Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee with an instruction that the committee present its final report on or before 29 November 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The Aquaculture Reform Bill amends the Resource Management Act, and the Fisheries Acts of 1983 and 1996, to secure a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry. It addresses shortcomings in the poorly integrated coastal planning, aquaculture, and fisheries management regimes. The bill balances economic development, environmental sustainability, treaty obligations, and community concerns. The Government recognised that the current dual regimes under the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Acts were producing an overload of marine farming applications, leading to higher processing costs, delays, and poor environmental results. Prior to the aquaculture moratorium, people could apply for space in almost any part of the coastal marine area, and there was no limit on the amount of space that they could apply for. In the late 1990s, demand for space increased fivefold. That placed enormous pressure on councils and communities to cope with the volume of applications. The bill will enable councils to look at all the sustainability issues related to aquaculture, and therefore they will be better able to deal with all of its effects on the environment and to assist the aquaculture industry to develop in a sustainable way.

Under the reforms, new aquaculture can take place only in aquaculture management areas, which regional councils will implement through their coastal plans. Councils will be able to manage demand for space in a controlled way. The bill introduces greater flexibility in creating aquaculture management areas. In addition to the normal council planning process, the industry may initiate and fund a facilitated private plan change, and, if successful, it will have preferential allocation of that space. As aquaculture management areas will be created by the plan change process, affected parties and the public will continue to have a say about where aquaculture should be allowed to take place. The bill also gives regional councils the ability to manage the allocation of coastal space, rather than having to process all applications on a “first come, first served” basis. Unoccupied space in aquaculture management areas will be tendered unless the regional coastal plan provides otherwise. Tender income will be shared between the Crown and the relevant regional council.

The bill also provides iwi with, where possible, the allocation of an area equivalent to 20 percent of the total marine farming space allocated since 1992, and of 20 percent of any new marine farming space within a particular region. That would include 20 percent of any new space generated through an industry-initiated private plan change. That proposal represents a sound basis for Māori and the marine farming sector to move forward. We have aligned the aquaculture settlement with the 1992 fisheries deed of settlement—aquaculture being clearly the unfinished business of that 1992 settlement. This proposal is a full and final settlement of Māori claims to commercial marine farming space post - September 1992. That is an important step. Settling contemporary commercial claims removes a major impediment to progress and certainty. It will also allow Māori to continue to be a major contributor to the development of the aquaculture industry. In order to obtain space equivalent to 20 percent of the space already allocated since 1992, the Crown will look to achieve the goal by providing new space if it is available. The Crown may purchase space currently being used for marine farming on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis. If that is not possible, the financial equivalent may be provided to Māori. In addition, any marine farming space provided to iwi would be subject to all general Resource Management Act requirements. Initially, the marine farming space allocated to Māori would be provided to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, to hold for direct allocation to iwi—those same iwi that were entitled to receive an allocation of inshore fisheries quota under the 1992 deed of settlement.

The aquaculture industry needs to know what the bill will mean for it. Existing farms already under a Resource Management Act regime will continue for the life of their coastal permits. The bill contains transitional provisions to move the existing marine farming authorisations granted under the Fisheries Acts or the Marine Farming Act into the new regime. Marine Farming Act farms will have Resource Management Act consents for 20 years with one right of extension at the end, provided the farm remains in an aquaculture management area. Marine farms with existing coastal permits to occupy space will be deemed to be aquaculture management areas for the types of aquaculture activities authorised by the permit, unless that area is identified in the plan or proposed plan as being unsuitable for aquaculture. Marine farmers will no longer require a marine farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983. They will simply be required to be registered as fish farmers under the Fisheries Act 1996 for the purposes of record-keeping and product-tracking, and their activity will be managed through the coastal permit issued under the Resource Management Act.

The industry has told us that the current “first come, first served” approach for allocating aquaculture space is not the best option when a resource consent expires. Now when a marine farm resource consent expires, provided it is still within an aquaculture management area and the proposed marine-farming operation will be substantially the same, the incumbent’s application will be considered first, if he or she meets specified criteria. Those criteria include complying with the regional coastal plan, showing a good track record in meeting consent conditions, and whether the marine farm demonstrates current industry good practice. That mechanism appropriately recognises a reasonable expectation of commercial certainty for operators, but for the avoidance of any possible doubt I state clearly that the procedure in no way confers occupation rights in perpetuity over public space.

This bill provides for the sustainable growth of the aquaculture industry in our country. Once this bill is passed, the temporary national aquaculture moratorium and the local moratoria in Tasman Bay, Southland, and the Firth of Thames that have been in place since 1984 can be lifted. The bill needs to be passed no later than the last sitting day of 2004, so that the legislation is in force before those moratoria expire. In the last few months we have made extraordinary progress in getting to this point, and that is in no small way thanks to the efforts of my predecessor, the Hon Pete Hodgson, the work done under great pressure by staff from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry for the Environment, and the advice, cooperation, and goodwill from representatives of the industry and of local government. I am confident that that pattern of behaviour will continue for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and that the latent potential of the aquaculture industries will be available to our communities. It is with a considerable degree of pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : It will be no surprise to the House that National will oppose this bill, simply because of all the foolishness that we have seen over the last 3 years. In fact, the National Party believes that the aquaculture industry is the most polite and patient sector in this country. We in the National Party cannot believe the amount of garbage that the sector has had to put up with in the last 3 years. Firstly, it accepted a moratorium extension upon a moratorium extension, and kindly said that it guessed the process would take a long time, but that it hoped the Government would get things right. My concern, and I know this is the private concern of the sector, is that this Government sees moratoriums as a solution, not as a means to an end. That is why the Government put one in, why it extended it, and why the Minister is panicking about not getting this bill through the House by the end of this year.

The second reason we believe that the aquaculturists are the most polite and patient sector in the country is that they are standing back and getting kicked around while the Government passes off 20 percent of the aquaculture space to Māori, in order to do a deal over the seabed and foreshore issue. If the Labour Government does not believe that Māori own the seabed and foreshore, why is it giving them 20 percent of that space? If Labour believes that Māori own the seabed and foreshore, why does it not give them 100 percent of the aquaculture space? The Minister should come clean on his deal to try to keep the Labour Party’s fractious relationship with Māori sweet.

