Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary Provisions 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Members will know from the history of this bill through the House and the select committee that National opposes the bill generally. But we take this opportunity to speak in the part by part debate because there are specific issues that we want to resolve in this bill if the Government insists on ramming it through and further destroying and undermining the aquaculture industry in this country. I will be tabling a number of amendments during the course of this afternoon and this evening on this particular matter and I would like to signal to the Chair that I would like two calls at least on this part. I appreciate that that is at the Chairperson’s discretion but I have quite a number of amendments that I believe would improve the bill. 
First of all I have an amendment to the commencement date which at present is the day after the date on which the bill receives the royal assent. My amendment would mean that the commencement date would be the date following the next general election. The reason I say that is that the National Party will not do it after the next general election. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but when we started this debate there were no officials in the Chamber. They have walked in only just now. My view is that the officials come into the Chamber at the time the debate starts not a couple of minutes into it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a matter for the Minister. The officials are here. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: In my amendment I propose that this bill comes into force on the day it receives its royal assent rather than at the next general election simply because the National Party has said quite clearly that it would not extend this moratorium. In fact members will recall that over 2 years ago the National Party said it would not support the first moratorium. We would have had some sympathy if the Ministry of Fisheries—and the Minister at that time—had given regional councils enough information about the reforms so that they could plan aquaculture management areas so that Maori could plan their submissions on the reforms and so that other aquaculturalists throughout this nation could plan their markets— 
Hon David Carter 
: Now there is no Minister in the chair! 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We know that the Minister is a new Minister but there must always be a Minister in the chair during the Committee stage. I draw that to your attention— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes he was. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The Minister was not in the chair. While the Minister is a new Minister— 
Hon David Carter 
: He was introducing himself to the officials. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Yes he was having a chat to his advisers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are two points. One there will be silence during points of order. Three members spoke during that point of order. That is the final warning. Yes Mr Tisch the Minister should be in the chair and he will be. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I will also be moving an amendment that replaces the date on which the bill receives the royal assent with the date a bill ensuring Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore has received its royal assent. The reason being of course that a particular issue that has arisen—the seabed and foreshore issue—has contributed to the fact that this moratorium has to be extended. How are aquaculturalists to believe that this moratorium—a further 9 months—will be lifted if the foreshore and seabed issue is not resolved? Are we to understand that the seabed and foreshore issue will be resolved in 9 months? Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe that the 80 percent of New Zealanders who oppose the Labour Party policy will be won around by the Prime Minister attending church and giving speeches? No they do not. Therefore I will be moving an amendment that this bill comes into effect on the date on which a bill assuring Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore has itself received royal assent. That is my recommendation. We can get surety in the aquaculture industry only when the seabed and foreshore issues are resolved. 
We know that a special select committee has been set up to deal with the seabed and foreshore issue. I am a good keen member of that select committee and I will continue to give advice to the chair of that committee on these issues. On that select committee we know that the Government in dealing with the seabed and foreshore issues is also considering giving Maori a share of the aquaculture industry. This Government will give Maori 10 20 25 or 30 percent of the aquaculture industry—whatever number it plucks out of the air and whatever number it sees as appropriate. That has to be taken into account with the moratorium extension. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First as I stated in the second reading debate reluctantly accepts the purpose andtiming of this bill. We accept it for a second reason: despite what has been said by the previous speaker if the Government were so wise as to accept the New Zealand First position with regard to the foreshore and seabed—namely Crown ownership and customary use—there would be no need for any deviation or for any supposed hold-up. In fact this bill could be seen to run through to 31 December 2004 and on 1 January 2005 those interested in the industry and those who have a vital part to play in the industry could begin to take up their role. But that will not happen unless the Ministry of Fisheries and those involved in this bill get a move on. But before that happens I want to refer to the actual date. 
There is something much more pressing that the Minister should be aware of if this moratorium and marine farming are to be successfully advanced and that is the appalling state of his ministry’s marine permits. Broken frames are floating in the open sea and leases have been left lying for years in various states of disrepair. Abandoned silt areas abandoned frames—a real mess—are all the products of past ministry leases. In our region of Northland and no doubt in others this mess has nothing to do with the future of the industry but is very much a record of past ministries past Ministers and a lack of attention to what should be a pristine environment in which modern marine farming could take place. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that very issue but before we advance too far upon the future let us look back at where the industry was—and I have some very vivid examples from the Bay of Islands here which the Minister could share—and look to see whether he will be able do a lot better than his predecessors in previous ministries. 
But to come back to the matter in hand the issue for New Zealand First is not further support for the bill. The issue is what we have always stated and that is absolute adherence to a finish date of 31 December 2004. That is so that those who are involved in marine farming—and for the potential that marine farming has for New Zealanders not least for those of us in the rural regions—are able to make informed decisions about the future. For that reason there needs to be much more known than has been evident so far from the ministries involved in this whole issue of marine farming. 
 We have had very little advice as to what the application of clause 3 in Part 1 and clause 4 in Part 2 really mean. We have out there a state of uncertainty and those submitters who came to the select committee said so over and over again. In some ways they were as ambivalent as other parties in the House might be because they realised that they could be and should be able to proceed. But because of the advanced notice and projected nature of what the Government thought it might do and noised around in certain places but not in the wider public area there was uncertainty about how things could proceed. 
The real issue for us in New Zealand First is not really that this legislation should not be passed. We believe that the time has come to push on. What we really want the Minister and his ministry to do is to give confidence and certainty to the many many people who see in that industry a real opportunity—not least Maori and not least those in the regions. I refer most of all to those people who have long seen the changed nature of the industry—particularly in large-scale operations—and one in income and job terms that has a tremendous economic future and potential. 
To that degree we support those clauses and hope that the Minister turns firstly to the matter of past leases and secondly gives clarity from now on until the end of 2004 so that councils people in the industry the ordinary person on the street and people on the coastal margins are given real knowledge of what is intended once this legislation is passed. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill. I point out that greenshell mussels are Marlborough’s biggest income earner. Back in 1989 they raised $25 million for the aquaculture industry. In 2002 they raised $260 million involving the farming of 5500 hectares and the provision of 4000 jobs in New Zealand. What has happened since that time? Well the industry had been growing at 20 percent but it is not growing at all now. Production has fallen because of this Government’s appalling handling of the aquaculture industry. 
I certainly hope the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope pays a bit of attention. He needs to do something about the situation because the previous Minister of Fisheries did not. He was bound up in bureaucracy and did not manage to do a thing. A serious opportunity will be lost to New Zealand if this Government does not stop pandering to bureaucrats and environmentalists. It has to take seriously this amazing opportunity. Extending a moratorium will not do that. This is an opportunity for New Zealand as a whole because industries actually create regional development. 
I do not know how many members have visited the little town of Havelock but 15 years ago that town was dead. There were empty shops and the marina was shut. It was dead. Today Havelock is absolutely thriving. It has Sanford Industries jobs new houses restaurants and an extension to the marina. That all happened because of the farming of greenshell mussels and the people who made it work. 
Jill Pettis 
: And 4 years of a Labour Government. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It has nothing to do with the Labour Government. All it did was reduce that 20 percent growth rate down to zero as it panders to the bureaucrats. 
Do members know why this moratorium is being extended today? It is mainly because this Government cannot get its act together on this issue or the seabed and foreshore issue in the Marlborough Sounds. This Government does not know what to do. It does not have a clue. It isgoing round and round in circles and doing U-turns as it tries to sort it out. It is easy to puta moratorium on but it is jolly hard to take it off. We predicted that if the Government put a moratorium on it would not take it off at the time it said it would. Many Government speakers said that would not be the case that it just needed a bit of a break that it needed to get the new legislation sorted out. But what has happened? Today we are debating the extension of the moratorium. 
Do we want this country to be wealthy or not? Do we want parts of Northland to be able to get into aquaculture or not? The moratorium is doing nothing to improve growth in New Zealand nothing to increase jobs and nothing to enable this country to do better and make more money. That money could be spent on health and education. The extension of this moratorium will only be damaging. 
