Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present a legislative statement on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

I move, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

In this House and its renown across the country, the significance of the Māori-owned asset economy, and particularly as we address it as one of our second priorities in this Government in terms of accelerated recovery—this bill should be seen in that context. This is an important bill that has broad support from iwi to improve the allocation and transfer process of aquaculture settlement assets.

New Zealand’s aquacultural industry contributes significantly to regional development and the national economy, generating $600 million in revenue in 2018 and employing 3,000 people, largely based in the regions. New Zealand’s aquaculture industry has built a strong reputation for sustainable, healthy, and high-value products. Kaimoana, more broadly, has long played a key role in the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing of Māori and all New Zealanders—and particularly, may I add, as we head into the summer break. Māori have a significant presence in the aquaculture industry, which will increase over time as iwi acquire and develop their interests in the industry and realise their aquaculture settlement assets. The potential scale of iwi involvement in the future of the aquaculture industry is such that the sector as a whole will not reach its full potential until iwi realise their aquaculture settlement assets.

The Government’s aquaculture strategy, released in September 2019, recognises the strong interest of Māori and contains an ambitious goal for aquaculture to become a $3 billion industry by 2035, but has a vision for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry to be globally recognised as a world leader in sustainable and innovative aquaculture management across the value chain. The increase in Māori interest in aquaculture over time, supported by the change proposed in this bill, has the potential to maximise opportunities from settlement and support the broader COVID-19 economic recovery efforts with Māori at the forefront.

The purpose of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill is to better enable the allocation and transfer of aquaculture settlement assets to iwi by providing Te Ohu Kaimoana with a limited discretionary power to make determinations for aquaculture settlement allocation entitlements. While the fundamental provisions of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act are sound and performing well, there is an opportunity to improve the allocation and transfer process. This will address the issue of some iwi being unable to access their aquaculture settlement assets in circumstances when agreement on allocation between all iwi in a region cannot be reached. The proposed changes will not change the core elements of how the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act currently operates or change the dispute resolution process, including reference to the Māori Land Court.

Intensive consultation has occurred over the past two years, and there is broad support from iwi and Te Ohu Kaimoana for the bill. The amendments provide a practical means for resolving the current allocation issues and those which could arise in future, and will ensure regional aquaculture assets make it into the hands of iwi in a timely manner. There are regions that are currently unable to access their aquaculture settlement assets due to an inability to reach unanimous agreement between all iwi in those regions about how aquaculture settlement assets should be allocated amongst them. These regions will benefit immediately from the proposed changes. I felt that it was important to bring the bill to the House now so that impacted iwi can access their aquaculture settlement assets within an appropriate time frame and to ensure there is plenty of opportunity to make changes, if necessary.

The select committee process is very important, and I urge and encourage all New Zealanders with an interest in aquaculture to come forward and to have their say on the bill and ensure we get it right. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise and take my first call in the 53rd Parliament and just in time for the Christmas break—so fantastic to be able to speak here on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

💬 Jamie Strange: Nice and short—a short one!

Nice and short, Mr Strange. Well, we’ll see about that. There’s a lot to say on this important bill, so we’ll see how we go. But, look, this is an area that I am just getting my head around as the new spokesperson for oceans and fisheries, and it’s an area that I’m quite excited about because it represents significant opportunity. Whilst the current aquaculture industry at $600 million makes a reasonable contribution, it’s not massive but it does have massive potential and this particular amendment bill helps to capture some of that potential.

So, as Minister Whaitiri’s just touched on, effectively, what this change is doing is streamlining the process to give that limited discretionary power to the trustee, Te Ohu Kaimoana, to allocate those iwi settlement assets. Now, since this came into play, this Act, back in 2004, there have been some challenges in terms of allocating those iwi assets on a settlement basis, depending on, of course, the different claims to that within different iwi groups. And, of course, the requirements within the Act are such that every iwi who has a potential claim must be involved and no decision can be made around the distribution of those assets without the unanimous agreement of all those participants. That is the fundamental issue that we’ve had here—that, in some instances, there hasn’t been unanimous agreement. And, if that can’t be obtained, then, effectively, it’s tying up the ability for the iwi groups to access their entitlement and to just get on with business. Ultimately, what is trying to be achieved here is to promote the timely distribution of those allocations and, therefore, enable them, those stakeholders, to get on and do business and thrive as a result of their allocation of aquaculture assets.

As the Minister mentioned, the current industry, around $600 million—there’s an ambitious aquaculture strategy to take that from 3,000 people involved now up to about more than 6,000 and a contribution of over $3 billion by 2035. Now, that’s ambitious, but actually I think that’s quite achievable. And when we look—

💬 Todd Muller: With a National Government.

