Third Readings

I advise members of the House that at the conclusion of the third reading debate I will put the bills as separate questions.

I move, That the Resource Management 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 be now read a third time.

These bills create a new regime designed to allow the rational development of the industry while ensuring that the impacts of new aquaculture activity can be fully considered in relation to all coastal marine users. We have acted to protect the coastline for all New Zealanders. The whole purpose of the reform is to provide users with clarity and certainty, which were not there before. The aquaculture industry has been held up under the moratorium for a number of years, after an overload of marine-farming applications left councils and communities struggling to assess projects and keep up with demand. The aquaculture reform bills secure a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture. I am confident they balance economic development, environmental sustainability, and community concern. The bills make the Resource Management Act the main legislation for managing aquaculture. That will enable councils to effectively manage aquaculture and encourage the industry to develop in a sustainable way. There was need for change. We listened hard to industry concerns and have responded, providing them with greater flexibility, certainty, and fairness.

Let me firstly thank the industry, which has set aside any unease it may have had and worked in a highly cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point. I also thank the Primary Production Committee, and the officials who supported the committee, for working under great time pressure so that the moratorium could be lifted on the due date. Their work has helped us reach our goal of having a number of bills that support, clarify, and define aquaculture’s place in the marine environment. To that group I add the very cooperative attitude of local government, which, yesterday and today, is working with the Ministry for the Environment to make sure that the implementation of the legislation is highly successful.

The bills also address Māori interests in commercial marine farming space by providing iwi, where possible, with 20 percent of marine-farming space allocated since 1992, and 20 percent of any future new space. That is an important step. Settling contemporary commercial claims removes a potentially huge impediment to progress and certainty in the industry. It is clearly in line with the 1992 fisheries settlement, aquaculture being the unfinished business of that deal. The 2002 Waitangi Tribunal report entitled Ahu Moana: The Aquaculture and Marine Farming Report states plainly that Doug Kidd, who was the then National Government’s Minister of Fisheries and Minister of Māori Affairs, had forbidden officials from including marine farming in that settlement. It is time that National members put aside their obsessions. We need to talk about solutions, not empty slogans.

Although it has taken time to reach this point, I am confident that we have come up with a workable solution that will take us into the future and will see the exciting potential of the marine-farming industry realised. I am delighted to commend the legislation to the House.

Aquaculture is an exciting industry, full of potential, that in recent years has been totally stifled by the Labour Government. The Government’s response to challenges regarding the future of aquaculture was to impose a moratorium. Then, when it was still bereft of ideas, it took the opportunity to extend that moratorium. I am pleased today to be associated with legislation that finally lifts the moratorium on aquaculture and allows this exciting industry to develop to its potential. It is potentially a billion-dollar export industry for New Zealand. We parliamentarians have a duty today to pass legislation that allows that industry to get on and do the job. I sadly think this legislation will not prove to be of huge assistance.

It became evident to the Primary Production Committee that other countries embrace the potential of aquaculture. Committee members heard about New Zealand marine farmers—both large and small operators—who have now relocated part of their enterprises to Australia. Australia makes it easy for aquaculture, and New Zealand makes it hard. Representatives of other companies came to the select committee and talked about those companies’ substantial potential investment in countries like Chile.

This legislation still makes it costly to operate in our environment. It is costly to get a consent. We have a process now whereby aquaculture will be within the regime of the Resource Management Act, but that means it will pick up the warts and the difficulties still associated with that Act. It means that anybody who proposes aquaculture must be involved in a consent process that gives everybody the chance to have a say. People who have no standing at all still have the potential to object to an aquacultural proposal. What is even worse is that, in many cases, some of those environmental organisations, whether they are based in Auckland or in Queenstown, can make an objection to proposals for aquaculture in, for example, the Marlborough Sounds. If they form themselves correctly, they can actually apply for and obtain legal aid to do so. That is a nonsense.

If one manages to get through the Resource Management Act process, one still has to contend with the Department of Conservation. In this legislation that the Government will pass today, we stupidly have given a provision whereby the Minister of Conservation can veto a proposal. That will not give the industry the certainty that people want.

I move now to the most contentious part of this legislation—the Government’s decision to gift to Māori up to 40 percent of new space—

💬 Janet Mackey: That is not true.

The member says that is not true. She should have paid more attention and not doodled at the select committee. Under this legislation, Māori will get up to 40 percent of new space to be created, so that at the end of a 10-year period they will have 20 percent of the aquaculture space that has been created since 1992. I say to Janet Mackey that that is the absolute truth.

The Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, has pushed this legislation through the Labour Cabinet and caucus without foundation and without principle. The saddest thing is that we are now seeing a proliferation of the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry. Māori themselves came before the select committee and said that they would accept this gift but that they did not see it as a settlement, because they had not been involved in the process. We are gifting this huge resource to Māori, who will come back and say they are entitled to more.

