Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
I move, That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004, a number of issues have arisen with the legislation. This bill contains amendments to deal with those issues that have arisen from a May 2006 decision of the Environment Court in the case of SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council. The effect of this decision is that applications can be made for aquaculture outside of aquaculture management areas, even though they cannot be granted. This could have the effect of blocking the allocation of space to iwi under the terms of the aquaculture settlement in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. It could also create problems in processing other applications and in developing aquaculture management areas. We cannot allow a loophole to block aquaculture settlement obligations being met.
The bill cancels any applications that were made after 9 May 2006—the date of the Environment Court decision—that do not relate to aquaculture management areas in operative regional coastal plans. As far as officials know, there have been no such applications. The bill also freezes applications made outside of operative aquaculture management areas between 1 January 2005 and 9 May 2006. I thank the Primary Production Committee for clarifying that this amendment applies only to applications outside of operative aquaculture management areas. These applications can be processed only if the relevant area becomes an aquaculture management area in an operative regional coastal plan. In the event that the relevant area does not become an aquaculture management area in an operative regional coastal plan within 10 years of commencement of the amendment bill, the applications will be cancelled. These applications are the ones that were the subject of the Environment Court case.
The bill also clarifies, in light of the Environment Court’s decision, how aquaculture management areas are created. The bill makes it clear that from 1 January 2005 aquaculture management areas can be created only through the post - aquaculture reform provisions of the Resource Management Act, by either developing a regional coastal plan that provides for aquaculture management areas, and completing the interim aquaculture management area process set out in a regional coastal plan, or deeming marine farms approved under old legislation to be aquaculture management areas.
The bill also amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, to ensure that the Ministry of Fisheries is not prevented from carrying out an assessment of any undue adverse effect on fishing. The select committee has assisted by adding clarification in clauses 9A and 9B as to whom aquaculture agreements should be made with, when an area is covered by a reservation. Supplementary Order Paper 251 provides an additional technical fix to ensure that the fisheries register records a memorial against all quota stocks affected by a reservation. This keeps those trading quota supplied with the information that agreements could have been made that might affect the value of the quota. The Environment Court’s decision has highlighted a small number of consequential issues that provisions in the bill also address.
The bill makes amendments to the Resource Management Act, to ensure, first, that councils cannot grant coastal permits for non-aquaculture activities in an aquaculture management area, except to the extent that the activity is compatible with aquaculture activities. Secondly, an amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 ensures that applications that are not cancelled do not prevent allocation of space to the trustee. Thirdly, there are amendments to the provisions relating to the assessment of undue adverse effects and the definition of “new space” in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.
The select committee has added a definition making it clear that unitary councils—and Tasman District Council is one of those—are regional councils for the purposes of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. This is a very sensible clarification. I thank the select committee for its speedy and detailed consideration of the bill, and commend the bill to the House.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
I acknowledge my colleague and the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, David Carter—a man who is quick to his feet, with a sharp mind, and who helped navigate the select committee through its consideration of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill. I look forward, like most members of the House, to—
R Doug WoolertonOh well, there is Doug Woolerton toeing the party lie. We see that he is over there, contributing to this House, and we look forward to his integrity perhaps shining through when he speaks about this bill. I imagine it is very difficult to present that type of face to the country at the moment.
I will return to the legislation. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, this bill amends four Acts: the Fisheries Act 1996, the Resource Management Act, the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Traditional Provisions) Act, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. That is why this legislation will be divided into four bills.
The bill addresses the Environment Court decision of 9 May 2006. There was a difficulty there where a whole bunch of investors had applied for aquaculture space—marine-farming space—that was not deemed an aquaculture management area through the processes of the new Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2005. Two things fell out of that. Firstly, there were difficulties over what effect on fishing the marine-farming area would have and, secondly, there was an issue around the settlement with Māori—the 20 percent provision of new aquaculture space that was to be passed over to Māori as aquaculture developed in this country. Of course, that was the provision of 20 percent of existing aquaculture space that Māori were entitled to in the form of cash, aquaculture area purchased by the Crown, or new aquaculture space. Those applications at the top of the South Island threw a spanner in the works, so to speak, and a court case ensued. This legislation seeks to fix that.