The third issue that aquaculturists have taken on the chin is the Minister’s intention to put mussel spat into the quota management system, regardless of the bureaucracy and the absurdity of having it in that system. Even though when mussel spat washes up on Ninety Mile Beach it dies, this Minister is to put it into the quota management system. The poor old aquaculturists will then have to deal with a bureaucracy and a monopoly just to deal with mussel spat, let alone with their mussel farms and the regulations that relate to marketing and selling overseas.

The fourth issue that aquaculturists have had to put up with in the last few years is that they have had to wait patiently, and then watch and wait some more, while applications that are going through the permitting process take years upon years, even though the Minister claims he has given increased resources for that process. This new Minister of Fisheries does not realise that in the business environment, marketing decisions often have to be made in weeks, not months, and that expansion plans have to be executed in months, not years. For the Minister to have over 200 permit applications build up in the permitting process over the last few years is absolutely appalling.

National knows that the issue of perpetuity is of particular concern to the aquaculture industry. It wants certainty and sanctity of property rights. When aquaculturists put in a marine farm they want to know that when the consent comes up for renewal in 35 years, if the area is still to be one that has aquaculture they will be the people who farm that area, and a new fly-by-nighter cannot come in and take their place. This Government is running roughshod over that whole concept. National absolutely supports a first right of refusal. We do not support a right of renewal, or a right in perpetuity—not at all—but we support a first right of refusal. An incumbent should have priority over a newcomer, due to his or her pre-existing investment. That is usual in business, as it provides certainty. A marine farmer who is already established and who is a good tenant should not have to have his or her space taken over by a fly-by-nighter because there is no right of refusal. We are very suspicious about the Minister’s clauses in this bill that state that at the expiry of a consent, an incumbent’s application will be considered first if he or she meets certain criteria. What does that mean? What are the criteria? Well, I can tell members that right now hundreds of bureaucrats are dreaming up the criteria that aquaculturists will have to face just to remain as incumbents in an area.

National says this: incumbents should have the first right of refusal and should get the space if they are good tenants. If they have been good tenants on a marine farm and their consent comes up for renewal, they should get the space. If they have been bad tenants there should be a question mark over that. But this Minister says that Labour will consider a right of first refusal as long as incumbents meet certain criteria, which the bureaucrats are dreaming up at this moment, as we speak. There will be lists, and one of the criteria will be whether someone is Māori. The issue will be the iwi the person belongs to, and whether the person can trace his or her ancestry back somehow to Māui. That is what the criteria will be, because this Government wants to throw aquaculture space at Māori in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue. That is absolutely appalling. When it comes to the first right of refusal, National says that an incumbent should have that right, and should get the space if he or she has been a good tenant.

We have been quite perplexed—and I know this has perplexed aquaculturists around the country and New Zealand in general—as to why Māori should get 20 percent of the marine space for free, as of right. I have the deed of settlement here for the claim by Ngāti Tama. It is interesting that that deed of settlement states that should tendering for coastal space occur, Ngāti Tama will have the preferential right to apply for 10 percent of the area.” So Ngāti Tama will get 20 percent, and will have the preferential right to get another 10 percent. Here is the deed of settlement for Ngāti Awa, which includes a provision that the Minister will give Ngāti Awa a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of the marine space. So Ngāti Awa will get 20 percent for free and will be allowed a preferential right to another 5 percent. NgātiRuanui in the Taranaki will get a preferential right to tender for an unspecified part of the aquacultural space, without that being defined. It is open-ended, so NgātiRuanui will get 20 percent and however much more it wants. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I just say to Government members that interjections should be rare, reasonable, and relevant. The Speaker will not allow a speaker to be drowned out.

PHIL HEATLEY: The Labour Minister was asking who negotiated those settlements, and he was accusing National of having done that. Well, here is one that was done in 2000; it is the Ngā Rauru Kītahi settlement. NgātiRuanui was done in 2001, so that was under the Labour Government. Labour gave 5 percent of the marine space in 2000 to Ngāti Awa and another 20 percent today. And, of course, the Ngāti Tama deed of settlement was finished off by the Labour Government, because it was post-1999. Ngāti Tama got 10 percent of the marine space, and is getting another 20 percent today.

Māori already have 43 percent of the aquaculture space throughout the industry. So when Māori go to Labour and say they own the foreshore and seabed, they are just about dead right. They do own it, because they have close to 50 percent of the aquaculture space across this country as it is, before the Minister gives them another 20 percent for free, in order to do a deal over the foreshore and seabed issue.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs) : I want to give the member who just resumed his seat a limited history lesson, because those members on that side of the House suffer from either selective dementia or amnesia—or both. The member who resumed his seat—I cannot recall his name, but I do believe that he represents the area of Whangarei—

Phil Heatley: Very well!

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Yes, he is really appreciated up there. He has a new name; he is called “Wes”. They say “Wes the member?”. Here is the history lesson for that member. There was once a Minister of Justice and Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations called Douglas Montrose Graham. He was a senior member in the Cabinet of a National Government. That particular Minister of a National Government set in place the precedents that we have enshrined in this House in a range of agreements with Māori people over settlement processes. When this House of great honour sets in place constitutional engagements by way of documents settled in the name of the Crown, as with those with Māori, we do not destroy them lightly and we do not walk away from them lightly. I tell that member to recall very quickly who set those precedents in place. Who set those parameters in place? Who set those constitutional conventions—not just conventions but statutes—in place? It was a National Government that set those parameters in place. They are the bedrock of our constitution, as any property right is. We do not, in any circumstances, err from those precedents. The Clerk of the House, time after time, has given select committees a clear steer that we do not change those agreements, which have been contracted for, and negotiated by, the executive. Those agreements are, in fact, a lot like international arrangements. Rather than my putting words into the mouth of the Clerk of the House, I would opine that they go very close to that.

Once, in 1992, in the dead of the night—for the benefit of that member from Whangarei—a number of Māori, without consultation and without mandate, were called into the parliamentary offices of the Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, and the Hon Douglas Montrose Graham, and they signed the “Treaty of Wellington”, also known as the Sealord’s deal. This history lesson needs to be carefully engraved in the minds and the memory of those on the other side of the House who suffer from selective dementia and/or amnesia. The reality is that in 1992, when Māori won at the Court of Appeal the right to uphold their property rights, and injuncted the roll-out of a world-leading quota management system, they were set to negotiate with the Crown. Under a National Party Government, the Crown set in place the following precedents. In light of Māori giving up their rights to customary commercial fishing rights, the Sealord’s deal was settled, without negotiation, consultation, or mandate—no hīkoi, no mandate.

