Aquaculture Reform Bill

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.

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.

I withdraw and apologise.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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?

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.