There is some irony, particularly in the Minister’s speech where she talked about the need for this legislation, that in the relatively small area applied for, Māori will get 20 percent of the marine farm area to be developed down there in the future. I say that because it has been over 1,300 days since the Labour Government’s aquaculture reforms came into effect. The total area of new aquaculture management areas, which are the areas where marine farming that did not previously exist, that has developed in those 1,300 days of marine farming now amounts to—and members need to get their pens out, because I need them to write down this number—zero. I want the House to know that none, zero, zilch, zip, nothing has been created in the way of aquaculture management areas in over 1,300 days—over 3 years—since those reforms were put in place. No new aquaculture management areas, new marine farms, or new areas have been created in that time under Labour’s legislation. Is that not absolutely appalling?
Māori were to get 20 percent of the new space that was to be created—that is, one-fifth of the new space, for those members who are struggling. I want members to get out their pens and paper again, because we will do a little sum. Are members ready? Essentially, Maori have one-fifth, or 20 percent, of however much has been created in 3 years. So 20 percent of zero, or nothing, zip, or zilch, means that Māori have not received a single square metre of new marine-farming space in over 3 years anywhere in the country. Is that not an absolute disgrace?
But the Minister has brought into this House some legislation that will patch up a small area at the top of the South Island, and I tell members that the National Party will support it. Why are we supporting it when it goes very little towards fixing a 3 or 4-year problem? We think that anything we can do to help marine farmers is at least something, so we may as well support this legislation, even if it is only incremental. Could the Labour Government have done much better? It certainly could have done better than zero. We will help it to do this small amount; we will be supporting this legislation, particularly given the input of National members on the select committee.
The irony of the Minister’s initial speech about passing this legislation for Māori is, of course, that Māori have received nothing in terms of aquaculture space—20 percent of new space created—because no new aquaculture space has been created anywhere in New Zealand. Marine farmers, in a mainstream sense across New Zealand, have not received any new space, and Māori have certainly not received any percentage of that. Therefore, they are no better off after the promises of over 3 years ago.
Hone Harawira might remember that there was a bit of quid pro quo 3 or 4 years ago when Labour said to Māori: “We will do you a deal. Stop marching for the seabed and foreshore and we will give you some marine-farming space.” Māori now have neither, so I will be very interested to hear Hone Harawira’s speech shortly.
It is true that this bill is very, very complex. It reflects some of the fundamental problems with the underlying legislation. We know that it will go only a small way to fix it up—it is a sticking plaster approach—but we are happy to support it.
During the course of the Committee stage I will speak about particular areas and particular clauses of the bill, because we had some issues to resolve when the legislation first came to the House. The first issue regarded the way that new marine-farming space affects those who fish. Members can appreciate that if there is a marine farm across the surface of the water, it is very difficult for fishermen to run a trawl line, to run nets, or to fish in that same area. They are essentially locked out of a geographical area of the sea. What happens is that there is a fisheries test—an impact assessment, if you like—to show how a marine farm put in that area would impact commercial, recreational, or customary fishers.
Unfortunately, previously the Act was not clear about the negotiations between marine farmers and fishers to make it fair for parties so that they could both be satisfied that a marine farm could be put in place. It states that the parties have 6 months to undertake those negotiations, but it was not clear as to when the 6 month-period started. The 6-month period was a bit open-ended, so we have closed that loophole and identified when it is to begin.
