Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill

Members will know, from the history of this bill through the House and the select committee, that National opposes the bill generally. But we take this opportunity to speak in the part by part debate because there are specific issues that we want to resolve in this bill if the Government insists on ramming it through and further destroying and undermining the aquaculture industry in this country. I will be tabling a number of amendments during the course of this afternoon and this evening on this particular matter, and I would like to signal to the Chair that I would like two calls at least on this part. I appreciate that that is at the Chairperson’s discretion, but I have quite a number of amendments that, I believe, would improve the bill.

First of all, I have an amendment to the commencement date, which at present is the day after the date on which the bill receives the royal assent. My amendment would mean that the commencement date would be the date following the next general election. The reason I say that is that the National Party will not do it after the next general election.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but when we started this debate there were no officials in the Chamber. They have walked in only just now. My view is that the officials come into the Chamber at the time the debate starts, not a couple of minutes into it.

That is a matter for the Minister. The officials are here.

💬 PHIL HEATLEY: In my amendment I propose that this bill comes into force on the day it receives its royal assent rather than at the next general election, simply because the National Party has said quite clearly that it would not extend this moratorium. In fact, members will recall that over 2 years ago the National Party said it would not support the first moratorium. We would have had some sympathy if the Ministry of Fisheries—and the Minister at that time—had given regional councils enough information about the reforms so that they could plan aquaculture management areas, so that Māori could plan their submissions on the reforms, and so that other aquaculturalists throughout this nation could plan their markets—

💬 Hon David Carter: Now there is no Minister in the chair!

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We know that the Minister is a new Minister, but there must always be a Minister in the chair during the Committee stage. I draw that to your attention—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Yes he was.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: The Minister was not in the chair. While the Minister is a new Minister—

💬 Hon David Carter: He was introducing himself to the officials.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Yes, he was having a chat to his advisers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There are two points. One, there will be silence during points of order. Three members spoke during that point of order. That is the final warning. Yes, Mr Tisch, the Minister should be in the chair, and he will be.

💬 PHIL HEATLEY: I will also be moving an amendment that replaces the date on which the bill receives the royal assent with the date a bill ensuring Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore has received its royal assent. The reason being, of course, that a particular issue that has arisen—the seabed and foreshore issue—has contributed to the fact that this moratorium has to be extended. How are aquaculturalists to believe that this moratorium—a further 9 months—will be lifted if the foreshore and seabed issue is not resolved? Are we to understand that the seabed and foreshore issue will be resolved in 9 months? Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe that the 80 percent of New Zealanders who oppose the Labour Party policy will be won around by the Prime Minister attending church and giving speeches? No, they do not. Therefore, I will be moving an amendment that this bill comes into effect on the date on which a bill assuring Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore has, itself, received royal assent. That is my recommendation. We can get surety in the aquaculture industry only when the seabed and foreshore issues are resolved.

We know that a special select committee has been set up to deal with the seabed and foreshore issue. I am a good keen member of that select committee, and I will continue to give advice to the chair of that committee on these issues. On that select committee we know that the Government, in dealing with the seabed and foreshore issues, is also considering giving Māori a share of the aquaculture industry. This Government will give Māori 10, 20, 25, or 30 percent of the aquaculture industry—whatever number it plucks out of the air, and whatever number it sees as appropriate. That has to be taken into account with the moratorium extension.

New Zealand First, as I stated in the second reading debate, reluctantly accepts the purpose and timing of this bill. We accept it for a second reason: despite what has been said by the previous speaker, if the Government were so wise as to accept the New Zealand First position with regard to the foreshore and seabed—namely, Crown ownership and customary use—there would be no need for any deviation, or for any supposed hold-up. In fact, this bill could be seen to run through to 31 December 2004, and on 1 January 2005 those interested in the industry, and those who have a vital part to play in the industry, could begin to take up their role. But that will not happen unless the Ministry of Fisheries and those involved in this bill get a move on. But before that happens, I want to refer to the actual date.

