Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill

Part 2 of this bill is quite technical. It makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act that, to the uninitiated, seem somewhat complex. It is, however, a marvellous opportunity for the new Minister to strut his stuff. I say that because I was in Dunedin the other day and I heard a report about why it was that Chris Carter had been appointed as the Minister. He had frankly confessed to the person who had interviewed him that he brought two cards to the table: the first was that he was born under the sign of Pisces; the second was that he loved prawns. So here we are, in this setting, with an opportunity for the Minister to stand and explain. Will he take that opportunity? I hope so, but I fear he will not.

I would like to start with the first clause in Part 2, clause 4. Section 125 of the principal Act is being changed by that particular clause. There is a discussion in the commentary on the bill, under the heading “Reviving certain lapsed coastal permits”, that explains why that provision has been put in place. It is an interesting commentary, because it contains, in fact, a number of factual errors. It starts by explaining why a marine farmer must have two consents to develop an area. One is a coastal permit, as defined in section 87 of the Resource Management Act, and the other is either a marine-farming permit or a spat-catching permit under the Fisheries Act 1983. Section 125 of the Resource Management Act provides for the lapsing of consents unless they are implemented within a particular time frame or unless substantial progress is being made towards implementing them. I draw the attention of members to the third paragraph on page 3 of the commentary, where the following sentence occurs: “Under the Resource Management Act resource consents lapse if they are not ‘given effect to’ within 2 years of being granted.” Well, that certainly was the law, but it is no longer the law today. That 2-year period is now 5 years, under section 125 of the Act. I think that demonstrates the need for care by the ministry officials who have apparently been advising the Primary Production Committee on the merit, or otherwise, of this legislation.

Of course, National opposes this legislation. Although we can see some merit in trying to protect property rights, which clause 4 is all about, we believe that the balance of Part 2 has nothing to commend it. There is no doubt about it—aquaculture is a hugely significant industry, with millions of dollars deployed and the potential for even greater money to be earned. I understand that aquaculture-generated sales of around $340 million were recorded in 2002, with export earnings of nearly $260 million. If we look ahead at the industry forecast, then we see that the New Zealand Aquaculture Council in 2001 estimated that with managed expansion the industry could achieve export earnings of $1 billion by 2020, from 17,000 hectares of aquaculture farms.

It may be important to protect property rights, but if that is to be done, it should be done on a thorough and thoughtful basis. I would like to ask the new Minister in the chair, Mr Chris Carter—it seemingly being the case that the “old” Minister, who is in fact “new”, has fled from the Chamber—why it is that only those coastal permits issued in the period from 1 June 1995 to 1 August 2003 have been continued. That is what new section 150G, inserted by clause 7, proposes. Lapsing provisions are always difficult, but I suggest there was a real need for care when the Government’s advisers contemplated what the relevant periods should be, and in this case the exercise of that duty of care has been lamentable. Those were the issues that I wished to speak about in the context of Part 2 and the amendments made to the principal Act by this bill.

In speaking to Part 2 I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 4 and 5, which give further definition to the term moratorium. There are major issues within that moratorium. We know that the moratorium proposed in this bill comes on top of the existing one that has been in place for many months, and that there are other types of regional aquaculture moratoriums around the country. In fact, I understand that one has been in existence since 1992. Therefore, the moratorium provided for in clauses 4 and 5 must be so—and this is the realistic understanding of New Zealand First—only up to the achievement date of 31 December 2004. I say to the new Minister in the chair that he has inherited a very, very large job. When we take this bill in the context of the other aspects of and relevant issues in terms of marine reform—the overarching oceans policy that is not here in any form but must be recognised within this bill, the marine reserves already alluded to that sought to have 10 percent, and the uncertainty over the Māori Fisheries Commission allocations—we see they all impact upon this bill, and particularly upon the industry.

The aquaculture industry is one that, as has already been stated, is fast growing. In fact, aquaculture has been providing up to 20 percent of our national total fisheries’ value. In Northland we have heard about rather grand schemes from some people, who say that we have in this country within the next 3 or 4 decades the potential to provide 45 or 50 percent of the worldwide seafood production from aquaculture, and that thereby would come tremendous economic value, jobs, and income. But that is all dependent upon access to the right water spaces, upon access to a sustainable regime, and, I want to say again, most of all upon the ministry’s framework being one that gives certainty. So, to come back to clauses 4 and 5, I say New Zealand First supports them realistically, but we see them in the context of the immense amount of work that the Minister must do if, on 1 January 2005, the legislation is to come into force.

