Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Perhaps I could describe the smoke and mirrors being used by the Labour Party up and down the country when it comes to aquaculture. Of course it is a fact that no new aquaculture management areas have been created anywhere in the country in the last 3 years. The Labour Party says that new marine farms have been created but of course although they might have been started only recently they were created under the old legislation before Labour supposedly fixed it. The new marine farms that are coming on stream today—the farms that came into play recently—were created under the old legislation. Since the new legislation came in 3 years ago the Labour Party legislation that apparently fixed the industry no new marine farms have come through. So when Metiria Turei talks about new areas up in Northland which of course is my home patch she is talking about either farms that have been in existence which automatically have become aquaculture management areas or new farms that have become aquaculture management areas passed under the old legislation. 
Hon David Carter 
: Did those few new places lose 20 percent of the market—who was the real Minister? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is exactly right. I want to inform the Committee about an issue concerning clause 11(3) on the definition of regional councils. An intelligent person like Maurice Williamson will weep when he hears this. I have not explained it to him before but I would like to explain it to him now. When Labour passed the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act over 3 years ago in 2004 it said that regional councils would have a specific say. But members know I know and half the country knows that Tasman Marlborough Gisborne and Nelson are—are what I ask Mr Williamson? They are unitary authorities. They have the functions of both a regional council and a district council. There is no “Marlborough Regional Council” because the Marlborough District Council the Tasman District Council the Nelson City Council and the Gisborne District Council are all both a district council and a regional council. That is unlike the situation in Northland where we have the Northland Regional Council and also the Far North District Council the Whangarei District Council and the Kaipara District Council. But the Marlborough Tasman Nelson and Gisborne councils are unitary authorities. They have both regional council and district council functions. 
Believe it or not when the Minister passed that Act over 3 years ago he never put in the definition to say that where most of the aquaculture happens those district councils would have regional council functions. That means in effect that the most important district councils in the area are ignored in this legislation yet they are dealing with coastal activities aquaculture and marine farming all the time. My question to New Zealanders asks how they can trust the ability of a Government that does not even realise that four district councils across this country—or actually three district councils and one city council; I think Nelson has a city council—which have as much to do with aquaculture as does any other council in the country have only regional council functions and that by passing the 2004 Act we could have gone by the Local Government Act definition that does not recognise the regional council function in those councils. Today thankfully we are passing legislation that will secure in ink through this Parliament the recognition of the regional council functions of those four councils in this country. Thank goodness that has happened over 3 years on; we are pleased about that. 
I would like to ask the Minister of Commerce who did not sign the “glossy” that came out a few years ago why she did not sign it. Was it because she was suspicious that there would be no progress in aquaculture going forward? Was it because there was no room for her signature because everyone else had signed it? Was it because she knew that a number of Ministers would resign their portfolios or like David Benson-Pope be fired from their portfolios and she did not want to be one of a number of signatories to a document that was clearly cursed right from the beginning? That is my first question. My second question asks whether she was aware at the time of the legislation being passed over 3 years ago that her Labour Party Cabinet colleagues did not know that those unitary authorities had regional council functions. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 251 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 22 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper252. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.