The member should reflect on the fact that the issue of aquaculture was raised in those negotiations. Douglas Montrose Graham and the Prime Minister of the country at that time indicated that they would not settle in terms of aquaculture, for the reason that it was not even in a policy scope at that particular point in time. It was not even able to be addressed or negotiated, because it was still in the germane, early stage. As usual with the National Party, when the going gets tough it kicks for touch. When the going got tough, whether on Securities Commission law, telecommunications law, electricity, or transport, it stuffs it up, and on this particular issue it did not finish the job. Once again, a Labour Government has had to finish unfinished business. The precedents are in place. The parameters have been driven into the bedrock of our constitution, and members opposite did that. They were in the executive and were part of a caucus that signed off on them. I am sick and tired of Māori people being the meat in the sandwich, and being the fodder of the National Party at the moment. The member for Whangarei is missing in his constituency, his leader is missing from here day after day, and we have to wear that.

With this legislation we are giving the aquaculture industry certainty for a time. We are giving the industry stability and direction. No doubt the Primary Production Committee will look at the legislation. The Primary Production Committee is a fine committee—for the most part; I do not want to mislead the House. Apart from the National Party members, who do not really contribute, its members are a wonderful bunch of people from whom we will get a right result. We look forward to this legislation being engaged with by the communities.

I conclude by stating quite carefully and clearly that Douglas Montrose Graham set the parameter at 20 percent of new quota stock. Douglas Montrose Graham, Jim Bolger, and all his mates in that National Party Government set those parameters. We are merely concluding unfinished business in terms of the deal, and this measure is the best form of closure. It gives great solidity and sustainability. I commend the bill to the select committee and to the communities.

I finally conclude by noting and stating quite carefully and clearly that I am grateful for the work the officials put into the very tiresome and onerous task of bringing certainty and closure to this issue. I also acknowledge the work of two very fine Cabinet Ministers and colleagues. They are Ministers Pete Hodgson and David Benson-Pope, who herald from the great Mainland, from the area of Dunedin. With that, I commend the bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First will be supporting the Aquaculture Reform Bill, and in doing so we welcome the pending end of the moratorium. I agree with Mr Phil Heatley in one regard and that is that the aquaculture industry has been extremely patient. A moratorium has been imposed on it over past years, and that has been extremely frustrating. We know that the industry is grumpy about it. We also know and are concerned about the fact that the industry has been losing market share in markets—particularly for green-lipped mussels—that it had forged at great cost to itself. New Zealand First supports in all its forms an export-led economy. We believe that the aquaculture industry is perfect for New Zealand. We support the ability for the industry to get on with the job.

We all know in our heart of hearts, although we do not say too much about it in this House, that our seas and oceans are being overfished. We know that from the evidence that comes before us. We know that from the multitude of overseas speakers who come to our land to speak about it. We know that many of the seas in the Northern Hemisphere are producing far, far less than they have done in times past. For the first time in our history we have the technology and the capacity to make species in our ocean extinct. While we can admire the efficiencies of the technology, and while the technology drives down food prices, there is no question that we are, to use a crude term, raping our oceans. Admittedly, the aquaculture industry is a small start, but it is a start to farming the foreshore—a widely heard term nowadays—in anticipation of our moving further afield and farming our oceans. The technology is not here to farm our oceans at this point, but we certainly have the technology to farm in the form of aquaculture, and we are doing that. I and New Zealand First believe that New Zealand is uniquely suited to this industry, because of our huge shoreline per capita of population. We will uniquely gain large benefit from the aquaculture industry.

As I said at the beginning, we welcome the fact that this legislation will end the moratorium on the moratorium. We look forward to this industry being able to march forward with more certainty. It is simply not fair that a stop has been put on an expanding industry. This industry has expected and has planned to extend its exports—and I do not apologise for talking a lot about exports—from the current level of approximately $300 million per year to in excess of $1 billion by the year 2020. That is the target the industry has laid out publicly, and we have no reason to believe that it will not achieve it. Unfortunately, with the moratorium one would have to say that that plan has been put back 3 years, but my faith in this industry is such that I believe that it will make that time up and will in fact achieve that target. That is good not just for the participants in this industry but for our whole country, and it is something that I believe, quite frankly, is good for our oceans, as well.

Unlike the National Party, we welcome the participation of Māori in this industry. I am not talking about the 20 percent quota necessarily; I am talking about the high percentage of Māori who are already, though their own endeavours and their own businesses, participating in this industry. We praise them for their foresight, and we praise their effort and their enterprise. So we are certainly not going to go around knocking the participation of Māori. In fact, New Zealand First does not believe that we should be in the business of differentiating between Māori and anybody else in New Zealand. Everybody should be helped to contribute to our wealth and our exports.

My colleague Jim Peters will speak on a large aspect of this bill that touches on the Resource Management Act and local government. It is regional government that will be allocating public space for this industry to take place in, and he will be speaking about that. But I say to the House that we have had the moratorium for a reason, and that was to allow local government to get up to speed, to put in place aquaculture management areas, to do the planning, and to get ready for what was called, when the moratorium was put in place, a gold rush for those people who want to involve themselves in this industry.

It is perhaps sad but true that everybody wants this industry but nobody wants it outside his or her kitchen window. To use an extreme example, I suggest to members that if space were allocated in Oriental Bay here in Wellington, outside the million-dollar apartments, there would be huge controversy, and it would not be, in the main, controversy caused by Māori. Aquaculture would be an inappropriate use of that particular part of our foreshore. So it is important, and it will be an ongoing concern of local government, to make sure that this industry is extended and proceeds in sympathy with our environment. We are for growth, but we are not for growth that ruins the environment, either in the way of despoiling the shoreline or in the way of visual pollution. As I said, aquaculture is certainly not something people want to see outside their kitchen window, in their favourite little bay. But we do not believe that that needs to be the case. We believe there are plenty of areas around our country for this activity. We are blessed with a large shoreline. We believe there are plenty of places where this activity can take place for the benefit of us all and to the detriment of virtually nobody.

