Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3986] 
9.  
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is it fair for his Ministry to threaten Waikare Inlet oyster farmers with lease forfeiture saying “if they are serious about farming … they need to fix things up and get on with it” when the possible pollution sources in the Inlet still exist and are outside the farmers’ control? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes it is both fair and appropriate for the ministry to require Waikare Inlet oyster farmers to meet the terms and conditions of their leases over public space. As the member knows the official whose words he quotes also said that the farmers’ breaches of their lease conditions were “relatively straightforward”. If those farmers rejoined the sanitation programme and paid some rather modest bills they could do what eight other oyster farmers in the Waikare Inlet are already doing and go back into production. 
Phil Heatley 
: Going by the Minister’s default notice is he still intent on adding insult to injury by first taking away the livelihood of the oyster farmers through forfeiture then on top of that making them pay $2.5 million to clean up the Waikare Inlet—a mess originally caused by someone else’s pollution? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a shame that the member has not chosen to work with other parties in this dispute—as has for example the member for Northland or the member for Te Tai Tokerau—and has instead decided to join a rather illogical grandstand. Here are the facts: the outstanding debts to the health authorities across all 17 farms are $7000—not $7000 each; $7000 in total. In addition if a further $6500 or $7000 were paid those farmers could rejoin the sanitation programme until the end of the year. Instead of doing that and going back into production—either directly or by relaying—they have chosen to go to court. The answer to the question is that the farmers ought to consider afresh rejoining a solution instead of perpetuating a problem. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What progress has been made in addressing the water quality issues in the Waikare Inlet? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the Far North District Council and the Northland Regional Council have made valuable progress in addressing the potential pollution sources that were identified last year. That includes the installation of filters on septic tanks in the area the commissioning of an upgrade to the Kawakawa sewage treatment plant and steps to improve the control and monitoring of sewage discharges from boats. That is why some of the farmers in the Waikare Inlet are back in production now. 
Jim Peters 
: Could the Minister please clarify for us how many oyster farmers were notified that their leases were not meeting the conditions of their lease and how many others in the Waikare Inlet are farming and trading in oysters now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From memory the answer to the member’s first question is 17 and the answer to his second question is eight. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister talked with his colleague the Minister of Local Government and of Conservation about why regional coastal plans have for a long time not succeeded in protecting water quality adequately; and when the oceans strategy is developed does he intend that it will deal better with the land-water interface? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No and the reason is that the law itself seems not to be at issue. What seems to be at issue is its implementation from case to case. I do not want to point too many fingers here but I would say that the Waikare Inlet oyster event has brought home to a number of local authorities some home truths that they had not earlier considered. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will that Minister force the 20 farmers to sacrifice their family homes to meet his lease obligations; if so will he do anything to help them besides taking away their livelihoods threatening forfeiture and making them pay $2.5 million to clean out someone else’s mess or is the Minister completely heartless? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister can answer the first two questions. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My officials held off for months and months trying to negotiate a solution. Some weeks ago they gave notice of their intention to require forfeiture. In order to stop that notice from reaching its logical conclusion the 17 farmers need to rejoin a sanitation programme and some of them— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is blackmail. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well they cannot sell their oysters unless the oysters are known to be healthy. That is why it is not blackmail. That is why there must be a sanitation programme—and while we are at it some of them have to put their signs back up. The question is whether anything will happen now that the sword of Damocles is hanging over that industry. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table some documents: written question 13362 from the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table written question— 
Phil Heatley 
: I have not said what it is about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well leave is sought to table a written question. Is there any objection? 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is official identification of a written question. Leave is sought to table a written question. That is quite satisfactory. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the “long years” that I have been in this House I have noticed that when members seek to table documents of habit they give the date the name of the document—in fact they are required to do it—and a rough general outline of the contents of the document. I never got any of that out and I am most disturbed. I would like to resubmit it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this particular occasion—[ 
Interruption 
]—I do not want my good humour altered at this moment—I will let the member say just a little bit more but he must be brief. 
Phil Heatley 
: I will be brief. I seek leave to table a written question from the Minister conceding that the source of the pollution could be from anyone but the oyster farmers— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member should read it out accurately. It cannot be a written question from the Minister; I assume it is to the Minister as it is the answer that the member is trying to table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume it is the answer that the member is trying to table. 
Phil Heatley 
: If it will satisfy the smart alec that is fine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Phil Heatley 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Good idea. Thank you. Leave is sought to table that answer. Is there any objection? There is objection. Carry on. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a second document of 13 January—a default notice from the ministry served on 20 oyster farmers saying: “Shape up ship out and pay $2.5 million.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a most important question involved here—that is when one seeks leave to table something the description has to be accurate. I suggest that the member is putting himself in some peril if that document does not say: “Shape up ship out and pay $2.5 million.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I think it would be much safer for the member to seek to table the default summons and leave it at that particular point. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document of 12 February a report in the  
Independent 
 which accurately says: “Get serious about farming … fix these things up and get on with it.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.