Carter David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10625] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Following on from that contribution from Steve Chadwick I wonder whether she would also like to take the opportunity to explain why on 31 March this year Mr Pete Hodgson said: “The Government has no wish to extend the moratorium on consideration of new resource consent application for aquaculture which expires in March 2004.” He went on to say: “We still intend to ensure the aquaculture reform legislation is introduced and considered by Parliament by then.” Pete Hodgson had one of those years from hell. He was the great strategist of the Labour Party who undertook to make sure aquaculture reform legislation was presented to the House. He struck a first problem so did the easy thing and imposed the moratorium guaranteeing to Parliament and to the industry that under no circumstances would it be extended beyond March 2004. Here we are in December 4 months before the expiry and all of a sudden we are rushing through further legislation in the name of Marian Hobbs to extend the moratorium and consequently constrain the potential of one of those really interesting industries of New Zealand. So it is no surprise to me that Mr Hodgson has not yet taken a call on this legislation because he is as embarrassed by it as he was over the flatulence tax issue— 
David Benson-Pope 
: He’s also in Italy. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is so scared to present the legislation that he jumps on a plane to Italy thinking that that will be an excuse for not having to justify the extension of the moratorium. I bet while he is in Italy he will be talking about climate change. The other big embarrassment for Pete Hodgson is that he guaranteed there would be no “fart tax”. Mr Benson-Pope did not remember this. Mr Hodgson guaranteed there would be none and then imposed the “fart tax”. Farmers got up in arms. He guaranteed there would not be a back-down said something in Parliament to the effect that there might be a back-up. Well a couple of weeks later after Shane Ardern took his tractor up the steps of Parliament—dear old Myrtle—there was Mr Pete Hodgson again backing down on that just as he is backing down tonight on his guarantee to the industry not to extend the moratorium. 
Mr Benson-Pope the senior Government whip would be better to stop interjecting with inane comments that Mr Hodgson is on important public business in Milan as he tries to convince the Russian Prime Minister that he should rethink his commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. 
Without doubt the National Party will oppose this legislation and we will do it for two reasons. The first is the issue I have just been talking about. We expected the country to believe Mr Hodgson when he stood in Parliament and in front of the industry on a number of occasions and said: “Read my lips. Legislation will not be required to extend the moratorium.” So we know how good the word of Mr Pete Hodgson is! The second reason that the National Party stands here tonight to oppose this legislation is that— 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s stupid. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I could not agree more; this is very stupid legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] They will be whipping down shortly and asking him to shut up. 
The second reason is that this Government has on a number of occasions stood in the House and said it seriously wants to address the potential decline of New Zealand’s ranking within the OECD. The economic growth rate of New Zealand is not satisfactory. The Government talked about getting us back into the top half of the OECD by 2011 and when that got a little bit difficult it forgot there was a target. Helen Clark said that no she had just signed a piece of paper but had not read the context. In actual fact there was no target date of 2011. 
What I say is that this country has no chance at all of getting itself back into the top half of the OECD growth rankings if it continues to stifle an industry as important as aquaculture. What I hope Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have learnt after the imposition of this moratorium is that moratoriums are the easiest things in the world to impose. If one cannot see a solution to a problem then rush down into the House and put on a moratorium—as the Government did with genetic engineering and as it has done with aquaculture—and then think about how to get out of the moratorium. 
That is where the Government has got itself into a bind. It has found it is a little harder to settle this issue—made harder by itself—because it has confused it with the seabed and foreshore ownership issues which again Helen Clark rushed down into this House and said she would solve instantly by introducing legislation. That was months ago. As we embark on our Christmas holidays in the not-too-distant future now we have threats from Maori saying they are going to occupy the beaches and protest when people use the beaches. That is the reason Mr Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have not been able to find a solution to the aquaculture issues. That is the reason we have this bill placed before us today extending the moratorium until at least the end of the next calendar year. The point I want to make justifying why nobody should support a moratorium is about the potential that this industry has. It is a $260 million export industry with huge potential to increase that with aquaculture sites many many of which are available in the Marlborough Sounds for example—an area I know very well but which is unable to make progress because this Government has slapped a moratorium on permanent applications. 
I listened with interest to United Future which made the comment that would-be investors might be tempted to go off shore. Well I can tell the United Future party tonight that I have spoken to investors who have made the decision to go off shore; they had money they wanted to invest in the New Zealand aquaculture industry but the Government said they could not and that it was slapping on a moratorium. Those people have taken their money and gone off shore and invested in aquaculture out of New Zealand. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s off shore. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: David Benson-Pope laughs and says aquaculture is off shore. Well if he thinks that is funny I do not. I am more worried about creating wealth in New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks it is good to pass legislation that chases our investors off shore that is his opinion but it is not mine. We have an industry that has come before Parliament has come to the Government and said: “Give us the chance and we could quadruple this industry in a matter of a decade.” They say it could be a billion-dollar industry and all they need is the legislative framework to get on and do the job. But no this Government is so anti-business so anti - wealth creation that here 9 months after a solemn promise from the Minister of Fisheries that he would not extend the moratorium we are back in Parliament debating the issue again extending the moratorium until the end of next year. 
The Government has got this issue wrong. The Government should solve the issue around aquaculture. It should realise the potential it has for growth creation. It should solve the seabed issue and do it with the gumption that the Prime Minister showed when the issue first arose when she said: “We’ll change the law. We’ll clarify this issue.” But she has gone to ground ever since. The real reason we are here extending this legislation is that the Government has not resolved the foreshore and seabed issue.