We have also looked at the issue of the regional council definition, because, believe it or not, when the original Act was passed the Government, when it identified regional councils in the Act, it did not put in a definition of what a regional council was. Unfortunately, under the Local Government Act, the councils of Marlborough, Tasman, Nelson, and Gisborne, which are all unitary authorities—they have regional and district council functions—are excluded from the Act. But in this legislation before us we say that those councils should be recognised as if they were regional councils.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
The people of this country have had the pleasure of hearing the National Party’s spokesperson on fishing.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
That is a very good question, so for the public’s information I will say his name is Mr Heatley, from Whangarei. I recall at the fishing meeting we had at Onerahi in Whangarei some years ago, he told people there that he was going to be the next Minister of Fisheries. I think they are probably still laughing, but the fact is that he has come out today and pretended he is on the side of Māori. That would be the world’s best kept secret, because hitherto, until National members have most recently aligned with the Māori Party, they have been anything but. On this bill we have had Mr Heatley speaking; and, of course, the chairman of the committee that looked at these four bills, and this one in particular, is one David Carter.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
David Carter is a front-bench MP for the National Party but he is known—
Hon Rick BarkerRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I thought he left at the last election, because there has been no evidence he has been here since then.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
He has carved his name on the desk, that is true, but that would take a bit of work, of course, and doing any work on things to advance the economic and social interests of the people of this country is not what the National Party has done lately. No, National has been engaged not in terms of aquaculture and the hopes and dreams and aspirations of people on the coastline of this country, and investors and shareholders in what should be a burgeoning economic aquaculture future, but has been obsessed with character assassination, day in, day out, until, of course, its lead man, Mr Key, was caught out again. I am speaking because I am from the tribe called Ngāti Wai, and that means people of the sea.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
It is a great tribe, and we have a serious interest in unlocking the aquacultural potential of this country in the interests not just of the Māori people but also of the region up north and of the nation, so that people can make a full economic contribution, hopefully, as exporters to add to this country’s wealth. Every time Māori sell a product offshore they bring home money for the family New Zealand, and that is the economic inspiration and vision that the party I am proud to be part of, New Zealand First, has always believed in. The areas designated in this legislation can be employed for only aquacultural purposes. I just want to put one thing on record here, because I heard a Māori Party spokesperson say—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I tell members why he said that. When I was young I did not sit on my backside sunning myself at Christmas time, lying around, surfing, and leading the rich man’s life that Mr Heatley used to lead. No, I used to work on the then new Panmure bridge for an Italian company called Codelfa-Cogefar.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
He raised it. They do not like it. They put up something smart and when they get the retort they do not like it. But just to finish off, I used to be the union delegate on the bridge, working every day in the rigging, getting things ready, doing something productive for New Zealand, and getting paid. I was a poor, humble student, unlike Mr Heatley and Mr Carter, who inherited all his wealth, and he is not prepared to share it with anyone at all. He watches every cent. He criticises me for the magnificent causes I have run in my life—and they have cost a fortune—and he has not been prepared to spend a cent himself but has criticised and passed judgment on a member of Parliament who is engaged in worthy causes, including suing him for saying defamatory things. Guess what Mr Carter said when he got to court?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I will get there very quickly. The case was about fishing. He told the court through his lawyer that nothing he said ever meant to impugn the honour and integrity of Winston Peters. That was his defence. There is a word for that that starts with “h”.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Oh, yeah! He is a big man in Parliament, he is a big man out there, but he gets to court, with all his millions, and he is dead scared.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The member and Bill Ralston and Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand? No, no. Tell the truth. Last December the judge said that there was a prima facie case to face here. In other words, when Mr Ralston goes on TV spewing his bile, it is because he is the one I sued, and he is losing. He does not look too flash now. Mr Carter is a mere bagatelle, so I thought I would let him go. Listen to him! Let me tell members something. He is not so happy about that, because he thinks he might have won, but when one is down the tubes $180,000 to one’s law firm as he is, do members think he has won? I do not. If I were the member, I would keep my mouth shut. I would not try to criticise Winston Peters and try to defame him. I say to the member to get up and tell the House now—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I would love to. Let me say that the Government is, through this bill, enabling Māori—because of the Waitangi settlement—to have 20 percent of this future resource. Why is that apposite now? Well, the Māori Party actually said that New Zealand First does not support the Treaty of Waitangi. That of course is not true. What we do not support is the phrase the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” that not one Māori member can tell me they can describe, not one historian can tell me what it is, nobody at law school can tell me what it is, and nobody in this House can tell me what it is, but they would love to have it in the law. When one asks what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, one is told that it is a sort of catch-all phrase.
