Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10617] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you will recall that we opposed this moratorium when it came in 2 years ago. I want it on the record that the National Party opposes it now. It is with some irony that the Government puts up the Minister of Maori Affairs to introduce this bill to extend the moratorium. Clearly he never read the commentary on the bill for the original moratorium that went before us 2 years ago. Had he read it he would know that the commentary says that we received 143 submissions—how many? 
John Carter 
: 143. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: All Maori groups opposed aspects of this bill. The following key issues were raised by Maori when it came to the moratorium in 2001. They said it had negative impacts on Maori development—and I ask what has changed? It still has negative impacts on Maori development. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is of concern. Maori said back then that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—there still are so what has changed? They opposed the moratorium then and I assume they oppose it now. Maori said there had been a lack of consultation by the Crown when the moratorium came in and I assume that is the case now. So I ask why the Minister of Maori Affairs has so much confidence bringing this bill—an extension of that very moratorium—into the House today. Is he out there batting for his people? Does he know what they believe in or does he not? 
The aquaculture industry is a multimillion-dollar industry. It benefits Maori who are involved in it it benefits all New Zealanders who are involved in it and it benefits the wider economy. I am led to believe by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council that with managed expansion this industry could achieve export earnings of $1 billion by 2020 through 17000 hectares of aquaculture farms—just 17000 hectares which is not a lot considering the water space available to New Zealanders. 
The Aquaculture Council says that these forecasts are dependent on this one assumption: that new legislation put up by this Government would be enabling and that there would not be undue delays in developing coastal plans. All we have seen from this Government are undue delays. It has put in place a moratorium of 2 years to enable it to get its act together and another 9-month moratorium extension. 
Here is a question that was put to the Minister in March 2003: “Given that the Government’s moratorium is due to end on 31 March 2004 is the Minister able to confirm that the moratorium will absolutely end on that date?” Who asked that question? 
John Carter 
: Who did? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Jim Peters asked that question. He asked in March whether the moratorium would absolutely end on that date. What was Pete Hodgson’s answer to Jim Peters? 
Jim Peters 
: Yes! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes it will absolutely end on that date. That is why Minister Hodgson is not fronting this bill today in the House of Representatives because he said yes and the Minister of Maori Affairs said no. 
The Government would have us believe that the foreshore and seabed issue is the sole reason that it has to extend this moratorium. That is what it said in the House last week and that is what the Minister of Maori Affairs says now. I have a document leaked by Local Government New Zealand that clearly puts the blame on the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister because regional councils have not been able to cope with aquaculture development in their areas through the course of this moratorium. 
Here is the story of three people. Last week the Minister was asked in the House why he had not delivered the promised legislative framework for aquaculture and why it was necessary to extend the moratorium. This is what the Minister said: “It is important to ensure that the proposed aquaculture law reforms are consistent with the resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue.” This is what I asked in the House last week: “Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has been helpful to regional councils in planning the future of marine farming and that the moratorium was not extended simply because councils have no faith in the Ministry of Fisheries?”. This is what the Minister said: “I offer that assurance. It is due to the seabed issue not because regional councils have concerns.” Yet this report by Local Government New Zealand states: “There are considerable uncertainties surrounding the shape and detail of the new aquaculture regime and this has caused almost all regional councils to put their planning of aquaculture on the backburner. They want more clarity; there is considerable uncertainty. Additionally regional councils believe that the delays in transition to the proposed aquaculture regime will be compounded by fundamental weaknesses in the Government’s proposed model.” That is what regional councils said and that is what the Minister told us in the House—clearly someone is not telling it straight. 
Last week in the House I asked: “Can the Minister confirm that the moratorium was extended not because of the seabed and foreshore fiasco but because regional councils throughout New Zealand have consistently told him they have no faith in the draft aquaculture reform legislation that the Ministry of Fisheries has been unhelpful and that consequently they have had to put all of their aquaculture planning on hold? Can he confirm that the complication is not just with seabed foreshore and Maori but with regional councils?” The Minister denied it. He said: “No I certainly cannot confirm that.” He said it was all about the seabed and foreshore. 
I turn to the document written by Local Government New Zealand. The Minister of Maori Affairs should sit up stop slouching and listen because this is what regional councils say. They say that the weakness in the Government’s plans is the inability to designate aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries being shared with them along with the apparent gaps in and the inadequacies of that information. Regional councils have been flying blind. The Government demanded that regional councils plan for aquaculture over the last 2 years. Local Government New Zealand says the Ministry of Fisheries has not shared essential fisheries and planning information. Further what information it does hold is entirely inadequate. 
Local Government New Zealand says that little progress has been made under this 2-year moratorium. Most regional councils have put planning on hold. They are afraid that they will look to allocate space with no direction from the Government that the Government will give space to Maori without informing them how much space will be given to Maori how it will allocate it to Maori how Maori will pay for that space—if they pay for it—and how that affects aquaculturists currently in the industry. 
I put this issue to the House: regional councils have been flying blind. The Government should front up and admit that this moratorium is because it is not working closely with and helping regional councils throughout this country.