Worth Richard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11656] 
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.