Maori too are losing opportunities. We heard a lot about the Sounds and that Maori did not get involved in the aquaculture industry. That is not true. About 17 percent of those employed in the industry consider themselves to be Maori and that is compared with 11 percent across all other industries so a lot of Maori actually own aquaculture farms and are employed. They have not achieved that because of special privilege. They own those farms because they got into the industry and got on with the job. 
This Government is getting in the way of all those rugged individuals who have been developing the aquaculture industry. It is putting a huge amount of cost and bureaucracy on to the industry. It has done nothing but get in the way. The Government has not sorted out anything and to top it off the aquaculture law reform legislation which was touted to make life easier will only make things harder. It is just a mess. The bureaucrats have to start to look at how to help the aquaculture industry develop. 
When the Primary Production Committee went down to the Sounds the members did not realise they had been travelling past marine farms. They thought those things were covering the Sounds and affecting the pristine environment. I grew up in the Sounds and I think that aquaculture is a wonderful addition. Greenshell mussels are the only endemic species that we farm in this country. They are an incredibly healthy product and contain no fat—wonderful! We should be eating an awful lot more of them and a lot less McDonald’s. If New Zealanders did that the nation would be a lot healthier. 
We should be encouraging the industry. We are squandering the opportunity for export earnings to reach $1 billion by 2020. We are squandering the opportunity for new jobs. We must not forget that places like Chile will be in there like a shot. In fact they are already there. We have people in the industry today who have become so fed up they are off to Tasmania Chile or anywhere where they do not have to deal with the bureaucratic nightmare that this industry has become. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The commencement of the aquaculture industry is capturing the attention of virtually everybody in this country who is interested in industry and especially in the furtherance of a potential multibillion-dollar industry. I repeat: a multibillion-dollar industry. The commencement date is hugely important in terms of when the industry can start to get up to speed yet here we are in the Committee of the whole House debating whether we should continue with the moratorium. As the ACT party and my colleagues in the National Party have said this is a nonsense. 
There are plenty of regional councils that want to get on with the job. For example why does this legislation not allow the Otago Regional Council—Otago is the region the Minister comes from—to get on with it. He knows that Graeme Martin and the people in the Otago Regional Council are up and ready to run. They want to start. But people in the aquaculture industry in the Otago region off the Otago coast or on the foreshore are told they must wait. I look forward to contributions from the Otago members telling us and the aquaculture and marine industries in our region why this legislation will stymie them for many more months to come. 
The commentary on the bill states that the Labour Government has been advised that “only a single extension is envisaged”. The word “envisaged” is very very interesting. The commentary does not state there will be “only a single extension end of story”; it states “envisaged”. So what is the likelihood of another extension to the moratorium occurring when we come close to the period it is supposed to end which is somewhere around the end of December? I suspect that we will be back in the House towards the end of this year close to Christmas time debating whether we should apply yet another extension because of other regional councils such as those in Canterbury and Auckland not having got up to speed. They should have got up to speed but they have not. Yet again this potentially multibillion-dollar industry is being set aside is being held up while the Government and the officials try to catch up. I ask again: why can this bill not allow for those regional councils that so wish to grasp the nettle and act as an indicator of how successful or otherwise they can be? Instead this Government has thrown a driftnet around the industry—it has ensnared the good the bad and the ugly if one likes all in one—and said: “You will do nothing until we say it’s time to move.” 
We note from the commentary that the Government has to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue enact the aquaculture reform legislation and implement plans for aquaculture management areas by regional councils. Does anybody really think that those councils that were slow to move in the past will suddenly rush out in top gear and have their plans ready by December this year? Who in his or her right mind believes we will resolve the foreshore and seabed issue in a few short months? We know how slowly the machinery of Government moves. So I say again that without doubt prior to Christmas we will again be debating whether we should give the moratorium another 6 months or possibly another 6 months after that. 
I spoke to a member of the Parliamentary Service who informed me of having just recently invested in aquaculture in Australia shifting resources money and desire to be involved in this industry to Australia. The reason is that that person cannot wait. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the bill but we do not do so uncritically. We bear in mind of course that a couple of years ago the then Minister of Fisheries gave a categorical undertaking that the moratorium when it was initially put in place would be the only moratorium and that there would be no extension. I have yet to hear an apology from him or from his successor. 
There is no doubt that aquaculture is a very complex issue. It takes place in public open space. People who own marine farms seem to have the idea that in some way they own the public space in which they operate. They do not. But having said that marine farming is an important industry it is a good one for New Zealand and those people who have marine farms have the right to some certainty of tenure. They need to know that the investment they put into their marine farm will give them some financial return in the medium term certainly in the long term. On the other hand it is very clear that marine farming operates within biophysical limits. Mussels do not grow just because there is an enclosed area of water in which to grow them. They need a food supply. They need a nutrient supply. If we try to put more mussels into an area than the nutrient available to them then obviously those mussels will grow more slowly. The nutrient supply depends on both phytoplankton and zooplankton—in other words plant life and animal life in the sea. Some marine farms are advantaged in being upstream in tidal terms; others are disadvantaged by being downstream in tidal terms or by having big farms next door to them. It is clear therefore that there has to be a very clear plan for having aquaculture in our inshore waters that is of benefit to all farmers and to recreational users. 
So there is a conflict a creative tension going on all the time. We need to know for instance that all the farms will operate at least reasonably successfully. That is the whole idea of having aquaculture management areas. The regional councils have been tasked with the project of establishing aquaculture management areas— 
Phil Heatley 
: An impossible job. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: It is an impossible job. It is a very difficult job but one that has to be done. We have to make some headway at least. We are trying to balance the tension between the certainty that marine farmers require for tenure in their marine farms with the availability of food supply the ecological sustainability of what is going on and the conflicting use from recreational users like boaties and recreational fisher people. 
It is very clear that the ecological impacts of marine farming are poorly understood. It is also clear that in the short term underneath the marine farm we get faeces and pseudo-faeces that accumulate on the seabed killing almost all other marine life. We do not know the long-term effects. If a marine farm subsequently is taken away what happens to the seabed? Does it recover without any problem? We simply do not know. Research needs to be done. It should be being done at the moment and I believe that some is. We need to know exactly what effects marine farms have on the marine environment. 
The Green Party supports the extension of the moratorium. In some ways it is good because it will enable research to be undertaken. Having said that I do feel a considerable degree of sympathy for those marine farmers who entered the industry in good faith but who are finding that the certainty they require for their industry is being questioned over and over again. As a number of other members have said the foreshore and seabed claims which are subject to public debate at the moment obviously have a great bearing on the future of the aquaculture industry as well. I do not think that regional councils will be very successful in terms of getting aquaculture management areas up and running in the time allotted. I rather suspect that before the end of this year as I think Gerry Eckhoff mentioned we will probably be back in the House debating a further extension to the moratorium legislation. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 This bill extends the current 2-year-plus moratorium for another 9 months. In essence it is an extension to the extension bill. It is symptomatic of a Government that just cannot get things done and certainly that cannot make a decision. The Government is becoming paralysed. This paralysis is causing regional councils to lose momentum also. Regional councils are crying out for leadership but are they getting it under this Government? No they are not. What is the answer? The Government’s answer is to extend things a little bit longer and hope that nothing comes of it. Regional councils want direction so they can develop aquaculture areas but they will not get that direction from this Government. To be fair some regional councils are hiding behind the Government’s inertia because in effect they have not done too much either. But that is no excuse to exacerbate this type of behaviour. 
I know that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope wants to take a call. I know he wants to get to his feet and demonstrate that he has the capacity to do the job and has an understanding of this portfolio because for years he has been stuck as the senior Government whip confined to making snide remarks about every other speaker. Now the Minister has his chance to get to his feet to demonstrate that he does have the capacity to be the Minister and understand this portfolio so that other people in this Chamber and in the industry generally can have some confidence in him. People on this side of the Chamber are waiting with bated breath. 
