Mackey Janet: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Janet: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11599] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 The million-dollar question here is obviously: what would the National Party do if it were in Government? We are hearing that it would continue with the same ad hoc approach to the issuing of consents for aquaculture in New Zealand. We have seen the consequences of that. The whole industry—and the whole of New Zealand—is not asking that we continue with that regime. In the submissions that were received by the Primary Production Committee most of the submitters supported the extension of the moratorium. They all said that it was important that we proceed and apply some haste to that process. Instead of the moratorium ending in March it is to be extended to December. It is a short extension to allow regional councils the opportunity to prepare their coastal plans and to allow us to create some organisation in an industry that at the present time is ad hoc and not managed well. The industry recognises the need for this legislation. Most of the submissions supported a short extension of the moratorium and the Government is very confident it is dealing with the matter in an appropriate way. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill which is before the House for the second time in recent months comes at a crucial juncture in the regulating of aquaculture in New Zealand. But lest we think that is a recent occurrence I can tell the House that the paper that first set out future proposals for the industry was written in 1989. A discussion paper was put out at the same time. Throughout the 1990s under the previous administration—which is no longer giving support to this moratorium—those proposals foundered. They were passed on and passed on. In other words there was delay after delay. The industry and the people who really know about fishing have been long long concerned about that. When I took the opinion of my learned friend Mr Doug Woolerton who sat on the Primary Production Committee and heard the substantial submissions made in support of the moratorium reluctantly I had to agree with him that New Zealand First should support this bill. Reluctantly we came to the opinion that it required support because of the delay in addressing previous proposals and also for another reason. We have Ministers of integrity. Earlier this year when I asked the former Minister of Fisheries Mr Hodgson he categorically assured me in the House that this moratorium would cease on 31 December 2004. So one waits in wonder for that. 
Let me go back to the more recent history of the industry. In August 2000 the current process began and the comment was made that aquaculture could make a greater contribution to the economy if the legislative framework under which the activity operates was updated. That was August 2000. It was said that—and how true it is—the challenge identified by the Government was to update the legislative framework for aquaculture so as to provide more certainty to all the participants. It was said the framework should enable the greatest benefit to be obtained from the use of coastal space without undermining the rights of existing fishers or allowing an undue adverse impact on the aquatic environment. That was August 2000. Then in July 2000 at a mussel industry conference the Minister said that the chances of enacting legislation by March of this year were less than certain but he still felt they were favourable. He advised that the extension in the moratorium would be required. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Come on! Be positive. 
JIM PETERS 
: He advised the Hon Dover Samuels an ex-fisher that the extension would be measured in months not years. No less than 5 months later there was a bill before us to extend the moratorium by 9 months. 
Now we have the Hon David Benson-Pope a very very new Minister who is inexperienced in these matters speaking with some confidence—one may say over-weaning confidence—and saying that more clarity is needed around the outcomes given the implications of the foreshore and seabed issue and that regional councils need more time to develop aquaculture management. First I say to the Minister who read that statement out that the latter part is just not true. Regional councils if they require more time to develop their management of aquaculture are solely awaiting the pleasure and thinking of this Government and this Minister. They waited all last year for that. Regional councils believed the Government’s thinking would be clarified some time last year—it has not been—they are still awaiting the final outcomes of that process. 
What did we have in mind when we first faced the moratorium? Some of us who were not in the House at that time have had a look at marine farming. We were told there would be a changed interface between the Resource Management Act and the fisheries legislation so the regional councils would have all the ability that they required to consider all the environmental effects of aquaculture including the impact that aquaculture has on the aquatic environment and on the use of fisheries resources. Regional councils were told there would be a single permit-approval system that would operate under the Resource Management Act. They were told that aquaculture management areas which were marine farming zone areas should be set in place and that they and they alone were the areas where marine farming could take place. Regional councils were told that the Government of the day would provide them with additional rule-making powers to deal with the competition for coastal space. They were told there would be some guidance given with regard to how coastal space could be allocated to single space-holders to competitive space-holders or to a range of space-holders. All those issues were being advanced and talked about last year. 
Then the regional councils the ministry of the day and other bodies came to the very interesting concept of how to decide the tendering process. The Minister may learn some things if he listens carefully to me. How were the regional councils to go through the tendering process? That is a very interesting concept. Would space go to the highest bidder? Could multiple owners put their hands up together in the tendering process? Would there be any priority for those who lived in the region or for iwi? All those matters that were talked about last year are still waiting for further clarification and a decision. 
Lastly and this is very important in the minds of the industry there was the question of what system would be set in place to take out the existing farm permits that were already there for aquaculture. Marine farms had been operating under the old Act of 1983 administered by the Ministry of Fisheries and instead were to operate under the present Act. That brings me to a very important matter that the members from Northland are very well aware of: the rights of existing permit-holders. The answer is that those people will be told that in the future. If those permits are to be transferred what regime are they to be transferred into and what type of permit will they be? What certainty is there for existing permit-holders with regard to both the 1983 Act and the Act of 1996? All those matters were being given ample consideration during last year and the previous year. Throughout that time the Minister of the day and the Ministry for the Environment as well were giving some belief to people out there that those matters would be known. I suggest to the Minister that at this point of time he does not have one clear definitive answer to give on any of those issues—not one—and he should have. 
We support this bill in the full knowledge that this moratorium should cease on 1 January 2005. Why should that be so? Out there is an industry that has long awaited resolution of these matters and it is an industry that has already in the last decade—particularly in the last 5 years—had a huge expansion in the demand for its product especially for mussels. The industry could have done much more than it has and it could bring much more to our local and regional economies yet it is being denied the right to do so by ministry and Government inaction. That is an urgent issue for those who are involved in aquaculture. In Northland as the Hon Dover Samuels knows much work has been done with regard to setting out in the community the spaces that should be allocated for marine farming. That process has not been without concern being expressed by those who arrive with the latest house or bach in the area and who do not understand or appreciate the effect a farm 3 miles off the coast can have. Those people do not appreciate the methods that are inherent in modern aquaculture and do not appreciate that it is not like the fish farms of the past—the type of European experiences—which we would have real concerns about. Instead modern marine farms can be productive and environmentally sustainable and are a very very sound use of our marine water space. Most of all aquaculture provides opportunities for the rural economy to get real productive benefit real income and real long-term gain especially for Maori who are contemplating getting money from the Fisheries Commission. 
I hope the Government takes very seriously the whole concern that is felt and the infrastructure that is needed in legislative form to make this industry operate in 2005. I am not altogether heartened by the fact that the Ministry for the Environment is right now advertising for people. That indicates to me that nothing has yet been done on its behalf given that it is advertising for 10 people for a marine-farming sector group of interest. Marine farming can and should operate. It operates with planning and with community goodwill and it operates because there is out there the ability to generate real income. New Zealand First supports the absolute ending of the moratorium on 31 December 2004.