Pita ParaoneRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
A feel-good phrase. It means whatever one wants to say it means. There is one party in this country that does understand Māori, and once, when we were better understood by Māori, we won all the Māori seats, which the Māori Party never will. One way to get offside Māoridom is to say one thing on the marae, one thing over Māori radio, and then do something privately that is different. That is what happened here. To put the record straight, I came down to the House because it was chance to say to Māoridom—and I know that they are listening in their tens of thousands now that they know this debate has started—that what they are hearing over the airwaves from the Māori Party is not the truth.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
That is what is in the bill. The 20 percent is the Waitangi settlement that the Government has agreed to, as to their fair proportion. That, after all, is the deal that was struck with Māoridom. The chairman of the select committee that sat on this bill, Mr Carter, can call it a load of rubbish. That is his speciality—a load of rubbish. But he obviously did not do anything when he was on the Primary Production Committee.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
He was sent here to be kept out of the family business, wasn’t he?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I cannot be certain of that, but if it has any truth to it I can understand why. If there ever was a cowboy in this place it is David Carter, from the South Island. In fact, Federated Farmers said: “Who on earth appointed him to that role?”. They want to know what they did to deserve him as the National Party spokesman on agriculture.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
They called him the invisible man, but unfortunately not the silent one. He is still interjecting in this House.
The New Zealand First Party is pleased to support this legislation, and to put a few things on the record that are factual—which are to do with the truth—rather than have ourselves so vilely, unfairly, demonstrably misrepresented.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
For a start, I want to put on record my thanks to Winston Peters for the cheque of $9,600 that we received last week as full and final settlement of a case that he lost. Thank you very much, I say to him. It took a long time to get it. It was probably the threat of bankruptcy proceedings that did it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot have a man get up and say that a transaction was done because of the threat of bankruptcy. That is humbug. The member has no right to make that sort of statement, at all. We paid Mr Carter because we always have paid people when we have to—not for the kinds of vile, selfish, venal reasons he has, but because it is called honour.
Speaking to the point of order, I want to say that payment was received only after the second letter was sent to Brian Henry saying that unless money was received, bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
There he goes again. That cannot possibly be true. As he well knows, any such letter had to be sent to the instructing solicitor, who is Dennis Gates—not Brian Henry, who is the barrister sole and does not get such correspondence. Whether the member’s lawyers are so stupid as to send it to the wrong man, I do not know. But I know that the cheque that Mr Carter got came from Dennis Gates. I ask the member whether the cheque came from Dennis Gates—yes or no. [ Interruption] The answer is that, yes, he does not know what he is talking about.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I think that we have had our fun, and I think that both members have made a contribution.
I would certainly like to speak to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just spoken on—probably as the deemed Minister of Fisheries in the Labour - New Zealand First Government. Of course, in recent weeks he has had more contact with the fishing industry—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot, surely, have a front-bench member of the National Party demonstrate his hopeless ignorance by referring to a Labour - New Zealand First Government. There is no such thing.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
It is a debatable point, Mr Peters, and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order.
The Labour-Progressive Government has been supported ably in recently months by the New Zealand First Party as it has maintained its position in Parliament.
I was saying that Mr Peters has had more contact with the fishing industry than the actual Minister of Fisheries, particularly over the last few weeks, with regular contact with the likes of Mr Simunovich and Mr Vela—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. See, he is at it again. He is making it up as he goes along. I have had no contact whatsoever recently with Mr Simunovich. I would not even know where he is living. That is the kind of deceit that member engages in all the time.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
What we are having may well lead to chaos, and I am not going to have that in this House. We will have order. This is a place for full and vigorous debate, but contributions will be made with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am on my feet—because I represent those Standing Orders. I crave your respect for them, and your understanding. Let us get back to the debate.