There is something much more pressing that the Minister should be aware of if this moratorium and marine farming are to be successfully advanced, and that is the appalling state of his ministry’s marine permits. Broken frames are floating in the open sea, and leases have been left lying for years in various states of disrepair. Abandoned silt areas, abandoned frames—a real mess—are all the products of past ministry leases. In our region of Northland, and no doubt in others, this mess has nothing to do with the future of the industry, but is very much a record of past ministries, past Ministers, and a lack of attention to what should be a pristine environment in which modern marine farming could take place. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that very issue, but before we advance too far upon the future, let us look back at where the industry was—and I have some very vivid examples from the Bay of Islands here, which the Minister could share—and look to see whether he will be able do a lot better than his predecessors in previous ministries.

But to come back to the matter in hand, the issue for New Zealand First is not further support for the bill. The issue is what we have always stated, and that is absolute adherence to a finish date of 31 December 2004. That is so that those who are involved in marine farming—and for the potential that marine farming has for New Zealanders, not least for those of us in the rural regions—are able to make informed decisions about the future. For that reason there needs to be much more known than has been evident so far from the ministries involved in this whole issue of marine farming.

We have had very little advice as to what the application of clause 3 in Part 1 and clause 4 in Part 2 really mean. We have out there a state of uncertainty, and those submitters who came to the select committee said so over and over again. In some ways, they were as ambivalent as other parties in the House might be, because they realised that they could be, and should be, able to proceed. But because of the advanced notice and projected nature of what the Government thought it might do, and noised around in certain places, but not in the wider public area, there was uncertainty about how things could proceed.

The real issue for us in New Zealand First is not really that this legislation should not be passed. We believe that the time has come to push on. What we really want the Minister and his ministry to do is to give confidence and certainty to the many, many people who see in that industry a real opportunity—not least Māori, and not least those in the regions. I refer most of all to those people who have long seen the changed nature of the industry—particularly in large-scale operations—and one, in income and job terms, that has a tremendous economic future and potential.

To that degree we support those clauses, and hope that the Minister turns, firstly, to the matter of past leases, and secondly, gives clarity from now on until the end of 2004, so that councils, people in the industry, the ordinary person on the street, and people on the coastal margins are given real knowledge of what is intended once this legislation is passed.

I rise to speak against this bill. I point out that greenshell mussels are Marlborough’s biggest income earner. Back in 1989 they raised $25 million for the aquaculture industry. In 2002, they raised $260 million, involving the farming of 5,500 hectares and the provision of 4,000 jobs in New Zealand. What has happened since that time? Well, the industry had been growing at 20 percent but it is not growing at all now. Production has fallen, because of this Government’s appalling handling of the aquaculture industry.

I certainly hope the Minister in the chair, Mr Benson-Pope, pays a bit of attention. He needs to do something about the situation, because the previous Minister of Fisheries did not. He was bound up in bureaucracy and did not manage to do a thing. A serious opportunity will be lost to New Zealand if this Government does not stop pandering to bureaucrats and environmentalists. It has to take seriously this amazing opportunity. Extending a moratorium will not do that. This is an opportunity for New Zealand as a whole, because industries actually create regional development.

I do not know how many members have visited the little town of Havelock, but 15 years ago that town was dead. There were empty shops and the marina was shut. It was dead. Today Havelock is absolutely thriving. It has Sanford Industries, jobs, new houses, restaurants, and an extension to the marina. That all happened because of the farming of greenshell mussels, and the people who made it work.

💬 Jill Pettis: And 4 years of a Labour Government.

It has nothing to do with the Labour Government. All it did was reduce that 20 percent growth rate down to zero, as it panders to the bureaucrats.

Do members know why this moratorium is being extended today? It is mainly because this Government cannot get its act together on this issue or the seabed and foreshore issue in the Marlborough Sounds. This Government does not know what to do. It does not have a clue. It is going round and round in circles and doing U-turns, as it tries to sort it out. It is easy to put a moratorium on, but it is jolly hard to take it off. We predicted that if the Government put a moratorium on, it would not take it off at the time it said it would. Many Government speakers said that would not be the case, that it just needed a bit of a break, that it needed to get the new legislation sorted out. But what has happened? Today we are debating the extension of the moratorium.

Do we want this country to be wealthy, or not? Do we want parts of Northland to be able to get into aquaculture, or not? The moratorium is doing nothing to improve growth in New Zealand, nothing to increase jobs, and nothing to enable this country to do better and make more money. That money could be spent on health and education. The extension of this moratorium will only be damaging.

