Okeroa Mahara: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10619] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand here to support this bill unreservedly. It is an absolute response to an environmental issue that needs to be sorted. As far as the Minister of Maori Affairs is concerned he is also the Acting Minister of Fisheries at this time. I am sure that I needed to add that correction. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Phil Heatley has already picked up on the question that I asked in March and I ask it again in relation to looking at the resource management aquaculture moratorium extension and the original legislation as well. The question to the Acting Minister that I wish to begin with is: can he confidently tell us and the industry whether applications that are lodged after 1 January 2005 can be processed? That is the initial question that I asked in March and the answer was yes. Unless he can give a confident and clear-cut yes answer now then we may as well put this in the rubbish bin and go away and have tea for all the value that is there. The disappointing issue about that would be that this is a major growing industry in this country. Some regional councils—one that I have been working with in particular—took the Minister to heart and are now in the second planning stage with regard to the draft aquaculture marine areas or the areas to be set aside. They were well prepared to have started on 1 April to process applications if the ministry had done its work. I said “if the ministry had done its work” and that is really the key here. The ministry obviously has not done its work at all. 
What are some of the issues that the ministry would have to look at? The most important one and this is the reason why this is a nonsense sort of bill is that absolutely no help is given to the industry at all on the key issues and they are: how can marine farming rights within the aquaculture marine areas be allocated and what is the principle under which they will take place? The strange thing is that in the foreword to the bill we have all this loose talk about reforms. I see no evidence in the whole of the moratorium period of any processing of reform implications in any way at all over the last 18 months. Nothing is forecast in this bill that will give any help to the industry at all. The industry is ready and out there waiting to move. It is very appropriate that the Minister of Maori Affairs was the one who came to the House with the bill as he knows and I know that there is no doubt out there that hapu and iwi all over the country are willing and waiting to start now. 
That brings me to the second issue that has happened in recent times. Members on the other side of the House have hawked around a ridiculous idea of a 20 percent allocation. They have gone around from marae to marae and suggested a Cabinet fall-back of a 20 percent allocation to Maori of the aquaculture marine areas. That is patent nonsense. I was up in Parengarenga Harbour recently. They expect and could expect 100 percent in that area not 20 percent which is a useless type of threshold argument developed somewhere down here. But that has been developed and the member knows it has been developed. That is evidence of the walk-over by Cabinet on the Maori members on the other side of the House. Accept a Cabinet idea; take it. It is an easy way out. Do it and move on to the next matter. It is expedient but it is not good enough. 
The other issue of course with regard to marine farming rights in the allocation is how the tendering will work. That is the key factor for the industry. How does the tendering system really work? There has been no help here. What criteria would a successful tenderer be required to set out in an application to establish a marine farm? No help has been given at all; nor has any help been given with regard to the alternative ways to allocate rights. Will we have a “first come first served” basis? Prior to this aquaculture moratorium that effectively was the way the system worked. Will all applicants Maori and other applicants have the certainty that they will have the opportunity to develop their application and have a reasonable chance of success? We know that a mini gold rush has taken place in marine farming which has caused this to come into being in the first place particularly with regard to the Marlborough district. 
There has been no advice at all to the industry about those who were not well resourced being able to have the same opportunity as Sanfords or any other major players in the marine farming industry. There is no knowledge at all about those who hoped particularly iwi and hapu that they could in their limited way—in their harbour or coastal space—be able to meet their aspirations. There was not a bit of help at all apart from one little visit by the Minister of Fisheries recently to Whangaruru Harbour. There has been no help at all to the industry as to what will be the agreed criteria for applications with regard to the assessment. Do we go on the past record of the industry participant? Do we go on the financial stability of the successful or would-be successful applicant? Do we take it as we would wish to in most of these cases that the contribution to the local and regional economy will be taken into account in the final application? Those are all very important matters that will guide the future of this industry and there has not been one word at all in the body of opinion sought from the Ministry of Fisheries. The ministry has been silent. 
We come to the time when a mini-bill has been flipped into the House at late notice without any certainty about the future at all for an industry that has the capacity with regard to oysters. From a hectare block of well-grown oysters one should be able to produce about 6700 dozen oysters per year. The return to the oyster growers would be about $20000 per hectare. The indirect return—the off-site return—would be about $17500. The return on mussels is almost the same. It has a huge potential. In a small region like Northland at the present time we have roughly 700 hectares in aquaculture. We could with correct planning have upwards of 20000 hectares available as from the date that this bill ceases to have any impact. That is the size of the industry. That is the potential. That is the opportunity. There are the jobs. There is no doubt that in many of our rural districts this is a unique opportunity either for direct or joint venture or for other ways to get into a long-term profitable and sustainable industry. 
The last thing in that regard is that there has been adequate time for regional councils to have done their work. There has been adequate time for them to have met with their communities. In this country as members know we have a long-term direct link with the coast the beach the sand and the salt spray. That has all been part of our past it is part of our present and will be part of our future. The marine farming industry would not wish to disturb that long-held belief and the activity that is part of the coast and the sea. The marine farming industry wants to have an opportunity. It wants to be part of an income-earning capacity that is known and that is just beginning to emerge. But the moratorium is a step in the development being canned. 
The last thing with regard to the industry though is this. Why did the Government ever impose a national moratorium? Why did the Government not work with those areas that were known to have marine farming potential? Why did parts of Otago and Southland which will never be involved have the same universal and national stance imposed upon them? It was very wrong indeed. 
Pita Paraone 
: It was dumb! 
JIM PETERS 
: It was a very dumb decision. It was unneeded. What the Government should have done instead is worked with those areas that were potentially known and had development—worked with them with regard to the marine farming issues that I have outlined particularly the ones with regard to marine farming rights and tendering. The New Zealand First view would be that we should foster and encourage those. We could have had the situation today where on 30 March or 1 April 2004 marine farming applications could begin to be processed. Members of the House will not be aware of the intense pressure that will come ahead because this moratorium bill is not wanted and not needed. It will only impose a long-term impasse upon what could be high income and high development. New Zealand First opposes the bill absolutely. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.