I take the opportunity to correct yet again the Minister, who claimed that there was unfinished business associated with the 1992 fisheries settlement. The select committee sought proof of this unfinished business, but was unable to obtain any proof of it at all, yet the Minister came to the House today and again said that Doug Kidd had forbidden the inclusion of aquaculture in the discussions. That is not so. That has been proven, and that information was given to the select committee. What Doug Kidd was not prepared to do was to allow discussion on aquaculture coming into the quota management system. Treasury had a report at the time proposing that aquaculture come into the quota management system, and Doug Kidd said that, no, that was not on the agenda.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: He took it off.

He certainly took that off the agenda. He said that aquaculture would not come into the quota management system. But David Benson-Pope came to the House and misinformed us, saying that Doug Kidd would not allow aquaculture to be discussed. That is absolutely untrue and, what is more, the member knows it.

Part of the documentation that was presented to the select committee was the Gardiner and Parata report that I referred to earlier. I will read today the comments of Sir Tīpene O’Regan. I respect his words. He negotiated fairly and honestly on the Ngāi Tahu settlement. He was asked in 2002 about his recollection of whether aquaculture had been deliberately included in, or excluded from, the 1992 settlement. In answer to that question he said: “The settlement was about commercial fisheries rights. Such rights include aquaculture.” That is the National Party’s stand in the House today. The 1992 settlement was full and final, it was signed by Māori as full and final, yet the Government is undoing that work today with the passing of the aquaculture reform legislation. We are extending the grievance industry for generations; Māori will want another bite of the cherry, and that is wrong.

If there had been any truth to this folklore around unfinished business, then there would have been a paper trail. A large number of people were involved in the discussions around the 1992 settlement. To its credit, Te Puni Kōkiri went back and interviewed those people. It asked them about their recollections of this unfinished business, and collectively, to a person, they reported to Gardiner and Parata that there had been no mention of aquaculture. It certainly had not been put to one side, as incorrectly stated by the Minister of Fisheries. There is no unfinished business.

We are seeing today legislation that is designed entirely and manipulatively to rid the Government of its huge embarrassment around the seabed and foreshore legislation. I am saddened to see that not only Labour is pushing this legislation through; it is doing it with the support of New Zealand First, the Green Party, and United Future. Those parties were all represented at the select committee. Those members were there when National members asked the hard questions about the unfinished business. They were there when the information promised to us simply evaporated. Yet they are prepared to contribute to this folklore, and to pass legislation today that hugely extends the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry.

This legislation will not be good for aquaculture. We know that the proper process established by the legislation will not work, and that Māori will be given bits and pieces all around the coastline that are of little value to them. We know that the legislation has been poorly thought out. Other members of the select committee said that to National members around the select committee table, yet they have come into the House today and are being whipped into line to vote for legislation that I do not believe they sincerely believe in.

The chairperson of the Primary Production Committee keeps referring to the lack of a paper trail regarding the inclusion in this settlement of Māori’s 20 percent. All that he needs to do is to read the Waitangi Tribunal report, and if he wants a paper trail, I am happy to table that report at the end of my speech. Doug Kidd thought that Treasury wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system, and he personally forbade Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions of the deed of settlement, because it would have confused an already complex set of negotiations. As Mike Moore always said: “If they don’t hear it the first time, say it another 99 times and it may get through.” I think that is very good evidence, on the record, in the Waitangi Tribunal report, that this matter was not considered at the time of the fisheries deed of settlement.

I am very surprised at the voting patterns of parties in the House today. I will probably exclude ACT from that, because we all know there is no rhyme nor reason to the way ACT votes. I am very fond of Gerrard Eckhoff and I think he is a very fine member of the select committee, but ACT is entirely in another ether when it comes to logical decisions about the best way to vote and what is good for people.

I had a phone call this morning from one of the people from the industry who worked very hard with the committee. He said to me: “Janet, can you tell me why National is voting against this legislation? We came to the select committee with a wish list, and the select committee, the Minister, and the officials have delivered what we asked for. This legislation is good for the industry, so why is National voting against it?”. I said to that person: “I think it is a cunning political strategy on behalf of the National Party. It was probably engineered by Don Brash, and I think it is probably going to have the same result as every other decision that Don Brash has made!”. I told him: “I think you need to ask the National Party why it is not supporting it.” He said: “You know what? I don’t think I’ll bother.”

I have been very disappointed in the debate that has carried on over the course of yesterday and today, and I have been very disappointed to hear the select committee chairman deliberately, I believe, misrepresent the facts when it comes to the 20 percent for Māori. Let us be quite clear that at the end of the day Māori will get 20 percent of the aquaculture. They will not get 40 percent. It may be that in order to address what has already been allocated they will need to get 40 percent of new applications in some areas. But to pretend to people listening or to people in the gallery that the Labour Government is giving Māori more than they should ever get is simply the Ōrewa speech all over again. It has been done, and it failed. I suggest to National members that they look at this legislation for what it is: an honest attempt to include all New Zealanders in the opportunity that this new fishery provides for us.

