Carter David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11651] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 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 Maori and Maori interest groups in formulating this legislation and to what extent have Maori 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 Maori 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.