Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11653] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I tabled amendments to Part 1 earlier and I had the opportunity to speak and I appreciate that on two of them. I would now like to address the other three. I am particularly addressing clause 3. In clause 3(a) the purpose of the bill is: “to extend to 31 December 2004 the moratorium on the granting of coastal permits for aquaculture activities;”. I would replace that date with 1 April 2004. If the Government insists—if it really must if it is desperate to do it if it really wants to steamroller the aquaculture industry put on the handbrakes and do everything else to ankle tap the industry—it should extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004. 
My reasoning is simple. There is a new Minister of Fisheries who barely understands the issues but I am sure that in the next couple of weeks he is quite able—if he sits down and concentrates only on this fisheries issue—to get his brain around everything affecting aquaculturists at the moment. So I think 1 April 2004 is the extension that the National Party is willing to live with but that is it—and certainly we would not be supporting any further extension. 
Also in Part 1 clause 3 there are a number of purpose propositions in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) after the words: “The purpose of this Act is—”. I have two more. It does not say it in the legislation at the moment but I think it should include new paragraph (d): “to provide the Government with further time to resolve the seabed and foreshore policies;”. 
I found it interesting when the first moratorium bill was introduced a few years ago that every single Maori group that came to the Primary Production Committee opposed the moratorium. There were 143 submissions in all and a fair proportion of them were from Maori. They opposed it at that time. They said that the moratorium had a negative impact on Maori development—and nothing has changed. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is. They said that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—clearly there still are in their view. Nothing has changed. There had been a lack of consultation by the Crown—there still is. The Government has not resolved the seabed and foreshore issue and that is partly what this bill is all about. 
I propose another amendment to the purpose clause. In new paragraph (e) the purpose of the Act is: “to provide regional councils further time to collate and understand information for designating aquaculture management areas.” That extra time is essential given that regional councils have told us this. 
I tabled papers in Parliament last year from the Taranaki Regional Council and Local Government New Zealand stating that all regional councils have been struggling to develop aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries and that there are also gaps in that information. It is inadequate. In other words the regional councils are saying they want to map out aquaculture management areas but the Ministry of Fisheries is not giving them any information and the information it does give them is inadequate. There has been no information sharing and when the ministry has been coerced to share information it has been inadequate. On the whole regional councils have not been given a chance to succeed. 
I believe that the Minister in the chair should be honest and say that this moratorium has been put in place—and it does not currently say it in the purpose clause—for two reasons. They are to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue—and the Government thinks it will do it in 9 months—and to provide regional councils with enough time.