We look to the regional councils doing that sympathetically. It is their responsibility. They have the local knowledge. They are the closest to the people. They are the people who are on the job, and we look forward to their doing that. I would have liked to see all regional councils in a position to have aquaculture management areas in place and clearly defined. I think it is unfortunate that that is not yet the case. I guess there is some sympathy for the fact that they have been unwilling to move, in many cases, for fear of litigation. But we would like to have seen them have these aquaculture management areas in place before the moratorium was lifted. I hope, on behalf of New Zealand First, that as this bill goes through the select committee process the councils will see some finality for the moratorium, and that that will encourage them to stop mucking around and to get the job on the road, because this industry needs certainty so that it can get on with doing what it does best, and that is exporting and earning money.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : The Greens welcome and support the Aquaculture Reform Bill, but I have to say that we have grave concerns about the very short time period of 3 months allowed for the select committee to do its job. This is a big bill.

Hon David Carter: It’s 2 months.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: 29 November? This is August; September, October, November—3 months.

Hon David Carter: And you have to call for submissions.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Yes, that is part of it. This is a big bill with big issues and many stakeholders. There are complex issues of interface with the Resource Management Act. It is also a burden for small parties with few members who each have to cover a much wider range of issues than the large parties do, and where the inability of one member to be in the House for several weeks because he or she is hearing submissions at the select committee does place a real burden on the rest of the caucus.

If it were not for the fact that the moratorium is about to expire and we have to have legislation in place, I would be voting against the referral motion. The Government was well aware that the moratorium was going to expire and that the bill should have been in the House earlier than it has been, but given that it is not, I do not think we have much choice but to try to do it in those 3 months.

Parliament has been waiting a long time for this legislation. When I first came here, at the end of 1996, the select committee I joined had previously considered a bill to try to deal with the complex issues of the interface between the Fisheries Act, the Marine Farming Act, and the Resource Management Act. The bill had been reported back to Parliament, and Parliament did not proceed with it. The committee I found myself on, then proceeded to consider it again, with some changes, and we reported back to Parliament; and again Parliament did not proceed. Now, finally, after many years we have a bill that deals with aquaculture properly, and I guess we all think that that is a good thing.

It creates a single consent process under the Resource Management Act instead of the complex, overlapping permit systems under three different pieces of legislation. As well as streamlining the process for marine farmers, the bill also gives the opportunity for better environmental controls, by putting it clearly under regional councils. The environmental impacts of marine farming range from “negligible” for things like mussel farms, which simply catch the nutrients in the water that washes past them, to “quite significant” for some forms of fin-fish marine farms, which have to be fed with 10 times their weight, caught from the wild fishery, and which are, in no sense, a substitute for depleting wild fisheries. But the impacts of each of those types of farming need to be dealt with properly under the Resource Management Act, and under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, which makes it very clear that this legislation is about sustainable management.

Aquaculture is about a right to space, not about a right to fish. So it should be managed like rights to space on land, rather than like the Fisheries Act and the quota management system. So this is the right place to put aquaculture. As with land, consents are limited to 35 years, which is actually a long time; it is virtually a person’s whole working-life. We cannot foresee the sorts of conditions that might pertain at the end of that period, and it is entirely appropriate that consents should expire at that time, and that renewal should be possible if it is still appropriate, and if the fisher has behaved according to the rules.

We have to keep in mind the fact that, unlike farming on land, marine farmers are using public space for private purposes. That is fine, because they are also contributing economic wealth and jobs to the community. But they should never think they have the same rights to that space, as a farmer who owns land; and they do owe the community appropriate behaviour and good management of that space, and concern for the activities of other users of coastal space with which they might come into conflict.

The Greens supported the imposition of the aquaculture moratorium because we were seeing a gold rush for marine space, with no proper controls. Regional councils had created some quite stupid inconsistencies in their coastal plans, and there was a need to get that sorted out before we allowed more applications to proceed. One particular inconsistency in my neck of the woods was the Hauraki Gulf in the Firth of Thames, where we have a line down the middle of the firth that separates Auckland region on the west side, from Waikato region on the Coromandel side. On the Coromandel side, Environment Waikato had set two very specific areas, saying: “You may have aquaculture within these two areas, but not elsewhere. You may have this large a farm, you may have this many of them, and here are the conditions.” Just across the water on the other side, Auckland had said: “You can apply anywhere you like and we’ll consider it on a case by case basis.”

We have two major concerns about the legislation. Some councils still have no aquaculture management areas. The moratorium has been there all that time, and they have not stirred themselves and put the necessary plans in place. It is too much trouble or it is too expensive. So the Government has decided to allow them to be lazy, to allow them to not do their job, and to allow marine farmers to introduce private plan changes, which transfer the cost of the planning process away from the council and on to the marine farmer. Well, if the only people involved were the council and the applicants, that would be fine—that is, the people who benefit from the decision picking up the cost, and it saves ratepayers.

But what about the third party to the hearing—that is, the public? What about the people who have very strong feelings themselves about where, on their stretch of coast, in their favourite bay, it is appropriate to put marine farming structures, and where it is not? Instead of participating in a single process, whereby the council sets out a plan for its whole region and says: “Here, here, and here, but not there.”, they are now potentially going to have to take part in a series of processes whenever a marine farmer pops up and says: “We want this area designated as an aquaculture management area.” They will have to go through a whole plan-change process, and then, a couple of months later, another farmer pops up and says: “By the way, we want this bit over here designated as an aquaculture management area.” I can just see some of my friends out there, who have a real concern about their local environment, being run ragged trying to deal with all these different applications, and that is not fair.