Māori, too, are losing opportunities. We heard a lot about the Sounds and that Māori did not get involved in the aquaculture industry. That is not true. About 17 percent of those employed in the industry consider themselves to be Māori, and that is compared with 11 percent across all other industries, so a lot of Māori actually own aquaculture farms and are employed. They have not achieved that because of special privilege. They own those farms, because they got into the industry and got on with the job.

This Government is getting in the way of all those rugged individuals who have been developing the aquaculture industry. It is putting a huge amount of cost and bureaucracy on to the industry. It has done nothing but get in the way. The Government has not sorted out anything, and, to top it off, the aquaculture law reform legislation, which was touted to make life easier, will only make things harder. It is just a mess. The bureaucrats have to start to look at how to help the aquaculture industry develop.

When the Primary Production Committee went down to the Sounds, the members did not realise they had been travelling past marine farms. They thought those things were covering the Sounds and affecting the pristine environment. I grew up in the Sounds and I think that aquaculture is a wonderful addition. Greenshell mussels are the only endemic species that we farm in this country. They are an incredibly healthy product and contain no fat—wonderful! We should be eating an awful lot more of them, and a lot less McDonald’s. If New Zealanders did that, the nation would be a lot healthier.

We should be encouraging the industry. We are squandering the opportunity for export earnings to reach $1 billion by 2020. We are squandering the opportunity for new jobs. We must not forget that places like Chile will be in there like a shot. In fact, they are already there. We have people in the industry today who have become so fed up, they are off to Tasmania, Chile, or anywhere where they do not have to deal with the bureaucratic nightmare that this industry has become.

The commencement of the aquaculture industry is capturing the attention of virtually everybody in this country who is interested in industry and especially in the furtherance of a potential multibillion-dollar industry. I repeat: a multibillion-dollar industry. The commencement date is hugely important in terms of when the industry can start to get up to speed, yet here we are in the Committee of the whole House debating whether we should continue with the moratorium. As the ACT party and my colleagues in the National Party have said, this is a nonsense.

There are plenty of regional councils that want to get on with the job. For example, why does this legislation not allow the Otago Regional Council—Otago is the region the Minister comes from—to get on with it. He knows that Graeme Martin and the people in the Otago Regional Council are up and ready to run. They want to start. But people in the aquaculture industry in the Otago region, off the Otago coast, or on the foreshore, are told they must wait. I look forward to contributions from the Otago members telling us, and the aquaculture and marine industries in our region, why this legislation will stymie them for many more months to come.

The commentary on the bill states that the Labour Government has been advised that “only a single extension is envisaged”. The word “envisaged” is very, very interesting. The commentary does not state there will be “only a single extension, end of story”; it states, “envisaged”. So what is the likelihood of another extension to the moratorium occurring when we come close to the period it is supposed to end, which is somewhere around the end of December? I suspect that we will be back in the House towards the end of this year, close to Christmas time, debating whether we should apply yet another extension because of other regional councils, such as those in Canterbury and Auckland, not having got up to speed. They should have got up to speed, but they have not. Yet again, this potentially multibillion-dollar industry is being set aside, is being held up, while the Government and the officials try to catch up. I ask again: why can this bill not allow for those regional councils that so wish to grasp the nettle and act as an indicator of how successful, or otherwise, they can be? Instead, this Government has thrown a driftnet around the industry—it has ensnared the good, the bad, and the ugly, if one likes, all in one—and said: “You will do nothing until we say it’s time to move.”

We note from the commentary that the Government has to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue, enact the aquaculture reform legislation, and implement plans for aquaculture management areas by regional councils. Does anybody really think that those councils that were slow to move in the past will suddenly rush out, in top gear, and have their plans ready by December this year? Who in his or her right mind believes we will resolve the foreshore and seabed issue in a few short months? We know how slowly the machinery of Government moves. So I say again that, without doubt, prior to Christmas we will again be debating whether we should give the moratorium another 6 months, or possibly another 6 months after that.

