PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : The Committee was asked when this full and final settlement will come round to bite us again—because, of course, the 1992 fisheries settlement is only just over 12 years old, yet we are readdressing it. I pointed to the Government orders of the day listed under “Business before the House” on yesterday’s Order Paper to answer that very question of when the settlement will come back to us. I pointed to the list of bills on the Order Paper, running through Nos 1 to 15, 16 to 31, and 32 to 35. Just after No. 35 is the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. If members turn to clauses 118 and 119 of that bill, they will see that those clauses deal with an aquaculture settlement specifically with the iwi of Ngāti Awa. So there we go. In the next few months that bill will pass through Parliament, and it will deal with aquaculture space specifically. So this settlement that gives 20 percent of existing aquaculture space to Māori and up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space to Māori will come round again in a matter of months.

What does that bill state? It states that the deed of settlement will include a provision that when the Minister of Conservation offers up by public tender any part of the marine coastal area—specifically, part of the Ōhiwa Harbour—Ngāti Awa will have a preferential right to purchase up to 5 percent of that coastal space for aquaculture. Interestingly enough, this is not the first time there has been a specific aquaculture settlement. The Ngā Rauru Kītahi in Taranaki has the right, under its October 2003 settlement, to participate in preferential tendering for aquaculture space. Ngāti Ruanui in Taranaki signed a deed of settlement in 2001 that gave it a preferential right for aquaculture. Ngāti Tama of Taranaki, under its settlement of November 2001, has a preferential right to buy at the tender price 10 percent of the allocated marine space. Lastly, the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998 specifically granted to that iwi a preferential purchasing right of 10 percent of the allocated space.

So there we have five iwi that have gone to the Government of the day—one to the previous National Government and four to the Labour Government—and argued on merit that there is a settlement to be made. The Government of the day has accepted on merit that the claim was fair, and it has addressed the claim with a preferential right to purchase aquaculture space. That has happened five times on a case by case basis on merit, without affecting any other marine farmer in the country, and each time there has been a deed of settlement to point to. There is nothing wrong with that, but a blanket give-away of 20 percent of aquaculture space right across the country, as this part attests to, regardless of any involvement in the marine area, is unjustified.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : It would be useful if I made some comments, I think, both in respect of the misinformation the Committee has just heard and in relation to some of the comments made last night. I will begin by addressing the issue of the genesis of this—I think—very sensible and very progressive settlement. It is most important that I quote, for the benefit of the Committee, from the Wai 953 report. It states: “He”—Doug Kidd—“thought that the Treasury had wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system, but he”—Doug Kidd—“had personally forbidden Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions on the deed of settlement since it would confuse an already complex set of negotiations.” So for members of the National Party to stand here and say that that matter has been dealt with is typical of the sort of claptrap we hear repeatedly from that party. I thank New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens for supporting a really sensible pathway forward. Like the industry and like local government, this Government is concerned about good outcomes and making progress, and not about wheeling out the same old boring, racist nonsense as that Opposition party constantly does.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot insinuate that a member or a party is racist. I ask the member to stand and withdraw that remark.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : The 20 percent allocation of aquaculture space to Māori is a very strange course of action for the Government to take. I basically support the allocation, but the Government seems to have gone about it in a very odd way. The National Party talks about unfinished business. I accept that there is some question about that, but I do not really want to visit that question. What the Government is trying to do right now is to legislate for a full and final settlement. Crown Law opinion states that the Crown does have the right to do so, but my reading of it is that the Treaty of Waitangi settlements must be negotiated. There has not even been consultation with iwi Māori on this settlement. How can the Government legislate for a settlement when it has not even consulted with the people it is settling with? The 1992 deed of settlement stated that Māori were entitled to 20 percent of all new species as those species were admitted to the quota management system. Green-lipped mussels and, I understand, oysters are not part of the quota management system, so they are not triggers for entering into a Treaty of Waitangi settlement either.

It seems to me that the Government is creating a potential loophole. On the one hand it says that this is a full and final settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi claim, but on the other hand it leaves the door open for Māori to say it is very nice to have the 20 percent, for which they thank us very much, but that now they will go ahead with their treaty negotiations—and we would support them in doing that. Another problem—a practical problem—that this legislation brings up is the idea that the 20 percent of space allocated to Māori will be “representative space”. How does one actually identify what representative space is? It is not just 20 percent of an area. Water space actually varies in much the same way as land does: there is high country, which is not very productive, and there are lowlands, which are very productive. So it is not simply a matter of saying Māori can have a particular space, and that it is equal to a space that has already been taken. It is probable that the space that has already been taken by existing marine farmers will be the best space that was available, so anything that is given to Māori is likely to be less than average. So how do we find the space? It is a real practical problem.

The legislation states that Māori are to get 20 percent of all new space. On the surface, that seems straightforward enough, notwithstanding the productivity question. I have heard some very odd comments from various people who say that that does not mean actually 20 percent; it means 40 percent. The question of 40 percent comes up only because the legislation states that from 1992—the year of the deed of settlement—until the present there has been existing space, and 20 percent of that is to go to Māori. If that space cannot be bought or obtained in some way by the Government and passed on to iwi Māori, then the amount has to be made up from new space. It could be that Māori will get up to 40 percent of the new space in order to make up for the 20 percent that the Government cannot give them from the existing space. It is a bit complicated, but at the end of the day, taking the existing space and the new space together, the amount is 20 percent, and not 40 percent. The amount is up to 40 percent of the new space, but not 40 percent of the overall space.

Another question that has come up is the use of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd as the allocation body, using the model from the fisheries settlement. Almost without exception—I think there was one exception—the iwi groups that made submissions to the Primary Production Committee opposed the use of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. Now, we must be doing something right if everybody dislikes it. The problem was that we kept asking those groups who they did want to be the allocation group if they did not want Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee, and their answer was that they wanted to negotiate directly with the Crown. Obviously, when there are multiple groups all around the country, it simply will not work like that. So, for better or for worse, we have decided that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee is the organisation with the skills to do the job. At one level, I do accept the Māori argument that the Government is just passing off a complex problem to another group, and saying to Māori that it is their problem, and that they should get on and deal with it.

There have also been questions raised about who gets the allocated space in a mixed area. Let us say a piece of foreshore has open water and a harbour, and there are two adjoining iwi, one having the rohe of the open water and one having the rohe of the harbour. If the open water is not suitable for aquaculture, then basically that is just tough bikkies for that particular iwi.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) : Part 5, which members are speaking to, sets out the procedures so that we may have clarity as to how to go about the allocation of aquaculture space—not only members here in Parliament, but also regional councils, Māori, and iwi. I think that this is a very good part, because it sets out the procedures. The Committee has become bogged down in some of its discussion as to whether it should even start on the procedures, but once it has moved past that initial question there still need to be clear outlines on how things should take place. In other words, I note that this part answers the question of how the settlement is to take place for iwi and Māori. As somebody has just tried to explain, the amount that is set aside for Māori is 20 percent of all the space in aquaculture management areas. That is done in two stages. There is a stage from 21 September 1992 through until today—the existing farms, or space that will be converted into aquaculture management areas—and then there is everything from the passing of this legislation. Overall, this bill makes it clear that iwi will be settled with no more than 20 percent of that available space. The amount is not 40 percent of the space, as someone correctly pointed out. The space must be representative space. It has to be economic in size for people to use, and it has to have not less than average productivity, as I recall some of the clauses point out.

The space will go to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee to be held by that body as trustee, and Part 5 lays out the procedures that relate to the passing over of that space to Māori. With regard to the assets that some people referred to when they said that the trustee would receive all the money and would run away with it, that type of talk is not supported by Part 5. In fact, what is being transferred is just space, and there are no financial possibilities of others misusing or abusing space in itself, or of people taking the money, going elsewhere, or holding up progress for a long period of time. There is no money involved, and I think it is very important to understand that. The roles of the trustees, the authority that is set out for them, and their ability to do things is set out in Part 5. There is a dispute resolution process set up—going right through to the High Court, if need be—so that no one can be in any doubt. I believe that this part sets out a good due process, so that no one can misunderstand the intention and the conclusions that are desired for aquaculture to get started into a full thrusting sense from the passing of this legislation.

There are other harbours that have been referred to in the bill. We have looked at them. As a party, United Future will certainly vote for clause 105B, which amends the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and also for the amendment to that clause that has been tabled in Supplementary Order Paper 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. We, as a party, feel that this is good legislation. It will really help Māori people to get settled, and with them being settled, the rest of the industry will therefore settle down and get on with practising aquaculture.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : It is interesting, in view of the speeches made last night and at the beginning of the day by National Party members, that there seems to be a lack of understanding as to why the 20 percent threshold is there. It is certainly not a misunderstanding on the part of the industry. Yesterday morning’s New Zealand Herald, with regard to the very matters that we are looking at in Part 5, stated: “The industry has never been opposed to the fisheries issues of the treaty settlement.” That is the exact view that I had confirmed for me by a major player in Northland on the weekend. And why is that? It is because in 1992 a threshold was set by the then National Government as to what would be a fair allocation of the fishery resource at that time. As I stated yesterday, so important was that at the time, that the then National Government shot the whole deed of settlement in its legislative form through in one sitting, as it were—introduction, second reading, Committee stage, and third reading took place all at once. That shows how keen the Government, and particularly Dr Smith, were at that time to “provide a full and final settlement”, which is exactly the language of clause 59 in Part 5 of this bill.

So New Zealand First came to this, as I said yesterday, with an understanding of the 20 percent threshold established. Therefore, we took up the issue, as Mr Woolerton did in the Primary Production Committee, of providing for the allocation and management of aquaculture settlement assets. We found nothing incompatible with that, notwithstanding the fact that in 1992, Peters I and Peters W voted against the deed of settlement. Since then we have maintained major clarity as to issues concerning Māori and fishing.