—at aquaculture globally, there are some fantastic opportunities with it. And it’s a very good point, Mr Muller. It probably needs an ambitious National Government to help solidify some of that opportunity, of course. But, that aside, there’s still potential delivered from this particular bill to enable those iwi groups to get on and make some progress despite the legislative challenges faced by them through the current Government.

That said, we need to be targeting in particular here how we can grow aquaculture. When we look at aquaculture as a food source, fish are the most rapid converters of food to protein. You can look at any other land-based farming systems—beef, sheep, for example—the feed conversion ratio of aquaculture is something like 1:1.4. It’s massive, right? So you give them 1.4 of feed and they’re converting it to a kilogram of protein. That is phenomenal. It far exceeds any other protein source we have. So this is some of the opportunity we have. And, alongside that, of course, you look at New Zealand as a country, an island surrounded by a significant amount of water, and the potential for aquaculture is nearly limitless. At the moment, we’re targeting that around the inshore space, but actually, over time, I think we need to be looking at deep-water options.

I know there are currently some entities looking at that at the moment, but actually one of the fundamental issues around that is the Resource Management Act (RMA). This is a problem that we have cropping up in just about every piece of legislation we’re talking about at the moment, actually—the RMA holding up the process—and it’s no different under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill that we’re debating here today as well. Until we can get this RMA sorted, we’re not going to be able to capture the productivity gains in as timely and efficient a manner as we should be able to. So that needs to be a big focus, and it’s great to see the Government now have come around to National’s way of thinking and are prepared to look at reviewing the RMA and getting some better rules in place to deliver that opportunity for us.

But, coming back to this specific bill, those discretionary powers are going to be reasonably limited but will enable the ability to get on and capture some of that benefit for those iwi. Now, as I mentioned earlier on, the issue is that it’s been tied up in a number of cases through disagreement by one particular group, or it could even be down to an individual level—one person—and so the ability for one person to tie up the entire distribution process of iwi aquaculture settlement claims for a particular region or harbour is absolutely disproportionate. So this bill does enable a partial solution to that, enabling the trustee to make an allocation based on their determination around the proportions claimed by different iwi groups.

Now, that’s one of the key aspects here, and when looking at the bill, the bulk of it is under new section 49, set out in clause 7. That’s where the key aspects of this change are coming in. And new section 49B(2) specifies that “a transfer of settlement assets … must be made in proportion to the length of coastline of the relevant iwi who agree on a partial allocation and that the trustee is satisfied is unlikely to be disputed.” Right, so giving this limited discretionary power to the trustee doesn’t mean they can just go out carte blanche and allocate the entitlements as they see fit on any given day, to whomever they wish. They actually still have to follow a pretty structured process to minimise the chance of dispute.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right.

Thank you, Mr Bridges—and to ensure that people can get on and still have a way forward to enable them to see what, in their view, is their appropriate allocation whilst enabling or still having the disputes process for those who feel they have not yet been allocated the proportion they would expect to be under this particular bill.

So, once that allocation occurs, then there’s a requirement, of course, for notification to happen, and disputes can still then be lodged off the back of that allocation. Now, of course, as I just mentioned, reading out that subsection, it’s the expectation that the trustee makes a partial allocation where it’s unlikely to be disputed, but if it is disputed, well, there is still a process for that under new section 49E(2), and so that’s appropriate to then link into the existing part—I think it’s sections 52 through to 55 of the 2004 Act—which outlines the current disputes process. So those aspects will still provide some comfort, I hope, for those who are concerned that this power may see their potential claim overridden by the ability of the trustee to allocate assets. Indeed, that shouldn’t be the case and the dispute process still clearly enables anyone who is concerned to raise a dispute. And, of course, that can then go back to the Māori Land Court as well, depending on the progress they make through the disputes process.

Hearing from the Minister—I was interested to hear it is going to the Māori Affairs Committee rather than the Primary Production Committee, the fisheries portfolio. That’s fine. The reality is submitters, I hope, will take the opportunity to have their voices heard on that regardless, and in particular, those iwi groups who have experienced some difficulties in this space. I think that would be really key—to get firsthand feedback from them on the challenges they had and why that might have arisen and the value then of being able to allocate at least partial distributions under this amendment, as I said, with the view to enabling those iwi groups to get on and capture some of that benefit to the wider aquaculture industry. As I mentioned, that aquaculture strategy as well is a key part of wanting to grow the industry.