One of the most interesting votes in the House has been that of Tariana Turia. I hope her supporters around the country are listening to her cast her vote with ACT and National. I think that is a very good portent of what the future would hold for Māoridom if Tariana Turia was returned to this House. That a member of the Māori Party can cast her vote with parties that are continually scratching the sore in the hope they will benefit from it at the next election says to me that Māori Party activists or supporters around the country should be very, very scared. I have no idea why that member is voting against this legislation, which is good legislation for Māori. But I was never too sure just what bee Tariana Turia had in her bonnet on a certain day, and I have no idea what has possessed her this time. But I say to Māori around the country, who as a result of this legislation will be able to participate in aquaculture in the future, that their interests have been well-served by Labour, by the Progressives, by New Zealand First, and by the Greens. Māori should take note.

I have listened with interest to the speakers who preceded me, and I do not want to be mean-spirited but to thank and congratulate the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee, the Hon David Carter, because I think that as the chairperson he did an excellent job. I want to thank my colleagues who worked diligently alongside me. I do not know how they would have got on without me, but we got there in the end. But since the select committee hearing I have been disappointed with David Carter’s comments, and I think that in many ways, as Janet Mackey said, he has become a victim of his own success. In fact, all that was required to be delivered by this legislation was delivered, and David Carter introduced to the select committee a very innovative way of dealing with problems that—and this is sincere praise—I appreciate and applaud. That is the ability to bring in people who are involved commercially in an industry to work directly with officials. That works very, very well. So it is no surprise that as chairperson, David Carter has been able, through some changes and with the assistance of officials, to achieve legislation that is accepted by the aquaculture industry and the players within that industry. With due respect, it is legislation they are very happy with. I just wish that Mr Carter would accept the praise that I am sure others are happy to give to him, and would not make mean-spirited speeches that, first, he does not believe in and, second, are not worthy of him.

The aquaculture industry is indeed an exciting industry. We have heard Mr Eckhoff talk about how although it could earn many billions of dollars into the future, that will not happen. I am sure that it will happen as time goes on, but the industry has not reached the first billion yet. I am sure it will do so, and this legislation will not stop it from doing that. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that an industry that takes up public space for private profit—and profit is not a bad word; we believe in profits, and we say we have to have profits, and we have to have this industry—should, according to the ACT party, have hardly any regulation, at all. It is demeaning to our hard-working bureaucrats or advisers—call them what we will—that such a situation could exist. I want to praise those people for the minefield they have worked through in order to bring this legislation to fruition. There are multiple uses for the space that marine farms will occupy—not the least being its use by the public of New Zealand for swimming, fishing, or whatever else. All of those things had to be taken into account, and the advisers have done that.

It is interesting that throughout the submission process people talked about moving to Australia, Argentina, or somewhere else around the world, because New Zealand was far too restrictive on the aquaculture industry. On further questioning and on talking privately to people, one usually finds that a very interesting thing happens, which New Zealand First actually applauds—that is, that those people are going out and increasing their holdings in aquaculture farms throughout the world. They are not selling up their assets in New Zealand and moving to another country; they are retaining their assets in New Zealand and using the expertise they have gained here to increase their holdings in other countries. New Zealand First says that that is fantastic. It is what we encourage people to do. It is what our entrepreneurs in New Zealand should do, and we applaud it. We just hope and trust—and I am sure it is so—that they bring the profits earned from overseas countries back to New Zealand and increase the living standards of us all.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What does Winston say?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: He has not had much to say on this legislation, as a matter of fact. He rang me a wee while ago just to make sure that what I was saying was OK, but he has not had much to say himself.

I want to talk briefly about the business of giving 20 percent of the aquaculture space to Māori. We have stated many times—and this is that last time I will do it—that it is based on a precedent set in the fisheries legislation in 1992, which was pushed through the House by the previous National Government, and which my leader, Winston Peters, voted against. Having set that precedent, it is inconceivable that this industry could go ahead without a 20 percent allocation of space—not of aquaculture but of space—to Māori. If that were done Māori would immediately challenge that in the courts, and they would win. So New Zealand First says that we accept that, and that these things have to go forward in a sensible manner. We applaud the Government for accepting reality and moving on the issue. I know my ACT colleagues have said, in a somewhat derogatory way, that I have said we are trying to get away from a fight. Well, it is not a case of getting away from a fight in a cowardly way; it is about foreseeing a potential problem and overcoming it. I think that the Government—in fact, any Government—should be applauded for doing that. I say hallelujah, and there should be more of it. It is not a matter of running away from a fight; it is about foreseeing and acting on a problem.

It is also a fact that when I have talked about these situations on behalf of New Zealand First, I have been accused of perpetuating the problem of treaty grievance. New Zealand First rejects that totally, and we want to say quite clearly now that it is settlements like this that will avoid problems in the treaty process. This legislation is a sensible recognition of the facts of life in New Zealand in the 21st century. We do not want to go back to the dark old days when almost everything that was done caused problems with our fellow New Zealanders, particularly with those who are Māori. So I reject the notion that New Zealand First is running away from some sort of a fight. We are not known for doing that. We commend the Government for the sensible inclusion in this legislation of things that are inevitable.