Lastly, I say there should be no more talk in this Chamber about the matter of Māori involvement in this industry. New Zealand First has very firmly stated that the Crown position is acceptable with regard to the seabed and foreshore, and with acknowledgment of Māori customary use that position could not be seen as an obstacle to aquaculture development in the future. The Government should heed that, go ahead now accepting that position, and, I say again, work within that framework to give certainty. So we give support to Part 2, on the understanding that this date will be the absolute end of the moratorium. I recall that Minister Hodgson over there on the Government benches said that not so very long ago, and I hope that the Minister, before the end of this debate, will stand and acknowledge his absolute determination that on 1 January 2005 the aquaculture industry will have the ability to get back into gear.

I have done some work on three amendments to Part 2 over the weekend and in the weeks leading up to today. I think they are smart amendments. I will jump to the third amendment, which is to clause 6(2) in Part 2. I was quite interested that the Minister of Conservation was, at one stage, the Minister in the chair. Interestingly my amendment affected him. I think he saw the amendment and got out of the hot seat, and he was replaced by the new Minister of Fisheries who has not contributed one thing to this debate. I do not know whether he is allowed to speak; all I know is that he has not.

My suggestion in my amendment is to delete the expression “40” in clause 6(2) and to insert “30 days” instead. For the Minister’s benefit I will explain what this is all about. The Minister had included in the original bill that was tabled in the select committee that when a local authority wanted to lift this moratorium early because it had got into gear, done the work, consulted with landowners, and talked to marine farmers, Māori, and everyone else who was affected, and having done so had sorted out an aquaculture management area and applied to have the moratorium lifted in a specific area, it they would go to the Minister of Conservation for his thumbs up and go-ahead. At one stage he had 30 working-days to reply, but at that stage the Minister of Fisheries decided that the Minister of Conservation, his mate, should have no time period in which to reply. In fact it could sit on his desk for months collecting dust. In effect there was a pseudo-moratorium.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Who suggested that?

I do not know who suggested that, but the Minister considered it a flagship policy in the aquaculture industry that not only was there a moratorium, but also that those who wanted to lift the moratorium early had to go cap in hand to the Minister of Conservation and ask for his say-so. He could sit on his hands for months and months and months creating a pseudo-moratorium. So we came back and said that we would not drop it from 20 days to no days—where he could have as long as he wanted. Instead we doubled it. We said that he could have 40 days, but there had better be an answer within 40 days.

I think National was far too lenient, so my amendment states that the Minister can have 30 days. Anybody who enters the public arena, or makes a press release, to say that Phil Heatley is far too tough, too mean, and too heavy-handed will need to know this: that after the 30 days the Minister can come back and request another 30. Whatever number of days is stated in the bill can be doubled. In changing this to 30 days, in effect, the Minister can stretch it out to 60. In other words, if we stuck with 40 days, he could have 80 days. Even the Minister can do the maths—that is 2½ to 3 months. That is far too long. We have said 30 days, and if the Minister drags the chain he can stretch it out to 60. That is 2 months and that is long enough. That is what my amendment to clause 6(2) in Part 2 is all about.

I would also like the opportunity to speak about my amendments in Part 2 to clause 5 and clause 6 (1), where I have changed the dates from 31 December 2004 to 1 April 2004. I probably will not get time to do so in this 5 minutes, so I will look to the Committee to grant me another call later on to stress the issues about that.

I may be mistaken, but I thought we were in a debating chamber. This is where one side of the Chamber puts forward a proposition—a point of view—then, after the member from this side has spoken, the Government stands up and refutes what was said and gives the reasons for that. All we get from Government members is “I move that the question be now put.” We have been asking for the Minister. We have a Minister of Conservation in the Chamber who is directly affected and has had, no doubt, a huge input into Part 2. He sits in the Chamber and says absolutely nothing. Why? Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps a member might inform me that I have it totally wrong, but we are not having a debate. The Government is shutting down this whole question. It is refusing to elaborate the various points and answer the perfectly legitimate questions being put forward by ACT and National members that ask why these sorts of things are taking place. We are getting no response.

Part 2 is, of course, a very important one because it does something quite sensible in ensuring that the coastal permits some marine farmers have will not lapse over the extension of this moratorium period. Yet again I say to the Committee that this extension will apply well after 31 December. I would just about stake my left arm on that point—[Interruption]. I see the member across the Chamber is laughing. I am perfectly certain that this moratorium will be extended, so it is right and proper that these permits do not lapse during the extension of the moratorium.

The previous speaker alluded, as I had earlier, to the role of the Department of Conservation in this debate. As I said earlier, the department has its beady little eyes, or very big eyes, on at least 10 percent of our coastal waters for marine reserves. The Minister of Conservation—he is in the Chamber at this time, and I would encourage him to stay and listen—wants all the time in the world to make his decision as to whether one permit can go ahead or another permit should cease.

We in the select committee have given—I think probably with some reluctance—an extension of time to the Minister to get through this whole process. I say again, as I have said many times in this Chamber in debates where the Department of Conservation is involved, that its role in all of our legislation that pertains to the environment is just getting excessive. We have to downsize the role of the Department of Conservation, whether or not we are talking about the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. It does not really matter, because the concept of having this power of veto, which is essentially what the Minister has, is hugely excessive. Giving the Department of Conservation this role of advocacy in the wider environment—whether it is in the marine environment or land-based, it does not really matter—ensures that nothing happens. We constantly run into a brick wall whereby industry players that are breaking their necks to take this country of ours into the top half of the OECD want to develop this industry into a multi-billion dollar industry, but the Government says no. It tells industry to slow down while it has another cup of tea. We have seen this for years. How long has this Government been in power? It is about 5 years.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It seems like 50.

Mr Prebble is absolutely right—it seems much longer. But when it comes down to a real business decision-making process that this Government should be making, it just does not have the expertise amongst its ranks to follow these concepts through.

In debating Part 2, I want to bring to the attention of the House the way that this moratorium bill is having an incredibly negative impact on my community in Nelson. Yesterday I was with the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, Don Brash. [Interruption] The member opposite should listen and he might learn something. We met the Mayor of Tasman District, and I want to recite for the benefit of the House just how bad things have become in the process of dealing with aquaculture. I would be happy to table a written note from the mayor of our district, so that members opposite might learn that.

They notified their plan for dealing with aquaculture way back in October 1998. Six appeals were lodged with the Environment Court, and they were dealt with between July and November 2000. We had the first interim decision in April 2001. We had a second Environment Court hearing back in February 2002. We had a second decision in March 2003. We had High Court appeals in 2003, and now, with this moratorium bill, we are no further ahead. Do members know how much this is costing my community? The Tasman District Council says it is costing $45 million a year.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: How much?

It is $45 million a year, because of Labour Ministers procrastinating in making decisions in the area of aquaculture. That means $150,000 every single day for just part of the community I represent.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: How many jobs?

We are looking at about 450 jobs in the Nelson region. I have to tell the Minister that every single person in my area who works in the fishing industry right now is nervous of redundancies. All sorts of rumours are going around. [Interruption] The sad part—and Mr Peck can laugh—is that if Ministers opposite had got off their butts and provided some opportunities for aquaculture, those people would have job security. [Interruption] That member there who is pecking up from Invercargill has no job security because of his Government’s failure in this particular area. I will bet him anything he likes that he will be on his ear at the next election because of the way the Government has let down the people of New Zealand in that regard.

I can only agree with what the New Zealand Herald editorial said in its opening line: “This Government’s lack of business experience is nowhere more apparent than in its review of marine farming.”

💬 Mark Peck: That member wouldn’t know business.

I have been a director of more businesses in the construction industry than that member would ever know. But that is not the issue. [Interruption] It is interesting how those members do not want to take a call. They do not want to have a constructive debate; they just want to chip in everywhere, because they can give no reason why my community is losing $45 million of wealth, jobs, and opportunity. The mayors of my districts of Nelson and Tasman are desperate for there to be a change of Government, so that we can get better than the moratorium extension proposed in this bill.

I will put exactly the words of Mayor John Hurley, who said: “Don, this type of thing must be stopped if New Zealand’s economy is to survive.” That is from a mayor of a district. Now, mayors are pretty apolitical and do not get angry very often. But when we put up with the nonsense of this sort of bill, we can only agree with the mayor—this sort of nonsense must be stopped. The only way it will be stopped will be a change of Government so that we do not see nonsense legislation of this sort.

The last section I want to bring to the attention of the House is the last one of part 6 of the Resource Management Act—150F, “No compensation”. I ask the Minister: given all the delays that his Government has put in place, how about some compensation for districts like mine that have lost so much in job opportunities and wealth, because he has been sitting on his hands, as have his predecessors.

As we debate Part 2 of this bill, I want to make two points. I want the Minister to listen, because he needs to know this in the portfolio he has now accepted as the new Minister of Fisheries. I say to that Minister that when the Government does not have the answers, the easiest thing in the world is to impose a moratorium and buy time. That is exactly what has happened with this industry. Speaker after speaker from the National Party has risen and described to the Minister the potential this industry has, and the Minister’s answer is to support a moratorium to stop further development of what is potentially a billion-dollar industry.

I remember the debate when the first moratorium was opposed a couple of years ago. Everybody said then that the Minister would be unable to develop the answers required from the moratorium, and we were assured by the Government of the day that that would not be the case. Sadly, we are now being proven right by this extension of the moratorium.

Secondly, I say to the new Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, that when we come to the Committee stage, the easiest thing to do to gain the confidence of the industry—which will be listening to this debate today and reading the Hansard with interest—is to stand and answer a few of the simple questions raised through this debate, rather than sitting there stifled and unable or unwilling to make a contribution. The questions asked have been simple questions, the industry wants the answers to those questions, but to sit there like a stunned mullet and not deliver any answers gives the industry no confidence in that Minister at all.