However, the issue before the Committee is whether that will work. I want to bring to the Committee’s attention the fact that there will not be a huge amount of space out there ready to be absorbed. In Northland, there are 149 farmers at present and, going through and taking the Minister and the Government at their word over the last 2½ years, we have consulted widely. The industry’s wish for 135 sites has been finally narrowed down to 19. When we go back and look at the actual space those 19 farms will use, it is very small. So there will not be a large amount of space out there, notwithstanding the fact that some operators or industry developers may want to go for some of the large farms such as we have seen in Akaroa, Ōpōtiki, and other places. But in general, if we take into account the criteria set out in this bill, define it, and work through it with regard to the local community, having regard to the requirements of the Resource Management Act, there is not a vast amount of space available.

So that 20 percent allocation for Māori will be a significant issue, because the space is very small, and it is additional space. I say again that in the thinking of the bill, the committee has done very well under the Hon David Carter in the previous part, in setting out the rights of those who at present hold consents or licences. Those rights have been upheld, as they were not in the original bill, and those people have security, virtually for life. There is nothing much more that one could expect, despite what was said yesterday by my friends on my left with regard to lifetime security.

So for the part of New Zealand First, we as a party with a great affinity with the Māori world are very conscious of what this can do and would do. It is not unfair, it is principled, and, most of all, it is based upon the National Government’s mind in 1992 in setting that threshold. In concluding, may I say that I find it very strange that there is so much concern about our national assets by a party that willingly sold off Telecom and New Zealand Rail to the wider world.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I would like to refer back to just a moment or two ago, before the last couple of speakers, to the Minister’s outburst, and that is really all it could be described as. If in fact the Minister had some real justification, he would have stood in this Chamber and explained to the Committee and to the people listening to this debate why the Crown Law Office blanked out three pages of advice—or what should have been advice—that should have been put in front of this Committee. I ask the Minister to explain to the House why we got three blank pages of Crown Law on this issue, but I am perfectly certain that he will not do it.

In talking to Part 5, I believe that, without question, there should be an open-door policy to aquaculture in this country. We have a huge coastline, massive amounts of water available, and there should be an absolutely open-door policy. The policy that this Government is operating is a brown-door policy, because if the person is Māori, then that person gets special treatment. The people of this country are sick and tired of this racist nonsense. Māori are perfectly capable, and always have been perfectly capable, of running their own industries. Let us look at Ngāi Tahu in the south, for example. They do not need special help or special attention, because they are more than capable, and have been extraordinarily successful. I suspect that what is happening is that Ngāi Tahu and other Māori are laughing up their sleeves at this Government’s naivety. They will be saying: “If they are prepared to give us 20 percent for nothing—totally unjustified—then we will take it.” They treat this Government as the village idiot. They will keep on grabbing from the Government as long as the Government is silly enough to hand out this extra 20 percent. We know why it is being done. We know it is being done for votes, and to protect the hides of the Labour Māori caucus. It is payback for the foreshore and the seabed legislation.

But I want to talk about the space that is to be allocated that must be of an economic size. I wonder whether any of the officials, or the Minister, could tell me what an economic size is, and how it will be determined. For if we look at this whole question of an economic size in terms of agriculture, for example, an economic size of a farm in Southland might be 400 acres. The same carrying capacity in the high country of the North Island or South Island might need to be 40,000 acres to carry the same amount of stock. Really, this is what we are talking about. [Interruption]

Did I hear some sort of utterance from a member of the Government? Those members do not know what they are talking about. The carrying capacity varies hugely from region to region, between bay and bay where the aquaculture might be sited. How on earth is an economic size to be determined by a bunch of officials, or indeed a regional council? It cannot be done. The way it is done is that people put their ropes into the water, and, after a period of time, work out that growth is not occurring quickly, or there are too many ropes, or they need extra size. So in many areas, the aquaculture areas might be too small to allocate 20 percent extra, because the economy of scale to that marine farm will be lost if they lose that extra 20 percent.

This is a practical, common-sense situation that I personally have experienced, and the farming community has experienced. The same concepts can be applied to aquaculture and, essentially, the same principles apply. It is possible to get water that is full of nutrients and, like the Southland plains, is highly fertile and can sustain a high carrying capacity. What happens in open water, or in another bay where there is little or no nutrient by comparison, is that the size will have to be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled sometimes, to achieve the same carrying capacity.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : I want to go back, in Part 5, to the issue of Māori settlement. When we talk to a lot of New Zealanders, and we start talking about contemporary claims for Māori, it sends a shudder down their spines. Most people have signed up to the fact that they want to settle past grievances, but contemporary claims make them feel that the treaty industry is never going to end. This is a very good example of the reason.

I want to read the deed of settlement between Her Majesty the Queen and Māori from 1992 for the fisheries settlement, and this is the permanent settlement of commercial fishing rights and interest. Under the treaty, this settlement was supposed to actually answer the question of past grievance about Māori’s ability to have free access to their traditional grounds for collecting seafood and for fishing. It states: “Māori agree that this settlement deed, and the settlement it evidences, shall satisfy all claims”—all claims—“current and future in respect of, and shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of Māori whether in respect to”—and members should listen to this bit—“(c) coastal or inland fisheries, including any commercial aspects of traditional fishing rights and interests, whether arising by statute, common law, including customary law and aboriginal title, the Treaty of Waitangi, or otherwise, and whether or not such rights or interests shall be the subject of recommendations or adjudication by the courts or the Waitangi Tribunal.”

This was the deed of settlement that we are now relitigating with aquaculture. I want to tell the Minister that the Hon Doug Kidd, who was the member for Marlborough, is clear that aquaculture is actually part of this settlement deed. But here, under the Aquaculture Reform Bill, what do we have? We have Crown Law Office advice from 26 January 1996 looking at whether there was any allocation of aquaculture tenures and coastal consents. It could not find any evidence that this extended to aquaculture. This is Crown Law Office advice. It did not extend to aquaculture.

New Zealanders are getting really tired of the continual handouts, when one has Māori on the other side of the fence saying: “We don’t accept this. There is no deed of settlement.” We heard speeches in this Chamber last night, and today we will hear more, I am sure, saying that Māori do not acknowledge this action. They are being handed out 20 percent. They do not acknowledge it. There is no deed of settlement. They did not ask for it. They much prefer to have case-by-case negotiated claims, and they do not want this. So New Zealanders are paying for 20 percent of aquaculture management areas when they have already had 10 percent of the total allowable catch, 50 percent of Sealord’s, and 20 percent of new quota, which is what went to Māori under the deed of settlement in 1992 under the Fisheries Act.

How long does it go on for, and how much more will there be? Māori are not happy with this. This Government is handing out this 20 percent space—basically it has done a deal over the foreshore and seabed legislation.

I was surprised by New Zealand First last night. Doug Woolerton was saying that New Zealand First is supporting this because it will forestall a fight. I do not think so at all. I do not think it will forestall anything. We are still going to see difficulties about this. In the Marlborough Sounds—the area that I represent—30 percent of marine farms are already owned by Māori. Everyone wants to see everybody in this country being able to do well, advance themselves, and have access to industries that will be for the betterment of this country.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I want to deal with the misinformation that was given to the Committee earlier by the Minister of Fisheries, in his rabid outburst, when he suggested that when Doug Kidd negotiated the 1992 settlement he deliberately took aquaculture off the agenda. That is absolutely untrue. I shall clarify for that Minister, if in fact he is mistaken—but I doubt it—that what Doug Kidd forbade further discussion on was a Treasury report that was around at the time that investigated whether aquaculture should come into the quota management system. Doug Kidd said that that notion was off the agenda and was not to be discussed. David Benson-Pope suggested to the Committee today that Doug Kidd’s statement could be taken as his saying that aquaculture was not to be part of the discussion. What Doug Kidd said was that aquaculture coming into quota management was not a discussion topic on the agenda of the Government of the day.

I shall deal with whether aquaculture was part of the discussions associated with the deed of settlement. I refer to Gardiner and Parata’s report commissioned by Te Puni Kōkiri in 2002. Gardiner and Parata quite specifically asked the people involved in the 1992 settlement whether aquaculture had been excluded from the deed of settlement. I previously mentioned Mr Phil Major, a senior adviser to the Minister of Fisheries at the time; he said that he could not recall the matter being explicitly on the table during discussions between Ministers, negotiators, officials, or advisers. Doug Kidd also has confirmed to me that at no time was aquaculture seriously on the discussion trail. Hauraki Greenland, the manager of Te Puni Kōkiri, said that although he had joined the discussion late in the process of the deed of settlement, he had no recollection of aquaculture being recorded. Belinda Clark, the manager of Te Puni Kōkiri at the time, said quite specifically that Te Puni Kōkiri had not been part of many of the meetings around the detail of the deed of settlement, but to her knowledge, from the meetings she had attended, the matter of aquaculture had not been raised. George Habib, an adviser to the negotiators, gave a very lengthy interview, but, to summarise, he quite specifically said that there had been no specific mention of aquaculture.

So it is a mistruth for the Minister to suggest to the Committee that aquaculture was taken off the table. That was not the case at all. It was simply that nobody bothered to raise the issue, because everybody involved in the process genuinely saw the deed of settlement as full and final settlement of commercial-fishing rights—inshore, offshore, and coastal.

I want to deal with another matter that the select committee spent a lot of time on, and that is what we got to call the patchwork quilt. That is the issue whereby the allocation of 20 percent of space to Māori—in the case of new space, 40 percent—may result in Māori getting a whole lot of space that, effectively, is useless to them. Mr Benson-Pope said in the House yesterday that the select committee had solved that problem. I assure the Minister that the select committee did not solve the problem. We went a long way towards alleviating the problem, but this legislation still has a mechanism whereby when a current aquaculturist successfully applies for a private plan change to extend space in order to create a new aquaculture management area adjacent to an area where he is operating aquaculture at the moment, Māori get 20 percent of it. That is wrong. It is wrong to ask the industry to go through all the costs associated with the creation of new areas, then to gift 20 percent of them to Māori. It is absolutely unprincipled. But what will happen is Māori will end up with 20 percent of perhaps 1 hectare of extension, and that will be of no use to them at all. If David Benson-Pope is so out of touch with his own portfolio that he thinks the select committee managed to solve that situation, he is absolutely wrong.

