Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15112] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It will be no surprise to the House that National will oppose this bill simply because of all the foolishness that we have seen over the last 3 years. In fact the National Party believes that the aquaculture industry is the most polite and patient sector in this country. We in the National Party cannot believe the amount of garbage that the sector has had to put up with in the last 3 years. Firstly it accepted a moratorium extension upon a moratorium extension and kindly said that it guessed the process would take a long time but that it hoped the Government would get things right. My concern and I know this is the private concern of the sector is that this Government sees moratoriums as a solution not as a means to an end. That is why the Government put one in why it extended it and why the Minister is panicking about not getting this bill through the House by the end of this year. 
The second reason we believe that the aquaculturists are the most polite and patient sector in the country is that they are standing back and getting kicked around while the Government passes off 20 percent of the aquaculture space to Maori in order to do a deal over the seabed and foreshore issue. If the Labour Government does not believe that Maori own the seabed and foreshore why is it giving them 20 percent of that space? If Labour believes that Maori own the seabed and foreshore why does it not give them 100 percent of the aquaculture space? The Minister should come clean on his deal to try to keep the Labour Party’s fractious relationship with Maori sweet. 
The third issue that aquaculturists have taken on the chin is the Minister’s intention to put mussel spat into the quota management system regardless of the bureaucracy and the absurdity of having it in that system. Even though when mussel spat washes up on Ninety Mile Beach it dies this Minister is to put it into the quota management system. The poor old aquaculturists will then have to deal with a bureaucracy and a monopoly just to deal with mussel spat let alone with their mussel farms and the regulations that relate to marketing and selling overseas. 
The fourth issue that aquaculturists have had to put up with in the last few years is that they have had to wait patiently and then watch and wait some more while applications that are going through the permitting process take years upon years even though the Minister claims he has given increased resources for that process. This new Minister of Fisheries does not realise that in the business environment marketing decisions often have to be made in weeks not months and that expansion plans have to be executed in months not years. For the Minister to have over 200 permit applications build up in the permitting process over the last few years is absolutely appalling. 
National knows that the issue of perpetuity is of particular concern to the aquaculture industry. It wants certainty and sanctity of property rights. When aquaculturists put in a marine farm they want to know that when the consent comes up for renewal in 35 years if the area is still to be one that has aquaculture they will be the people who farm that area and a new fly-by-nighter cannot come in and take their place. This Government is running roughshod over that whole concept. National absolutely supports a first right of refusal. We do not support a right of renewal or a right in perpetuity—not at all—but we support a first right of refusal. An incumbent should have priority over a newcomer due to his or her pre-existing investment. That is usual in business as it provides certainty. A marine farmer who is already established and who is a good tenant should not have to have his or her space taken over by a fly-by-nighter because there is no right of refusal. We are very suspicious about the Minister’s clauses in this bill that state that at the expiry of a consent an incumbent’s application will be considered first if he or she meets certain criteria. What does that mean? What are the criteria? Well I can tell members that right now hundreds of bureaucrats are dreaming up the criteria that aquaculturists will have to face just to remain as incumbents in an area. 
National says this: incumbents should have the first right of refusal and should get the space if they are good tenants. If they have been good tenants on a marine farm and their consent comes up for renewal they should get the space. If they have been bad tenants there should be a question mark over that. But this Minister says that Labour will consider a right of first refusal as long as incumbents meet certain criteria which the bureaucrats are dreaming up at this moment as we speak. There will be lists and one of the criteria will be whether someone is Maori. The issue will be the iwi the person belongs to and whether the person can trace his or her ancestry back somehow to Maui. That is what the criteria will be because this Government wants to throw aquaculture space at Maori in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue. That is absolutely appalling. When it comes to the first right of refusal National says that an incumbent should have that right and should get the space if he or she has been a good tenant. 
We have been quite perplexed—and I know this has perplexed aquaculturists around the country and New Zealand in general—as to why Maori should get 20 percent of the marine space for free as of right. I have the deed of settlement here for the claim by Ngati Tama. It is interesting that that deed of settlement states that should tendering for coastal space occur Ngati Tama will have the preferential right to apply for 10 percent of the area.” So Ngati Tama will get 20 percent and will have the preferential right to get another 10 percent. Here is the deed of settlement for Ngati Awa which includes a provision that the Minister will give Ngati Awa a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of the marine space. So Ngati Awa will get 20 percent for free and will be allowed a preferential right to another 5 percent. NgatiRuanui in the Taranaki will get a preferential right to tender for an unspecified part of the aquacultural space without that being defined. It is open-ended so NgatiRuanui will get 20 percent and however much more it wants. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I just say to Government members that interjections should be rare reasonable and relevant. The Speaker will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Labour Minister was asking who negotiated those settlements and he was accusing National of having done that. Well here is one that was done in 2000; it is the Nga Rauru Kitahi settlement. NgatiRuanui was done in 2001 so that was under the Labour Government. Labour gave 5 percent of the marine space in 2000 to Ngati Awa and another 20 percent today. And of course the Ngati Tama deed of settlement was finished off by the Labour Government because it was post-1999. Ngati Tama got 10 percent of the marine space and is getting another 20 percent today. 
Maori already have 43 percent of the aquaculture space throughout the industry. So when Maori go to Labour and say they own the foreshore and seabed they are just about dead right. They do own it because they have close to 50 percent of the aquaculture space across this country as it is before the Minister gives them another 20 percent for free in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue.