Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11597] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to say that National certainly will not support the extension of the moratorium. We will not support an extension that effectively puts the handbrake on all aquaculture development in this country. The handbrake has been on for 2 years already. I remind the House that National opposed the original moratorium way back in 2002. It was discussed I remember at a select committee late in 2001 it was passed in 2002 and we are disgusted to see that after a moratorium of 2 years and 2 months no progress has been made. 
We pointed out at that time that the moratorium was something we needed to oppose. We would have had some sympathy for it if the Government had been going to put forward reforms and had made that clear to the general public to the regional councils and to aquaculturalists. The Government did not do that. In effect the 2-year moratorium resulted in regional councillors and aquaculturalists walking around in the dark not knowing what the Government’s plans for the industry were. Therefore they were unable to put into place aquaculture plans for their regions—and they still cannot. The current moratorium on coastal permit applications will expire on 25 March 2004—that is in a few weeks. This bill will extend it by 9 months to 31 December 2004. 
The moratorium I know does not affect land-based aquaculture but it affects everyone else and that accounts for about 98 percent of aquaculture in this country. We oppose the extension. The Government should get on with the job of making public the aquaculture reforms so that the regional councils are no longer flying in the dark when trying to develop aquaculture management areas. Although the Government says that the intention of the delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed debate the reality is that the regional councils need more time to establish aquaculture management areas. In fact only four regional councils to date have been able to make any progress and only one the Northland Regional Council has made any significant progress. 
I point out to parliamentary colleagues that Local Government New Zealand itself said in confidential papers I tabled in the House last year—effectively I leaked them because I wanted to put this issue to Parliament—that the moratorium regime is unlikely to result in any success because when it is lifted there is likely to be a de facto continuation of the moratorium on new aquaculture areas. That is because there is an inability to plan for aquaculture management in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries along with the gaps and inadequacies in that information. In other words the Ministry of Fisheries is holding back information from the regional councils so the councils cannot plan and even if the ministry tabled all that information for the regional councils it would be inadequate. So regardless of whether there is a moratorium or no moratorium the reality is the regional councils cannot plan for aquaculture because the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister are holding back important information from them. 
The regional councils also believe that the moratorium is a blunt and inflexible management tool such that no new aquaculture activities can commence until aquaculture management areas are created. I bring to members’ attention that the industry is broken into various sectors. I will break it into two just for simplicity in talking about shellfish. There is no doubt that there was a gold rush when it came to mussel farming in and around the Marlborough Sounds area but there has been no gold rush for space when it comes to oyster farming in the rest of the country. Why has oyster-farming development been put on hold in Auckland where there is no problem just because there have been mussel-farming problems in the Marlborough Sounds? It is absurd to use such a blunt tool that stops every aquaculturist in this country from producing a livelihood from a marine farm. Why do that when the problem occurs only in pockets around the country? I raise that with the chair. 
The National Party has no confidence that the additional time frame of 9 months will be sufficient to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue. There is no way that within the next 9 months all New Zealanders will suddenly jump on board with this Government and agree with its proposals for the seabed and foreshore. We have 80 percent of New Zealanders disagreeing with the Government that they should hand over in some way ownership of the seabed and foreshore to Maori. There is no way that New Zealanders will change their mind about that. They believe that all New Zealanders—Maori and non-Maori alike—own the seabed and foreshore. They will not change their mind and certainly will not change it in 9 months. We have no confidence that in 9 months the issue will be resolved. 
We have no confidence that the Minister will enact the aquaculture reform legislation. In fact we have not even seen it in this House. It has to be drafted tabled have its first reading and go to a select committee. Then it has to come back to the House for its second reading its Committee stage and its third reading. In that time frame we have to receive submissions from a large number of people in the sector. There is no way that reform legislation will go through in 9 months. There is no way that the regional councils will be able to develop their aquaculture management areas. I put this to the Minister of Fisheries. I asked him late last year and I have the notes here: “What extra resourcing will be put in place to ensure that the extension to the moratorium on new marine farms will be sufficient to complete the Ministry’s required tasks and goals?”. The Minister replied: “A moratorium extension requires no additional resourcing for the Ministry of Fisheries.” He is saying that he will extend the moratorium for 9 months because the ministry has not been able to get the job done but that he will not give it any extra resources because it does not need them. So the ministry has not been able to get the job done in 2 years and 2 months it will be given an extension of time to do the job but it will not be given any further resourcing. That seems absurd to me. The Minister should at least show some proactiveness when it comes to meeting the restriction that he himself has put on which extends the moratorium a further 9 months. 
I notice we have a new Minister of Fisheries. He has to learn what a mussel is what an oyster is and what the other marine-farming issues in this country are. I have met the Minister. He can use words of two syllables or less but he will not be able to come up to speed in 9 months let alone drive his ministry to meet these goals. 
For those reasons the National Party will not be supporting this moratorium. I have a selection of headlines here: “Marine farmers threaten to go overseas”; “Further delay on new marine farms”; “Aquaculture delays will cost millions”; and from an editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Get on with the business of sea farming”. The whole country is asking why the Government is stopping this successful business by extending the moratorium which will mean effectively that it is in place for 3 years. The brakes will be on for 3 years. Why is the Government doing this? Why is it not resourcing the Ministry of Fisheries to deal with the issue? Why does it not just give the regional councils the information they need let them get on with the job of developing aquaculture management areas and let these farmers farm? That is what the National Party says and we will be voting against the bill for those very good reasons.