I spoke to a member of the Parliamentary Service, who informed me of having just recently invested in aquaculture in Australia, shifting resources, money, and desire to be involved in this industry to Australia. The reason is that that person cannot wait.

The Green Party supports the bill, but we do not do so uncritically. We bear in mind, of course, that a couple of years ago the then Minister of Fisheries gave a categorical undertaking that the moratorium, when it was initially put in place, would be the only moratorium and that there would be no extension. I have yet to hear an apology from him or from his successor.

There is no doubt that aquaculture is a very complex issue. It takes place in public, open space. People who own marine farms seem to have the idea that in some way they own the public space in which they operate. They do not. But, having said that, marine farming is an important industry, it is a good one for New Zealand, and those people who have marine farms have the right to some certainty of tenure. They need to know that the investment they put into their marine farm will give them some financial return in the medium term, certainly in the long term. On the other hand, it is very clear that marine farming operates within biophysical limits. Mussels do not grow just because there is an enclosed area of water in which to grow them. They need a food supply. They need a nutrient supply. If we try to put more mussels into an area than the nutrient available to them, then obviously those mussels will grow more slowly. The nutrient supply depends on both phytoplankton and zooplankton—in other words, plant life and animal life in the sea. Some marine farms are advantaged in being upstream, in tidal terms; others are disadvantaged by being downstream, in tidal terms, or by having big farms next door to them. It is clear, therefore, that there has to be a very clear plan for having aquaculture in our inshore waters that is of benefit to all farmers and to recreational users.

So there is a conflict, a creative tension, going on all the time. We need to know, for instance, that all the farms will operate at least reasonably successfully. That is the whole idea of having aquaculture management areas. The regional councils have been tasked with the project of establishing aquaculture management areas—

💬 Phil Heatley: An impossible job.

It is an impossible job. It is a very difficult job, but one that has to be done. We have to make some headway, at least. We are trying to balance the tension between the certainty that marine farmers require for tenure in their marine farms with the availability of food supply, the ecological sustainability of what is going on, and the conflicting use from recreational users, like boaties and recreational fisher people.

It is very clear that the ecological impacts of marine farming are poorly understood. It is also clear that in the short term underneath the marine farm we get faeces and pseudo-faeces that accumulate on the seabed, killing almost all other marine life. We do not know the long-term effects. If a marine farm subsequently is taken away, what happens to the seabed? Does it recover without any problem? We simply do not know. Research needs to be done. It should be being done at the moment, and I believe that some is. We need to know exactly what effects marine farms have on the marine environment.

The Green Party supports the extension of the moratorium. In some ways it is good, because it will enable research to be undertaken. Having said that, I do feel a considerable degree of sympathy for those marine farmers who entered the industry in good faith but who are finding that the certainty they require for their industry is being questioned over and over again. As a number of other members have said, the foreshore and seabed claims, which are subject to public debate at the moment, obviously have a great bearing on the future of the aquaculture industry, as well. I do not think that regional councils will be very successful in terms of getting aquaculture management areas up and running in the time allotted. I rather suspect that before the end of this year, as I think Gerry Eckhoff mentioned, we will probably be back in the House debating a further extension to the moratorium legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

This bill extends the current 2-year-plus moratorium for another 9 months. In essence, it is an extension to the extension bill. It is symptomatic of a Government that just cannot get things done, and certainly that cannot make a decision. The Government is becoming paralysed. This paralysis is causing regional councils to lose momentum, also. Regional councils are crying out for leadership, but are they getting it under this Government? No, they are not. What is the answer? The Government’s answer is to extend things a little bit longer and hope that nothing comes of it. Regional councils want direction so they can develop aquaculture areas, but they will not get that direction from this Government. To be fair, some regional councils are hiding behind the Government’s inertia, because, in effect, they have not done too much, either. But that is no excuse to exacerbate this type of behaviour.

I know that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, wants to take a call. I know he wants to get to his feet and demonstrate that he has the capacity to do the job and has an understanding of this portfolio, because for years he has been stuck as the senior Government whip, confined to making snide remarks about every other speaker. Now the Minister has his chance to get to his feet to demonstrate that he does have the capacity to be the Minister and understand this portfolio so that other people, in this Chamber and in the industry generally, can have some confidence in him. People on this side of the Chamber are waiting with bated breath.

