister for Industry and Regional Development, to be going around New Zealand talking about growth opportunities at the same time as his colleagues introduce bills into the House of this sort, which simply freeze the industry and stop growth.

There is no explanation for that, and the bottom line of this bill is that New Zealanders will be poorer. There will be fewer jobs, and all because of incompetence in the Government ranks. It is due to those members’ incompetence that they could not meet their own timetable for providing a sensible legal framework for the development of aquaculture. I say to members opposite, shame! They should be ashamed because of the lost job opportunities and lost exports.

I note today that we have had the worst export-import deficit since 1986. So why are those members stopping the growth of export industries? Are they not concerned about the trade deficit and the need for this country to earn its way in the world? If they are concerned about that, why is the new Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, going to stop the growth of the fishing and aquaculture industry with his very first legislation as Minister? That Minister should lower his head in shame, because this bill is an embarrassment for him as Minister.

I rise on the second reading of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill, which extends the moratorium. Other Government colleagues have outlined in advance the reason this legislation is necessary, and I am sure that because it is a moratorium, it means that there is more work to be done on it. I am sure that the new Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, will be advancing those issues soon.

With a contribution like that and an endorsement from the junior whip, the newly appointed Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, embarks on his ministerial career without much chance of success. I rise to say that the National Party will certainly be voting against the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. I say at the outset that this legislation shows graphically what a shambolic mess this Government is now in. This legislation, as my colleague Nick Smith has just pointed out, is the very first legislation under the name of the new Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, and it does nothing to help fishing. It continues the inhibiting of a very vital industry to this country.

During the shambolic proceedings of the last couple of weeks, the attention was certainly on the fact that Lianne Dalziel lost her job without ceremony, but attention should also have been focused on the fact that Pete Hodgson lost his job as the Minister of Fisheries. It is little wonder he lost his job as Minister of Fisheries, because the industry—this industry that is vital to New Zealand—had totally lost confidence in the Minister and his ability to shepherd this very important industry through its processes. I quote from a question in the House on 29 July 2003, when the Minister was asked for an assurance that the 2-year moratorium he had imposed on the aquaculture industry would not be further extended.

💬 Phil Heatley: Who asked that question?

That question was asked by my colleague Phil Heatley, the National Party spokesperson on fisheries. Pete Hodgson’s response was: “As I told the marine-farming industry last week, my aim is to avoid any extension of the moratorium, and I expect to know in a few weeks whether I will succeed.” Nearly 12 months on, members know that Pete Hodgson has failed to succeed. We know that he has broken another promise, and we also know that, amongst the flak around the Lianne Dalziel issue for misleading the public of New Zealand, the Prime Minister surreptitiously took the opportunity to sack Pete Hodgson, who has been the most ineffective Minister of Fisheries that Parliament—and the industry—has seen in my time here. He has been replaced by the Hon David Benson-Pope, who comes to the House today with the first bill in his name, and what does it do for the industry? It puts the brakes on an industry currently worth $320 million in revenue and $260 million in export receipts, and we are debating it on the day—as Nick Smith pointed out—that we have seen the worst trade deficit figures since the mid 1980s, which was the last time the country suffered under a Labour Government.

I take the opportunity of hoping that the Minister will assure the House that the moratorium now being extended to the end of this calendar year will not require further extension. No, Mr Benson-Pope will not give that assurance to the House today. We discussed it at the select committee. I was concerned about whether we would be back in the House, before the end of the year, debating a further extension, and we were assured by Labour members on that select committee that that would not happen. I doubt that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does the Minister say?

I asked the Minister, and he sat dumbfounded. He did not have any officials around him to help him with that question, so the House does not know whether the Minister has any confidence, at all, that this moratorium will not require extension. But I think it will. I say that because for months, we have been promised the new legislation associated with aquaculture. For months, we have been told that it is being drafted and discussed with the industry. I might add that it is the height of rudeness that at this stage the Government has not bothered to discuss the legislation with the members of the select committee—certainly not the National members. It has not tabled it in Parliament.

💬 Phil Heatley: Or regional councils.

Mr Heatley says that it has not discussed it with regional councils—the very organisations that will be required to implement it. So I suspect, despite assurances from the previous Minister of Fisheries, that the legislation has not been drafted, and that it will not be tabled in the House in the near future. We all know why—the aquaculture legislation has become tied up in the seabed and foreshore issue, and we know that the Government does not have a policy on that. Helen Clark says one thing, and the very next day, Margaret Wilson, in the House, says something completely different. I do not know what the policy is on the seabed and foreshore. David Benson-Pope nods his head to say that he does not know, either. I accept that, because I do not think anybody does.

Until that issue is resolved, the Government cannot define the aquaculture legislation necessary, table it in the House, or get it before the select committee so that we can call for submissions and give the opportunity to the industry to comment on the legislation so that we can try to get the industry alive again.

One of the most moving submissions we had was from a man from Christchurch, Brad Govan, who manages Pacifica Seafoods—in Mr Anderton’s electorate, interestingly. He said that he has been wooed by South American countries and by Australia, asking him, with his expertise, to go away from New Zealand and establish aquaculture in Chile and Australia. Mr Benson-Pope is surprised by that. He has had that portfolio only a couple of weeks, so maybe he was not aware of that submission. I invite the Minister to have a look at the submissions, because while I quote Brad Govan, he was but one of many people in the aquaculture industry who said that the opportunities for them to establish business in countries other than New Zealand were available. In some places they were being encouraged with payments.

What is the Government’s response? It is: “Well, if they want to go somewhere else, that’s their business.” I have a quote from the previous Minister—no wonder he was sacked—in which he said: “Overseas developments were just good business, in some cases.” What he is saying is that if those companies want to go overseas to establish aquaculture because this Government does not appreciate their interests and their ability to make money for New Zealand, then that is a good business decision. With a comment like that by Pete Hodgson, it is no wonder that Helen Clark took the opportunity to fire him.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Take the Marlborough Sounds to England.

That silly member, David Cunliffe, said that we should take the Marlborough Sounds to England. We do get a lot of inane comments chucked around from Ministers on occasion, but that has to be the most stupid one I have ever heard. Maybe that is the Labour Party’s policy! David Cunliffe should take the next call and confirm whether that is the case.

We are talking about an important industry, employing well over 4,000 people, with the ability and the will to expand, and we have a Government that says that it cannot sort out the problem so it will slap a moratorium on the industry and not allow it to expand. That is what has happened. The Government’s job is to govern. Moratoriums are what Governments do when they do not have solutions. I say to David Benson-Pope that he should develop a solution and get it to the House, because I do not want to be debating another extension at the end of this calendar year.