Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11740] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night and again now I just wondered what a Carroll a Ngata or a Buck—all of the same persuasion of a party on my right—or a Ben Couch a Duncan MacIntyre or other Ministers of Maori Affairs in past National Party administrations would think of present-day members talking about “dirty deals” for Maori a “space-for-race” deal and last night “throwing a bone at Maori”. Again I ask my National Party friends where they are really going because if they are people seeking an answer for David Carter and others from the far reaches of Canterbury there is an answer and it is the New Zealand First answer. With regard to the issues of the seabed and foreshore upon which aquaculture is placed we stated in June last year that this party stands for Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore with customary use yesterday today and for the future. 
When that party over there comes to accept the reality of that position and this party over here realises that that is the only answer then and only then will the aquaculture reforms which were so bravely announced in 2000 be really advanced. The sooner this House comes to that understanding the better because the real issue in the House with regard to aquaculture is not the Maori issue. It is really the inability the unwillingness or the ill-preparedness of the Government with regard to aquaculture. 
Let me refresh the Government’s mind about the brave new thinking of 2000 when Minister Hodgson released a discussion document describing “an important step in aquaculture.” He said: “I have no doubt that much of the growth in the fisheries sector will flow from investment in aquaculture in the innovative use of resources and new technology. I am encouraging further development along these lines because it will benefit the entire economy particularly regional economies in which I have a special interest. The Government is committed to sustainable development of our natural resources by ensuring that economic environmental and social interests are considered together and not separately.” 
Then he went on to talk about the ocean policy. Where is that? He said: “In terms of aquaculture there is a need for Government to provide a legal framework that can support sustainable development without undermining the rights of other fishers or allowing undue adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.” Those were brave words in October 2000. It was a brave Minister setting out in bold graphic terms the overall purpose and challenge identified by the Government. Where are we in 2004? We are here discussing the inability of the present Government to get on with the job. Over and over again and one by one submitters expressed that point of view to Government members in the Primary Production Committee. 
The purpose of the first moratorium—so-called—was to provide time for aquaculture reform to take place and for local authorities both regional and unitary councils to make aquaculture plans leading on to plan variation and plan changes. Finally and accordingly its purpose was to allow resource consents to be advanced with certainty as to what the reform process meant and advanced with certainty as to the zone areas able to be farmed. That was the intention of the first moratorium. I have to say that as far as the Minister of Fisheries is concerned he would not know whether that status is there now. After hearing his ministerial statement I have some doubts whether he really understands the ramifications of the bill before us. 
Submitters came to the select committee very concerned about the delay. They were particularly disappointed with the low flow of information from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation. One particular submitter—Cullum McCallum from the Auckland region—said that effectively an 18-year moratorium was already there. We know that and I mentioned it yesterday in the Committee. As far as they were concerned that was but another added distraction to be unwillingly considered. 
That submitter and others were particularly concerned about the viability of the present development—an issue that had been raised by other members in the House. There was the matter of justice for the present permit-holder who had developed an aquaculture consent. If that person or those persons or those companies should be subject to competitive tender in the future then what was their future in the new zones that were set out? 
Another submitter—a large one from the South Island—raised the issue of the cost of significant investments and the need for clarity and certainty about that. The Minister for Small Business over there should know exactly what that is about and he should be doing his part to ensure there is clarity for small businesses and other businesses. 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s making big businesses smaller. He’s doing a good job. 
JIM PETERS 
: Yes far better than going around and having some fuzzy-wuzzy talks he should get down to practical action and see what can be done. 
There has been concern particularly from regional councils about the lack of fisheries information from the Ministry of Fisheries. They are concerned that there appears to be inadequate research. Most of all I am personally concerned about the inactive role of the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation—a role that is an essential core component of any fishing permit. 
I quote from a recent resource consent for Pegasus Bay where a most surprising and unique theme was advanced by the Department of Conservation. At that hearing a departmental officer said that because there was no information about the site the application should be declined and she spoke at some length on that. It was a very circular argument because it meant that no farm can be established in an area where farms were absent because the adverse effects of farming cannot be adequately assessed. If that is the attitude of the Department of Conservation with regard to that consent there must be genuine fears in this House about its role in the future. 
My concern about the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation is that despite what has been said by Mr Heatley at least one regional council in this country took the Minister at his word at the very beginning of the so-called moratorium. The Northland Regional Council understood—and I will say again that the third round of consultation is taking place right now—that the disturbance in relation to the local coastal community over the siting of any marine farm was likely to be great. Therefore the greater the degree of understanding and the greater the amount of information about the impacts the better for our community. 
Despite what has been said in the House that is another reason for New Zealand First to support this bill. This bill enables an enterprising and ongoing regional council that has met the conditions of the aquaculture management areas and defined them to have use of an early expiry of the date set down in the bill. I think that only one or two councils are in that position. 
To conclude we have a very unusual situation. First we have been promised three times in the House that at the end of the moratorium there will be the ability to make further progress on aquaculture. There is no feeling around the traps that that optimism will be sustained yet out there is an industry willing and able to go. The world demands for this industry are so great. The $220 million that was returned for mussels alone last year could be doubled and tripled with ease over the next decade. 
It is most important for places like Northland the East Coast and the West Coast that the deep-ocean technologies allow that money to be earned now and it should be. Last year  
The Economist 
 spoke about marine farming as the “new food harvest of the future”. Last week marine farms were referred to in Northland as the “orchards of the ocean”. That potential income and those jobs can be realised and a long-term sustainable sensitive industry developed but they need that Minister who has just spoken recently and his Government to realise that that development should take place from 1 January 2005.