Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7352] 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is he going to extend the 2-year moratorium on new marine-farming consents in light of the submissions made by Maori over seabed and beach ownership; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 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. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister agree with members of the Iwi Aquaculture Steering Group which includes representatives of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission who say in their submission to the Crown: “The rights of iwi are continuous. They extend well beyond the 12-mile zone and indeed beyond 200 miles in some cases.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure whether I do. I am aware that Maori are large and competent operators in the wild fishery and have a very strong interest in aquaculture—as expressed recently in a round of hui. 
Janet Mackey 
: Have any new marine-farming projects been able to proceed under the moratorium? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes a large number. About 220 marine-farming consent applications have continued to advance through the normal process. In addition more than 150 marine farm projects which have already received consent are being accelerated through the fisheries permit process. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: As the Government has stated that the foreshore and seabed belong to all New Zealanders why is the Minister equivocating over the lifting of the moratorium? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not equivocating. It is a question of whether we can get the legislation written and through the House in time. It is complex legislation especially the transitionary clauses. I hope to have the bill introduced soon. If however there needs to be an extension of the moratorium I shall signal it clearly. What is more it will be measured in months not years. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister be certain that all regional councils will have aquaculture management areas defined in their coastal plans by the time the moratorium is due to expire; if not will he ensure that no new applications are heard in areas that do not have such aquaculture management areas until this essential planning provision is in place? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From memory I think it is certain that not all regional councils will have aquaculture management areas in place although there are some transitionary aquaculture management areas—the precise technical name for which I have forgotten. My best guess is that all regional councils likely to receive applications will be ready to do so. But the member is right: that is an issue of ongoing work and of continued relationships in terms of checking on one another between the Ministry for the Environment and the regional councils. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How confident is the Minister that there will not be further delay given that the legislation he is referring to is already about 15 months behind the original schedule; and what impact does he think the continuation of this moratorium is having on his previous estimate of $280 million per year growth potential for the aquaculture industry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of fact that a significant backlog of current applications is still being processed. I mentioned them in response to an earlier supplementary question. I think the total is 370. So this is an industry that is hardly standing by twiddling its thumbs. On the other hand the Government’s intention was to introduce the legislation next month—my memory is that we were hoping to introduce it then. We may still introduce it next month. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Two years! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Two years is the length of time of the moratorium. We have been in the moratorium for about 16 months. If the member wants to know what a good long aquaculture moratorium looks he should look at National’s moratorium that was put in place in the early 1990s and is still there. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister currently horse-trading marine-farming space with Maori to secure Crown ownership because he agrees “that the seabed and the foreshore are owned by Maori and that this extends well beyond the 12-mile zone and indeed beyond 200 miles in some cases.”? Is that what the Minister believes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Rather obviously no it is not. The member might like to reflect that the Court of Appeal decision to which his question refers is essentially based on English common law whereas the aquaculture issues and the round of hui that I mentioned earlier are a result of an approach by Maori to the Waitangi Tribunal under New Zealand law. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the submission to the Minister on the aquaculture reforms that he is entertaining about the 12-mile and 200-mile claim. 
Document laid on the Table of the House.