The biggest contribution that the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, has made to aquaculture during the last 9 years is this pamphlet I have here, produced in June 2007. It is a very fancy brochure and states: “Now is the time to get out on the water, whatever the weather, and join the journey.” Join the journey! The brochure is signed by six Ministers. The first is the Hon David Benson-Pope, the Minister for the Environment, but he is not that any more; he was fired. Then there is the Hon Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, but he is no longer the Minister of Conservation. Then there is the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Māori affairs; he is the only one who has kept his job. Next is the Hon Trevor Mallard, the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, but I do not think he has that job any more. Then there is the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister of Fisheries. Last is the Hon Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, but he is another one who has been fired.
I make the point to Clayton Cosgrove, who is interjecting, that despite producing a very expensive and fancy brochure, the Labour Government has done nothing to promote the aquaculture industry. The industry, both domestic and international, is currently worth about $300 million, and it has potential to do significantly better. All that the Government had to do was to pass legislation that would facilitate aquaculture development. The member Winston Peters was in this House supporting the Labour Government’s legislation in 2004, and, as my colleague Phil Heatley has pointed out, subsequent to that legislation the amount of new aquaculture space that has been created in this country is zero. I say to Mr Peters and the Labour Ministers: “Well done on producing a fancy brochure!”.
We are today passing this little bill in an attempt to patch up what was completely unworkable. Doug Woolerton was not on the Primary Production Committee in 2004, but what the select committee told the Minister at the time—
I think Mr Cosgrove might have been on the select committee in those days. The select committee told Mr Benson-Pope, as the Minister, that the legislation would not work. Mr Benson-Pope did not listen to the select committee, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because the legislation has not worked. Today we have a little bill that patches up but one court case.
Mr Woolerton sat on the select committee. He heard people saying that not one new aquaculture area has been created, and he is now saying there is lots of product. Mr Woolerton should listen when he is sitting on the select committee. What we have today is this single piece of legislation, and all that it does is attempt to sort out a mess that we knew was likely to occur. It concerns a particular area in Tasman Bay where some resourceful fishers under the name of SMW Consortium applied to occupy space before the Tasman District Council had actually deemed it to be an aquaculture management area. All that we are doing now is pass legislation, in the dying days of this Parliament, to patch that up. If we look further down the Order Paper, we see another bill of a far more technical nature, we are told, which will try to further tidy up the mess.
If Clayton Cosgrove had only listened when he sat on that select committee as a humble backbencher, he could have worked with us in 2004 to pass legislation that would allow this industry to reach its potential. He could have been part of historic legislation being passed through this House. It would have had the label of the Labour Government on it, and it would have been successful. But Mr Cosgrove would only do what David Benson-Pope would tell him to do. As a consequence, no new aquaculture spaces have been created, and we have a little bill today to patch up but one silly mistake made by David Benson-Pope, and another bill sitting on the Order Paper to try to further patch up the mess. But they will not be enough. Mark my words, the aquaculture industry will not get ahead until satisfactory legislation comes before the House that recognises the potential of the industry and allows our space to be utilised.
Minister Barker asks why I am not running a family business. Well, for that Minister’s information—and what it has to do with aquaculture legislation, I do not have a clue—I do run a family business, and I do it with substantially more success than that Minister will ever do anything. That is the difference between this side of the Chamber and that side. Over here we have people who have run businesses and understand what makes businesses work. On the other side they have nobody. They had one guy called Jim Sutton. He knew how to fill out a GST return, and they fired him. Helen Clark fired him. That is the difference between this side and the other side. We actually know how to run businesses. The select committee in 2004 heard from a substantial number of submitters who ran small family businesses in the Marlborough Sounds and they said to the committee, in front of Mr Cosgrove: “You get this legislation right, and we’ll stay in New Zealand, but you get it wrong, and we’ll take our expertise to Australia and Chile.” Does Mr Barker know what happened? Those people have gone to South Australia. Who is the loser? Well, certainly the Labour Government is the loser, and deservedly so, but the real loser is the whole of the New Zealand economy.