We support strongly the 20 percent given to Māori. It is a logical sequence of the Māori fisheries settlement of 1992, but we are not in favour of allocation being left to Te Ohu Kai Moana. It is actually a cop-out. This is a very onerous task, as is evident if we look at how long it took in the initial fisheries allocation. This proposal could have been considered by the select committee that was considering the Maori Fisheries Bill. The committee could have put some allocation proposals in place before the bill continued, but that opportunity was denied to it. We do not think it is the function of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to do this work. It does not want to do it. The Government should establish an allocation process and take responsibility for its implementation. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee does not believe that it is the Government’s general dogsbody for managing the issues that are too hard. Nevertheless, we support the bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I hope it comes as no surprise to members of this House when I say that the ACT party will not be supporting this bill. I believe that people listening to Parliament will recognise that the Aquaculture Reform Bill is hugely important to New Zealand. But it comes down to the fact that this bill is more valuable to one section of our community as it is all about delivering to Māori. It is all about the cargo cult that has developed in this country under this Labour Government. It is a cult that says to one important section of our society that those people are more privileged than anybody else. It says: “We will constantly deliver to you those things that we will not deliver to the other 80 percent of the population of this country, but we will continue with this largesse and deliver whatever you want.”

That, really, was the reason the moratorium was imposed. We have had all sorts of red herrings from the Green Party, which said that the regional councils could not cope. I have plenty of documents to show that my regional council in Otago, for example, was almost begging the Government to let aquaculture go ahead. It had the coastal plans in place, it was right up with the game, and it has waited year after year for this to occur. It had to wait for the Government to do its negotiations and get this—and I have to call it this—racism in the form of this bill prepared. It is a bill that we will oppose because we oppose privilege. The ACT party opposes privilege to one or another section of our society. We oppose racism.

Jill Pettis: The member’s nose is growing.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: It is quite interesting that the “member for Billingsgate” is speaking on this fisheries matter. It is quite appropriate for the fishwife.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a personal reflection. The member will please carry on.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: We oppose tribalism in the 21st century. Tribalism has devolved nothing to any community anywhere in the world, yet this bill perpetuates the myth of tribalism. That will not benefit Māori one iota. I challenge the Minister of Fisheries to stand in this House and tell me how a street kid in Māngere will benefit from this bill. He or she will not benefit in any way. If it did benefit any of those children who are living on the streets—and sadly too many of them are Māori—I would probably say that it is not a bad idea. But it will not. The Māori elite will benefit from this bill, not the street kids.

We will oppose this bill on a constant basis because that Minister, David Benson-Pope, who has been in the job for long enough now, has put forward to this House bills that can only be described as dogs’ breakfasts. We have had a 16-page Supplementary Order Paper on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) because that Minister and his ministry get it so wrong. He does not know his job, and that is a great shame. I would predict confidently that the Primary Production Committee will do exactly the same with this Aquaculture Reform Bill as it did with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), because this bill will not deliver to those people who want to get involved in this very vital, vibrant, and progressive industry.

I have heard figures quoted of up to $6 billion, potentially, in terms of wealth generation for this country from aquaculture. I am sure that the majority of people—excepting the Greens, who would turn the whole of our coastal waters into some sort of glorified marine reserve if they could possibly get their way—want to see this industry thrive. There is little doubt that the feral fishery throughout the world is in decline. The real future lies in aquaculture. That means ascribing guaranteed property rights to those who are engaged in this industry because of the need for very substantial sums of capital to be tied up in this. The concept of having secure rights to these coastal waters is absolutely vital.

But there is another aspect that causes me huge angst—and I am sure the members of the select committee feel the same way—and that is the involvement of the Department of Conservation in this bill. It appears, from my reading of it, that the new section 165O enables the Minister of Conservation to override a regional authority. It states: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, direct a regional council—(a) not to proceed with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area; or (b) in proceeding with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area, to give effect to the matters specified in the Order in Council.” That effectively gives the Minister of Conservation the power of veto. This House, and I am sure the public, knows full well that the Department of Conservation—driven by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—wants to have up to 20 percent of our coastal waters set aside as marine reserves. So when marine farmers want to get involved, they will face the same problems that those of us who are involved in land-based activities face on a constant basis—appeal after appeal after appeal by the Department of Conservation. That is why it is absolutely vital that the Department of Conservation, and its advocacy role especially, is removed from the statute book. Its job is the management of its resource on behalf of the public; it is not to fight marine farmers or members of the farming community on land, on a constant basis and in using up vast resources of public money to fight the wealth creators of this country.

Phil Heatley: To fill the coffers of the Green Party.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: That is right. The regional councils, as I said some time ago—what was it; 3 years ago?—said that they wanted to get on with the job. They had identified their aquaculture marine areas in which they wanted to get this industry up and running. So the opportunity cost to that industry—and to the country—is huge because, as I said earlier, this Government wants to pander yet again to Māori.

There was an excellent article in the Independent—I think in Wednesday’s edition. Tim Donoghue wrote an excellent article about how “Māori strike gold in marine farms”. Members will note that it is not about everybody striking gold, or about everybody being involved in that gold rush. The strike is specific, and that cargo cult, as I mentioned earlier, will be perpetuated yet again. That is of huge concern, I am sure, to many, many Māori as well, not just to those of us who do not agree with the concept of special privilege based on race.

But I am also totally concerned about another issue, and I will read from Mr Donoghue’s article: “Already there is a rift in Maoridom between local hapu, on the one side, and the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (TOKM) on the other, about the allocation of future aquaculture marine areas …”. What will we see into the future? Will there be 20 years, as we have had, on the allocation of fish stocks by the Māori Fisheries Commission? I cannot see that this bill will assist Māori, even when they get that 20 percent. The arguments will go on and on. It would have been far better to allocate areas.

For example, down in my neck of the woods, there are well-established Māori communities—say, at Moeraki, at Karitane, and Waikouaiti. Those are areas, few would dispute, where Māori have natural assimilation or affiliation to the land, and they are perfectly entitled to those areas. But what we have in this bill is something of another natural disaster from an incompetent Minister.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of this Aquaculture Reform Bill. United Future welcomes this bill being debated here for the first time in the House today. It is long overdue in being able to provide a way forward for the aquaculture industry. Earlier this year when United Future gave support for the extension of the moratorium, we made it absolutely clear that there had to be a bill in the House this year in order for provision to be made for the growth of the aquaculture industry before the expiration date of the moratorium, which is now set at December of this year. What is going on in the aquaculture industry is truly amazing, as is the way in which we are able to farm fish—that is, both fin fish and shellfish: mussels, kina, pāua, and so on. As the honourable Gerald Eckhoff, the speaker before me, said, it really does offer us hope for the future in this valuable food resource, because we know that natural fish stocks are being depleted internationally. So it is important that New Zealand is able to take its place in developing its own aquaculture industry.

Various figures have been stated as to the worth of the industry and the speed at which it will grow. It is estimated in some cases that there will be up to $1 billion of export earnings in the next 10 years, which would be an amazing feat if it were accomplished.

This bill transfers from the Ministry of Fisheries the responsibility for marine farming permits under the Fisheries Act to regional councils, which will be able to manage aquaculture space under the Resource Management Act. For this reason, I would have preferred to see the bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, where we are soon to be engaged in handling the reform of the Resource Management Act. Because a lot of this bill is about that legislation, it would have been useful if we could have handled those two bills in tandem, and been able to make sure that the way in which they would work together was synchronised. But we have left this bill in the good hands of the Primary Production Committee, and we trust that its members will not do to it what they did to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) when they came to a few sticky points.

However, marine farmers will no longer require a marine farming permit under the Fisheries Act 1983, and I think that that is good news. It is important that they can develop this industry under the Resource Management Act and under regional council control, rather than under Ministry of Fisheries control—given some of the problems that have occurred in the last 10 or 15 years. They will simply have to register as a fish farmer, and we trust that that will expedite the progress of the development of the industry.

I particularly welcome the provisions in the bill for existing marine farming activities to be given priority when marine farmers apply for that activity to continue on the expiration of their permits. In fact, the explanatory note on the bill makes it very clear that they will have that priority over their space, unless of course the council has established an aquaculture marine area in a different area and has decided that that space will no longer be used in the marine area for aquaculture—in which case it will not apply.

But, otherwise, recognition is given to those who have begun aquaculture marine farming, and they will not have to queue up like everybody else to get a renewal of their permits, and I think that very important step is being addressed in this bill.

It is important, though, to note some of the other comments in the explanatory note, and for the benefit of the House, I quote from it: “The Bill provides mechanisms to reconcile any conflicts between aquaculture and commercial fishing.”—because there will be conflicts in that regard—“Under the new legislation, the Ministry of Fisheries will assess whether an AMA proposed by a regional council will have an undue adverse effect”, not just on commercial fishing, but also on customary and recreational fishing. This is very important, and I believe there will be many submissions to the committee on it, so that a balance is found in those competing priorities.

It is a concern amongst the recreational fishing community that suddenly marine farms will be cropping up everywhere and large areas will be dedicated to being aquaculture management areas. It would be another exclusionary zone where they will not be able to exercise their rights as New Zealanders to fish in this wonderful piece of paradise that we have.

So I am sure the committee will be listening intently to those submitters who come and seek to address their concerns about that balance between recreational fishing, customary fishing, commercial fishing, and now marine farming activities, and I trust that the committee will be able to find that balance.

With regard to the 20 percent allocation to Māori, United Future accepts that it is a continuation and completion of the settlement of 1992 negotiated by the National Government. Given that it is simply an allocation of space, it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to enable the industry to move forward without being hamstrung by further litigation over the interpretation of that 1992 settlement. Otherwise, we might be here in 10 years’ time, still trying to see this industry develop. We accept that it is a pragmatic solution, and we welcome the fact that Māori have accepted it so that all parties can move forward. It will offer Māori opportunities to engage in this very lucrative industry, and we welcome that because they ought to have that right to participate in it.

We also support the handling of the allocation through the mechanisms established for allocating the assets from the settlement that will be debated next week, I believe, in the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill, and all the structures that have been set up by that legislation, because it does fit well. Although it may, as the co-leader for the Greens said, be another imposition upon Te Ohu Kai Moana, it is the right place, I believe, for it to be handled, and we look forward to all those assets ultimately being released into the hands of iwi throughout the country, so that they may develop economically and make even greater contributions to the nation’s economy.

The bill introduces a new form of private plan change. I do not think this is ideal. It would have been much better if the regional councils had used the 3 years they have had during the moratorium to establish aquaculture management areas. I think there will be some complications in going forward in such a piecemeal fashion, where individual commercial interests have to undertake the plan change themselves. Therefore, the committee will have to put its mind to how to allocate the 20 percent to Māori when the aquaculture management area is not established right from the beginning, but done in this fashion instead, and there may be some other complications that arise with that piecemeal way forward.

But nevertheless, it is good to see that we will go forward with this. I hope to see some submissions come in, and from discussions I have had, I believe there will be some that suggest the aquaculture management area concept should be expanded to being an aquaculture marine park. This would include not just the sea environment, but also the adjacent land, because often there is a need for land-based activities to support marine farming. It would make sense, I believe, if the consent process could be handled under one set of rules that would be managed by the regional council. So we will see whether the committee will accept submissions on that through the committee stage. But I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to give United Future’s support to the first reading of the bill, and we wish the committee well in its deliberations through the submissions stage.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I want to speak only very briefly to this bill, because—[Interruption] Gosh, those members are a card! This is an important bill, and it is most important for the industry and all those who are associated with it that we assist in passing this bill through the House as quickly as we can. One of the aspects of this bill that I find particularly pleasing is that at long last we have a Government that is providing leadership on important issues. Combined with providing that leadership, we also have protections in place to protect our natural environment, and that is particularly important. This is a good bill and I look forward to it passing through the House as quickly as possible.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : For those who are now unsure what legislation we are talking about after that contribution from the junior Government whip, it is the Aquaculture Reform Bill, which National will oppose, and oppose vigorously. It has to be the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation that I have ever seen introduced into this House—the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation ever introduced into this House. The other aspect of it to which I am opposed is that it is the most racially biased legislation we have yet seen delivered by this Labour Government.

The reform of legislation around aquaculture is long overdue—of that there can be no doubt. I think it is worthy to recall Labour’s first response. Jill Pettis now says she is pleased with the leadership and the speedy moves to resolution. Labour’s first response to this issue was to impose a moratorium back on 28 November 2001. That moratorium—

Phil Heatley: I thought the moratorium was their second response.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The next response, which I will talk about shortly, was a further moratorium. The Government imposed the first moratorium and said that it would use that time to sort out its position. To be fair to the bungling David Benson-Pope, the current Minister of Fisheries, that legislation was advanced by Pete Hodgson, who, after a disastrous performance, was finally sacked by the Prime Minister because he could not make progress on that effort. The Government gave itself 3 years to prepare that legislation. Towards the end of its self-imposed deadline on the first moratorium—namely, 25 March 2004—what was its response but to rush back into the House and pass another piece of legislation, which was the second moratorium for that particular important industry.