The real purpose for this delaying tactic on behalf of the Government is not about managing or seeking time to manage aquaculture at all; it is about the Government trying to find a way to extricate itself from the fiasco it has got itself into regarding the foreshore and seabed. Because of its inability to deal with this issue the Government has got itself into an unholy mess. Who believes that another 9 months will enable it to sort out its warring factions? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No one! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Tisch is right no one believes that. On the one hand we have the Maori caucus that wants to annexe the whole lot and on the other hand we have poll-driven Government members saying: “Oh dear National’s going up in the polls. We must have got our strategy wrong. Let’s rethink this. Oh my God National was right and we were wrong!” and all the while an industry that has the potential to be one of our biggest export earners waits. It waits while this Government fiddles and the growth of one of our most important industries stagnates. 
My colleague Linda Scott estimated industry revenues of about $260 million now. The aquaculture industry has the potential to be a multibillion-dollar industry but what is happening? It is going backwards all because this Government is fiddling. Rather than sort out the difficulties around Marlborough and Tasman the Government has taken the too-hard-basket approach. Why not just say: “We’ll maintain some momentum where we can and sort out Marlborough and Tasman at our leisure”? 
The do-nothing option is just not good enough. This is where the Minister can take a call to demonstrate that he has heard what members are saying and that he has the capacity to say: “We the Government have rethought our strategy.” The Minister should not sit there like a lemon. He should take a call and say: “Our strategy now is a b c and d. We’ve heard you we know you’re right and this is what we’re going to do.” But will he do that? No he will not. Do members know why he will not do it? The reason is that he does not have a plan other than a do-nothing plan to extend the moratorium for another 9 months. Who believes that will bring it to a conclusion? No one of course. But my good friend and colleague Mr Heatley knows. The people of this country cannot wait for a change of Government because when it happens Mr Heatley will stand up and tell the House what the plan is. He will have the confidence of the industry. The industry is relying on some good strong leadership and Mr Heatley will provide it. 
National opposes this legislation wholeheartedly. It is not just National rambling on. I have done a bit of research and this is what I found: “Marine farmers are enraged by the Government’s proposals on aquaculture law reform which they say will suck millions of dollars out of the industry and hinder its enormous potential for growth.” That came from the industry leaders themselves. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope four simple questions and I hope he will take the opportunity to answer them to demonstrate to this side of the Chamber that he now understands the portfolio. Firstly the Prime Minister is on the record as saying that her Government is intent on lifting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD by 2011. I want the Minister to stand and tell us how the imposition of a moratorium on a potential billion-dollar industry assists in the aim of his Government to achieve growth to get us back into the top half of the OECD. That is a simple question for the Minister to answer. Can he tell us how this helps New Zealand’s growth? 
Secondly what consultation has specifically taken place with Maori and Maori interest groups in formulating this legislation and to what extent have Maori signed up to this moratorium bill? I ask that question because we all know that the Minister’s predecessor the sacked Minister of Fisheries was fired because he was unable to progress this issue. To be fair to him it is because the Prime Minister and other Government members are not able to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue. So my second question simply asks the Minister to tell us to what extent Maori have signed up to the legislation that is before the Committee today. 
My third question relates to the commencement which is due to take place after this legislation receives the royal assent. I want the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee today what back-up plans he has if this legislation does not receive the royal assent before the expiry of the current moratorium which as we know occurs on 25 March this year. So in 9 days’ time if we are still here debating the Committee clauses—and that is National’s intention—then I want to know what the Minister proposes to do in the intervening time created when the current moratorium that exists under legislation expires before this bill is enacted. It is that Minister’s fault that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for too long. 
My fourth question asks for a simple assurance from the new Minister of Fisheries that the moratorium we are now debating is according to the legislation before the Committee due to expire by 31 December this year. I want an absolute guarantee from the Minister that this will be the last moratorium required—in other words that the issues will be resolved by the balance of this calendar year. We know that the Minister’s predecessor the Hon Pete Hodgson rose in the House during the debate on the first moratorium legislation and guaranteed that an extension would not be required. We know how good that Minister was at keeping his word—that is why we are here now further extending a moratorium. 
I do not believe that this issue will be tidied up by 31 December. The Minister should have confidence in his name being on the bill and that we will find that all matters relating to the seabed and foreshore are resolved by the end of the year. Therefore this is a simple request for the Minister not to sit blindly through the Committee stage but to stand and take the opportunity to show some leadership. The reason the Minister gets a ministerial house a car and a considerable increase in salary is so he can show leadership and say to both the Committee and the industry that he has absolute confidence that the issues for needing a further extension of the moratorium will be resolved before 31 December this year. 
Those are four simple questions for the Minister to answer. I am quite prepared to take another call to list them all again for him if he has missed any. He has a duty during the Committee stage to take the opportunity to answer these questions. That is what the industry wants to hear. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 One of the great concerns I have about this bill relates to land-based aquaculture. I ask that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope—albeit a new Minister but I am sure he has his head around this legislation and is competent to take a call; I would certainly hope so—assure those who are interested in land-based aquaculture that they will not be entangled in this legislation. I say to him without any hesitation that those who are involved in land-based aquaculture have no feeling of confidence at all that they will not be subjected to a continuance of procrastination when they wish to get on with their particular industry. I ask the Minister to stand as Mr Carter has just done and to give the Committee and indeed the public of this country the benefit of his knowledge on this bill to tell us that this is the case or that is the case and to give us an absolute assurance that this will happen or that that will happen. That is the least he can do. 
The other aspect I have huge concerns about in relation to this bill is the role of the Department of Conservation. The Primary Production Committee did agree to extend the period of time the Minister of Conservation had to make recommendations to 40 days. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. This matter is addressed in Part 2 I think you will find it in clause 6. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not think that was a reason to interrupt the member’s speech. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The committee agreed to extend the ability of the Department of Conservation to make significant input into the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The role of the department is a very very important one. It is well known that the department wants to extend its sphere of influence over at least 10 percent of inshore and indeed offshore potential marine farming areas. So it seems to me that the department wants to have first bite of this particular cherry. It is now formulating its desires of where it wants its marine reserves to be then the industry can have what is left. 
I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Conservation’s influence over this particular bill is profound as is the influence of somebody like Kevin Smith his chief adviser. It is well known that at least 10 percent of our potential marine areas are wanted by the Department of Conservation. I ask the Minister to give the Committee and those listening to the debate an absolute assurance that the role of the Department of Conservation will be limited to the provisions of this bill and that this period of extension of the moratorium does not give it a window of opportunity to extend its sphere of influence to such a degree as to take out vast areas of our coastline and offshore waters to achieve its goal of ensuring that at least 10 percent of our fishing resource is potentially locked away for the use of conservation rather than for industry. That is one of the huge concerns that many in the industry and in this country have. 
The point was made earlier about the self-determination Maori wish to have over what is a traditional industry for Maori. Their determination to get totally involved is yet again being set aside and it does not help the concept of race relations. Maori see again the procrastination of this Government. It is something that has to be seen to be believed. It is struggling. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I tabled amendments to Part 1 earlier and I had the opportunity to speak and I appreciate that on two of them. I would now like to address the other three. I am particularly addressing clause 3. In clause 3(a) the purpose of the bill is: “to extend to 31 December 2004 the moratorium on the granting of coastal permits for aquaculture activities;”. I would replace that date with 1 April 2004. If the Government insists—if it really must if it is desperate to do it if it really wants to steamroller the aquaculture industry put on the handbrakes and do everything else to ankle tap the industry—it should extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004. 
My reasoning is simple. There is a new Minister of Fisheries who barely understands the issues but I am sure that in the next couple of weeks he is quite able—if he sits down and concentrates only on this fisheries issue—to get his brain around everything affecting aquaculturists at the moment. So I think 1 April 2004 is the extension that the National Party is willing to live with but that is it—and certainly we would not be supporting any further extension. 
Also in Part 1 clause 3 there are a number of purpose propositions in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) after the words: “The purpose of this Act is—”. I have two more. It does not say it in the legislation at the moment but I think it should include new paragraph (d): “to provide the Government with further time to resolve the seabed and foreshore policies;”. 