This legislation will cause bitterness and grievance.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : Here is the bottom line. The 1992 fisheries settlement went through negotiation and discussion, a deed was signed, the assets were put into Te Ohu Kai Moana over a period of 12 years, the issues about allocation were resolved, and this year the Maori Fisheries Bill was passed, giving power for that allocation to happen. With this aquaculture treaty settlement, which the Minister of Fisheries thinks is full and final, there has been no negotiation. The Minister cannot table any deed of settlement. Goodness knows how long Te Ohu Kai Moana will be arguing and chasing its tail, going round and round in circles in order to get an allocation acceptable to anyone, and here we have legislation that will pass aquaculture space into Māori ownership!

Māori have said themselves that they do not accept this as a settlement. That is what they have told us. They have said that no one negotiated with them, no one signed a deed of settlement with them. They reject this as a settlement. That tells us only one thing, and that is that the Indians are coming over the hill again—that there will be another claim on aquaculture space. So why does the Minister not admit to this House that Part 5, “Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement”, is simply a horse-trading deal with Māori, whereby if the Government throws Māori 20 percent of aquaculture space, Māori will be satisfied over the seabed and foreshore deal? That is what this is all about, and it has satisfied no one.

Māori came to the select committee quite concerned. They were worried that they would end up with two worthless things. One was aquaculture space designated to them by regional councils that they never would have chosen for themselves, and the second was aquaculture space that was so small and insignificant—for example, 20 percent of a development of 5 hectares, which would give them 1 hectare—it was of no use or value to them whatsoever. They could not understand why the Government did not negotiate with them over this. We set them right and the lights went on. “Ah!”, they said, “This is to buy our silence.” Even the dim light of Doug Woolerton went on. He went: “Ah, I see now. This is a deal. We’re tossing Māori 20 percent of aquaculture space, and they’re to shut up about the seabed and foreshore legislation. The Government is trying to buy them off.” When the lights went on in Māoridom and the dim light of Doug Woolerton shimmered, everyone understood what was going on. Part 5 talks about that.

I can tell members that Māori submitters, and the member from Gisborne will concede this, were concerned that there was no negotiation, no settlement, and they are wondering whether they should come back for more. I am intrigued that this particular so-called treaty settlement—I shall call it a pseudo - treaty settlement—is post-1992. Māori can still make claims pre-1992. Here is a question for the Minister: if Māori can make claims pre-1992, and this settlement is post-1992, what did New Zealanders do to Māori after 1992 that means they deserve 20 percent of aquaculture space? What have we done in the last 14 years—

Hon David Carter: Go to a Labour Government.

PHIL HEATLEY: Is that what it was? What have we done in the last 12 to 14 years that means for some reason we owe Māori 20 percent of aquaculture space?

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : Madam Chair, I thank you for the call, because I have been going through the documents presented to the Primary Production Committee, and I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Labour Party members whether they have respect for Sir Tīpene O’Regan and his word. I am not getting an answer to my question, so I want to put on the record that I have huge respect for Sir Tīpene O’Regan and his word.

I shall quote Sir Tīpene’s answer when he was asked to recall the 1992 settlement and the discussions that occurred at that time, and to answer the huge question of whether aquaculture had been on the agenda or off the agenda. The interview was undertaken at the request of Te Puni Kōkiri, and the result was presented to that ministry in May 2002 by Gardiner and Parata. That firm had asked Sir Tīpene O’Regan a question that is fundamental to this gifting of aquaculture space to Māori. The question simply was whether aquaculture had been excluded from the deed of settlement. Sir Tīpene responded: “The settlement was about commercial fisheries rights. Such rights include aquaculture.” Nothing could be clearer in the mind of Sir Tīpene O’Regan.

The Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, shakes his head. Let him be assured that I am not misquoting the information in front of me. That is a direct quote of what Sir Tīpene said to the interviewing firm, Gardiner and Parata, so I doubt whether it is incorrect. Nothing could be clearer: the 1992 deed of settlement was full and final for commercial fishing, and aquaculture was included. Yet here we are, 12 years on, debating this bill because the Labour Government is totally embarrassed about the way it has treated Māori over the seabed and foreshore legislation. Helped by United Future and by New Zealand First, and knowing that Labour is about to lose votes in every Māori electorate, the Government has trumped up this deal, which is without principle. It is giving Māori up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space, as a means of buying votes.

The really interesting thing is that Māori find this settlement unacceptable, as well. They are prepared to accept the gift—why would they not—but every Māori submitter told us that in his or her view this was not a settlement, it had not been negotiated, and he or she was not accepting it as full and final settlement. So today we are passing legislation that not only does not settle Treaty of Waitangi grievances but reinvents the grievance industry and gives it a whole new lease of life for generations to come. That is a very sad development for race relations in this country.

There can be no justification for it at all, particularly when we see the words of Sir Tīpene O’Regan. He was heavily involved in the discussions with Ngāi Tahu. That very good settlement was negotiated by the National Government in 1996, and the House signed up to it. Even Labour voted for it. Because Ngāi Tahu wished to be involved in aquaculture, as part of that settlement they negotiated the right to 10 percent of space in their area on a pre-emptive tender basis. They did not expect a gift. They were quite happy to pay for it when it was tendered.

That is absolute proof in my mind that Sir Tīpene was absolutely right. He knew that aquaculture had been addressed in the 1992 settlement, and nothing will change my mind on that matter. Labour is desperately attempting to justify this measure by referring to “unfinished business”. The “unfinished business” was “finished business”—until this Government opened it up again. I say to David Benson-Pope that he has opened up a can of worms.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) : I move, That the question be now put.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : Part 6 will, of course, be broken off and form a separate bill, as will the other parts that we have been and will be debating in the Committee stage. It concerns the amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and is all about the Māori Land Court dealing with disputes—in particular, those relating to aquaculture in various regions throughout New Zealand. Members will recall that there was negotiation, there was a deed of settlement, and there was an Act passed for the Māori fisheries settlement in 1992. There was a period of 10 or 12 years when Te Oku Kai Moana, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, had to work with Māori up and down the length and breadth of the country in order to resolve who had a genuine claim to a fisheries allocation in particular regions. That was a very long-winded process. It involved lots of necessary hearings in front of the Māori Land Court, and resulted in a bill being brought into Parliament late last year that we looked at during the first part of this year. Interestingly enough, even the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, when it got that legislation after 12 years’ work, made some changes in relation to some iwi making claims to a fisheries allocation.

These amendments in the Aquaculture Reform Bill are to go through the same process as that, so that iwi can put their case as to their right to the allocation of space. They will be doing that primarily before the Māori Land Court. That is why we are looking at Part 6, “Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993”. The difficulty will be that there were 12 years of disputes over the Māori fisheries settlement—and that was when, back in the early 1990s, there had been negotiation, a deed of settlement, and an Act passed that dealt with that allocation. So members can imagine the disputes we will have before the Māori Land Court arising from this legislation, given that there has been no negotiation, no deed of settlement, and no Act specifically dealing with this particular treaty settlement. The Māori Land Court, which is referred to in these short clauses, will be very, very busy indeed.

It was interesting, when doing the Māori fisheries settlement, to talk about coastline disputes. That was just one type of dispute that was possible—a dispute about where the coastline began and ended for a particular whānau, iwi, and hapū, and, if there was disagreement on that, who had to resolve it and how it was done. The coastline agreement had to do with inshore fisheries only, rather than offshore fisheries as well, so it was major in one sense but not wholly significant. The coastline agreements with regard to aquaculture will be absolutely essential when it comes to deciding which hapū and iwi have claim to a particular aquaculture management area. I can say now to the country that there will be huge arguments over that particular issue. Iwi will be fighting iwi for years and years to come. We will hold our heads in our hands and weep. Had the Minister negotiated with Māori, signed a deed of settlement with them, and got buy-in, perhaps all that could have been avoided. So if the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, thinks that this part is some kind of silver bullet that will solve aquaculture disputes in the marine management area over the next decade, he is dreaming. That is why we have to have these amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : It is quite extraordinary that in the Aquaculture Reform Bill—in which we are attempting, anyway, to resolve the issue once and for all—lo and behold, we see Part 6 is totally and specially dedicated towards conflict resolution. One entire part is about conflict resolution, when this is a reform bill in which the whole issue is meant to be sorted in a full, fair, and final way. It is quite extraordinary that the Government itself and the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, who is sitting there and chewing his cud, do not seem to understand that they have just opened up another period for Māori to fight one another, to argue, and to make the lawyers rich. I can see Donna Hall right now, just beaming from ear to ear at the thought of the millions of dollars she will be gleaning from Part 6, because of the total ineptitude of the Government. I can tell the Committee right now that the lawyers will be getting the snapper and the ordinary Māori will be getting the empty net, as always in these sorts of settlements.

This legislation will not achieve anything that is near to the nice, warm, fuzzy belief that the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, and the Government seem to have about what will occur once it is passed. It is a recipe for the continuance of the grievance industry. It will pit Māori against Māori, iwi against iwi, and even, I guess, relative against relative in the argument as to who is entitled to what. I can only say again that it is extraordinary to see in a bill of this size an entire part—not a clause or a couple of clauses—dedicated towards trying to resolve conflict, or setting in train the principles by which conflict resolution can occur. It is amazing that the Government has predetermined that there will be conflict and, in trying to pre-empt it, has put in a whole new part. I guess I am still thinking to myself that there can be only a clause or two on that, surely. But no, an entire part, consisting of a dozen pages or so, is dedicated towards the resolution of the conflict that must occur as a result of this legislation. I find that to be absolutely amazing. I can only concur with my colleagues from the National Party on that.

Tīpene O’Regan was dead right. The Minister should know that he was dead right. If the Minister was doing his job properly, he would get on the phone to him. When I was last aware, Tīpene O’Regan was still living in Otago, so it would not even cost the Minister a toll call to get on the phone and ask him what actually happened and what his recall of the process was. We would not even need Part 6 if the opinion of one of the most highly regarded members of Māoridom and of the New Zealand community had been sought by the Government. If the Government had consulted Tīpene O’Regan at an early stage, I suspect the whole conflict resolution process would have been unnecessary. We would not be sitting here in urgency, trying yet again to ram another piece of legislation through Parliament that is, in my view, totally unprincipled and not even based on consultation with Māori to determine whether it is necessary.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : As we move to Part 6, I want to pick up on the comments made by my Primary Production Committee colleagues Gerry Eckhoff and Phil Heatley. In Part 5 we have created a huge dispute and grievance between Māori New Zealanders and non-Māori New Zealanders. Now we move to Part 6, which is a significant part of the bill. It is totally devoted to trying to find solutions to grievances between Māori. We have talked throughout the debate about Māori getting up to 40 percent of new aquaculture space, but nobody has taken much interest in defining who is Māori and how that space will be actually allocated. I note that no Māori member of the Labour caucus has even bothered to take a call on any part of the legislation, let alone helped the Committee with this very important part.

I confess right at the outset that I do not have a huge appreciation of Māori politics. I would have thought it was incumbent on some of those Māori members to help the Committee through this debate. They should tell us how the various iwi or hapū will be recognised so as to receive their entitlement. My colleague Linda Clark—no, Linda Clark was never a colleague of mine, but I accept that she was a colleague of the other side! My colleague Lynda Scott has just mentioned that eight iwi claim to have an affiliation to the Marlborough Sounds, which is the area that has been at the forefront of leading aquaculture development in this country. I pay tribute to the Marlborough District Council for the job it has done. This legislation will give Māori in the Marlborough Sounds up to 40 percent of new space to be created. We have acknowledged that that will be complex enough to build into this legislation a dispute resolution process for how the aquaculture space will be divvied up within iwi.

There are no boundaries for this. There is no map of the Marlborough Sounds that states that a particular iwi has an affiliation with a particular bay, and that another iwi has an affiliation with another bay. If Māori use their brains—and I am sure they will—they will look at the Marlborough Sounds and ask where the most productive areas are. They will then go into a lengthy process of trying to prove to the Māori Land Court that they have an affiliation to that area—not because it is where they used to fish, but because that is where the most productive space is. The Māori Land Court cannot handle claims at the moment. We will have to resource it.

Dr Lynda Scott: More money.

Hon DAVID CARTER: More money from the taxpayers of New Zealand will resource yet another court to try to sort out claims between various Māori, because the Labour Government is passing legislation that is unprincipled and simply will not work. I want the Minister to rise to his feet and tell us how much additional workload he sees as being put on the Māori Land Court. Let us have a statement from the Minister in charge, the Hon David Benson-Pope, to prove that he has given some thought to that question. I bet it has not even crossed his mind. He will not be the Minister of Fisheries after the reshuffle of the next few days. Helen Clark knows that the industry is totally disappointed in that man. He has been a disaster. He does not even understand the basics of this bill, let alone the complication associated with Part 6.

Darren Hughes: Is this the man who got demoted off the front bench?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I assure members that Darren Hughes, the soon to be former member for Otaki, does not have a clue about this legislation. I know that Nathan Guy, the National Party candidate who is door-knocking in Ōtaki at the moment, knows more about this legislation, because I have spoken to him. He knows more about this than Darren Hughes would.

Darren Hughes: Why was this man dumped from the front bench?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to Mr Hughes that at least I got there. That is further than that member will ever get, sitting in the second row before he is dispatched back to get another job. That is what will happen to that member.

I want to debate the issues.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : I want to follow on from where my honourable colleague David Carter left off. This debate is not just about the eight iwi at the top of the South Island. We are talking about hapū and whānau, as well. How will it be decided who has access to the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas? It is extremely difficult. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds at a place called the Portage Resort Hotel. It is a really lovely tourist hotel and was a wonderful place to grow up in. I always remember that on the wall we had this big painting of Māori carting their canoes over from the Kenepuru Sound to the Queen Charlotte Sound. That is why the area is called Portage—Māori used to take their canoes across at that lowest point.

There are many different Māori groups that do not put up a wall, gate, or fence to say that a bit of land is theirs. They live in an area and move to other areas. They were a very mobile society. We all know that Te Rauparaha used to come down and wage war in this area. There would be huge casualties; whole hapū would get wiped out, and then other people would move into that area some time later. The disputes will be very difficult to sort out.

A Māori chap came into my office a few years ago and said—I always remember him saying this—that when there was no land, no fisheries, and no money, people did not care, but “now we do”. He was in dispute with his brother over a patch of resource that he would have liked.

Hon David Carter: Plenty for the Māori Land Court.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT: That is right. Where do people go? The whole of Part 6 directs people to the Māori Land Court to sort out their disputes. There will be massive disputes. Ian Ewen-Street gave an example before that if Māori are looking at a coastal area or an inland tidal area, and if they happen to be from a hapū or iwi that was based out on the coast, and there is aquaculture in a lagoon, they would want to claim rights to the lagoon. They will miss out. But members can bet their life that they will not want to miss out, so there will be a dispute. Some Māori will say that there were plenty of times when they planted crops and harvested food from that lagoon. What happens if eight different iwi all claim the same space and we cannot sort it out because at different times they did all use that land? Will they get one-eighth each? Is that what will happen?

Nobody knows how this issue of 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be resolved. That is the whole problem with Part 5 and Part 6. There was no deed of settlement. Māori have not accepted this legislation; it has been foisted on them. Sure they will take the 20 percent—who would not take a free handout from the Government? Everyone will do that, if the Government is silly enough to give it. But there was no deed of settlement. It has not been worked out with Māori. The whole of Part 6 sets up mediation, disputes resolution, the procedures of the court, and how a judge will make determinations.

In those situations, there are costs. This legislation will cost New Zealand more. The 20 percent of aquaculture going to Māori will cost, and then there are the costs under Part 6. We do not even need Part 6. It does not need to be in the bill, because we do not need the deal whereby 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be handed out to Māori. The Government has done this to try to buy off the anger associated with the seabed and foreshore legislation and make Māori a little happier with it, so that it might get a few votes at the next election and not have the Māori Party clean it out. That will happen.

Māori in this situation have said—and we have heard Māori members say in this Chamber—that they do not accept this. So we will see disputes. Earlier, I read out the deed of settlement from the 1992 fisheries legislation, which clearly stated that it was a full, fair, and final settlement. I think that will go down in New Zealand history. How many full, fair, and final settlements will we see in this country?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) : I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I want to take up where my colleagues left off in Part 6. Dr Lynda Scott is absolutely right: the deed of settlement was absolutely clear that it was full and final. Now, what are we doing through this bill? We are setting up a whole new raft of situations where there will be dispute between different iwi. They will have to take their matters to the courts—to the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court. Those will be the courts to adjudicate in the mediation between disputing iwi.

I know of situations where iwi have joined together just to help progress the fisheries settlement. After 12 years of that they will now be able to litigate their part again, and what they can achieve through this process. There will be a lot of disputes that will clog up the Crown process of the court. I guess one saving grace is that applicants to the court for adjudication will pay for that part of the process. I guess that that is the only saving grace, but I am sure it will be funded by the taxpayer somewhere along the way. So that is what this part is about.

If we go to section 26Z inserted by clause 107, “Unsuccessful mediation”, I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to an issue there on which he might like to take a call and give an explanation about what it really means. Subsection (3)(b) states that a judge who refers unresolved issues to the court may be the judge who hears the matter or who provides advice. So I see that rather than have a fresh look at the matter, one has the same judge who then hears the matter in court after being involved in the mediation process.

Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and give an explanation for that, as he has not taken many calls on this bill, at all. We do have to wonder whether the Minister really understands everything involved in this legislation. I would like him to take a call and give an explanation about why the judge who hears the mediation can also then hear the matter during the court process.

There will be plenty of matters to be heard. Iwi up and down the country will be looking to see what they can get out of the aquaculture system. They will be looking to see what portion they can get out of whatever is on offer from that 20 percent. I know that in my own area there will be conflict between some groups. Ngāti Maru have an interest over on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames as well as one on the Thames side, and I can well imagine that disputes will arise as a result of their interests conflicting with those of other iwi who perceive that they have an interest over and above that of Ngāti Maru on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames.

Even on the Coromandel side of the Firth of Thames, there are already competing interests. Māori groups have united for the fisheries settlement, but I believe that that position will change when they perhaps have an opportunity to go for claims for aquaculture. They will be seeking to go to the Māori Land Court, in accordance with Part 6.

There will be huge litigation from this part, and while adjudicators have to have some understanding of tikanga Māori, I do not know how that will help with the competing interest groups who have their own ideas around what is relevant to them in terms of tikanga Māori. So when that type of understanding is being asked for, there will be conflicting interests within that situation as well, and conflicting understandings of what tikanga Māori will mean to different participants.

I see a whole raft of litigation and I see courts being bogged down, so I believe that this part does not serve Māori at all. It does not serve New Zealand well, at all, and perhaps the Minister could take a call as to why matters have not been resolved so that we do not actually need a resolution disputes process. That should not be necessary if the legislative process had been followed correctly; and if legislators had taken heed of the deed of settlement, the document Dr Lynda Scott read from before, it would not be necessary. If the 20 percent had not been allocated as a part of any aquaculture application, the disputes resolution process would not be necessary.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : Part 6, as has been clearly explained by previous speakers, sets out a large new section for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and gives a whole lot of new roles and responsibilities to judges. Essentially, they are the sorts of things that practising lawyers—certainly, lawyers from general practice—would be very familiar with, such as the bitterness that is engendered in disputes over unearned money and over undeserved money. Anyone who has ever practised in a family practice concerning wills and estates knows just what happens when there is a bunch of unearned money at stake. They know how intractable the dispute is, and how little regard people have for assets when they would really rather poke one another in the eye. So it is no surprise that we get a really extensive range of remedies and proposals in this Part 6.

I am interested in the mediation proposal there. First, I do not think it will work, because people are not looking for solutions; they are actually looking to score points off one another. As they know deep down that they did not earn or deserve the money, they are quite willing to see it squandered in dispute. So mediation may be a bright idea, but it is much more likely to be simply the precursor to litigation. But on looking at that issue, I see that a mediator in this case can be appointed not as a person with experience in tikanga, but as one with the skills and experience to undertake mediation on issues arising under Part 5. Well, Part 5 is the part we have just dealt with that sets out the entitlement conditions for the windfall. Part 5, for example, states that by 2014 the Government must have provided equivalence in value to Māori of 20 percent of all the existing aquaculture areas. Now, when one looks at that and thinks of what sort of expertise that mediator will have to have under the proposed new section 26V of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, one is driven back to wondering just how anyone can have that skill and experience.

Part 5 is so badly drafted that it is actually hard to know what Part 6 will be looking for. Part 5, where it talked about valuation, talked as if valuation was valuation—stupid! Well, I ask: valuation when? When this mediator is going to look at it, will the value be determined as at 2014, will it be determined as at the date that aquaculture areas are created, or will it be determined as at the date that tendering or any other allocation process sets a value? Will it be determined when the aquaculture areas are in full production, or is this an unimproved-value calculation?

Sandra Goudie: It will go for the maximum.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It will go for the maximum—obviously. What it will do is provide an enormous range of issues on which guidance will be needed: first, as to matters of law before a mediation can be properly conducted, and, second, on all the juicy opportunities there are for the beneficiaries of this completely undeserved windfall, to poke one another in the eye. Even then, mediators will have to go back and look at the underlying facts, because no one can tell from this woefully badly drafted and badly conceived piece of law just what kind of valuation is concerned. Why did someone not just look at the Rating Valuations Act? Why did someone not take a slight bit of interest in going behind the slogan and asking what would happen in practice? Just what kind of valuation is expected? Is it on a going concern, bare land, or a development potential? What about the situation where the area has a reserve, or where the underlying allocation is still in dispute? We do not know. But there will be rich pickings in this, and there will be rich pickings because this legislation has no principled foundation.

It is a bad-faith piece of work. It shows bad faith on the part of Māori who have taken advantage of a wimpish Government. I would like to test whether Arnold Schwarzenegger’s term of description for the Democrats would be unparliamentary in New Zealand. He called Kerry and his colleagues “girly men”, and I think that what we have seen here is a bunch of girly men fronting up to some pretty tough negotiators—

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I have an amendment to this particular part that I would like to put before the Committee. It relates to the exorbitant time frames these reforms allow for decisions to be made by regional councils, by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and by the Minister of Conservation. On their own, the decision time-frames for each of these particular actors in the process of allowing an aquaculture marine area to proceed seem fine, although one would have to ask why it takes 6 months for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries and others involved in the process to make a decision. The officials came to us and said that 6 months is the time it takes to gather together all the information, to talk to submitters, to process the information, to go back to submitters, to work through all the science, then to come back with clear, concise, and reasoned answers. So we took their word for it.

But if we add that 6 months to another 3 months for the regional councils to make their decisions, to have appeals, and to go through further processes, we see that the process from go to whoa to set up an aquaculture management area, right through to awarding consents, can take many years indeed. So I would like to present an amendment to clause 145 regarding the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries making a decision on an aquaculture management area. I commend officials for the sensible decision to have the Ministry of Fisheries involved early on in the process of setting up an aquaculture management area. A regional council goes to the Ministry of Fisheries and says: “We’d like an aquaculture management area in this particular bay, of this size. What do you think—will it affect commercial fishers?”. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries looks at it, goes through this process over 6 months, then says: “Yes, it will affect commercial fishers. Yes, the effect is adverse. Yes, it is a significant adverse effect.”, or that there is no effect whatsoever, or that it is somewhere in-between.

My concern is that the chief executive, in taking 6 months, can actually go back to the regional council and say that more information is required to make a rational decision. That is not a bad thing; in fact, it is common sense. Clause 145(1A) states that the chief executive may request more information from the regional council. But clause 145(1B) states: “… the period beginning on the day when a request for further information is made and ending on the day when the information is provided is excluded from the 6 month period …”. That means that the time from when the request for further information goes out to when the information comes back is added to the 6-month period. My amendment would insert new clause 145(1C): “A regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.” In other words, a regional council can elect to say to the Minister of Fisheries: “No, we won’t provide you with more information. That is our choice. We would rather you made the decision on the information already provided, and if it’s a negative decision, so be it.”

Why I say that is that when, under the Resource Management Act process, councils endlessly come back for more information, the clock stops and time drags on. They go back through the process, more information is requested, the clock stops, and time drags on. Then yet more information is requested. The difficulty is that in a regional council process, or even in an Environment Court process, going back for further information can be genuine, because further information is needed to make a rational decision, but sometimes it is a way of slowing down the process, stalling a decision, and putting it on the back-burner, because it is all too hard. I see no reason why, in this case, a regional council cannot say: “We have provided as much information as we can. It’s very costly to provide further information. In our view we have provided enough information for you to make a decision. Could you please make a decision on merit, based on the information we have already provided. We’ll take the punt. If you turn down the application for an aquaculture management area, well, so be it, but we’d rather have the decision resolved as soon as possible.”

So I put it to the Committee that we insert that new clause. It does not take away from the fact that the chief executive still has 6 months to decide. It does not take away from the fact that he might request new information. It does not take away from the fact that the regional councils might choose to provide that information, which would be the sensible course. But it does give the regional councils an opportunity to say: “We’d rather that you made a decision based on the information we have already given you.” That seems reasonable to me, and I hope members of the Committee will support my amendment to add new clause 145(1C). It reads: “A regional council may reject the call to provide further information and have the decision stand solely on the information already provided.” That amendment will be voted on at the end of the debate on this part.

Interestingly enough, we also have issues around clause 140—which I will not be providing amendments to—regarding the revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. There was a huge sigh of relief from freshwater fish farmers when they learnt that the regulations tying them down were to be dropped, but they are concerned that they will have to face a new set of regulations in the future. They asked the select committee why that was. The answer that came back from the officials, whom I would like to acknowledge today, was a sensible answer. There are two reasons. One is that a degree of regulation is needed so that we can police fisheries sensibly. I talked about pāua yesterday. We do not know whether someone farming pāua has got it legally or illegally. We do not know whether someone claiming to have received pāua from a fish farmer has received it legally or illegally, or, indeed, has received it from that farmer. We need a way to track that, and to keep fish fees accountable. We need a degree of policing regulation, and that seems fair.

The other good argument that came forward regarded biosecurity and traceability. Freshwater fish farmers on land need a degree of biosecurity protection as well. We do not want our markets to be up in arms because in some way we have had a biosecurity breach overseas that has reflected on our aquaculture industry. So there has to be a degree of traceability when it comes to freshwater fish farming regulations—and I have been drifting into the land-based aquaculture argument, as well. That seems fair enough to us. We understand why there is revocation of the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations. We understand why new regulations are coming into force to cover those farmers. We understand that land-based aquaculture farmers need a fair degree of regulation when it comes to policing, compliance, and biosecurity, and also in regard to discharges. Land-based farmers often take in water—it often is sea-water species, if a sea-water species is being farmed—and that sea-water is then discharged, and under the Resource Management Act a permit to discharge is needed.

So I do not think our aquaculturists can argue that they can be completely free of regulations, nor should they be. I understand the revocation clause and I understand why other regulations have to be put in place under the auspices of this particular Act.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : One of the issues that concerned marine farmers was their ability to alternate between species on their farms. They felt they should be able to vary between green-lipped mussels, blue mussels, Pacific oysters, rock oysters—well, perhaps not rock oysters—and so on, according to the economics of farming at the time. Their analogy was that they wanted to be able to operate in the way that a land farmer does—alternating between sheep, cattle, deer, pigs, goats, or whatever—and the members of the Primary Production Committee agreed with them. We thought there was a good argument for marine farmers to have a degree of flexibility.

The only conditions we put on it were, first, that they had to apply, when they originally got their consent, to farm multiple species; once their applications were approved they could move between species. The other constraint we put on it was that they could do it only amongst filter-feeding fish. We were very aware that fin-fish farming uses a considerable amount of additional supplementary feed, so there are problems in terms of waste material, the effluent from the fish themselves, and the fact that a species like salmon consumes something like four times its own body weight in fish that is imported, usually from South America. While it may be highly profitable locally, it is totally unsustainable on a global scale.

I want to move to the transitional provisions in Part 7. The existing holders of leases and licences for marine farms are deemed now to have coastal permits for another 20 years, from the date of the passage of this Act. That will be very good news for existing farmers. It will give them certainty for 20 years, obviously. But where application is made for a new aquaculture management area space or an expansion of existing farms, there will be some problems, and that is where the transitional provisions apply. A regional council that wishes to enlarge an aquaculture management area will invite the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to make an aquaculture decision. In the past, the obtaining of a fisheries permit after a resource consent has been granted has been a source of huge frustration for marine farmers. They have their consent and they are ready to go; they wait for their fisheries permit, and they wait, and they wait. There is no time limit on how long they have to wait. We have heard of examples that were just outrageous—of farmers waiting for many years. This bill is trying to bring forward the input from the Ministry of Fisheries in the process, so that when somebody applies for a coastal permit he or she gets approval—or not—from both the ministry and the local council.

What we are doing, though, is putting very strict guidelines on the activities of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries. I have to say that general confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries amongst fishers, and others, is low. I hope things will change. The ministry has a new chief executive, and maybe the culture will change. But, my having said that, we have decided that strict time lines and objectives need to be laid out, so we have said that in deciding whether to make a determination, or a reservation, about an aquaculture decision, the chief executive can have regard to only three things. They are the effect of the aquaculture marine area on, first, the biological diversity of the aquatic environment; second, the productivity and biological abundance of fisheries resources; and, third, habitats of known significance for fisheries management. The bill also specifies that the aquaculture decision must be very explicit in terms of the species affected, and whether commercial, recreational, or customary fishers are affected.

We have also been very clear that we are putting a time limit on the chief executive, and the time limit is 6 months. Over and above that, we have also allowed for an appeal to the High Court. Anybody who has made an application, or the chief executive, or the council, can appeal to the High Court on matters of substance. It is not just matters of process, which is what used to apply in terms of judicial review; matters of substance can now be sent to the High Court.

These transitional provisions are excellent. I think they give marine farmers a degree of certainty that they have not had in the past. A lot of them have said that they would go overseas.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I am happy to take a call on Part 7. This part, of course, provides for transitional matters relating to the ending of the moratorium under the Resource Management Act of 1991. It has taken 4 long years for this moratorium to be finally lifted, in, I think, early January. For 4 years, the potentially most exciting industry that this country has come up with in recent years has been held in abeyance, held back, champing at the bit to get on with it, because of the procrastination of this Government and its inability to have a little vision, owing to its concern about what might happen around the coast. Now we must, therefore, apply hugely stringent rules to the transitional matters relating to the end of this moratorium.

It seems to me that if we really take a hard, cold, calculating look at what has happened around the coast in terms of the loss of our biodiversity, the loss of our aquatic life, we see that it is not the marine farmer, it is not the aquaculture industry, that has caused any problems for the district councils or regional councils. It is, in fact, more likely to be members of the public who have caused problems. It is those who strip the coast bare of shellfish with bits of piano wire. It is those who jump in their fizz-boats and go out for a bit of recreational boating—and why should they not? Often as not, the boat goes from one area to another, and transfers an unwanted organism from one area to another. Those problems have caused huge angst to this country. For example, the ballasts of ships cause more harm to our biodiversity and our coastal waters than anything a marine farmer could throw up. Marine farming is essentially a static industry. It does not move from place to place. We have just had problems in some South Island rivers caused by, apparently, fishermen who, unbenownst to them, had transferred unwanted organisms on their fishing gear—on their rods, their boots, their clothing, or whatever. So why do we not have transitional requirements that apply to those people? They have caused more problems than anything that the aquacultural industry could possibly come up with.

I find it quite distressing when I look at the number of transitional requirements. An authoritarian attitude is being taken by the regional councils, on a constant basis, towards this fledgling industry. It has to survive, it has to grow, and, yes, it will make the odd mistake from time to time. For goodness’ sake, there is no effort without error. If the Government thinks it can manage the risk of new organisms entering our systems and our coastal waters by regulation and control, I tell it that it will not work. Certainly, by educating people and by getting through to the recreational users we have a greater chance of ensuring that our coastal waters remain as good as they possibly can.

The Minister and this bill must recognise that the problem is not the marine industry, and it is not aquaculture; the problem comes more from those outside the industry, as I said earlier, especially from ships coming in and discharging ballasts. Has the Government applied regulation and controls around that aspect? Ships and pleasure boats coming in from the Islands, for example, may bring in unwanted organisms. Where is the control that the regional councils should be applying over those individuals or boating organisations, rather than their applying control over the marine-farming industry? It seems to me that the marine-farming industry is being used as the whipping boy. We are adding huge compliance costs on to that industry, which is struggling to survive under this Government.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : As we move towards the concluding stages of the debate in the Committee stage of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, I ask the Committee to take note of Part 7, “Aquaculture reform (repeals and transitional provisions)”, because it is a very important part that ensures that this legislation proceeds and works. I want the Committee also to note the considerable changes that have occurred to it through the select committee process. I raise that point because it is an absolute truth that the legislation as presented to the House was totally unworkable. It is a shame that the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, who is the Minister in the chair, is not prepared to stand and take calls to address questions about this part. He should be explaining how he ever ticked off legislation that was so poorly drafted it was totally unworkable.

Clayton Cosgrove: That’s a bit rough.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Clayton Cosgrove, who sat on the Primary Production Committee but who has not been prepared to take even one call, now interjects and says that my comments are a bit rough. I suggest to Clayton Cosgrove that he should get out the notes he made at the select committee. He will find that the majority of the changes made—

Ian Ewen-Street: I thought he was asleep.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I will not comment on that. If Clayton Cosgrove gets out his notes and has a look at the significant amount of change that occurred throughout the select committee process, he will see much of it is in this part.

One of the important issues presented to the select committee was the district plan for the Tasman area. It is an area of New Zealand that would be eminently suitable to aquaculture, but it is one that has been tied up in the Environment Court, I think I am right in saying, for almost a decade. Submitters came to us and said they were nearly at the end of a huge process. They said they were waiting now for a judgment from the Environment Court, and this legislation, as drafted by the Hon David Benson-Pope, would mean that all that work, and the hundreds and thousands of dollars they had spent, would be completely nullified. So the select committee has had to tidy up the work of the Hon David Benson-Pope yet again, and we have had to make a significant amendment to clause 153(4) to ensure that when the Environment Court rules on the Tasman Bay situation, which we understand is imminent, all the work and process that have occurred over the last 10 years are not nullified by this legislation.

I want to move on to the deletion of clause 120. When this legislation left the desk of the Minister of Fisheries, it contained a clause that stated that in the future all salmon farmers would have to apply for another consent in order to feed fish.

Sandra Goudie: A tax rort!

Hon DAVID CARTER: My colleague Sandra Goudie says that it is a tax rort, and I am sure that more costs would have been associated with it. The important thing is that those salmon farms have been operating for years. We visited one on a select committee tour, in order to make ourselves familiar with the exercise. There is an operation in the Marlborough Sounds worth millions of dollars, and what it does is to corral the salmon into cages and then, logically, it has to feed them so that they will grow. But the Minister did not seem to realise that part of the process of salmon farming is to feed the salmon. He suddenly suggested sending the farmers away to obtain another consent. What a nonsense that was from David Benson-Pope! It is absolute proof to me that he has not bothered even to go and look at how a salmon farm works. The good news is that the select committee was able to delete clause 120 entirely, and that we have tidied up an inconsistency—a technical illegality—by making a minor amendment to clause 117.

I now want to move to the issue of all coastal permits being extended, with the passing of this legislation, for one 20-year period. I want to take some time to talk about that provision, because the workability of the 20-year extension was raised with us by one submitter, Akaroa Salmon. Effectively, its concern was that all the permits would roll over on exactly the same day in 20 years’ time, once the law was enacted, and it wondered whether the local authorities would be able to handle that. The select committee took note of Akaroa Salmon and the submission it received from Tom Bates, because he is one of the most respected salmon farmers in New Zealand. He is a man who can be described as a true Kiwi battler. He does not have a big operation. It is nowhere near the size of that of King Salmon in the Marlborough Sounds. Akaroa Salmon is a relatively small operation that has been built on Tom Bates’ ingenuity and his commitment to the industry. I pay tribute to Tom Bates in the debate today, because he typifies what aquaculture can do for this country, if only we can get legislation enacted that allows it to happen. With regard to the argument raised by Tom Bates and his co-submitter Peter Cotton—both of those arguments were about the ability of councils to cope with all the renewals on the same day in 20 years’ time—I think that given 20 years to prepare for it, local authorities will actually be able to cope. So we are not recommending an amendment with regard to that issue.

I move now to another important change we have had to make, which goes to the issue of off-site marine farms. I refer to clause 159. The select committee was staggered to find that, in many cases, existing marine farms are not operating according to the coordinates of their original approval. They have moved—some maybe inadvertently, and some maybe quite deliberately. We now need to ensure that we pass legislation that corrects that and makes sure that the area of an existing farm at the moment becomes the authorised area for its continued existence. Submitters then raised the issue that if councils or the Ministry of Fisheries had allowed those farms to operate incorrectly and in the wrong positions, who should pay the costs of making sure that we right those particular inaccuracies? We have recognised that there will be costs. In fact, I think the Northland Regional Council said there would be significant costs. I think the committee was of the opinion, at the end of the day, that although there will be costs, they will not be very significant. But in order to make sure that we get that particular aspect right, we have changed the legislation to give councils the opportunity to initiate changes that correct inaccuracies. If we had left that to the individual farmers, in some cases they might have seen a correction as necessary and worthwhile—and that was the way the bill was drafted—but in other cases individual aquaculturalists might have decided that because they had got away with inaccuracies for the last 5 years they would continue to get away with them, and they would not have moved to tidy them up. I think that yet another valuable change made by the select committee was to allow the councils to initiate a change in that situation.

Those are certainly the major points that spring to mind immediately. But, as I said earlier, anybody who is prepared to study what the select committee has returned to Parliament in Part 7 will see that the select committee as a whole worked very hard to change this part. The real question that arises is why the bill was so poorly presented, and why it caused the industry so much angst, in the first place. The only possible answer is that, as many people have said in the Chamber in the last couple of days as we have debated aquaculture reform, aquaculture is a very complex industry, and it requires a competent Minister. I certainly hope Helen Clark is listening on the ninth floor to this debate, and that she will take the opportunity to try—and I know it will be a desperate thing—to find somebody within the Labour Party ranks who is confident enough to handle fisheries. Harry Duynhoven has just put his hand up.

Sandra Goudie: Impossible.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Sandra Goudie says it is impossible. Well, the industry deserves better than David Benson-Pope. That is the main thing—the industry deserves better than the Minister it has now. The Minister may be good at driving civil union bills through Parliament—that may be his real interest in life—but certainly he has shown that he does not have a lot of ability when it comes to managing the fisheries of New Zealand.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : Part 7 is Mr Hodgson’s shame. This is the part that one goes through mechanically. [Interruption] He is not the Minister in the chair, no, but I ask members to remember he was the Minister who kicked all this legislation off—the former Minister who said that aquaculture was running wildly out of control.

Hon David Carter: Yes, the “Minister for Moratoriums”.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The “Minister for Moratoriums” said aquaculture was wildly out of control and the councils did not know what they were doing, so we should all have a breather, and we would get a logical, rational structure. He said we would get something in place that everyone could understand, so that the industry could step forward confidently. Well, when I read Part 7—and this is the first time I have read it—I find that it is an absolute catalogue of shame. It is stuffed full of interim solutions, reservations, and opportunities to second-guess and undermine. The clear property rights that it should establish are clearly not available, and Part 7 recites the reasons for that.

I know that the Minister is not taking calls here, but Mr Carter’s very interesting speech referred to the specific requirement in clause 20 to obtain a permit for feeding or for the discharge of contaminants.

Hon David Carter: 120.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Clause 120. Where has that clause gone?

Hon David Carter: Unnecessary.

STEPHEN FRANKS: So it has been cleaned out completely. I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on that. It is very rare to see a whole tissue of nonsense removed entirely, without someone trying to save face by putting something back in to cover it. I take it, then, that the Government does not have a back-door way of getting at the same objective as that of the conditions that were dealt with in the feeding and discharge of contaminants clause. Although the table that appears in clause 111 sets out a process, when I looked through it I could not see where the contaminants assessment came in. But maybe it comes, by implication, under the requirement for a resource management consent.

Certainly, after going through the transitional provisions, the deeming provisions, and the attempt to bring all that within one context, it seems clear that either the legislation was over-ambitious in the first place or there has been a change of objective, whereby it is now thought to be easier to leave people as they were. All the various lobby groups and interest groups, and in particular the private fishers or non-commercial fishers whom the Government keeps talking about in this legislation, are left to face a continual temptation to be affronted, to keep negotiating, and to constrain and limit the aquaculture areas, without the legislation imposing on or giving aquaculture permit owners the best long-term incentive to look after their environment, which is the right to take the residual benefit that goes with perpetual, genuine freehold title.

When I see the opportunities under this part for the Minister to intervene, for forfeitures, for variations, and for changes through the registration processes, it is very evident to me that this is a very different kind of asset for farmers to invest in from genuine property. With genuine property, people get the benefit of looking after the property. They get the benefit of the improvements they make, and they get the detrimental effect of ruining an area—of ruining the environment they are in. We can draw on the common law—which over the years has filtered itself—concepts of nuisance. This legislation has to rely instead on an inspectorate process—on a process of prescribing in advance what people can and cannot do, and of filtering everything through experts who wield extraordinary powers. I have just been looking, in the Regulations Review Committee, at a set of regulations to deal with contaminants in an animal food chain. What strikes me there is the same point that comes through in this part of the bill: there is a view that people will only behave themselves if they are told what to do.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : In talking to the title clause, clause 1, I point out to anyone who has been following the debate over the last day or so that this is nothing about reforming aquaculture. It is about getting rid of the incompetence of the previous Minister, Pete Hodgson, whose response to difficulties within the aquaculture industry was to impose a moratorium. It was too hard for the Minister to handle, and he did not have the intellectual grunt to sort it out, so he hands it over to David Benson-Pope, who the Prime Minister thought had the intellectual grunt to sort out the aquaculture industry. That is why the Primary Production Committee had to spend something like 70 hours sorting out this mess for the Government. We should be calling this bill the “Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry Reform Bill”, because that is what this legislation will do. This legislation extends the issue of grievance associated with the Treaty of Waitangi into the next generation, the generation after that, and generations after that.

The legislation does not provide for the settlement of Māori grievances—quite the opposite. The submitters who came before the select committee, particularly Māori, said that this would not settle anything. Māori said: “We will take the gift if you are silly enough to give us up to 40 percent of aquaculture space. We will take it, but don’t expect that we are bound to a settlement, because you have never negotiated with us.”

That is where this Government is making such a mistake. If there are grievances associated with the Treaty of Waitangi, then they should sit around the table to sort them out, and sort them out the way the National Party did with Ngāi Tahu in 1996. But I say to you, Minister, that you cannot negotiate a settlement by decree. You cannot negotiate—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should not bring the Chair into the debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I do not want to bring the Chair into the debate. I want to bring the Minister into the debate. I would be delighted if the Minister would come into the debate, instead of sitting there, fiddling with his comics, and not prepared to take calls. Actually, I would be delighted if anybody in the Labour Party came into the debate. Janet Mackey was on the select committee as deputy chair. Has she taken one call on the Aquaculture Reform Bill? We then had Clayton Cosgrove, who did take just one call—he sought a closure. He was so embarrassed. He knows that this legislation will not be popular in the Waimakariri electorate. He knows that it is race-based legislation, so he took one call to close down the debate.

But we have other Labour members on the select committee. We had the Hon Harry Duynhoven. He sat through most of the debate over the last day or so, but I do not think that he took a call. Does anybody remember Harry Duynhoven taking a call? They will not, because he did not, I tell the Minister. He was not allowed to take a call.

Finally, we had the Hon Dover Samuels. He is the member from the Labour Party who promised to deliver proof to the select committee that there was unfinished business associated with the Treaty of Waitangi settlement. He evaporated on that promise, because he does not have any proof of unfinished business. So I say that I had no intention of bringing the Chair into the debate, but I would be delighted to bring any member of the Labour Party into the debate. That is the purpose of the legislation—

Lianne Dalziel: Give us a good speech.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh, Lianne Dalziel is going to take a call. She would know nothing about aquaculture. If she did take a call, one would have to wonder whether it was the truth anyway.

The other thing that we have before the Committee today is not one Supplementary Order Paper, but four Supplementary Order Papers after the bill left the Primary Production Committee. The bill was reported back, was meant to be ready for passing, and the Minister found not one mistake, but four mistakes associated with the drafting.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure to talk on the title debate of the Aquaculture Reform Bill. This bill makes changes to the Resource Management Act, the Marine Farming Act, the Fisheries Act 1983, and the Fisheries Act 1996. I have to pay tribute to some of the very key industry players, people such as Jim Jessop. In Marlborough we call Jim the father of aquaculture, and the father of marine farming. It was people such as Jim Jessop who absolutely developed this industry from 30 years ago. He forged an industry in New Zealand that has developed into a multimillion-dollar earner. Also Paul Lupi and Terry Schwass are people who have put so much effort into this industry. We had the Marine Farming Act in 1971—23 years ago. That shows that this is a very new industry for New Zealand, but it is actually—

Ian Ewen-Street: That is 33 years!

Dr LYNDA SCOTT: Oh yes, 33 years ago. But it has been a long time coming to this point today where we actually have the Aquaculture Reform Bill. We had the previous Minister, as the Hon David Carter said, who did not have a clue what to do with aquaculture. We have fisheries on one side, and the Department of Conservation on the other. We have the Resource Management Act on one side, and local government on the other. Here we have the poor aquacultural industry stuck in the middle with no one sticking up for it. Pete Hodgson certainly never did. He never stuck up for the industry, which was so disappointed in him. Members should have heard what the industry had to say; it was not very complimentary.

So there was a change of Minister to try to drive this through. But what happened was that the Hon David Carter, as chair of the Primary Production Committee, actually managed to make a huge number of changes to this bill. Lianne Dalziel over there squawks and squawks, but she does not ever take a call. She knows nothing about aquaculture. She lost her ministerial warrant and all she can do now is come to this Chamber and try to be nasty and criticise other people. Maybe she should try being substantial.

I thought she was good when she first came in. She has got worse and worse. I was so wrong. I thought she was going to be a good Minister but all she did was get worse and worse. She will be very lucky if she keeps her seat. People are very disappointed in her. It is a pity she does not take a call. But she could not take a call, because she knows nothing about this bill. She could not even debate a title clause.

The moratorium has stalled this industry in the gates of the 21st century. In Marlborough, aquaculture was our biggest income earner. It went from 20 percent growth down to 0 percent growth. The industry players were so frustrated. The reason we had the delays on this bill and that we are debating it only now is due to the foreshore and seabed legislation. This Government wanted to do a deal with Māori that was about the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas. It had always been rumoured that this would be the case. But we know that the 1992 Māori fisheries settlement included aquaculture. We have heard that through the debate. We have also heard that Labour promised to come up with some sort of evidence that aquaculture was not included. It never did that.

The overview in the commentary to this bill states: “the settlement of post-1992 contemporary Māori claims to commercial aquaculture in the coastal marine area”. Well, many New Zealanders are going to shudder at that thought of contemporary Māori claims—not the settlement of past grievance. This is a contemporary claim. The Māori grievance industry is never going to end, and this bill is one of the reasons why it is not going to end, because there is no deed of settlement. It was not negotiated with Māori. We will have huge disputes over which iwi and which hapū will be entitled to this 20 percent.

The marine-farming industry is very pleased with one thing, and that is the first right of refusal. It is very pleased with that, because it has invested huge amounts of its time, money, and effort, even though it did not get as much as it wanted. What it did not get was the one-stop shop, and it is still very concerned about that. At the moment the industry has to go through a Resource Management Act process as well as through the Ministry of Fisheries. We know that it has been taking over 2 years to get permits from the Ministry of Fisheries and it has been extremely frustrating for those players in the industry. They go through the hugely expensive resource management consent process but then they cannot get a ministry consent.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I want to just—

Stephen Franks: Embarrass myself?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, I was not going to do that. I have had good lessons, because I have seen the ACT party and the National Party embarrass themselves right through this bill, and I do not intend to do that at all.

The Aquaculture Reform Bill is aptly named. It does not reform the aquaculture industry as such. It gets rid of a moratorium. Why the National administration did not do that years ago I have no idea. I have heard all sorts of criticism about what is happening in this bill. However, I did not see any lead given to the industry in the formative stages of this industry—not even to the degree of help. In my opinion National cannot really talk. It is not the industry itself that is being reformed here; it is the administration of the industry, and that was well overdue for reform.

One thing I have to mention that was not mentioned in Part 7 was the business of off-site farms. I mention that to show the sort of administration that needed to be reformed—that is, over the years, in many parts of the country, aquaculture farmers, through the best will in the world I am sure, have let their farms become off-site. In other words, they are not where they are supposed to be on the sea floor. They are not in the right space, like some members of the National Party at the present time. They are not quite in the right space. Aquaculture farmers have to bring back their farms into the space that they are supposed to occupy.

That is all very well, and so on, but who will pay for that? New Zealand First implores the Minister to give some consideration to helping local councils with that, because it was lack of oversight and control by the Ministry of Fisheries that has enabled those situations to happen. We see it as hardly fair to now require local councils to put those things right. We implore the Minister to look at that and to be understanding of that particular matter.

The 20 percent allocation to Māori, my goodness me, has caused a furore, and National and ACT have got really excited about that. I would just mention again, for the fourth time, that the precedent for the 20 percent was set by the National Party back in 1992. At the time, my leader and his brother, carried on by a third brother in Parliament today, said when they were part of the National Party that those things would happen, and they have. This Aquaculture Reform Bill could not have been passed without the 20 percent allocation in it. Quite clearly, that would otherwise have been challenged in the court, and those challenges would have succeeded.

I wanted to mention where New Zealand First was coming from on those issues and say that they were mentioned by the Peters brothers many years ago when the precedents were jammed through the House by the then National Government. It is no use those National members wimping on about a 20 percent allocation, when the 20 percent precedent was set by the National Government. If that was not continued, clearly it would have been open to challenge. Whatever the people of the day thought and whatever was written down, we are dealing with those things now.

So I think the title is particularly apt. New Zealand First is supporting the bill. Those involved in aquaculture have our support and regard. I am sure they will carry on to make this the wonderful industry that it has been from the start, and will continue to be.

I cannot sit down without thanking the officials who guided us through. I also give credit to the chairman, the Hon David Carter, but especially to the officials, without whom we would have been in trouble.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : We come now to debate the title of the bill, which, of course, we should all know by now, is the Aquaculture Reform Bill. But what a misnomer that is. The aquaculture industry has not been around long enough. It has not been in the arena long enough to be reformed. This bill is in fact the “Aquaculture Restriction Bill 2004”. Goodness knows how long it will be before we come back to this House and ask ourselves why that industry is not performing. We will then start to look at the controls, restrictions, and cost structures that this legislation will impose on the industry. It is about restriction; it is not about reform. There is nothing really to reform the industry from. The aquaculture industry is a fledgling industry. It was trying to find its way in the world, working things out—and I have heard members talk of individuals in the industry, icons of the industry, who were almost doing this thing by the seat of their pants, working it out as they went.

The industry is too young to reform. One cannot reform a fledgling industry. However, the Government came along and said that it knew best. Regional councils and their planners knew best. They had never put a foot in the water, never put a rope down, never actually worked out how the green-lipped mussel or the oysters actually grew, but they said they were hugely concerned about environmental considerations.

When we look at the title and the purpose of the whole bill, that is really what it comes down to. It is not about ensuring that the industry generates the sort of income that many in the industry have talked about, which is billions upon billions of dollars. It is not unrealistic to suggest that, potentially, the industry could bring to this country between $8 billion and $10 billion, given the massive coastline we have. But that will not happen, because of the control and restrictions we are placing on this fledgling industry.

I always find it ironic, when I read a bill like this, and there is the word “plan”— “We have a plan.” That comes up constantly. I throw this question open to the Committee: what happens if the plan is wrong? If we allowed people all over the country to determine what was appropriate for themselves, they would work it out, do the thing, and would not be constrained or controlled by a plan. This is what I call the driftnet approach—that is, one size or a huge driftnet that snares everything, and that is what one must do because somebody in Wellington, or somebody somewhere, has said: “This is the plan, this is the legislation, and you will follow it.” Why not allow the regions to develop their own plans, systems, and controls if necessary. Why could we have not done that, instead of having this top-down approach in the form of this so-called Aquaculture Reform Bill?

It is a complete and utter misnomer to call it a reform bill. It has nothing to do with reform, but this industry has everything to do with the future. There was enthusiasm amongst the men—and the odd woman was involved, too—for the future of the industry. The select committee went around the country talking to members of the industry, and some asked why the Minister had not come out to talk to them. Most of them were hugely enthusiastic about the future of the industry, although there were huge concerns and the select committee has attempted to address them. But the concerns I have about the security of tenure and the role of the Department of Conservation with regard to the bill have essentially been ignored.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : In speaking to the title, I wonder whether the bill could be called the “Mishmash Reform Bill” or the “Gift and Grievance Bill”, because that is what the legislation will establish—it will establish a 20 percent gift. Contrary to comments made by a previous speaker, National did not set that precedent way back in 1992. There was no precedent set to give Māori 20 percent of a new area that has been applied for in order to carry out aquaculture. Clearly, that is a gift, and I reiterate the concerns expressed by my colleague Dr Lynda Scott. We were supposed to have settled all grievances related to the fisheries in the deed of settlement. She read that out, and it was quite clear that that was it—the finish. Now we are seeing through the process of this bill that that is not the case. So the public have cause to be duly alarmed, and they will be. This will all come back to bite the current Government, because it is totally unacceptable to be making a gift of 20 percent of the area to Māori on the establishment of new applications.

I see that the iwi organisations are defined by referring back to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. They are drawn from mandated iwi organisations, and there are opportunities to withdraw from them. It states that in the case of the iwi of Hauraki or the iwi of Te Aroha, any iwi of a group may withdraw if it so chooses from the mandated iwi organisation of the group. That signals that iwi can withdraw from the current organisations. We have seen in this bill—the “Mishmash Reform Bill”—that under the disputes resolution processes in it, iwi can compete. Because they are all going to want some of the aquaculture asset, they will compete. So if an iwi is currently in an organisation, it may want to break away from it and then compete for part of the 20 percent of the space that may be up for grabs. Iwi will certainly want to do that. Aquaculture is an industry that is on the rise, although we have lost a huge amount of capability overseas. Because of the moratorium and the time it has taken to get things through the process, a lot of our competent, capable, experienced, and specialist people have gone overseas, have taken their expertise to places like Australia and elsewhere, and are setting up aquaculture activities there.

This legislation is about gifts and grievance, because the Māori Land Court will be clogged up with grievances as iwi dispute among themselves over who has rights, and to what. Of course, members will be aware that the iwi organisations, as defined in the Foreshore and Seabed Act, come under the definition of “Māori organisation” in the taxation Act, which allows them to have a taxation rate of 19.5c in the dollar. That does not provide a level playing field, so it is another preference that is being shown to Māori, although it is not accorded to other operators of aquaculture activities. So there is one standard for one group as opposed to another. There definitely is not one rule for all, and we see plenty of examples of that throughout this bill. [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove is trying to interject. He may like to take a call. Although he has been exhorted to take a call, he has not done so.

This bill is so messy that in clause 111(4) it states: “The purpose of this section is to present alternative arrangements for ease of reference, and nothing in this section limits or affects the other provisions of this Part.” We have all sorts of listings of different parts of the bill for ease of reference, which clearly illustrates that it is a bit of a mess. It is very hard to follow, because so many different Acts are being amended. If we look at the heading of clause 141, we see it referred to the Resource Management Act 1997 and the date was then amended to 1991. For some reason the Minister must have thought there was a Resource Management Act of 1997, although I am not aware of it. Perhaps he may like to take a call.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : I move, That the question be now put.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : Much has been made in this debate of the fisheries settlement post-1992, the aquaculture settlement where Māori have been passed, for free, 20 percent of the aquaculture space throughout this country as a broad-brush approach to appeasing their concern over the seabed and foreshore issue. We have explored that. We have examined the facts that pre-1992—and that was not very long ago—Māori were still able to claim aquaculture space. In fact, five iwi have already done that successfully. The list in the back of the Maori Fisheries Act adds another 70-odd iwi that may soon be coming over the hill to make a pre-1992 claim. So we have not seen the end of the aquaculture treaty settlement process. It will go on for some years now. We will sit and watch, on the Opposition benches, for a few months and see the whole process turn to custard for the Minister of Māori Affairs, for the Minister of Fisheries, and for the Minister for treaty settlements.

I would like, though, to bring members back to an issue that has not been discussed at length during the debate on the bill, and that is the degree to which the Minister of Conservation has powers to gazump or thwart the process of setting up marine farms and aquaculture management areas. There are actually three areas where the Minister of Conservation can come in and thwart a marine farm proposal. The Minister of Conservation has the power to direct regional councils in relation to the allocation of space in the coastal marine area. First, the department, through the Minister, can be an objector, under the Resource Management Act, to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. That is the first opportunity—the department can be an objector to the establishment of an aquaculture management area. If the department fails there, when a marine farmer puts in for a consent to establish a marine farm in that aquaculture management area, his or her plans can be objected to by the department. So the department can, secondly, be an objector under the Resource Management Act to the issuing of an individual consent. So that is the department’s second swipe at marine farmers’ interests—being an objector under the Resource Management Act to an individual consent. The third opportunity for the department is that the Minister of Conservation can effectively veto an allocation at the last hurdle, under the guise of “giving effect to Government policy”—that is a quote—if the department initially fails at the first two opportunities.

We are quite concerned that the allocation of aquaculture space would be at the whim of the Government policy of the day. I was quite intrigued to see that it is not just Government policy that could torpedo an aquaculture application but, in fact, a requirement to meet some sort of historical treaty grievance in an aquaculture management area. That should be of concern to the Committee. It is not fair that the department and the Minister of Conservation should have three opportunities to interfere, with effective vetos, in the coastal marine area.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 4), the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 5), the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill, the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Bill,.