Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11666] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I wonder what level of intellectual debate we can have in this House and in this country in 2004 when a member of the party on my right can say: “What bone are you throwing Maori?”. The member for Whangarei—Northland—of all places with a 35 to 40 percent Maori population should never ever descend to that level here or elsewhere in serious debate on those matters. I tell that member that I personally find it offensive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member sit down. I just say to the member on my left that interjections of back-bench members on each other are totally out of order. I am asking members to recognise that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have been crafted from well over 100 years of parliamentary democracy in this country. If members interject on members while they are in very close proximity it muffles the microphone. I would urge members to use restraint and to offer courtesy to other members. What goes around comes around. 
JIM PETERS 
: I have aired the matter sufficiently and I look to the member to think intensely about what he said. We have come to the end of the debate with regard to the title issues. I merely want to say very quickly to the Minister that the issues we have raised and our reluctant agreement to this extension are absolute. As has already been stated by the previous speaker moratoriums have been in existence in the industry since 1992. Some regional moratoriums are still in existence. So this moratorium for a further extension nationally is not unusual. However the Aquaculture Council and other bodies came to the select committee and said absolutely that this matter should have come to an end. 
In particular they had regard to the fact that the Minister’s Government said in 2000 with regard to the title that the greatest possible benefit could be obtained from the coastal space and should be so “without undermining the rights of existing fishers or allowing undue adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.” We will reach that desirable state in the future only if the Minister turns his mind absolutely first of all to the initial issues that I have already outlined on behalf of New Zealand First—that is the need to have a firm understanding of the sustainability of the fisheries resource and the impacts on fishing not just on marine farming but other fishing impacts as well. 
That leads on to the need for development of the appropriate methodologies and mechanisms of which we heard precious little out in the wider world particularly at regional council level with special regard to space and tendering. 
Last of all until we have that the intrusive impact of what marine farming might mean upon the everyday harbour dweller and coastal dweller is not known. It ought to be known. There are multiple levels of certainty that need to be given to the industry. Therefore 1 January 2005 is the absolute date. If that is the end of the moratorium a far-sighted regional council such as the Northland Regional Council which has gone ahead and done its work aided by the thinking of the Minister and his ministry will then lead to the next stage that in itself will be of some length—namely the variations and changes in the regional coastal plan where we would in our case and in the case of other regional councils have to legally define the areas. Then in accordance with the framework of the Government how should that space be allocated in a regional sense and last of all how could their uses be monitored? So there is a vast area of work for the industry and for councils to work to in a not altogether understanding environment in regard to ratepayers and particularly those who have baches and houses on the coast. However there is a task to be done if this industry is to be maximised and potential for income and long-term employment is to be gained. With that we support the title clause. We support the speedy work of the bill with an absolute certainty of 31 December 2004.