I found it interesting when the first moratorium bill was introduced a few years ago that every single Maori group that came to the Primary Production Committee opposed the moratorium. There were 143 submissions in all and a fair proportion of them were from Maori. They opposed it at that time. They said that the moratorium had a negative impact on Maori development—and nothing has changed. They said that the water within their rohe was of concern—it still is. They said that there were adverse effects on existing treaty settlements—clearly there still are in their view. Nothing has changed. There had been a lack of consultation by the Crown—there still is. The Government has not resolved the seabed and foreshore issue and that is partly what this bill is all about. 
I propose another amendment to the purpose clause. In new paragraph (e) the purpose of the Act is: “to provide regional councils further time to collate and understand information for designating aquaculture management areas.” That extra time is essential given that regional councils have told us this. 
I tabled papers in Parliament last year from the Taranaki Regional Council and Local Government New Zealand stating that all regional councils have been struggling to develop aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries and that there are also gaps in that information. It is inadequate. In other words the regional councils are saying they want to map out aquaculture management areas but the Ministry of Fisheries is not giving them any information and the information it does give them is inadequate. There has been no information sharing and when the ministry has been coerced to share information it has been inadequate. On the whole regional councils have not been given a chance to succeed. 
I believe that the Minister in the chair should be honest and say that this moratorium has been put in place—and it does not currently say it in the purpose clause—for two reasons. They are to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue—and the Government thinks it will do it in 9 months—and to provide regional councils with enough time. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I speak to the amendments that were raised by Mr Heatley. I want to assure that member in the Committee that not all regional councils are in the position that he has enunciated—particularly he mentioned Taranaki and other councils—because the issue in Northland is not like that. Unlike other councils the Northland Regional Council took the then Minister at his word. It went out and is now into its third round of consultation with the wider community about where the aquaculture management areas should be. It accepted that the zones for potential marine farming were likely to be contentious and needed the maximum amount of consultation and discussion. In Northland in the past week there have been two very well-attended meetings of over 200 people at Kerikeri and Paihia where people were very very concerned about the potential impact of such marine farming zones upon tourism and all the other amenity values that they see in the Bay of Islands. 
 I believe that many regional councils have been derelict in not picking up the challenge that was laid down when the moratorium was set out. Also most of the regional coastal plans were put together in a day and an age when it was not envisaged that there would be 4000 5000 6000 or 8000 hectares of offshore farming being proposed as a legitimate way of farming in particular mussels. Most of our regional coastal plans do not envisage that at all. They look at establishing small protected areas. To go back to the issue raised by the member for Whangarei if his amendment were to be passed I say there would be chaos because people in the industry would be able to apply for marine farms under the Resource Management Act under a regional coastal plan that had very few prohibited areas and there would be widespread disquiet and concern in the community. 
The issue is not therefore about what regional councils have or have not done; I believe that some councils could have done more. In Northland we are on to the third round of consultation and that has been done deliberately because we want the community to be aware of the consequences of marine farming. Really the issue is whether by 31 December this year those people who have taken the challenge up and as in the case of the Northland Regional Council have reached a broad consensus of opinion in the community about where marine farming should be—about all the pluses and minuses of this valuable resource and the potential that it has those issues having been analysed and known widely in the community—can at that point in time proceed. That is the issue and there must be absolute assurance. If the Minister cannot give that guarantee then he ought to say so now. 
That brings me to the last issue which is not about the part of the regional councils but about what work has been done with regard to the structure of marine farming under the proposed new regime’s space and tendering all the matters we have not yet had addressed that were the cause of concern for some submitters who came to the Primary Production Committee. The committee looked in particular at the fact that there were issues that were not part of the so-called bill: tenure the definition of the areas and most of all what right the existing permit holders would have with regard to the regimes of the future. Those are the other parts of the structure that the Minister needs to address urgently if the aquaculture industry is to take off on 1 January 2005. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “next General Election”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “date a bill ensuring Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore has received Royal assent”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph 3(a) the words “31 December 2004” and substitute the words “1 April 2004”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(d)provide the Government with further time to resolve its seabed and foreshore policies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(e)provide Regional Councils further time to collate and understand information for designating Aquaculture Management Areas. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Part 2 of this bill is quite technical. It makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act that to the uninitiated seem somewhat complex. It is however a marvellous opportunity for the new Minister to strut his stuff. I say that because I was in Dunedin the other day and I heard a report about why it was that Chris Carter had been appointed as the Minister. He had frankly confessed to the person who had interviewed him that he brought two cards to the table: the first was that he was born under the sign of Pisces; the second was that he loved prawns. So here we are in this setting with an opportunity for the Minister to stand and explain. Will he take that opportunity? I hope so but I fear he will not. 
I would like to start with the first clause in Part 2 clause 4. Section 125 of the principal Act is being changed by that particular clause. There is a discussion in the commentary on the bill under the heading “Reviving certain lapsed coastal permits” that explains why that provision has been put in place. It is an interesting commentary because it contains in fact a number of factual errors. It starts by explaining why a marine farmer must have two consents to develop an area. One is a coastal permit as defined in section 87 of the Resource Management Act and the other is either a marine-farming permit or a spat-catching permit under the Fisheries Act 1983. Section 125 of the Resource Management Act provides for the lapsing of consents unless they are implemented within a particular time frame or unless substantial progress is being made towards implementing them. I draw the attention of members to the third paragraph on page 3 of the commentary where the following sentence occurs: “Under the Resource Management Act resource consents lapse if they are not ‘given effect to’ within 2 years of being granted.” Well that certainly was the law but it is no longer the law today. That 2-year period is now 5 years under section 125 of the Act. I think that demonstrates the need for care by the ministry officials who have apparently been advising the Primary Production Committee on the merit or otherwise of this legislation. 
Of course National opposes this legislation. Although we can see some merit in trying to protect property rights which clause 4 is all about we believe that the balance of Part 2 has nothing to commend it. There is no doubt about it—aquaculture is a hugely significant industry with millions of dollars deployed and the potential for even greater money to be earned. I understand that aquaculture-generated sales of around $340 million were recorded in 2002 with export earnings of nearly $260 million. If we look ahead at the industry forecast then we see that the New Zealand Aquaculture Council in 2001 estimated that with managed expansion the industry could achieve export earnings of $1 billion by 2020 from 17000 hectares of aquaculture farms. 
It may be important to protect property rights but if that is to be done it should be done on a thorough and thoughtful basis. I would like to ask the new Minister in the chair Mr Chris Carter—it seemingly being the case that the “old” Minister who is in fact “new” has fled from the Chamber—why it is that only those coastal permits issued in the period from 1 June 1995 to 1 August 2003 have been continued. That is what new section 150G inserted by clause 7 proposes. Lapsing provisions are always difficult but I suggest there was a real need for care when the Government’s advisers contemplated what the relevant periods should be and in this case the exercise of that duty of care has been lamentable. Those were the issues that I wished to speak about in the context of Part 2 and the amendments made to the principal Act by this bill. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 4 and 5 which give further definition to the term moratorium. There are major issues within that moratorium. We know that the moratorium proposed in this bill comes on top of the existing one that has been in place for many months and that there are other types of regional aquaculture moratoriums around the country. In fact I understand that one has been in existence since 1992. Therefore the moratorium provided for in clauses 4 and 5 must be so—and this is the realistic understanding of New Zealand First—only up to the achievement date of 31 December 2004. I say to the new Minister in the chair that he has inherited a very very large job. When we take this bill in the context of the other aspects of and relevant issues in terms of marine reform—the overarching oceans policy that is not here in any form but must be recognised within this bill the marine reserves already alluded to that sought to have 10 percent and the uncertainty over the Maori Fisheries Commission allocations—we see they all impact upon this bill and particularly upon the industry. 