Before I get into my speech, I have to say that after listening to Mr Woolerton’s speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I think he is almost overcome by the spirit of Christmas, with his charitable rendition of what the Government is doing. His normally dogged nature and criticisms did not come forth. However, we are all somewhat different from one another. I never really thought that in my time in this House I would debate a bill that had an entire part dedicated to fixing up the other parts. Part 6 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill was totally dedicated to fixing up the other six parts—there were seven parts in that bill. I find that to be absolutely extraordinary. That bill, may I remind the House, was titled the Aquaculture Reform Bill. So if it was about reform, why have we put into legislation a whole part that is dedicated to the future fixing up of the mess that we are, tragically, just about to pass?

Let me make it very clear that both I and the ACT party, which I am proud to serve, are absolutely in favour of the wonderful aquaculture industry—that fledgling, creative industry. It reminds me very much of the agricultural industry in its very, very early days when somebody decided to take to the skies with stuff called superphosphate. It had never been done anywhere else, but someone decided to try something that was interesting, innovative, and creative. I do not really even have to tell Mr Cosgrove how successful that industry was. But in the agricultural industry that initiative did not come about as a result of constraints, controls, and plans; it came about because innovative, creative people decided that that was for them, and away they went.

The Primary Production Committee met some of the people involved in the aquaculture industry—and I must say that the select committee did a great job going out and actually talking with the participants in the industry, as distinct from the Minister, who stayed in Wellington. We met some wonderful people, and we could see the enthusiasm and the dedication that they had for the industry. Rather sadly, we also heard from those people that in Blenheim, I think it was, at least five people from this rather small industry have left New Zealand to go overseas. That was just in one area. How many other people, how much expertise, and how much capital have left New Zealand to go to Australia and Chile, where the industry is absolutely burgeoning? Anybody can go to Chile and buy space. Yes, people can buy it—the very thing I have been advocating. They can buy space. It is not given away; one can purchase space just like anybody can purchase land. Why is the logic of doing that so difficult for this Government to grasp?

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: ACT selling off something else.

It actually works, I say to the Minister. He should try it. He should try doing something about understanding the realities of life in other countries that have shown us the way forward, by showing us that security of tenure absolutely guarantees a successful industry.

Sadly, we now have a situation in New Zealand where, in 20 years’ time, people will not know whether they can continue in the aquaculture industry. Those of us who have been in industry for a long time—in my case, for about 35 years—know that 20 years is a very, very short passage of time. Mr Samuels knows that. He has been a fisher, and he has owned motels, and so on. He knows that 20 years of development goes by very, very quickly. After only 20 years the participants who have started off in the aquaculture industry will have to go cap in hand to a regional council and ask whether they can please continue. A council that knows, by and large, nothing about the industry will say that yes, the marine farmer can continue in it, but the council will specify the rules and the regulations that he or she must abide by. A council will impose certain cost structures on marine farmers, believing that because they are in business, they must therefore be wealthy. Well, what utter nonsense that is! Most people in industry—and it does not matter which particular industry it is—struggle. They struggle to pay the wages. We heard my new colleague Kenneth Wang talk about having to go without paying himself wages. That is so typical of businesses. Many, many people in industry in this country do not make a lot of money.

I do not notice terribly many marine farmers or aquaculturalists out there who drive around in Rolls-Royces and have huge amounts of property elsewhere. Aquaculture is a very difficult industry to survive in. In Australia it is rocketing away, and in Chile and elsewhere in South America it is doing extremely well. But New Zealand has decided to tie up the industry in red tape and make it even more difficult for the people of this country who want to get involved in that excellent industry.

One of the great problems that the aquaculture industry, even now, is recognising is the role of the Department of Conservation, which is known commonly throughout New Zealand as the “neighbour from hell”. The Department of Conservation will totally dominate the industry because it has been given veto rights. The department has been given the right to say to a regional council, when a company or an individual wants some space, that it will have a look at the space first, and determine whether it wants that space for conservation purposes. The applicant may then get whatever space the department does not want. It is well known, of course, right throughout New Zealand that the department is controlled by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and that the society’s former chief executive, Kevin Smith, now runs the Minister’s office. The department’s fingerprints are all over this legislation. It gets the first and second bites of the cherry. I have absolutely no problem with the department being involved in the management of marine reserves. But let us give the industry an equal chance to get established and show that it can do a wonderful job.

I am not joking when I say that potentially the aquaculture industry could be an $8 billion to $10 billion industry. The feral fishery is in huge decline; everybody knows that. So if we want to eat seafood—and we do; we all know how good it is for us—we will have to look differently at the way we do things out on the ocean, just as we had to look differently at the way we did things on the land when we first came to this country. If we had to apply every 20 years for a right to farm on land in this country, nobody would bother to do so. That will happen, I suspect, in this fledgling industry, as I call it. I certainly wish the aquaculture industry every success, and the ACT party wishes it every success. I had hoped that this bill would set the industry on a path to the future so that it can invest with real confidence, not just in the water but in the infrastructure on shore, and in developments overseas as it finds its markets. I suspect, with regret, that that will not happen following the passage of this legislation through the House today.