That was after poor old Mr Hodgson had gone up and down the country promising the industry that his response to the first moratorium would not be to impose a second moratorium. Because of Mr Hodgson’s disastrous leadership in that industry, he was finally replaced by Mr David Benson-Pope, who has produced what I think will prove to be some of the worst, and certainly the most poorly drafted, legislation we have seen presented to the House.

The second point I make is that while this industry has been constrained by legislation, it has not been able to make the contribution it could have to the wealth of this nation. The industry is currently worth $340 million, exporting close to 70 percent of that amount. Industry spokespeople are on record as saying that by 2020, providing they are given the opportunity, it could be a billion-dollar industry. What has the Government done to reap that potential?

This legislation was presented to the House 2 days ago, on 24 August, and then, surprisingly, when the Minister made his contribution to the first reading, he effectively gave the select committee 2 months to work on it. The committee has to bring it back to the House by 29 November 2004. That date is closely connected to the seabed and foreshore legislation; this legislation is nothing but a blatant bribe and an attempt to buy Māori support on that issue. Of the 3 months given to the committee, 1 month will be lost to advertising for submissioners and giving them the opportunity to prepare their submissions. We will receive hundreds of submissions, and the select committee will not have the opportunity to give them due consideration.

David Benson-Pope is shaking his head. He could not care less, because he knows that he has given the select committee an impossible task in consulting with the industry. He has every intention of simply ignoring the work done by the select committee, including by members of his own party, as he has done with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill came back into the House with the recommendation that it not be passed, and the incompetent, bungling David Benson-Pope pushed on regardless. The Minister should ask why he is sending it to the select committee if the whole process will be just a sham because of the timetable.

The most controversial part of this legislation is the Government’s move to give 20 percent of current space to Māori and 20 percent of future space to Māori. I listened with huge interest to the contribution from John Tamihere, who obviously got the Prime Minister’s permission to make a contribution today. His history of the deed of settlement signed in 1992 is simply not fact. He talked about the involvement of Doug Graham. I spoke to Doug Graham personally and asked him for the history around the 1992 deed of settlement. The House has to realise that that deal was cobbled together in a matter of weeks, because suddenly an opportunity developed with Brierley Investments Ltd selling out of Sealord’s. There was no mention of aquaculture, despite the contribution from John Tamihere earlier.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Doug Kidd took it off the table, that’s why.

Hon DAVID CARTER: It was not mentioned in the agreement, and if David Benson-Pope manages to get off his chuff and read the deed of settlement, he will note that aquaculture is not included. It refers to giving Māori 20 percent of species that come into the quota management system. Today, this legislation is an attempt to extend the deed of settlement well past the quota management system. We are not about to bring aquaculture into the quota management system. This is about space for aquaculture, and it was never mentioned in the deed of settlement.

I want to talk about one particular clause in the 1992 deed of settlement. I refer David Benson-Pope to clause 5.1. Māori signed that, and this is what it states: “Māori agree that this Settlement Deed, and the settlement it evidences, shall satisfy all claims, current and future,”. This Government is today driving yet another division into race relations in New Zealand by giving Māori the opportunity to reopen the debate. Māori signed the deed of settlement in 1992 as full and final, but because the Government is totally embarrassed over the seabed and foreshore legislation, it has done this crafty deal by giving Māori far more than they expected and giving them 20 percent of space. I say to David Benson-Pope that it is a race for space, and that he should be ashamed of himself.

National will vigorously oppose this legislation. Hundreds of submissions will not be given a reasonable hearing at the select committee, because David Benson-Pope has done a deal with the Māori caucus on this legislation—

Hon David Benson-Pope: That member should stand aside. He is clearly prejudiced. He is the chair of the committee.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Now the Minister calls me prejudiced because I raised the issue. That is just so typical of the Labour Party. We had Jill Pettis interjecting earlier, when another member raised this issue, and she referred to him as a racist. It is time the Government was prepared to debate the issues, based on the facts. Government members should read the deed of settlement signed by everybody, including the Rt Hon. Doug Graham, but they should not attempt to rewrite history to get themselves out of an embarrassing position over the seabed and foreshore, because that is what they are doing.

I tell David Benson-Pope that it is not me who is prejudiced. It is the honourable member himself, if he is prepared to support this sort of legislation. What it will do is just continue to divide race relations in this country, and to suggest that I am the one who is prejudiced is the most insulting remark, and probably the most inane remark, that that Minister has ever passed across this House.

I conclude by saying that the future of the fishing industry is in aquaculture. The Government needs to find a way of moving it forward without rancour and prejudice. That is not what this legislation achieves. I oppose the legislation vigorously.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) : That was a very interesting contribution from that member, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, who said, no doubt as chair, that those hundreds of submissions “would not get a fair hearing”. What an interesting comment from the person mandated by this Parliament with guaranteeing the integrity of that process. That was a very sad statement indeed.

But that chairman’s credibility had been shot long before, viz. this point: he called the Hon David Benson-Pope a lazy Minister and said he should get off his chuff. We can count the number of weeks that that Minister has been in his job by the number of fisheries amendment bills there have been. There seems to have been about one a week. I have never seen a Minister produce so much legislation. One cannot call that lacking in productivity; I would call it “primary production”.

But if David Carter has trouble with numbers, obviously his colleague Mr Heatley has worse trouble, because he said that Māori already control 45 percent of aquaculture, and that as the bill says they will control 20 percent going forward, that percentage will go up. I am sorry but the average of 45 and 20 is less than 45.

The main point about this bill is that it provides certainty, and if any member of the National caucus other than the future finance Minister, Mr Connell, had ever been in business, that member would know that business likes certainty. This bill gives certainty. Aquaculture can, and will, grow.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : New Zealand First has maintained a very firm position since 2002 that it is very unfortunate that this bill, the Marine Reserves Bill, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have come to the House without New Zealand’s oceans policy first being completed. This disconnected approach to our marine space is most regrettable.

