Aquaculture Reform Bill

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 320 in my name.