The real purpose for this delaying tactic on behalf of the Government is not about managing or seeking time to manage aquaculture, at all; it is about the Government trying to find a way to extricate itself from the fiasco it has got itself into regarding the foreshore and seabed. Because of its inability to deal with this issue, the Government has got itself into an unholy mess. Who believes that another 9 months will enable it to sort out its warring factions?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: No one!

Mr Tisch is right, no one believes that. On the one hand we have the Māori caucus that wants to annexe the whole lot and on the other hand we have poll-driven Government members saying: “Oh dear, National’s going up in the polls. We must have got our strategy wrong. Let’s rethink this. Oh, my God, National was right and we were wrong!”, and all the while an industry that has the potential to be one of our biggest export earners waits. It waits while this Government fiddles and the growth of one of our most important industries stagnates.

My colleague Linda Scott estimated industry revenues of about $260 million now. The aquaculture industry has the potential to be a multibillion-dollar industry, but what is happening? It is going backwards all because this Government is fiddling. Rather than sort out the difficulties around Marlborough and Tasman, the Government has taken the too-hard-basket approach. Why not just say: “We’ll maintain some momentum where we can and sort out Marlborough and Tasman at our leisure”?

The do-nothing option is just not good enough. This is where the Minister can take a call to demonstrate that he has heard what members are saying and that he has the capacity to say: “We, the Government, have rethought our strategy.” The Minister should not sit there like a lemon. He should take a call and say: “Our strategy now is a, b, c, and d. We’ve heard you, we know you’re right, and this is what we’re going to do.” But will he do that? No, he will not. Do members know why he will not do it? The reason is that he does not have a plan other than a do-nothing plan to extend the moratorium for another 9 months. Who believes that will bring it to a conclusion? No one, of course. But my good friend and colleague Mr Heatley knows. The people of this country cannot wait for a change of Government, because when it happens Mr Heatley will stand up and tell the House what the plan is. He will have the confidence of the industry. The industry is relying on some good, strong leadership, and Mr Heatley will provide it.

National opposes this legislation wholeheartedly. It is not just National rambling on. I have done a bit of research, and this is what I found: “Marine farmers are enraged by the Government’s proposals on aquaculture law reform which they say will suck millions of dollars out of the industry and hinder its enormous potential for growth.” That came from the industry leaders themselves.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, four simple questions, and I hope he will take the opportunity to answer them to demonstrate to this side of the Chamber that he now understands the portfolio. Firstly, the Prime Minister is on the record as saying that her Government is intent on lifting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD by 2011. I want the Minister to stand and tell us how the imposition of a moratorium on a potential billion-dollar industry assists in the aim of his Government to achieve growth to get us back into the top half of the OECD. That is a simple question for the Minister to answer. Can he tell us how this helps New Zealand’s growth?

Secondly, what consultation has specifically taken place with Māori and Māori interest groups in formulating this legislation, and to what extent have Māori signed up to this moratorium bill? I ask that question because we all know that the Minister’s predecessor, the sacked Minister of Fisheries, was fired because he was unable to progress this issue. To be fair to him, it is because the Prime Minister and other Government members are not able to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue. So, my second question simply asks the Minister to tell us to what extent Māori have signed up to the legislation that is before the Committee today.

My third question relates to the commencement, which is due to take place after this legislation receives the royal assent. I want the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee today what back-up plans he has if this legislation does not receive the royal assent before the expiry of the current moratorium, which, as we know, occurs on 25 March this year. So in 9 days’ time, if we are still here debating the Committee clauses—and that is National’s intention—then I want to know what the Minister proposes to do in the intervening time created when the current moratorium that exists under legislation expires before this bill is enacted. It is that Minister’s fault that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for too long.

My fourth question asks for a simple assurance from the new Minister of Fisheries that the moratorium we are now debating is, according to the legislation before the Committee, due to expire by 31 December this year. I want an absolute guarantee from the Minister that this will be the last moratorium required—in other words, that the issues will be resolved by the balance of this calendar year. We know that the Minister’s predecessor, the Hon Pete Hodgson, rose in the House during the debate on the first moratorium legislation and guaranteed that an extension would not be required. We know how good that Minister was at keeping his word—that is why we are here now further extending a moratorium.