I start also by saying that although I will be voting against this moratorium extension bill, one aspect that I think the industry has found very rewarding are the issues around clause 7, relating to new section 150G, which extends the time for the Ministry of Fisheries to grant permits after a coastal permit has been given. That is a very important part, and the industry wholeheartedly supports it.

I want the Minister to rise and assure the House that he has come to grips with the issues facing the Ministry of Fisheries. I want him to assure the Committee today that having been given this extension of time, the Ministry of Fisheries will be able to satisfactorily progress the hundreds of applications for fishing permits that are before it to date. I know of people throughout the aquaculture areas, Banks Peninsula and the Marlborough Sounds, who having obtained a coastal permit from the local regional council, have not been able to get under way because their application for a fisheries permit sits on a ministry official’s desk and is not being progressed.

The second issue I specifically want to concentrate on is the time constraint that the Minister of Conservation has to consider any application from a council to be excluded from the moratorium because that particular council has made progress and resolved issues regarding aquaculture management areas. I was aghast when it was presented to the select committee that the Minister of Conservation should have no time constraints at all.

One of the good things that the select committee was able to come up with—and it was done by all parties represented on that select committee—was an acknowledgment that it was totally unreasonable for the Minister of Conservation—particularly the current Minister of Conservation—to have no time constraints imposed whatsoever. The committee was able to work through that issue, and instead of having no time constraints, we agreed to extend the current time constraint of 20 working days to 40 working days.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to take a call on this part of the bill, and certainly about the lapsed coastal permits. It is a very important issue that demonstrates the difficulty that marine farmers have had and the ridiculousness of the bureaucracy that they have been facing in the last few years. Today’s marine farmers are absolutely enmeshed in a quagmire of treaty settlements, seabed claims, Resource Management Act issues, Environment Court sittings, coastal pollution from third parties, navigation by-laws, community consultation, algae blooms, port authorities, and a moratorium that has been extended.

In Part 2 I am very pleased to see that lapsed permits have been extended, because for the people of my electorate in Marlborough, what happened was an absolute travesty. What had happened was that they had only 2 years after Resource Management Act consents were given, for those consents to be able to take effect. I know quite a few people in the marine farming industry, and some of those consents are for very small extensions. But the Ministry of Fisheries in Nelson, 2 years down the track, had not processed their applications, through no fault of their own—absolutely none. After they had had to pay out all that money for those resource consents, they would then have to go through the process again. Can members imagine how frustrating that is!

To add insult to injury, the Ministry of Fisheries said that if people ring up to find out where their consents are at, the ministry will charge them $200 an hour to answer their questions. Well, it certainly worked—it stopped it answering those questions. Three years ago, in my first term as a member of Parliament for the Kaikoura electorate, I was writing to the Ministry of Fisheries about the time delays. At that time, the ministry told the Minister it did not need more staff and that it would get the situation under control. Well, it did not. It did need more staff, and it did need to be able to move to get those permits through. It has made no allocation for those that are just small extensions as opposed to major. It is taking them in the order in which they came in, but they have not progressed.

The rugged individuals, the men and women out there, who make the marine farming industry the multimillion-dollar industry it is today, are frustrated to the hilt—absolutely to the hilt. Terry Schwass, who is one of those pioneers, a great guy, has been really instrumental in setting up the aquaculture course at Queen Charlotte College. It is a wonderful course for kids, and many of them are children who would have really not seen much future for themselves in Marlborough. They are now doing their boat master certificates, their diving certificates, and getting out and learning about aquaculture.

That is the future. If we could just progress this industry and allow it to develop its potential! But the terrible amount of bureaucracy that has surrounded the whole development now—all the things I listed before—mean that this industry has ground to a halt. An industry that could be worth a billion dollars by 2020 has been ground to a halt. It has gone from 20 percent growth to zero.

If we look just at mussels, we see that the export volumes peaked in 1998 and have actually reduced since then. This is an industry that was booming, creating regional development, giving jobs, and giving our children real hope for the future. I am talking about children who do not want to become academics. They want to go into an industry where they can work outside, stay in the area they were born in, and develop really good job opportunities. But now we see, through the Government’s inability to deal with the issues in a way that will progress this industry in this country, that we have an extension of the moratorium.

I move, That the question be now put.

I wish to advise honourable members that the amendment to clause 5 and the amendment to clause 61 in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. In the debate on Part 1 the Committee rejected an amendment to extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004. The proposed amendments seek to insert a 1 April 2006 extension in the definitions in a later section in the principal Act. This is not consistent with the Committee’s earlier decision. However, there is another amendment in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley to clause 6(2).

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 6 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (2) by omitting the expression “40” and substituting the expression “30”.