Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3)

Before I explain a little about this part I would like to thank the Iwi Leaders Group chaired by Matiu Rei for its input, and also the aquaculture iwi advisers: Justine Inns, Laws Lawson, and Keir Volkerling. Without their valuable input the Government would not be in the position today to propose such a strong amendment to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3).

The Government is committed to upholding the Māori commercial aquaculture claims settlement. The bill as introduced in November 2010 included provisions to ensure the Crown would be able to fulfil its obligations, but at that time I signalled those provisions might be revised later in the legislative process if engagement between the Crown and iwi identified a better mechanism for delivering the settlement. That team found that mechanism.

The new provisions introduced by Supplementary Order Paper are the outcome of a process of engagement and consultation over several months. The proposed mechanism is the best possible compromise between the preferences of iwi and those of the Crown. That mechanism will enable the settlement to be delivered through regional agreements in a way that best fits iwi aspirations and preferences, region by region—a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. The new provisions provide the flexibility for regional agreements to deliver on the Crown’s commitment as new space becomes available for marine farming over time.

The new mechanism recognises iwi’s likely preference for space but provides flexibility for cash or other deliverables to form all or part of the settlement package by agreement between the Crown and iwi or where the provision of the space is not practical. The proposal is common sense. It is an approach that recognises the interests of iwi in a regional way and the Crown’s interest in removing uncertainty for mainstream marine farmers. Iwi, the wider aquaculture industry, and the country as a whole all stand to benefit from iwi participation. If iwi do well, if Shane Jones does well, then we all do well. In addition to the amendments I have already indicated, I have tabled an additional minor technical amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 277.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Shane Jones—honourable.

At least there is someone left in New Zealand who is prepared to use that not in the form of an epithet, anyhow.

Part 3 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) deals with our Māori entitlements. But I have to say that when we reform legislation that deals with Māori entitlements, it is a portentous development when an amendment is moved upon an amendment. I want the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to shortly take a small call and remove his hands from his pants. There is a great Māori proverb about that, but for fear of lowering the tone of the Committee I will not go quite there.

💬 Simon Bridges: I thought it was Confucius.

Simon Bridges insists that I do. A rough English translation is “Keep the balls in the air”. That is what it sort of means. Maintain one’s political dexterity by managing multiple agendas, but take one’s hands out of one’s pants. Te Ururoa Flavell agrees, etc. Anyway, let me come back to this. The Minister—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve heard the one that Ross Robertson said in caucus one time?

No.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This caucus has got too many balls in the fire.

Given that I am still on the road to redemption with my own caucus, I will not continue that analogy from my faithful but feckless mentor, Mr Mallard. He obviously contemplates a future for me that does not have a level of ascension. So I will avoid repeating what he said about the more liberal-minded doubting Thomases I call my friends. I only hope it is reciprocated one day.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Part 3.

This is about Māoris. Māoris are from the universe right down to the bosom of the earth, etc. However, let me continue.

As members recall, when the Sealord deal was done there was a residual element that was not adequately addressed, and that pertains to the obligations of the Crown in respect of marine farming. A 20 percent deal was entered into. I remember that being quite a sweet day, because I was in the fortunate position of being the chair of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission at that time. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, what we thought we did did not actually turn out to be quite as user-friendly. I say that, as the Minister has pointed out, any Māori thing to do with resources will always require a great deal of tenacity when one gets to the allocation of these resources or these entitlements. Fortunately, in clauses 58 and 59 there has been a fair degree of thought. I think the experience of the fisheries settlement has been applied to that portion of the bill.

It is important when these areas are identified that we ensure that there is a fair representation of the available space to the iwi of the area—that they are not left with just some political or cultural form of the runt of the litter. Not all space is created equal in the eyes of the investor; some space is capable of generating better returns. I only hope that as the Minister grows in confidence and improves his adherence to good constitutional practice, we will actually see more of the areas around the coastline through the aquaculture industry dedicated to settling not only Māori claims but Māori interests in a way that moves them into the modern end of aquaculture, not stuck in the commodity traps, etc. Māori are the owners of quota, the applicants of customary mātaitai seafood reserves, participants in coastal planning, and also now investors in aquaculture. It is important in getting the right balance between all of those that we do not clog the system with too much regulation, or clog the system with people spending too much time litigating or arguing against each other. That will be inversely related to wealth creation. But, broadly speaking, we considered this during the course of the select committee consideration. A small number of improvements have been made, but we support Part 3.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a question. I would like to know from the Minister in respect of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) how many amendments he has moved to which he has moved amendments. I think it is very important for us to have some figures. And how confident is the Minister that his amendments to the amendments do not require further amendments? We are in his hands on this. We would like to take the Minister on trust. We know he works very hard at this, but we would be very interested to know how many amendments the Minister has moved to amendments, whether we will have any amendments to the amendments to the amendments, and whether they are reliable.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in his name be agreed to:

to omit from the proposed amendments to clause 50(2) the second amendment to paragraph (a) of the definition of new space.;

to omit from the amendment to clause 50(2) new paragraph (aa); and

to insert the following item after the item relating to clause 50(2):

Clause 51

To add the following subsection:

(2) Section 5(1) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) includes any authorisations provided to the trustee by a regional council in accordance with an Order in Council under section 165I, or a notice in the Gazette under section 165L, of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the purpose of giving effect to the Crown’s obligations under this Act; and”.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The next question is that the Minister’s amendments, as amended, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277, to amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is this a point of order?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It can only be a point of order once I have—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, we have not had a closure.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We do not need to have a closure. No one took the call, and I have—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s right.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No one took a call. I proceeded with the questions, so we are now doing the questions. That is what we are doing.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that the rules have changed over the years, but unless the rules have changed, when an amendment—or even an amendment to an amendment and an amendment—has been dealt with, we are still faced with a live question. The live question is that the part, as amended by the amendment as amended, stand part. That is the question that is before the Committee now. It is a different question from what was there before, and it is my understanding that one can take a call. If we had had a closure, of course, one could not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just refer to Speaker’s ruling 115/1: “In committee, when no member wishes to speak further to a question, whether or not a closure has been moved, the chairperson proceeds to put all amendments …”. I shall continue.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you let us know when you have put all of the amendments, because I want to speak at that point to the part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is my understanding that the part is to be voted on at that point. Yes, I am correct.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in his name be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.