I do not believe that this issue will be tidied up by 31 December. The Minister should have confidence in his name being on the bill, and that we will find that all matters relating to the seabed and foreshore are resolved by the end of the year. Therefore, this is a simple request for the Minister not to sit blindly through the Committee stage but to stand and take the opportunity to show some leadership. The reason the Minister gets a ministerial house, a car, and a considerable increase in salary is so he can show leadership and say to both the Committee and the industry that he has absolute confidence that the issues for needing a further extension of the moratorium will be resolved before 31 December this year.

Those are four simple questions for the Minister to answer. I am quite prepared to take another call to list them all again for him if he has missed any. He has a duty during the Committee stage to take the opportunity to answer these questions. That is what the industry wants to hear.

I move, That the question be now put.

One of the great concerns I have about this bill relates to land-based aquaculture. I ask that the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope—albeit a new Minister, but I am sure he has his head around this legislation and is competent to take a call; I would certainly hope so—assure those who are interested in land-based aquaculture that they will not be entangled in this legislation. I say to him without any hesitation that those who are involved in land-based aquaculture have no feeling of confidence at all that they will not be subjected to a continuance of procrastination when they wish to get on with their particular industry. I ask the Minister to stand, as Mr Carter has just done, and to give the Committee, and, indeed, the public of this country, the benefit of his knowledge on this bill, to tell us that this is the case or that is the case, and to give us an absolute assurance that this will happen or that that will happen. That is the least he can do.

The other aspect I have huge concerns about in relation to this bill is the role of the Department of Conservation. The Primary Production Committee did agree to extend the period of time the Minister of Conservation had to make recommendations to 40 days.

💬 Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. This matter is addressed in Part 2, I think you will find it in clause 6.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I do not think that was a reason to interrupt the member’s speech.

The committee agreed to extend the ability of the Department of Conservation to make significant input into the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The role of the department is a very, very important one. It is well known that the department wants to extend its sphere of influence over at least 10 percent of inshore, and indeed offshore, potential marine farming areas. So it seems to me that the department wants to have first bite of this particular cherry. It is now formulating its desires of where it wants its marine reserves to be, then the industry can have what is left.

I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Conservation’s influence over this particular bill is profound, as is the influence of somebody like Kevin Smith, his chief adviser. It is well known that at least 10 percent of our potential marine areas are wanted by the Department of Conservation. I ask the Minister to give the Committee and those listening to the debate an absolute assurance that the role of the Department of Conservation will be limited to the provisions of this bill, and that this period of extension of the moratorium does not give it a window of opportunity to extend its sphere of influence to such a degree as to take out vast areas of our coastline and offshore waters to achieve its goal of ensuring that at least 10 percent of our fishing resource is potentially locked away for the use of conservation rather than for industry. That is one of the huge concerns that many in the industry and in this country have.

The point was made earlier about the self-determination Māori wish to have over what is a traditional industry for Māori. Their determination to get totally involved is yet again being set aside, and it does not help the concept of race relations. Māori see again the procrastination of this Government. It is something that has to be seen to be believed. It is struggling.

I move, That the question be now put.

I tabled amendments to Part 1 earlier, and I had the opportunity to speak, and I appreciate that, on two of them. I would now like to address the other three. I am particularly addressing clause 3. In clause 3(a), the purpose of the bill is: “to extend to 31 December 2004 the moratorium on the granting of coastal permits for aquaculture activities;”. I would replace that date with 1 April 2004. If the Government insists—if it really must, if it is desperate to do it, if it really wants to steamroller the aquaculture industry, put on the handbrakes, and do everything else to ankle tap the industry—it should extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004.

My reasoning is simple. There is a new Minister of Fisheries, who barely understands the issues, but I am sure that in the next couple of weeks he is quite able—if he sits down and concentrates only on this fisheries issue—to get his brain around everything affecting aquaculturists at the moment. So I think 1 April 2004 is the extension that the National Party is willing to live with, but that is it—and certainly we would not be supporting any further extension.