The aquaculture regulations up until this point have been a source of enormous frustration for marine farmers. In greenshell mussels they have a unique species that is endemic to New Zealand. It is found nowhere else in the world. It has fantastic market opportunities. But those opportunities have been frustrated by a mixture of regulations, and other things. We have had a gold rush. As soon as people realised the potential for aquaculture, there was a gold rush mentality for water space. We had moratoriums, and we had regulations imposed by the regional councils and by the Ministry of Fisheries. The mixture of regulations, controls, and moratoriums has led to confusion and delays, and it has led to frustration. Many people in the aquaculture game have looked overseas. I have colleagues who have gone to South Australia to look for opportunities, and they have been welcomed with open arms. They have gone there and found that instead of facing barriers, they have been confronted with a Government that has said: “Look, we have already done the science. We have allocated spaces that we believe are good for aquaculture. Please come and develop aquaculture here.” They have welcomed Kiwi ingenuity.

I know of one group that successfully applied for 300 hectares of sheltered water space. It is absolutely unknown in this country. They also got a land-based facility, for virtually no cost. This is extraordinary. What is it that Australia, Chile, and other countries can do that we cannot? I would have to say that the first draft of this legislation certainly was not the answer to that question. Submitters came to us and said that they would rather have the existing situation than the scenario outlined in the first draft of this legislation. So it is very gratifying to see reports in the newspapers from marine farmers now saying that this is very good legislation, and thanking the Government and the Primary Production Committee for changing the legislation from being unworkable, into something that is now seen to be quite good.

I think we can all take pride in the fact that submitters have had a profound impact on the legislation. This is democracy in action. This is people who are affected by the legislation coming to where the decisions are made and being able to have an impact on that legislation, which in turn affects them. I think it has been a very, very good process.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee, and particularly the chair, David Carter, who I think did an excellent job. I believe that we treated this problem in a non-partisan way. We accepted the problems as they were presented to us, and I think we worked in a very collegial manner with the committee staff and the officials to come up with a non-partisan resolution to the problems. Obviously, we put on our party political hats when we come into the House, and maybe that is unfortunate but that is the way politics goes.

I also would particularly like to thank the officials, a number of whom are here today. They have all worked extremely diligently, under very tight time constraints, and I think they have done a very good job. I say the same to the committee clerks, who did an excellent job.

This bill addresses quite a number of different needs—a lot of which we have heard about during the debate. But not least of these needs have been those of the wider community and of the environment itself. People are concerned about the ecological sustainability of marine farming. These people have legitimate concerns. Marine farming is not a panacea; it is a very good use of water space, but it is not the only use of water space. There are competing needs. We have recreational users, boaties, and people like that. We also have the environment itself. What happens to the plankton on which the filter-feeders feed? There are visual impacts, and a whole range of things.

Up until now—before this legislation comes into play—the regulations have meant that anybody who has objected to a marine farm has had to oppose an application on a case by case basis, because it is a resource consent process. Individuals who oppose a marine farm have had to turn up at their local council offices, day after day, opposing different applications, and they are suffering from burnout. But they have had legitimate concerns. The good thing about this legislation is that it puts all those concerns into one big hearing. It says: “Let’s get an area—we will call it an aquaculture management area, or an AMA—in which people can apply for space for farming, and outside of which they cannot apply.” They can change the coastal management plan, but that is a much longer term process. It is a higher hurdle to jump over. But what this legislation is doing is giving people certainty—not just the marine farmers, but the community as well. We have the science upfront.

People who have an established farm also get a degree of certainty from this legislation. It is one of the things they really wanted. But what they wanted was a right of renewal in perpetuity. Of course, with public open space, with the commons, we simply cannot do that. But I think what we have done is to give them a degree of certainty that is fair. We have said: “You get a coastal occupation lease or right and that allows you to farm that space for 20 years. At the end of that 20 years, if you have been a good corporate citizen—in other words, you haven’t breached the conditions of your permit—then you go to the front of the queue. You get your permit renewal application heard first. If you are successful you get another 20 years. If you are not successful, obviously the space you have been occupying goes to tender.” The only other way that space can be lost is if the community, through the regional council, says: “We no longer want that to be used for marine farming.”

It also gives marine farmers a message that they are using that space only by the grace of the community. It is commons, and what we have done is introduce the idea of resource rentals. People occupying public open space pay for the privilege. We have also said that they have had to be good corporate citizens during their incumbency.

Probably the most contentious issue surrounding the legislation has been the 20 percent to iwi Māori. I have discussed that issue a number of occasions during the debate and I do not want to go into it further, although I do reiterate the problem I see with the Government trying to legislate for a full and final settlement without having had full consultation with iwi Māori. There is also the problem that the 1992 deed of settlement stated that of new species going into the quota management system, 20 percent will go to Māori. These are not species going into the quota management system. It is not a trigger for that.

Three practical problems remain to be resolved. One is the patchwork quilt effect, the second is the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee, and the third is the representative space.

I conclude by wishing my colleagues, the officials, and the select committee people the very happiest of Christmases. To you, personally, Mr Speaker, as this is your last Christmas in this House, after approximately 100 years I think, I wish you all the best in your new job. I wish you well.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. The member was doing very well, right up until that phrase!

I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the third reading of this legislation. When I look back on the day when I first walked into the Primary Production Committee to look at this legislation and then to where I am today, I see a tremendous transformation in a piece of work that originally gave no possibility to an industry. It has been transformed. I wish to put on record today that we are very pleased with the progress that has taken place. As I see it this legislation is enabling legislation and it has brought certainty for now and the future. The legislation has brought clarity to a whole range of issues, and for that we can be extremely thankful that it is going through the House today.

The legislation is based on reform, and it reforms the administrative parts, as we have heard and seen in the debate on it. It does not so much reform the industry, but, rather, the mechanisms needed when the moratorium is lifted in a few days’ time. If I recall correctly, it was United Future, with the Government, that extended the moratorium to 31 December to ensure that time was made for this legislatio to be written.

As a test of how satisfactory legislation is, one has to ask whether all the players who are mentioned, and for whom the legislation is set up, are contented, happy, and looking forward to its passage through Parliament. As I see it, virtually everybody is contented and of a mind that this is good legislation.

When we look at the farmers, they see this as far better than anything else they could have imagined. In fact, when the expert witnesses were before us they said: “Look, we will accept this as it is.”, and since that day, until this day, there have been many modifications of greater gain for them. The industry is bringing forth hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy, and I can see, as can a lot of people, that it will raise itself to be a flourishing industry. We salute the industry, now that it has the legislation on its side, and encourage it to go for it, to make heavy investments, and to show not only to us as New Zealanders but also to the world what it can do.

I do not believe that the present farmers will be damaged in any way. Their space, as they have it, will be deemed to be aquaculture management areas, so they will immediately continue in business for the next 20 years. If they remain good farmers, then they will continue and will remain good farmers. They will automatically be asked to carry on in their applications.

The new farmers from when the legislation is passed will have plenty of room to manoeuvre. They can apply privately to do whatever they wish, as well as wait for the regional councils to lead them into aquaculture management areas.

Regional councils are another group that we cannot take out of the equation. We have to ask whether they are satisfied by this legislation, and the answer to that is a resounding yes. It gives them the wherewithal and the mechanisms to ensure that they satisfy both the people around them in terms of their constituents and the places in which they live, as well as the farmers. They now have a set of rules that they can work out and apply. I believe that the regional councils will be able to say—and have already said publicly—that this bill is good for them. It allows them to get on with developing their regions, which is a vital issue.

For instance, when we were visiting down in Havelock I heard the comment that Havelock now has the lowest rate of unemployment in New Zealand. I am not sure whether that is fact, but at least someone down there told us that. It was based entirely around this industry flourishing in that town. I am sure others in the House would want to compete with that, but that is what we were told.

We have to ask ourselves whether this is good legislation for the fishers and for the public. The answer to that is also yes. Commercial fishers are not losing out anything here. Their views are totally at the centre of this legislation. Customary fishers have their rights to be looked after and they will be listened to. Likewise for recreational fishers and those who are into recreation of various types—all of those people are being satisfied. Are Māori and iwi satisfied by this legislation? United Future believes that the answer is yes. Their settlement will help to support a healthy aquaculture industry in this land. I believe that by settling with them we then advance the entire business into the many billions of dollars that it will develop.

I want to end on a note of thanking the chair of the Primary Production Committee. I was a stranger to that committee when I arrived. I got to know some very good people on the committee and it was a pleasure to work with each and every one of them. I met the officials for the first time either on a boat at sea or in the select committee room. It was great to work with them. They worked tirelessly and I wish them, in particular, a very good Christmas because they need a break after all of this. United Future is really pleased that this legislation will pass into law today.

I want to begin by picking up from where the previous speaker left off, and to thank the ministry officials and our clerks. I thank them for the work they did under great pressure of time. I also thank them for enduring—and I am sure they know what I mean when I say this—the Primary Production Committee, especially the lengthy dissertations from Mr Woolerton. At various times of the evening he regaled us with various theses he had on various issues, particularly to do with salsa and seafood.

The third reading debate has been very interesting. I have listened to the Opposition speakers and they have spent their time criticising Government members for not taking calls. Well, on this side we actually wanted to listen to and analyse what was being said over there, and to progress the Government’s business. What did we get? The Opposition rolled out the big guns. We heard from Phil Heatley. The Opposition dredged up Sandra Goudie from the bottom of the sea—the orange roughy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—

I withdraw and apologise. And what did the Opposition have to say on this legislation? I commend Mr David Carter for his leadership of the select committee, but I have to say that some of his comments were right around the edges. He knows as well as I do—and all the select committee members do—that the 20 percent to Māori, which was one of the two major issues, is unfinished business. It is unfinished business from, and progresses the spirit of, the 1992 deed. He knows that. He knows what his former Minister of fisheries and Māori affairs was on about; the Waitangi Tribunal referred to that. He also knows that the other major issue was security of tenure, and that that has been dealt with. Now, as the Green member has said, we have security of tenure for 20 years, with options and rights of renewal for our marine farmers.

I thank my colleagues, who I know are enjoying my speech. I thank the members of the select committee, because this bill demonstrates again, as I think Mr Woolerton said, that the Primary Production Committee acts in a collegial way. We actually get on with the business. I commend the bills to the House.

I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the officials from the Ministry for the Environment. I have certainly appreciated their input and their sincere response to the many questions that we have asked. As may be seen, some of those questions came out of left field, but all arose from genuine concerns. The officials always responded freely, frankly, and with a lot of consideration. We thank them for taking our ideas back to their Ministers and their ministry and thinking them through.

I also thank the Ministry of Fisheries officials. The Ministry of Fisheries has had a big year. We know that because the Primary Production Committee, which considered this legislation, has dealt with five significant fisheries matters this year, the Aquaculture Reform Bill being the last. The Ministry of Fisheries officials also went away and thought through some of the ideas of the select committee members, and came back with resolutions. We appreciate that.

And, of course, I thank the Department of Conservation officials, who probably got the most flak from committee members, because of the concern, obviously, about how much say the Department of Conservation wanted in the whole process. We as a committee were generally very wary about that. But the officials stood up for their points of view, and we appreciate that. So I thank those officials.

I also thank all the submitters, both those from the commercial-fishing sector and those from the marine-farming sector, who put forward their views to the select committee as we travelled across the country. I acknowledge them.

I acknowledge my colleagues on the committee. I would like, of course, to commend those on my own side—the Opposition members—but, on the Government side, I would particularly like to commend Jacket Mackey. I have enjoyed working with her, particularly over the—

💬 Government Members: Ooh!

Yes, and I will be asking her out to dinner at some later date. I would like to commend her for her very rational and pragmatic approach to the problems that, often, we raised. Although a member of an opposing party, she was willing to hear us out. She did not agree with all our points every time, but she certainly took them into account, understood them, and took them back to her Minister, and we saw changes in many, many cases. I acknowledge her for that, and I thank her for her pragmatic approach.

The National Party, as a team, drove through significant changes to this legislation, because when it was first introduced—as everyone knows now—it was seriously and fatally flawed. People from the industry who came to us were very concerned that this legislation would affect their businesses, and that they would have to lay off staff and shift overseas. They begged for changes. We acknowledge that the select committee process has seen significant changes in this legislation, and when it is enacted we will be glad that those changes are now part of it. But we still oppose this legislation, because of outstanding issues that, in our view, have not been resolved.

The issue of horse-trading with Māori on the seabed and foreshore legislation is a prime example. The Government is giving aquaculture space for free to iwi to buy their support for the seabed and foreshore legislation. In the future, up to 40 percent of new marine-farming space will be set aside for Māori, to address what is referred to as the unfinished business of the 1992 fisheries settlement. We called for historical documentary evidence that proves there was such unfinished business, but we still have not received any, despite assurances that such evidence exists. With the reforms in this legislation, marine-farming applications that have been put on hold for 2 years and 9 months—it will be close to 3 years—by the moratorium are to be used by the Crown to settle contemporary Māori claims. The National Party feels that the fact that an applicant’s space can be reallocated to someone else is unfair, and that a settlement of one grievance should not generate and create another grievance, which is exactly what is happening here.

Most Māori submitters do not acknowledge this action as a settlement, at all. They do not want to be played off against others in the industry. There was no negotiation, and with this legislation—unlike the 1992 fisheries settlement—there is no deed of settlement to point to. Many Māori who came to the select committee were dissatisfied. They foresee themselves receiving space they would not have chosen, they see themselves receiving random patches of space of no economic value, and they see themselves being played off against the industry, and in their view it is not over yet.

National sees the treaty settlement approach taken with Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngā Rauru Kītahi, which gave preferential tendering rights for aquaculture space, as a satisfactory, full and final way to address aquaculture claims that have merit. We do not see the broad, blanket approach of a 20 percent give-away right across the country as a way to address a genuine claim. Genuine settlements with iwi should be addressed on a case by case basis, should be solely between the Crown and Māori, and should not involve or interfere with the operations of current or future marine farmers. That is where the National Party sits on this quid pro quo, horse-trading deal with Māori that the Labour Government is pushing through.

We still have some unanswered questions on how aquacultural interests will be balanced with commercial-fishing interests. We support interaction between those two sectors, and we want to give them a timely, fully transparent, and cost-effective process to follow. We do not know how the regional councils will be able to quantify and qualify aquaculture’s effects on fishing, when they look at things such as the effect on spawning and stock development. We believe that problems may arise in the future, and we will be watching that with interest.

Probably the biggest win for National Party MPs on the committee was getting the right of first refusal for incumbent marine farmers. We are glad we got that win. We are concerned that there are still a couple of fishhooks in the legislation whereby the incumbents, to gain renewal, have to manage their farms according to what the Government calls industry-good practice—a term that it has not defined, that is vague and subjective, and that will change as technology changes. We are also concerned that the Government has a fishhook whereby regional councils may re-tender occupied space out from underneath an incumbent marine farmer, if they deem it “necessary”. We are not sure what “necessary” means there, but we do know that it is subject to Government policy changes.

National supports this industry. We wish that aquaculture would grow. It is good for New Zealand, and there is no doubt about that. We do not want New Zealand marine farmers shifting overseas and taking their business elsewhere. We want them in this country. We wish them well. We will be watching the way that these reforms affect their industry into the future, and when we are in Government after the election next year we will be more than prepared to make changes to this legislation, if we see aquaculture continuing to struggle under this new legislative environment.

I commend the bills’ third readings to the House, and in so doing I will make three or four quick observations.

The first is that, once again, we have legislation that is a litmus test in terms of the difference between this Government and the Opposition. We have provided once again all the deliverables, and once again we are unleashing the latent economic potential and prowess of Kiwis—regardless of community, regardless of colour, and regardless of stakeholdership—and I commend the bills to the House accordingly.

The second point I want to make is that a couple of members opposite continue to get up and bang on about race. The Hon Nick Smith will always talk about race because he understands colour bars, but he does not understand rights. The reality is that this is rights-based legislation. It is bonded right into the heartland of the constitution of this country, and it should be adhered to and accepted accordingly. If Dr Smith wants to bang on about race—as usual—and to play divide and rule, I say to him that it is a very, very dangerous game to be playing. This Government is the only Government that can bring this country together, because it actually represents the face of this country. It actually understands, tolerates, and respects everyone in it.

The reason why the Māori Party is voting against this legislation, I alert members, is that 20 percent is not good enough. That party says it has got to be 100 percent, and it should have been done yesterday! We should have put Phil Heatley on the endangered species list, as well. But Tariana Turia was not able to move those amendments. A vote for the Māori Party, as a consequence, is a vote for a great past; a vote for the Māori members of the Labour Party is a vote for a great future.

I commend the bills to the House.

This an awful bill that represents all that is bad about the treaty gravy train that this Government is determined to continue. It is nothing more than a crude attempt to buy back Māori support after the fiasco of the foreshore and seabed issue.

I represent a constituency of which aquaculture is one of the most important industries. It has one of the greatest amounts of opportunity for future wealth creation, not just for Nelson but also for New Zealand. I ask members opposite why the 1 percent of the Nelson population—numbering 916 people at the last census—who happen to affiliate to local iwi should get a preferential right, and why they should get 20 percent of any future aquaculture space in the Nelson region. I ask members opposite how they can pretend that we have a single standard of citizenship, when 1 percent of the people in my region will get 20 percent of the economic opportunities from aquaculture. That is wrong, and that is why this Labour Government will be turfed out next year.

The story of the aquaculture industry is one of lost opportunity under this Government. In the 1990s there was huge and exciting growth within that sector. That industry grew from just $20 million in 1990 to over $300 million, but over the last 5 years the industry has been quite static. There has been no growth, because of the moratorium that has been imposed by this Government. The reason for that moratorium is, quite simply, that this Government has not been able to get its act together and have a clear set of rules for the industry.

I must also reinforce the very intelligent contribution that has been made by National’s fisheries spokesperson, Phil Heatley. The point he has made has not been responded to by any Labour member, and I would also challenge New Zealand First, which is supporting this legislation, in that regard. If we are to have full and final settlements, they must be just that. In 1992 the Sealord’s deal was full and final settlement for all fisheries claims. If we look through the Hansard and through all the paper record, nowhere—anywhere—did anybody say that the settlement did not include aquaculture. If we look at the legal provisions of that settlement Act, it defined commercial fisheries as those activities that would require a fishing permit. Government members know that aquaculture does require a fisheries permit and that it was included in that settlement. In 1992 the taxpayer forked out $160 million for full and final settlement of that claim, but now the Labour Government is backtracking on that and writing out another huge cheque.

We do not know the value of the aquaculture space that Labour is giving in this bill preferentially to Māori only. I would estimate, though, that it is worth over $200 million, at least. Let us be quite clear. What this bill is doing is transferring $200 million of preferential opportunity for Māori, and I simply ask why. We all know that the crude political reason is that Labour is terrified it will lose its grip on those Māori seats to Tariana Turia and the Māori Party, so it is prepared to throw away all principle and all good government in a simple, crude attempt to buy back Māori votes. Members on this side of the Chamber say that is wrong. We say that if the treaty settlement process is to successfully see New Zealand through to fruition, then full and final settlement must mean just that.

The last point I wish to comment on is the changes that were made to this bill by the Primary Production Committee. I compliment David Carter and Phil Heatley on the good work they have done for the Kiwi battlers who make up the aquaculture industry. They are pioneers. Those people went out and created a new industry for this country. They created an industry that is a world leader, but this Government was prepared to undermine their rights by not allowing them to have security of tenure in terms of the future. I say to David Carter and to all members of the select committee that at least they understand and rolled the Minister on that point, because if they had not, then the industry’s future would have been seriously at risk.

This is a bill that differentiates Labour from National. Labour is a party that is prepared to sell out its principles, to not seek full and final settlement, and to get out the chequebook of preferential rights for Māori. Those of us from National and ACT would rather say that all New Zealanders need to be treated equally with regard to an important industry like fishing. We oppose this bill. It demonstrates every reason why there needs to be a change of Government in New Zealand next year.

I seek leave to table a document that I referred to. It is the Gardiner and Parata report dated 20 May 2002.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.