Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11738] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is interesting is it not that when the moratorium was put in place over 2 years ago the issue was all about a race for space. Lots of aquaculturalists saw an opportunity and wanted to gain space in the marine area. It was a race for space. Now the issue has become one of space for race. We know that the Government is doing a deal with some Maori to give them 20 percent of the marine farming areas. It is about space for race—a deal done on the cheap at the expense of all New Zealanders. That is what the issue is all about and we are pointing that out to the House today. It was about a race for space; now it is space for race. 
Interestingly I put this question to the former Minister on 29 July 2003: “Is he going to extend the 2-year moratorium on new marine-farming consents in light of the submissions made by Maori over seabed and beach ownership …?”. I asked him whether he was going to extend the moratorium over the issue of seabed and beach ownership and the Minister came back to me and said: “As I told the marine-farming industry—” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I say to members that there is nothing wrong with robust debate; that is part and parcel of the House. But I also say to them that they should refer to Speaker’s ruling 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. Any member can seek the next call if he or she wishes but running commentaries are out of order. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for your consideration. This is what the former Minister said when I asked him whether he was going to extend the moratorium because of what had happened over the seabed and foreshore issue. The former Minister said: “my aim is to avoid any extension … and I expect to know in a few weeks whether I will succeed.” He did not succeed in that. That comment was made back in July last year. The former Minister did not succeed and the moratorium has been extended now for another 9 months. Aquaculture is on the back-burner. The Minister is doing deals that New Zealanders know nothing about and we are seeing new marine farms go overseas. 
Marine farms are shifting. We are seeing headlines like this: “Further delay on new marine farms” and like this: “Marine farmers threaten to go overseas”. Farmers are well past making threats now; marine farms are going overseas. “Aquaculture delays will cost millions.” as another marine farmer said to the Primary Production Committee. We have seen the special select committee set up by the Labour Government in order to avoid this whole issue. I am sitting on that select committee and I say that it will end up being a shambles because Labour Party members have decided for some reason that they will cause a diversion and set up a special select committee when the whole issue could be dealt with through the fisheries law regional council law and a different select committee. 
Interestingly we saw this article in the newspaper late last year which I will reread to the House. The line I am interested in reads: “It is also expected that any deal on the foreshore and seabed will include giving Maori a share of the aquaculture industry.” I do not know because the Minister of Fisheries has not told me—and he certainly has not told the rest of New Zealand—how he is to decide how much of the marine farming area he will gift to Maori. He has not decided how to measure how much he will gift to Maori and in failing to do so he has not told us whether he believes Maori own the foreshore and seabed. But I would have thought that if the Minister is to give Maori marine farming areas in effect he is acknowledging that they own the foreshore and seabed. So one wonders why if the Government is to give Maori 20 percent of the space it does not give them the whole lot. That is the obvious argument and where the issue is heading. 
When the moratorium was first set up over 2 years ago I was interested to be introduced to a number of Maori submitters. In fact a high proportion of the 143 submissions we had were from Maori and they raised several issues at that time. One issue was that the moratorium would have negative impacts on their development—and nothing has changed. They said the water within their rohe was of concern—and nothing has changed there; that still is of concern. Then they said that there would be adverse effects on the existing treaty settlements. Nothing has changed there with regard to the moratorium now. Maori also said back then that the 2-year moratorium needed to be opposed because there were issues to do with the ownership of the seabed and foreshore. That was 2 years ago. Maori submitters opposed the moratorium then. Nothing has changed so they should be opposing the moratorium now. 
But the seabed and foreshore issue is not the only one that is locked up in the whole moratorium extension. It is not the only reason that the handbrakes have been put on. There is also the issue of regional councils struggling to make any headway at all on aquaculture management areas because the Ministry of Fisheries has not provided them with enough information. In fact in this paper I tabled last year regional councils stated this: “There is an inability to plan for aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Minister of Fisheries along with the gaps and inadequacies in that information.” 
 Further they stated: “The use of a moratorium is a blunt and inflexible management tool such that no new aquaculture activities can commence until aquaculture management areas are created.” That is a damning report. 
I was concerned enough about that report to actually contact the former Minister through official channels and ask him about the new moratorium extension. I was concerned enough about the first 2-year moratorium let alone the extension of the moratorium to do that. I said he had not made any progress in 2 years and asked him what made him think he would make any progress in the next 9 months. I asked what extra resourcing if any he would put in place to ensure that the ministry completed the reforms and other required tasks during the 9-month moratorium extension on new marine farm areas. That was a simple question. The former Minister was extending the moratorium for 9 months because he had made no progress in 2 years so I asked whether he was going to chuck some more resources at the issue so we could get the job done. His reply was: “At this point”—and let us remember he had had 2 years to think about the issue—“I do not consider it necessary to make additional resources available to complete the aquacultural reforms before the expiry of the moratorium. The moratorium extension was necessary because of the unexpected complication of the foreshore and seabed issue and the Waitangi Tribunal  
Ahu Moana 
 report that delayed the development of the aquaculture legislation.” 
The reality is that the Minister of Fisheries is not putting any resources into this moratorium at all. We will not see aquaculture management areas or the seabed and foreshore legislation resolved in the next 9 months and in 9 months’ time we will be debating a further extension to the moratorium because no progress has been made. If we do not debate a further extension we will simply go back to the situation that we were at 2 years ago where there was cumbersome legislation defining the aquaculture industry. There has been little progress since then. 
National opposes this bill; we certainly will be voting against it. The Government should get on with making public the aquaculture reforms so that regional councils are not flying in the dark any more when trying to manage aquaculture. Although the Government says that the intention of the delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed issue it should still be communicating with regional councils. We have no confidence that 9 months will be sufficient time to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue particularly since the Prime Minister says that the legislation on that matter will not come into the House until after May. The Government has no time to enact the aquaculture reform legislation and it has no time to help regional councils to plan for aquaculture management areas. There is not a dog’s show that what the Minister plans to do in the next 9 months will happen and I say that the foreshore and seabed legislation and the deals done there are what is holding the whole process up.