Also in Part 1, clause 3, there are a number of purpose propositions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), after the words: “The purpose of this Act is—”. I have two more. It does not say it in the legislation at the moment, but I think it should include new paragraph (d): “to provide the Government with further time to resolve the seabed and foreshore policies;”.

I found it interesting when the first moratorium bill was introduced a few years ago that every single Māori group that came to the Primary Production Committee opposed the moratorium. There were 143 submissions in all, and a fair proportion of them were from Māori. They opposed it at that time. They said that the moratorium had a negative impact on Māori development—and nothing has changed. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is. They said that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—clearly there still are, in their view. Nothing has changed. There had been a lack of consultation by the Crown—there still is. The Government has not resolved the seabed and foreshore issue, and that is partly what this bill is all about.

I propose another amendment to the purpose clause. In new paragraph (e), the purpose of the Act is: “to provide regional councils further time to collate and understand information for designating aquaculture management areas.” That extra time is essential, given that regional councils have told us this.

I tabled papers in Parliament last year from the Taranaki Regional Council and Local Government New Zealand, stating that all regional councils have been struggling to develop aquaculture management areas, in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries, and that there are also gaps in that information. It is inadequate. In other words, the regional councils are saying they want to map out aquaculture management areas, but the Ministry of Fisheries is not giving them any information, and the information it does give them is inadequate. There has been no information sharing, and when the ministry has been coerced to share information, it has been inadequate. On the whole, regional councils have not been given a chance to succeed.

I believe that the Minister in the chair should be honest and say that this moratorium has been put in place—and it does not currently say it in the purpose clause—for two reasons. They are to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue—and the Government thinks it will do it in 9 months—and to provide regional councils with enough time.

I move, That the question be now put.

I speak to the amendments that were raised by Mr Heatley. I want to assure that member in the Committee that not all regional councils are in the position that he has enunciated—particularly he mentioned Taranaki and other councils—because the issue in Northland is not like that. Unlike other councils, the Northland Regional Council took the then Minister at his word. It went out and is now into its third round of consultation with the wider community about where the aquaculture management areas should be. It accepted that the zones for potential marine farming were likely to be contentious and needed the maximum amount of consultation and discussion. In Northland in the past week there have been two very well-attended meetings of over 200 people at Kerikeri and Paihia, where people were very, very concerned about the potential impact of such marine farming zones upon tourism and all the other amenity values that they see in the Bay of Islands.

I believe that many regional councils have been derelict in not picking up the challenge that was laid down when the moratorium was set out. Also, most of the regional coastal plans were put together in a day and an age when it was not envisaged that there would be 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, or 8,000 hectares of offshore farming being proposed as a legitimate way of farming, in particular, mussels. Most of our regional coastal plans do not envisage that, at all. They look at establishing small protected areas. To go back to the issue raised by the member for Whangarei, if his amendment were to be passed I say there would be chaos, because people in the industry would be able to apply for marine farms under the Resource Management Act under a regional coastal plan that had very few prohibited areas, and there would be widespread disquiet and concern in the community.

The issue is not, therefore, about what regional councils have or have not done; I believe that some councils could have done more. In Northland we are on to the third round of consultation, and that has been done deliberately, because we want the community to be aware of the consequences of marine farming. Really, the issue is whether by 31 December this year those people who have taken the challenge up and, as in the case of the Northland Regional Council, have reached a broad consensus of opinion in the community about where marine farming should be—about all the pluses and minuses of this valuable resource, and the potential that it has, those issues having been analysed and known widely in the community—can at that point in time proceed. That is the issue, and there must be absolute assurance. If the Minister cannot give that guarantee, then he ought to say so now.

That brings me to the last issue, which is not about the part of the regional councils but about what work has been done with regard to the structure of marine farming under the proposed new regime’s space, and tendering all the matters we have not yet had addressed that were the cause of concern for some submitters who came to the Primary Production Committee. The committee looked, in particular, at the fact that there were issues that were not part of the so-called bill: tenure, the definition of the areas, and, most of all, what right the existing permit holders would have with regard to the regimes of the future. Those are the other parts of the structure that the Minister needs to address urgently if the aquaculture industry is to take off on 1 January 2005.

I move, That the question be now put.