New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Primary Production Committee for one major reason, and that is that anyone who has an understanding of the industry’s needs and demands at the present time would know that the last thing we can afford in this country is to have yet further delay. This party vigorously opposed the first moratorium and the second moratorium, and we certainly would not wish further delay on the industry and on those regional councils that went ahead, took Minister Hodgson at his word, and developed aquaculture management areas to a point where action is taking place, and could take place tomorrow. Further delay is the last thing we would want, so to that degree New Zealand First is prepared to support the bill going to the Primary Production Committee. We await with interest the considerations that will come from those who are interested in the bill, and we will see what comes out of the select committee.

I would hope that, in so doing, the chairperson of that committee exercises an impartial and objective viewpoint throughout the whole of those hearings. What I have heard in the House just recently suggests a prejudiced mind about some issues in the bill before the hearings commence. On behalf of New Zealand First I caution that we are looking for an open, objective debate about the issues that pertain to the bill, and not a debate about prejudice past and present.

New Zealand First is pleased that the bill clarifies the issue—as has been clarified in other places, in the seabed and foreshore debate—of whether under New Zealand common law the foreshore and seabed are generally held to be under the Crown. In practice we know that the coastal marine area is generally perceived as public space with private occupation. At this time I assert again on behalf of New Zealand First, as has already been stated by a previous member of the House, that that use is a privilege rather than a right.

Having said that, I point out that we are very pleased to see that the Minister has taken into account the industry’s concerns with regard to existing use, in that this bill recognises that the coastal marine area has obviously been used and developed not just in recent years but over hundreds of years. When we start to look at the Māori component of this bill, as we in New Zealand First have done carefully, we see that the hundreds of years of use of our marine space is a highly relevant matter to consider, and I hope the submitters come with that in mind. Last Saturday I was at a meeting at ōākura with regard to a proposed marine reserve, and there was a very large gathering of coastal folk. One of the elders went back into the history of that district—not just this century, not just last century, but over several centuries—and detailed carefully, for people who wished to hear, how Māori had used that coast. In that proposal, the Department of Conservation has very rapacious hands with regard to the proposed marine reserve. The point I want to leave with the House is that there are people who, for generations past, have used this marine space and have knowledge of it. To say that there should be no recognition of that in the bill is a step that the select committee will have to think about very, very carefully.

We are pleased to see that the bill recognises the industry’s recognition of this phase-in period. The bill recognises that to the end of the present permit there is certainty. It also recognises that, provided the present permit-holder seeking a new consent is able to show—and I hope that the committee makes this very firm—compliance with the conditions of the permit, and provided that sound, current industry-good practice is being observed by the permit-holder, that person is given a prior right to occupy that space for a future consent term. As we know, most of these consents are for 35 years, and I hope that issue will be advanced as the consent term. Our party believes that if there is near-security for the present permit-holders, provided that they have complied with a new consent, then that is about all that even a 50-hectare consent-owner can reasonably expect as a right. I go back to my first principle, which is that the use of this space is a privilege not a right. We are very pleased to see that the bill has recognised that point.

Secondly, we are very pleased to see recognition of the fact that this industry has a chequered legislative history that goes back in time to the early days of the 1960s, up to the Marine Farming Act of 1971. As the Minister of Fisheries is here I want to address one problem to him that is not so obvious in the bill. All of the earlier permit-holders were granted permits by, first of all, the Ministry of Transport in some prehistoric day, then by the Minister of Fisheries, and in many of our regions there is a state of devastation and ill-care with regard to many of those consents. It is of very grave concern to us in the regions as to who will now be responsible for the clean-up of what were Government-directed consents or permits. I do not see any provision for that in the bill. While we in New Zealand First are very pleased to see that the ratepayer will not be burdened by extensive, costly, and lengthy plan changes, and that there is provision for the industry or for individual would-be consent-holders to pursue their own plan changes at their own cost—and we in Northland are very pleased to see that—there should also be some recognition that if the regional councils, in particular, implement those final plan changes, they will do so at some cost. As many of the regions have completed or are near the end of producing their coastal plans, that will be an added impost upon the ratepayer, for little personal benefit. Therefore, I come to the issue—which is also in the bill—of some of the benefits, with regard to the tendering and allocation of space. It may be that some further thought should be given to a more generous distribution initially, to meet the cost of clean-up and the cost of the period of transition. That is not directly addressed in the bill, and I hope the Minister has some awareness of it.

My having said that, we all know the importance of marine farming to our economy. Northland has the longest coastline of any region in this country, and we are very much aware of the value of, and the potential for, marine farming. We have been very concerned about dual issues in the past. We are very concerned that, with relatively large areas of coastal space now required for modern, economic marine farming, there is a consequent need to have those farms located, constructed, and managed so as to avoid and remedy any of the adverse environmental impacts that can, and do, occur. We are concerned that the bill provide for that.

Last of all, we in New Zealand First, having observed many Māori marine farmers from the North Cape to the Bluff manage by their own efforts over several decades, and at great personal cost to themselves and their families, to put together viable farming enterprises, do not believe that for some strange reason some group in Wellington—I think it is called Te Ohu Kai Moana—which is the inheritor of the Māori Fisheries Commission traditions, should now have the allocation of Māori space, should the bill deem that to be so. We strongly resent there being the same sort of process that Māori fisheries has had to undergo over the last 11 years. We very much hope the select committee will ensure that that Wellington-placed body, which has neither the knowledge nor the ability successfully to implement this allocation as from 1 January 2005, does not have that role. Therefore, to that degree, we see that particular part of the bill as being one requiring change.

We thank the Minister for getting the bill to this stage. We believe that the industry is ready to go. I know that some regions are ready to go. For that reason, not to proceed with the bill would be an economic injustice. We support this bill going to the select committee.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) : I wish to support the progress of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, and note particularly that greater powers will be given to the regional councils. I also particularly note that there is one word that is very, very important—that is, the word “sustainability”—and that the regional councils will be the agencies responsible for environmental effects. I look forward to greater involvement of not only my own regional council but all regional councils around New Zealand, in this regard. I remind people that elections for regional councils are coming up. In those regions that have considerable coastlines, people might like to take into account whether those they are voting for have some knowledge in this area.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 29 November 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).referred to Primary Production Committee