Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15125] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has maintained a very firm position since 2002 that it is very unfortunate that this bill the Marine Reserves Bill and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have come to the House without New Zealand’s oceans policy first being completed. This disconnected approach to our marine space is most regrettable. 
New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Primary Production Committee for one major reason and that is that anyone who has an understanding of the industry’s needs and demands at the present time would know that the last thing we can afford in this country is to have yet further delay. This party vigorously opposed the first moratorium and the second moratorium and we certainly would not wish further delay on the industry and on those regional councils that went ahead took Minister Hodgson at his word and developed aquaculture management areas to a point where action is taking place and could take place tomorrow. Further delay is the last thing we would want so to that degree New Zealand First is prepared to support the bill going to the Primary Production Committee. We await with interest the considerations that will come from those who are interested in the bill and we will see what comes out of the select committee. 
I would hope that in so doing the chairperson of that committee exercises an impartial and objective viewpoint throughout the whole of those hearings. What I have heard in the House just recently suggests a prejudiced mind about some issues in the bill before the hearings commence. On behalf of New Zealand First I caution that we are looking for an open objective debate about the issues that pertain to the bill and not a debate about prejudice past and present. 
New Zealand First is pleased that the bill clarifies the issue—as has been clarified in other places in the seabed and foreshore debate—of whether under New Zealand common law the foreshore and seabed are generally held to be under the Crown. In practice we know that the coastal marine area is generally perceived as public space with private occupation. At this time I assert again on behalf of New Zealand First as has already been stated by a previous member of the House that that use is a privilege rather than a right. 
Having said that I point out that we are very pleased to see that the Minister has taken into account the industry’s concerns with regard to existing use in that this bill recognises that the coastal marine area has obviously been used and developed not just in recent years but over hundreds of years. When we start to look at the Maori component of this bill as we in New Zealand First have done carefully we see that the hundreds of years of use of our marine space is a highly relevant matter to consider and I hope the submitters come with that in mind. Last Saturday I was at a meeting at oakura with regard to a proposed marine reserve and there was a very large gathering of coastal folk. One of the elders went back into the history of that district—not just this century not just last century but over several centuries—and detailed carefully for people who wished to hear how Maori had used that coast. In that proposal the Department of Conservation has very rapacious hands with regard to the proposed marine reserve. The point I want to leave with the House is that there are people who for generations past have used this marine space and have knowledge of it. To say that there should be no recognition of that in the bill is a step that the select committee will have to think about very very carefully. 
 We are pleased to see that the bill recognises the industry’s recognition of this phase-in period. The bill recognises that to the end of the present permit there is certainty. It also recognises that provided the present permit-holder seeking a new consent is able to show—and I hope that the committee makes this very firm—compliance with the conditions of the permit and provided that sound current industry-good practice is being observed by the permit-holder that person is given a prior right to occupy that space for a future consent term. As we know most of these consents are for 35 years and I hope that issue will be advanced as the consent term. Our party believes that if there is near-security for the present permit-holders provided that they have complied with a new consent then that is about all that even a 50-hectare consent-owner can reasonably expect as a right. I go back to my first principle which is that the use of this space is a privilege not a right. We are very pleased to see that the bill has recognised that point. 
Secondly we are very pleased to see recognition of the fact that this industry has a chequered legislative history that goes back in time to the early days of the 1960s up to the Marine Farming Act of 1971. As the Minister of Fisheries is here I want to address one problem to him that is not so obvious in the bill. All of the earlier permit-holders were granted permits by first of all the Ministry of Transport in some prehistoric day then by the Minister of Fisheries and in many of our regions there is a state of devastation and ill-care with regard to many of those consents. It is of very grave concern to us in the regions as to who will now be responsible for the clean-up of what were Government-directed consents or permits. I do not see any provision for that in the bill. While we in New Zealand First are very pleased to see that the ratepayer will not be burdened by extensive costly and lengthy plan changes and that there is provision for the industry or for individual would-be consent-holders to pursue their own plan changes at their own cost—and we in Northland are very pleased to see that—there should also be some recognition that if the regional councils in particular implement those final plan changes they will do so at some cost. As many of the regions have completed or are near the end of producing their coastal plans that will be an added impost upon the ratepayer for little personal benefit. Therefore I come to the issue—which is also in the bill—of some of the benefits with regard to the tendering and allocation of space. It may be that some further thought should be given to a more generous distribution initially to meet the cost of clean-up and the cost of the period of transition. That is not directly addressed in the bill and I hope the Minister has some awareness of it. 
My having said that we all know the importance of marine farming to our economy. Northland has the longest coastline of any region in this country and we are very much aware of the value of and the potential for marine farming. We have been very concerned about dual issues in the past. We are very concerned that with relatively large areas of coastal space now required for modern economic marine farming there is a consequent need to have those farms located constructed and managed so as to avoid and remedy any of the adverse environmental impacts that can and do occur. We are concerned that the bill provide for that. 
Last of all we in New Zealand First having observed many Maori marine farmers from the North Cape to the Bluff manage by their own efforts over several decades and at great personal cost to themselves and their families to put together viable farming enterprises do not believe that for some strange reason some group in Wellington—I think it is called Te Ohu Kai Moana—which is the inheritor of the Maori Fisheries Commission traditions should now have the allocation of Maori space should the bill deem that to be so. We strongly resent there being the same sort of process that Maori fisheries has had to undergo over the last 11 years. We very much hope the select committee will ensure that that Wellington-placed body which has neither the knowledge nor the ability successfully to implement this allocation as from 1 January 2005 does not have that role. Therefore to that degree we see that particular part of the bill as being one requiring change. 
We thank the Minister for getting the bill to this stage. We believe that the industry is ready to go. I know that some regions are ready to go. For that reason not to proceed with the bill would be an economic injustice. We support this bill going to the select committee.