Doug Woolerton can chip in all he likes, but he was part of the party that supported the Government to pass legislation that has not worked and will not work. This bill is a small band-aid to patch up the problem. It will not be enough to fix the underlying problem and to give the industry a real chance. The industry has huge potential, billion-dollar potential, and could be a goer, if only we had a Government that knew a little bit about business, knew a lot about fishing, and would create the legislative framework to get the industry going.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
Tēnā tātou, Mr Assistant Speaker. In inverse proportion to the speech given by the last speaker, this speech will be short and will point out that in actual fact this simple, legal modification closes a gap brought about by an unwise decision flowing from the Environment Court.
Yes, and the Tasman District Council, etc., will enjoy a higher level of clarity. I say the notion that investors are leaving in droves from the industry is absolute rot. I am glad to hear that all members of the Primary Production Committee supported this improvement. They realise that from time to time members of the judiciary do come up with decisions that are beyond the purview of the original legislators when they are passing legislation. It is not unusual for that to happen.
I am looking forward to the fact that speaking in the House today, from the Māori Party, is Hone Harawira, who, I have no doubt, will support this bill. Had he been here, he would have supported Winston Peters. Had he stayed on the Privileges Committee, he would have supported Winston Peters, unlike the wittering we heard from Te Ururoa Flavell, who fulfilled that great Māori proverb: “Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te rahurahu.”—there is wittering upstairs; noises of a different nature are being emitted downstairs. Those members will be punished for that type of rauhanga, which is what we in the Ngāpuhi call it. However, it will be good to hear Hone Harawira speak shortly and support this bill, which will drive aquaculture forward. That will make a small step towards atoning for the very unwise, short-sighted decision made by Mr Flavell to cuddle up to John Key.
I will come back to the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am just pointing out that that Māori member will stand to support this bill, because it is good for our Māori claims process. That other Māori member did not stand with another Māori who deserved to be given a fair go. Kia ora tātou katoa.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, so I will take just a short call on it.
In our view, aquaculture can be a growth industry, and it can be a very good supplier of an alternative source of seafood for New Zealand, particularly while our wild fisheries recover from the incredible over-exploitation of those stocks that is going on as we speak. But, really, aquaculture is useful for this country only if it is done sustainably and excludes any kind of genetically engineered aquaculture. Aquaculture processes must protect conservation values and the public recreational and customary rights that our community has to the resources and places of the coast. It must avoid damaging fish-breeding grounds and valuable aspects of the coastal ecosystem. It must not pollute; there is always a serious risk of that with aquaculture. It must not pollute, it must be sustainably managed, and, what is very important, it must involve the public in decision making on aquaculture management areas. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether the current regime—with or without this amendment, and with or without its more substantial brother bill, which the House is yet to debate—can adequately do that.
The National Party has described aquaculture as having stagnated under Labour. Although there are complications with the resource management of aquaculture, it does not mean that all aquaculture development has been stalled, at all. I am advised that the Northland Regional Council has approved many aquaculture management areas recently, with only six applications out of 25 being contested. Most of them have gone through relatively easily. That said, it is also suggested that the council railroaded the community and non-governmental organisations in some of those instances, and there is considerable disquiet in the area about the loss of public coastal places to marine farming. It is our coast, it is not the developers’ coast, and the community has the right to have a say. The public must never be shut out.
The Minister of Conservation must also have a say, lest our marine ecosystems are sacrificed simply for profit. National’s intention to liberalise coastal management will be disastrous for the community, for the habitat, and for conservation values.
I know that there is a particular Māori interest in aquaculture. It has been discussed here before, and, no doubt, it will be discussed later this afternoon. I had the privilege of talking with the Wakatu Incorporation about its aquaculture proposal in Nelson. It is very exciting. The Greens are looking forward to that development.
National’s policy is about certainty for investors. National’s policy is about having the freedom to change species, about reducing bureaucracy and cost, and about removing—entirely removing—conservation from the picture of aquaculture management. This means that National would shut out conservation and shut out the community; it would shut out those interests from decision making over commercial projects, so that those projects can reduce costs and can have more freedom to make a profit at the community’s cost and expense. That is not what New Zealanders want to see happen with their coastal areas. They want to have a say. There is no doubt that there are opportunities for development, and for local and regional economic development, in this area, but not at the cost of destroying the environment, destroying the habitat, and preventing people from being involved in those decisions.
