SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I seek leave for the bill to be considered as one question.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this
Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
I simply want the Minister to clarify one point with regard to Part 3, “Amendments to Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004”. The reason I want clarification is that some quite differing information was given in the previous debate on the second reading. The principal question I want answered by the Minister is—
Hon Lianne DalzielI will say it very, very slowly for the Minister and member for Christchurch East. How much new aquaculture space—new aquaculture management areas, as they are called—has been created since the passing of the original legislation in 2004? In my contribution and the contribution from my colleague—
Yes, I do know the answer. When the Minister does her homework she will have to stand and say that no new space has been created. The reason I think that should be clarified is that the Green member, of course, suggested in the debate that some new space—new aquaculture management areas—had been created, particularly in Northland.
The reason this does need to be satisfied with regard to Part 3 is that if new space has been created, then effectively 40 percent of that space must now be made available to Māori. I suspect, from the contribution of the Māori Party in the second reading debate, that they are not aware of receiving any space, and I suspect that in this case the Māori Party is absolutely right. They will not have received any space, because no new space has been created. That is why this legislation is so critical. It is but a band-aid to fix a far bigger problem.
In 2004 the Government passed legislation that the then Minister, David Benson-Pope, announced as being groundbreaking legislation that would lift this industry from, at that stage, about a $200 million industry to a billion-dollar export industry. That has not occurred, and I think the Minister should take time to clarify with the officials immediately behind her, to find out how much space has been created—
I think that the Minister needs to answer, for the sake of the Māori Party members. They need to have accurate information, and they can then be informed how much space has been created since 2004. I am sure they will find the answer is zero. Therefore the Minister might also like to rise and give me an explanation as to what else she is proposing to do to fix the legislation beyond this particular measure to ensure we do get enabling legislation to allow this industry to reach its potential.
The Minister will be well aware of this very fancy document I am holding. I think she must be about the only Minister who actually did not get to sign it. Everyone else has put their name on the bottom of it, but I do not see Lianne Dalziel’s name there. It is a particularly glossy brochure. It points out the potential of this industry. It is not a laughing matter, I say to the Minister.
This is important—Minister of Commerce. This Minister of Commerce should be enabling legislation to allow the aquaculture industry to reach its potential, which is a billion dollars - plus.
No—I suspect it is because perhaps there was a fall-out between this Minister and Benson-Pope, because Benson-Pope did not ask for her signature; I am not sure. But every other Minister certainly managed to sign it. A lot of them are not Ministers any more, but I guess that is not the point.
The final question, I think, is one for the Minister to confirm for the sake of the debate today. How much new aquaculture space has been created since that wonderful piece of heralding legislation was advanced by the Hon David Benson-Pope in 2004—legislation that the National Party strongly said at the time would not work? If the answer is that no space has been created, it is—
Hon Maurice WilliamsonI am sure there will be, but we are waiting for the Minister to take a call. I am sure that that is absolute proof that the National Party was right about this legislation and the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, was, as expected, absolutely wrong about it.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
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.
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 to Parts 2 and 4 be 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.