The aquaculture industry is one that as has already been stated is fast growing. In fact aquaculture has been providing up to 20 percent of our national total fisheries’ value. In Northland we have heard about rather grand schemes from some people who say that we have in this country within the next 3 or 4 decades the potential to provide 45 or 50 percent of the worldwide seafood production from aquaculture and that thereby would come tremendous economic value jobs and income. But that is all dependent upon access to the right water spaces upon access to a sustainable regime and I want to say again most of all upon the ministry’s framework being one that gives certainty. So to come back to clauses 4 and 5 I say New Zealand First supports them realistically but we see them in the context of the immense amount of work that the Minister must do if on 1 January 2005 the legislation is to come into force. 
Lastly I say there should be no more talk in this Chamber about the matter of Maori involvement in this industry. New Zealand First has very firmly stated that the Crown position is acceptable with regard to the seabed and foreshore and with acknowledgment of Maori customary use that position could not be seen as an obstacle to aquaculture development in the future. The Government should heed that go ahead now accepting that position and I say again work within that framework to give certainty. So we give support to Part 2 on the understanding that this date will be the absolute end of the moratorium. I recall that Minister Hodgson over there on the Government benches said that not so very long ago and I hope that the Minister before the end of this debate will stand and acknowledge his absolute determination that on 1 January 2005 the aquaculture industry will have the ability to get back into gear. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have done some work on three amendments to Part 2 over the weekend and in the weeks leading up to today. I think they are smart amendments. I will jump to the third amendment which is to clause 6(2) in Part 2. I was quite interested that the Minister of Conservation was at one stage the Minister in the chair. Interestingly my amendment affected him. I think he saw the amendment and got out of the hot seat and he was replaced by the new Minister of Fisheries who has not contributed one thing to this debate. I do not know whether he is allowed to speak; all I know is that he has not. 
My suggestion in my amendment is to delete the expression “40” in clause 6(2) and to insert “30 days” instead. For the Minister’s benefit I will explain what this is all about. The Minister had included in the original bill that was tabled in the select committee that when a local authority wanted to lift this moratorium early because it had got into gear done the work consulted with landowners and talked to marine farmers Maori and everyone else who was affected and having done so had sorted out an aquaculture management area and applied to have the moratorium lifted in a specific area it they would go to the Minister of Conservation for his thumbs up and go-ahead. At one stage he had 30 working-days to reply but at that stage the Minister of Fisheries decided that the Minister of Conservation his mate should have no time period in which to reply. In fact it could sit on his desk for months collecting dust. In effect there was a pseudo-moratorium. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Who suggested that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not know who suggested that but the Minister considered it a flagship policy in the aquaculture industry that not only was there a moratorium but also that those who wanted to lift the moratorium early had to go cap in hand to the Minister of Conservation and ask for his say-so. He could sit on his hands for months and months and months creating a pseudo-moratorium. So we came back and said that we would not drop it from 20 days to no days—where he could have as long as he wanted. Instead we doubled it. We said that he could have 40 days but there had better be an answer within 40 days. 
I think National was far too lenient so my amendment states that the Minister can have 30 days. Anybody who enters the public arena or makes a press release to say that Phil Heatley is far too tough too mean and too heavy-handed will need to know this: that after the 30 days the Minister can come back and request another 30. Whatever number of days is stated in the bill can be doubled. In changing this to 30 days in effect the Minister can stretch it out to 60. In other words if we stuck with 40 days he could have 80 days. Even the Minister can do the maths—that is 2½ to 3 months. That is far too long. We have said 30 days and if the Minister drags the chain he can stretch it out to 60. That is 2 months and that is long enough. That is what my amendment to clause 6(2) in Part 2 is all about. 
I would also like the opportunity to speak about my amendments in Part 2 to clause 5 and clause 6 (1) where I have changed the dates from 31 December 2004 to 1 April 2004. I probably will not get time to do so in this 5 minutes so I will look to the Committee to grant me another call later on to stress the issues about that. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I may be mistaken but I thought we were in a debating chamber. This is where one side of the Chamber puts forward a proposition—a point of view—then after the member from this side has spoken the Government stands up and refutes what was said and gives the reasons for that. All we get from Government members is “I move that the question be now put.” We have been asking for the Minister. We have a Minister of Conservation in the Chamber who is directly affected and has had no doubt a huge input into Part 2. He sits in the Chamber and says absolutely nothing. Why? Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps a member might inform me that I have it totally wrong but we are not having a debate. The Government is shutting down this whole question. It is refusing to elaborate the various points and answer the perfectly legitimate questions being put forward by ACT and National members that ask why these sorts of things are taking place. We are getting no response. 
Part 2 is of course a very important one because it does something quite sensible in ensuring that the coastal permits some marine farmers have will not lapse over the extension of this moratorium period. Yet again I say to the Committee that this extension will apply well after 31 December. I would just about stake my left arm on that point—[ 
Interruption 
]. I see the member across the Chamber is laughing. I am perfectly certain that this moratorium will be extended so it is right and proper that these permits do not lapse during the extension of the moratorium. 
The previous speaker alluded as I had earlier to the role of the Department of Conservation in this debate. As I said earlier the department has its beady little eyes or very big eyes on at least 10 percent of our coastal waters for marine reserves. The Minister of Conservation—he is in the Chamber at this time and I would encourage him to stay and listen—wants all the time in the world to make his decision as to whether one permit can go ahead or another permit should cease. 
We in the select committee have given—I think probably with some reluctance—an extension of time to the Minister to get through this whole process. I say again as I have said many times in this Chamber in debates where the Department of Conservation is involved that its role in all of our legislation that pertains to the environment is just getting excessive. We have to downsize the role of the Department of Conservation whether or not we are talking about the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. It does not really matter because the concept of having this power of veto which is essentially what the Minister has is hugely excessive. Giving the Department of Conservation this role of advocacy in the wider environment—whether it is in the marine environment or land-based it does not really matter—ensures that nothing happens. We constantly run into a brick wall whereby industry players that are breaking their necks to take this country of ours into the top half of the OECD want to develop this industry into a multi-billion dollar industry but the Government says no. It tells industry to slow down while it has another cup of tea. We have seen this for years. How long has this Government been in power? It is about 5 years. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It seems like 50. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Mr Prebble is absolutely right—it seems much longer. But when it comes down to a real business decision-making process that this Government should be making it just does not have the expertise amongst its ranks to follow these concepts through. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In debating Part 2 I want to bring to the attention of the House the way that this moratorium bill is having an incredibly negative impact on my community in Nelson. Yesterday I was with the next Prime Minister of New Zealand Don Brash. [ 
Interruption 
] The member opposite should listen and he might learn something. We met the Mayor of Tasman District and I want to recite for the benefit of the House just how bad things have become in the process of dealing with aquaculture. I would be happy to table a written note from the mayor of our district so that members opposite might learn that. 
They notified their plan for dealing with aquaculture way back in October 1998. Six appeals were lodged with the Environment Court and they were dealt with between July and November 2000. We had the first interim decision in April 2001. We had a second Environment Court hearing back in February 2002. We had a second decision in March 2003. We had High Court appeals in 2003 and now with this moratorium bill we are no further ahead. Do members know how much this is costing my community? The Tasman District Council says it is costing $45 million a year. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is $45 million a year because of Labour Ministers procrastinating in making decisions in the area of aquaculture. That means $150000 every single day for just part of the community I represent. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How many jobs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We are looking at about 450 jobs in the Nelson region. I have to tell the Minister that every single person in my area who works in the fishing industry right now is nervous of redundancies. All sorts of rumours are going around. [ 
Interruption 
] The sad part—and Mr Peck can laugh—is that if Ministers opposite had got off their butts and provided some opportunities for aquaculture those people would have job security. [ 
Interruption 
] That member there who is pecking up from Invercargill has no job security because of his Government’s failure in this particular area. I will bet him anything he likes that he will be on his ear at the next election because of the way the Government has let down the people of New Zealand in that regard. 
I can only agree with what the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial said in its opening line: “This Government’s lack of business experience is nowhere more apparent than in its review of marine farming.” 
Mark Peck 
: That member wouldn’t know business. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been a director of more businesses in the construction industry than that member would ever know. But that is not the issue. [ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting how those members do not want to take a call. They do not want to have a constructive debate; they just want to chip in everywhere because they can give no reason why my community is losing $45 million of wealth jobs and opportunity. The mayors of my districts of Nelson and Tasman are desperate for there to be a change of Government so that we can get better than the moratorium extension proposed in this bill. 
I will put exactly the words of Mayor John Hurley who said: “Don this type of thing must be stopped if New Zealand’s economy is to survive.” That is from a mayor of a district. Now mayors are pretty apolitical and do not get angry very often. But when we put up with the nonsense of this sort of bill we can only agree with the mayor—this sort of nonsense must be stopped. The only way it will be stopped will be a change of Government so that we do not see nonsense legislation of this sort. 
The last section I want to bring to the attention of the House is the last one of part 6 of the Resource Management Act—150F “No compensation”. I ask the Minister: given all the delays that his Government has put in place how about some compensation for districts like mine that have lost so much in job opportunities and wealth because he has been sitting on his hands as have his predecessors. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As we debate Part 2 of this bill I want to make two points. I want the Minister to listen because he needs to know this in the portfolio he has now accepted as the new Minister of Fisheries. I say to that Minister that when the Government does not have the answers the easiest thing in the world is to impose a moratorium and buy time. That is exactly what has happened with this industry. Speaker after speaker from the National Party has risen and described to the Minister the potential this industry has and the Minister’s answer is to support a moratorium to stop further development of what is potentially a billion-dollar industry. 
I remember the debate when the first moratorium was opposed a couple of years ago. Everybody said then that the Minister would be unable to develop the answers required from the moratorium and we were assured by the Government of the day that that would not be the case. Sadly we are now being proven right by this extension of the moratorium. 
Secondly I say to the new Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope that when we come to the Committee stage the easiest thing to do to gain the confidence of the industry—which will be listening to this debate today and reading the  
Hansard 
 with interest—is to stand and answer a few of the simple questions raised through this debate rather than sitting there stifled and unable or unwilling to make a contribution. The questions asked have been simple questions the industry wants the answers to those questions but to sit there like a stunned mullet and not deliver any answers gives the industry no confidence in that Minister at all. 
I start also by saying that although I will be voting against this moratorium extension bill one aspect that I think the industry has found very rewarding are the issues around clause 7 relating to new section 150G which extends the time for the Ministry of Fisheries to grant permits after a coastal permit has been given. That is a very important part and the industry wholeheartedly supports it. 
I want the Minister to rise and assure the House that he has come to grips with the issues facing the Ministry of Fisheries. I want him to assure the Committee today that having been given this extension of time the Ministry of Fisheries will be able to satisfactorily progress the hundreds of applications for fishing permits that are before it to date. I know of people throughout the aquaculture areas Banks Peninsula and the Marlborough Sounds who having obtained a coastal permit from the local regional council have not been able to get under way because their application for a fisheries permit sits on a ministry official’s desk and is not being progressed. 
The second issue I specifically want to concentrate on is the time constraint that the Minister of Conservation has to consider any application from a council to be excluded from the moratorium because that particular council has made progress and resolved issues regarding aquaculture management areas. I was aghast when it was presented to the select committee that the Minister of Conservation should have no time constraints at all. 
 One of the good things that the select committee was able to come up with—and it was done by all parties represented on that select committee—was an acknowledgment that it was totally unreasonable for the Minister of Conservation—particularly the current Minister of Conservation—to have no time constraints imposed whatsoever. The committee was able to work through that issue and instead of having no time constraints we agreed to extend the current time constraint of 20 working days to 40 working days. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on this part of the bill and certainly about the lapsed coastal permits. It is a very important issue that demonstrates the difficulty that marine farmers have had and the ridiculousness of the bureaucracy that they have been facing in the last few years. Today’s marine farmers are absolutely enmeshed in a quagmire of treaty settlements seabed claims Resource Management Act issues Environment Court sittings coastal pollution from third parties navigation by-laws community consultation algae blooms port authorities and a moratorium that has been extended. 
In Part 2 I am very pleased to see that lapsed permits have been extended because for the people of my electorate in Marlborough what happened was an absolute travesty. What had happened was that they had only 2 years after Resource Management Act consents were given for those consentsto be able to take effect. I know quite a few people in the marine farming industry and some of those consents are for very small extensions. But the Ministry of Fisheries in Nelson 2 years down the track had not processed their applications through no fault of their own—absolutely none. After they had had to pay out all that money for those resource consents they would then have to go through the process again. Can members imagine how frustrating that is! 
To add insult to injury the Ministry of Fisheries said that if people ring up to find out where their consents are at the ministry will charge them $200 an hour to answer their questions. Well it certainly worked—it stopped it answering those questions. Three years ago in my first term as a member of Parliament for the Kaikoura electorate I was writing to the Ministry of Fisheries about the time delays. At that time the ministry told the Minister it did not need more staff and that it would get the situation under control. Well it did not. It did need more staff and it did need to be able to move to get those permits through. It has made no allocation for those that are just small extensions as opposed to major. It is taking them in the order in which they came in but they have not progressed. 
The rugged individuals the men and women out there who make the marine farming industry the multimillion-dollar industry it is today are frustrated to the hilt—absolutely to the hilt. Terry Schwass who is one of those pioneers a great guy has been really instrumental in setting up the aquaculture course at Queen Charlotte College. It is a wonderful course for kids and many of them are children who would have really not seen much future for themselves in Marlborough. They are now doing their boat master certificates their diving certificates and getting out and learning about aquaculture. 
That is the future. If we could just progress this industry and allow it to develop its potential! But the terrible amount of bureaucracy that has surrounded the whole development now—all the things I listed before—mean that this industry has ground to a halt. An industry that could be worth a billion dollars by 2020 has been ground to a halt. It has gone from 20 percent growth to zero. 
If we look just at mussels we see that the export volumes peaked in 1998 and have actually reduced since then. This is an industry that was booming creating regional development giving jobs and giving our children real hope for the future. I am talking about children who do not want to become academics. They want to go into an industry where they can work outside stay in the area they were born in and develop really good job opportunities. But now we see through the Government’s inability to deal with the issues in a way that will progress this industry in this country that we have an extension of the moratorium. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise honourable members that the amendment to clause 5 and the amendment to clause 61 in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. In the debate on Part 1 the Committee rejected an amendment to extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004. The proposed amendments seek to insert a 1 April 2006 extension in the definitions in a later section in the principal Act. This is not consistent with the Committee’s earlier decision. However there is another amendment in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley to clause 6(2). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the expression “40” and substituting the expression “30”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Again I will be making some attempt to improve this bill. As I have said the Government seems hell-bent on ramming it through this Parliament and ignoring the plight of marine farmers throughout the country—Maori and non-Maori alike. I have two amendments to suggest for the title. The first amendment is that the title of “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act” be deleted and the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Further Extension) Amendment Act” be inserted. I do that simply because this extension although the first extension to the initial moratorium— 
Hon David Carter 
: A once-only! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —which was a once-only apparently at the time is actually one of many moratoriums that have been put on the aquaculture industry over the last 5 to 10 years. The thought that this is the only extension or one of only two moratoriums is false. There have been a number of moratoriums. It is time the handbrakes were taken off the aquaculture industry and that those businesses were allowed to get on with the job. 
The other amendment I will be tabling is a change from the title of the “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act” to the “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium—Seabed and Foreshore) Amendment Act” because we all know in this Parliament—and we are under no illusions—that this is all to do with the fact that the Government has been unable to resolve the seabed and foreshore issues quickly and properly. The Government has controversy in its ranks. It has controversy in the provinces in the cities and throughout New Zealand on this issue mainly because it has never stuck to its guns on any single policy. It keeps doing U-turns. I have counted five U-turns. I sleep at nights and there could have been some U-turns in the dead of night. But I have counted five U-turns so far during waking hours. No wonder there has been controversy! No one knows where the Government is going next and no one knows where it is heading or why. This bill should be called the Resource Management Aquaculture Moratorium (Seabed and Foreshore) Amendment Bill. 
I say that the Government should get on with making public the aquaculture reforms so that regional councils are not flying in the dark when trying to develop aquaculture management areas. Although the Government says that the intention of this delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed issue and I have alluded to that it is not the only intention. The reality is that regional councils also need more time to establish aquaculture management areas and to date only four regions have made any progress or come close at all. We have no confidence on this side of the Chamber that an additional time frame of 9 months will be sufficient to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue and enact the aquaculture reform legislation which actually has not seen the light of day yet and we have no confidence that 9 months will help regional councils plan for aquaculture management areas. 
It is somewhat of a joke to restrict this title to just the aquaculture moratorium extension. There is a lot more to it than that. There is a lot more that has been swept under the carpet and there is a lot more to come to light. What are the reforms for the aquaculture industry? What is the Government tossing Maori? What bone is the Government throwing Maori so they will accept its seabed and foreshore policy? Is it 10 20 30 or 40 percent of aquaculture management areas to Maori? All these questions have to be resolved. Nine months is certainly not long enough to enact the reform legislation if the Ministry of Fisheries is not sharing information with regional councils throughout this country. We unashamedly oppose this bill; we always have and we continue to do so. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise during the title debate to support the two excellent amendments that have been moved by my colleague Phil Heatley. But I want the Committee to also note that whilst the new Minister David Benson-Pope has not answered one question throughout this debate— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He’s a quick learner! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well the Deputy Prime Minister has now arrived and says that David Benson-Pope is a quick learner. If he thinks it is the purpose of us standing here during the Committee stage to ask questions of a Minister unable to answer the questions and refusing to answer the questions then I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister needs to look at the Standing Orders and figure out for himself the purpose of the Committee stage of the whole House. We have got used to the fact that more recently as we debate the Committee stage of bills Labour Ministers do not answer questions. That is far from satisfactory even though the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen obviously thinks it is a very satisfactory state of affairs. 
The point I was going to make before he interrupted was that whilst we note that the new Minister of Fisheries has not taken a call the other thing that the Committee ought to note is that not one Maori Labour member of Parliament has taken a call. Not one Maori Labour member of Parliament has taken a call supporting this legislation which probably means that the suggestions we have been making are not tidy with this legislation because it is associated with the seabed and foreshore issue—and we all know that the Prime Minister herself does not have a policy because she keeps coming into the Chamber at question time and gives us a different answer every day to the questions— 
Phil Heatley 
: She’s got five policies! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Phil Heatley tells me there are five policies. I want the Committee to note that not one Labour member of Parliament has bothered to take a call and express any support at all for the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. There has not been one call from any of them. It is all very well for people like Mr Tamihere to roar like a lion when he is outside Wellington but he should come into Parliament particularly under the nose of Helen Clark the Prime Minister and make in this Chamber the sorts of statements he makes outside Wellington. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s this got to do with the title? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Phil Heatley has moved an excellent amendment that the words “seabed and foreshore” need to be included in the title. I know that we have to explain things two or three times to get through to Jill Pettis but we all know that the reason this moratorium extension legislation is being further extended is that Helen Clark and Dr Michael Cullen cannot get the seabed and foreshore policy tidy within the caucus. Jill Pettis knows that. She knows that the caucus they had today went on long after 1 o’clock because they were debating this difficult issue that the Government has struck. That is why the words “seabed and foreshore” certainly need to be included in the title. 
But the first amendment that Mr Heatley moved is also one worthy of consideration by the Committee today; the word “further” needs to be included in the title of the bill. The “Resource Management (Aquaculture Further Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill” is a very sensible suggestion from Mr Heatley because anybody picking up this legislation will think this is a new measure that the Government has come up with because it has no answers for aquaculture. Mr Benson-Pope says that the Government has not got the answers so it imposes a moratorium. But the title ought to point out to people—and certainly the industry is well aware of it—that this is a further extension to an earlier moratorium we opposed 2 years ago. At that time the then now fired Minister of Fisheries Pete Hodgson guaranteed to the House that we would not be back debating this sort of legislation. He guaranteed he would have the answers. Now to be fair to Pete Hodgson that was prior to the seabed and foreshore issue rearing its head and Helen Clark having difficulty with the Maori caucus. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member and this is no reflection on the members who have spoken there has been a change in the Standing Orders regarding the particular debate that we are on now. For clarification I shall let members know. The Standing Orders Committee considers that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill. So it is not quite as tight as it used to be. It allows members a little bit of latitude but they need to stick to the Standing Order. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I wonder what level of intellectual debate we can have in this House and in this country in 2004 when a member of the party on my right can say: “What bone are you throwing Maori?”. The member for Whangarei—Northland—of all places with a 35 to 40 percent Maori population should never ever descend to that level here or elsewhere in serious debate on those matters. I tell that member that I personally find it offensive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member sit down. I just say to the member on my left that interjections of back-bench members on each other are totally out of order. I am asking members to recognise that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have been crafted from well over 100 years of parliamentary democracy in this country. If members interject on members while they are in very close proximity it muffles the microphone. I would urge members to use restraint and to offer courtesy to other members. What goes around comes around. 
JIM PETERS 
: I have aired the matter sufficiently and I look to the member to think intensely about what he said. We have come to the end of the debate with regard to the title issues. I merely want to say very quickly to the Minister that the issues we have raised and our reluctant agreement to this extension are absolute. As has already been stated by the previous speaker moratoriums have been in existence in the industry since 1992. Some regional moratoriums are still in existence. So this moratorium for a further extension nationally is not unusual. However the Aquaculture Council and other bodies came to the select committee and said absolutely that this matter should have come to an end. 
In particular they had regard to the fact that the Minister’s Government said in 2000 with regard to the title that the greatest possible benefit could be obtained from the coastal space and should be so “without undermining the rights of existing fishers or allowing undue adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.” We will reach that desirable state in the future only if the Minister turns his mind absolutely first of all to the initial issues that I have already outlined on behalf of New Zealand First—that is the need to have a firm understanding of the sustainability of the fisheries resource and the impacts on fishing not just on marine farming but other fishing impacts as well. 
That leads on to the need for development of the appropriate methodologies and mechanisms of which we heard precious little out in the wider world particularly at regional council level with special regard to space and tendering. 
Last of all until we have that the intrusive impact of what marine farming might mean upon the everyday harbour dweller and coastal dweller is not known. It ought to be known. There are multiple levels of certainty that need to be given to the industry. Therefore 1 January 2005 is the absolute date. If that is the end of the moratorium a far-sighted regional council such as the Northland Regional Council which has gone ahead and done its work aided by the thinking of the Minister and his ministry will then lead to the next stage that in itself will be of some length—namely the variations and changes in the regional coastal plan where we would in our case and in the case of other regional councils have to legally define the areas. Then in accordance with the framework of the Government how should that space be allocated in a regional sense and last of all how could their uses be monitored? So there is a vast area of work for the industry and for councils to work to in a not altogether understanding environment in regard to ratepayers and particularly those who have baches and houses on the coast. However there is a task to be done if this industry is to be maximised and potential for income and long-term employment is to be gained. With that we support the title clause. We support the speedy work of the bill with an absolute certainty of 31 December 2004. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a relatively short call on this particular clause the title clause. Perhaps I could ask in a rhetorical way: “What’s in a name?”. Is the title actually important? Well I think it is very important because people listening to the debate who have just tuned in want to understand from the title of this bill exactly what the bill encompasses. From the title “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act 2003” it is reasonable to assume that the extension will go from March to December but the title does not actually and accurately reflect the reality of this bill. It does not reflect the fact that the Department of Conservation has had a huge influence over this bill and is seeking before anything goes ahead in terms of aquaculture 10 percent of our waters. That is a huge part and I do not see it reflected anywhere in the title. 
The title does not reflect the absolute frustration that is felt. Many speakers in this Chamber have alluded to that already in the debate this afternoon. They have talked constantly about the opportunity cost to the industry as well as to the country not just in dollar terms but in jobs and opportunity that seem to be going begging. I know of one employee of this establishment who is investing in Australia because that person knows as do most of those who either listen to or are interested in this debate that the moratorium will go well past 31 December this year. That is a racecourse certainty in my view. 
We have heard—and it is certainly not reflected in the title—the frustration of Maori over this extension. This industry is very much part of the Maori way of being their lifestyle. The foreshore and seabed are hugely important to them yet we have not heard from the Maori caucus on this issue. Those members have not spoken on whether they feel this bill is good or indifferent. I think of  
Once Were Warriors 
 the musical that has just been put on around the country; I think of the Maori caucus in that light. Those members are here as the voice of Maoridom in this House yet they have not spoken on this hugely important issue for their people. I suspect that many Maori will see their representatives in this House in that light—in the context that perhaps they once were warriors but are no more because they are not standing up for the issues. They are not standing up and speaking on this bill or even on the title of this bill—a bill that is so important to Maoridom. 
The reality is that—and I think Mr Phil Heatley is absolutely correct—the title does not reflect the truth of the matter. We should be calling the bill something like the “Foreshore and Seabed Problem Bill”. That is the truth of the matter. That is why this extension is being carried forward after assurances from the previous Minister of Fisheries when the moratorium was first put on for a couple of years that it would be lifted sometime in March—I do not have the exact date. Now we have an extension right through until Christmas. 
There is nothing in the title that reflects the truth of this matter. We stand and debate this question—those of us from this side of the Chamber do anyway—and we wait in vain for the Minister to take a call and explain his particular point of view or the Government’s point of view. It does not happen. One of the frustrations of the democratic process is when members on one side of the Chamber speak and expect the Minister at least to represent his Government’s point of view but it does not happen. So many times when we stand and speak we end up with that result. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of the bill “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill” actually covers the two aspects of the reason this moratorium has been extended. The whole point was that aquaculture law reform was supposed to be brought in. We had the moratorium we were told so that we could get aquaculture law reform. It was touted as making life easier. But the industry no longer supports the tortuous convoluted process proposed as the development of aquaculture management areas has become a bureaucratic nightmare. This industry has gone from 20 percent growth to zero percent growth. It is going backwards. This country will not become wealthy unless we support industries such as this. What we have now is a moratorium so that we can develop aquaculture law reform but that has not happened. 
One of the reasons it has not happened is the seabed issue. I quote Mr Hodgson when he was the Minister of Fisheries. He said the foreshore and seabed issue had delayed the development of aquaculture reform legislation which also would deal with the use of coastal space. He said he had alerted the marine farming industry earlier this year that an extension to the moratorium could be necessary given the unexpected complications of the foreshore and seabed issue. Well there did not need to be unexpected complications. They could have been sorted. The Government could have legislated put the seabed straight into Crown ownership and made the position absolutely clear to all New Zealanders. We would not need the moratorium that we have now. We would not need this bill tonight. We would not have seen the rugged individuals who forged the aquaculture industry becoming angry and frustrated. 
I sum it up by quoting Marine Farming Association member Terry Schwass who wrote recently in a farming magazine: “Well done politicians and bureaucrats! You have brought a once viable and vibrant industry to a standstill.” That is what has happened. This Government can blame nobody else but itself for this industry being brought to a standstill. I will quote another person from Marlborough the Mussel Industry Council Executive Officer Paul Lupi: “Looming law reforms the 2-year moratorium on aquaculture development trouble processing permits the rising costs in New Zealand were making it hard to do well in a softening international market.” These people have had enough. Paul Lupi is leaving. He has had enough. Terry Schwass has said: “Bye-bye I’m off to Chile.” I do not actually think he is going but a lot of people are. I hope he does not go because he is one of the founders of the industry. 
New Zealand has to realise that we have to change the focus back on to making New Zealand a wealthy and prosperous country. We heard Michael Cullen laughing before but why does he not take a call? That is what I would like to know. He should take a call and explain why this industry has gone from 20 percent growth to zero percent growth. Maybe he does not care at all about this. I tell members that the people of Marlborough care because this industry was our biggest income earner but what do we have now? We have zero growth. 
The Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope has not taken one call. He is the new Minister of Fisheries. The fisheries people would much rather see Phil Heatley because they know that at least he has been out there and knows the industry. This Minister has not taken a single solitary call on his first bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: Told him he has to sit down. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The chief Labour whip tells me he has been told to sit down and keep quiet. Oh well that is par for the course from this Government. It is telling everyone to sit down keep quiet and do U-turns whilst trying to change the poll results. It has not made any difference whatsoever because people are fed up with the Government. They are sick of it. I say that politics may be the problem but it is also the solution. We must have a new law that gets away from the two levels of consent that we see in the legislation whereby people have to go through the Resource Management Act process then have to get a fisheries permit. We have seen how complicated those two processes are. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It says volumes about the arrogance of the Labour Government and its United Future party doormat that not one of their members has contributed a single 5-minute speech to this debate about an industry that earns hundreds of millions of dollars for New Zealand but which they want to shut down for a further 9 months. 
Jill Pettis 
: What about the title? Mention the title! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Jill Pettis wants to interject. Why does she not give a speech? She is probably like those who are referred to in the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial as not knowing anything about wealth creation or business in New Zealand which has so much been brought to attention by this bill. 
National’s spokesperson on fisheries the very competent Phil Heatley has moved some very sound amendments in respect of the title to put into perspective just what this bill is all about. It is an anti-growth bill. It is a bill that is all about the foreshore and seabed issue—about which Dr Cullen who is in the Chamber has been all over the paddock during the last 9 months—and a complete lack of leadership. I would like to hear from Dr Cullen. Perhaps he would like to give a speech and tell the people of New Zealand what the Government’s policy on the foreshore and seabed is. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: We would all like to know. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We would all like to know because we have had five different versions. We have had so many promises of legislation being introduced. The reason it is so relevant is that this legislation is a promise that the moratorium will be extended for only 9 months but that relies of course on the Prime Minister’s commitment that the bill on the foreshore and seabed will be introduced this month. Already this week we have been told that that bill will be further delayed— 
Phil Heatley 
: Is that before or after the inquiry? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Phil Heatley asks me whether that will be before or after the royal commission. Do members remember the Royal Commission on Social Policy? I think Dr Cullen was about then. It was the most expensive doorstop ever produced in the history of this Parliament. The architect of it was Dr Michael Cullen. It was an enormous failure. [ 
Interruption 
] That was the Minister of Social Welfare of the time—the Minister of the royal commission. Now Dr Cullen believes he can pull the same trick again and have a royal commission on some of the treaty foreshore and seabed issues that are holding back key industries like aquaculture. 
I pointed out during the Committee stage that this issue is no laughing matter. It is a $45 million a year issue for just the community of Tasman. Tasman is just a small fraction of New Zealand. This industry is worth $45 million a year for Tasman. There are losses of $150000 per day for the district of Tasman. That is almost as much as the Minister’s salary. Mr Benson-Pope should earn it by fixing this problem and not further kicking it for touch. If we could resolve these issues rather than have further delay then we would be far better off—not just in Tasman but all over New Zealand. That is the sort of leadership that is so sadly lacking from this Government. 
All sorts of positive amendments were put forward by Mr Heatley that would make a positive difference to this bill and provide some discipline for the Government to resolve the issue by year’s end and not further kick for touch. Perhaps Mr Heatley’s amendments should have been called the “Resource Management (Aquaculture Kick for Touch) Amendment Bill”. I know the member used that language earlier. All that this legislation means is that when one does not have a policy the easiest thing is to have a moratorium. We saw that with the Government in respect of genetic engineering. We also saw it in respect of a whole number of areas where the issue was just too hard. 
Simon Power 
: A moratorium on school closures? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague the member for Rangitikei says the Government is in trouble so it will have a moratorium on school closures. 
Phil Heatley 
: We should have a moratorium on going to the seabed and foreshore. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That at least would be more lawful than what the Prime Minister did by trying to heavy the Maori Land Court. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act” and substitute the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Further Extension) Amendment Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act” and substitute the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Seabed and Foreshore) Amendment Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.