There is considerable concern about GE aquaculture. Members will remember the threat of GE king salmon back in the 1990s. The Greens fought GE aquaculture hard then, and we will continue to do so if it rears its ugly head again. The world does not want GE, and our New Zealand brand advantage, including the brand for aquaculture, is clean, green, and 100 percent pure. GE aquaculture would erode and, indeed, destroy our competitive advantage. It is not only that; the biosecurity risk of GE marine organisms is very high, as the ocean is a very dynamic environment. They would put at risk our marine environment, for no benefit whatsoever to the community or to our industry.
This bill is very technical. The Greens look forward to its brother bill being debated in the House. We are pleased that the bill restricts applications to approve aquaculture management areas only, and we support it.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I was really pleased when Rāhui Kātene, the Māori Party candidate for Te Tai Tonga, proudly told me about Nelson’s Wakatu Incorporation, which has just released plans for a 78-hectare Horoirangi Centre of Seafood and Aquaculture Innovation. It will include fingerling fish hatcheries, high-value extraction and aquaculture research facilities, and complementary activities including seafood and marine education and Māori cultural tourism. I congratulate Wakatū on their vision, their leadership, and their enterprise in the face of adversity.
I say that because, although we know well the tremendous commercial opportunities that can come from aquaculture, we know too that the iwi from Te Tau Ihu have not exactly had a lot of support from the Government. The crux of the matter for Te Tau Ihu is that although they were promised 20 percent of new aquaculture space, there is nothing left, so they were given nothing. They were forced to pursue a cash settlement because the Government refused to offer them anything at all.
Putting all that aside, this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill will be important for iwi wanting to get into aquaculture in that it defines what aquaculture management areas, or AMAs, will be available, although we also note that this bill will stop iwi from developing aquaculture projects outside of aquaculture management areas, which Te Tau Ihu did in 2006. We understand the need to clarify the way in which aquaculture management areas can be established, and we are glad that the bill confirms obligations to provide new space to iwi, but we will not be holding our breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon, given the fact that although the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act was passed in 2004, the agreement to provide iwi with 20 percent of aquaculture space simply has not happened.
We are not surprised to hear, though, that all of a sudden the Government is running a consultation exercise with iwi, just prior to the election, about aquaculture space allocation. What it is not bragging about, though, is that what it is talking about with this consultation exercise is what it was supposed to do in 2004, and now will not be doing until 2014—if we are lucky. We are also mindful of the recent aquaculture consultations, which the Government called a success but which cost the taxpayer $180,000, and some hui attracted only five people. Given how poorly those consultation exercises have been to date, and given that this is election campaign time, it would not be unrealistic for people to think that this exercise was nothing but a publicity spend to profile the Government. The Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia summed up the situation perfectly when she asked the Minister of Māori Affairs last September: “Since the legislation, can the Minister tell the House how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Māori, and where they are?”. The Minister’s response was “None.”
The Māori Party will support the bill in the interests of trying to get the Government to honour the Māori commercial aquaculture settlement, but we do so mindful of the bad faith and broken promises that have characterised this Government’s commitment to Māori aquaculture development. Sorry, I apologise; this Government did keep one promise to Māori. It promised to steal our foreshore and seabed, and it did exactly that. Kia ora tātou.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
This bill is set down for Committee stage forthwith.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Clarkson wants to make his valedictory speech early. Do you see, Mr Assistant Speaker? Oh, he has pulled the sign down. It will be a short speech. He has been totally incomprehensible since the day he arrived. He jumped before he got pushed.
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just two words, Mr Assistant Speaker: good bye.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the proceedings in the House this afternoon, as we appear to have reached some form of impasse, whereby the Government is not able to proceed with its business, because the Minister has not turned up.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I thought that was going to be a point of order, Mr Brownlee.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
No, I did not give you the call, Mr Brownlee. Please be seated. I was under the impression that you had a point of order. I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill.