Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11657] 
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.