One of the aspects I was quite interested to see under this Act was that, for any new aquaculture space, 20 percent is automatically allocated to iwi settlement claims. So, indeed, it makes absolute sense, the Minister’s claim, that we can’t capture the value of the aquaculture industry until iwi have accessed those entitlements. Of course that would be the case, otherwise we would only be able to capture up to 80 percent of the value without that. So it is important that we do look to expedite this where possible, acknowledging, of course, that there has been a clear process and pace, but sometimes disputes can arise and, unfortunately, where they haven’t been able to be remedied, it has been challenging and has slowed up the ability to access that economic potential, which then impacts on those regions. When we’re talking about the different allocations under this bill, it really is impacting on regional New Zealand, and so that’s one of the key areas where, personally, I’d like to see a lot more focus on economic growth under this Government, and so, hopefully, this will help to achieve that for those groups within that region.

So, on the basis of that, we do support this bill. I look forward to seeing it progress through the House, and we’ll be following it closely through the remaining stages. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in my first contribution in this 53rd Parliament, and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you, ma’am, on your appointment as a presiding officer. Likewise, I want to acknowledge the good people of Te Tai Tonga, the largest electorate in the country, from the great southern and distant islands to the capital city, for returning me as their member of Parliament. Of course, across Te Tai Tonga, there are significant aquaculture areas, particularly in the top of the South Island, and there’s no greater pleasure for me to speak in this 53rd Parliament, at the outset, on a bill which is moving Māori forward in our regional economic development and improving the processes with this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

I’d like to acknowledge Mr van de Molen for taking us very carefully through the details of this bill, but, in essence, it’s a very simple bill. It’s about rectifying an issue that has come up in terms of ultimately getting assets into the hands of iwi, and that’s what these settlements are all about: making sure that we can get the assets to iwi. In certain instances, in regions, iwi aren’t able to come to 100 percent unanimity on how that is to go about, and so thanks to Te Ohu Kaimoana, the trustee, they have come up with a proposal which has the agreement of all iwi and has been widely consulted to ensure that they have a limited discretion to make an allocation and transfer it to those iwi that are undisputed and that are ready to receive their assets, so they aren’t prejudiced, they aren’t held up indefinitely, and they can get on with the business. Ultimately, that’s what this bill aims to achieve.

Māori are at the forefront of the aquaculture industry. We’ve heard about our aquaculture strategy and the potential that it has to grow economic development in the regions in our COVID recovery, and I look forward to the passage of the bill. I acknowledge our new Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, the Hon David Parker; the Hon Stuart Nash, his predecessor; and I’m delighted to be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I’m looking forward to adding my bit to assist the Minister in his big task over this term.

So, with that, I commend this bill, and I also wish the newly formed Māori Affairs Committee all the best in their consideration of this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

Madam Speaker, can I just congratulate you on your role, and I think, as my friend on the other side has said, it’s the first time for me as well to speak in this House with you in your position as—I always get these around the wrong way; I want to say that you are the—

💬 Chris Penk: Assistant Speaker.

—Assistant Speaker. I’m sure you’ll do a wonderful job. Can I also start by saying congratulations to the member Rino Tirikatene Sullivan and to make clear that I think he should have given the first speech on this bill, because he has real mana in some of the areas where there is the most aquaculture in New Zealand. In my view, frankly, there’s not enough aquaculture, actually, but what there is is in his neck of the woods, in the Mainland. Not only that, I also am aware that he was no slouch as a fisheries lawyer; he’s done some work in this area and other areas associated with this. So he had the experience and the mana to do a good job. I know he’s got his under-secretary gig, or whatever it is. It sounds pretty good; Minister sounds better, though, Rino, I can tell you for nothing: maybe your day will come, but I think you should have spoken first.

That said, of course, the Minister is David Parker, and we do have a new portfolio here that this bill comes within, and that’s Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, a very grand title, one would have thought. I just say to David Parker, if he is listening right now, that I hope he will live up to that title and he will do some of the things that need to be done. This is a good albeit, dare I say it, a perfunctory start, really, because this bill, as the last speaker has said, is simple; even Rino and I can understand it, and we can work this out pretty quickly. It gets the assets where they should be. If you accept in principle the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, if you accept the establishment here of the various bodies involved in this, then it’s not much of a leap to say that, actually, the allocation, the transfer that happens under this bill and the improvements made therein, are the right thing to do.

But, of course, this is just the start for the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, with that grand title, and I think there’s more work that he needs to do when it comes to aquaculture and sensibly opening that up in this country, and also, dare I say it, issues like the Kermadecs, which sat there for three years and they’re progressing this—that’s nice; it’s a nice little, perfunctory thing, but there are bigger issues in the oceans where we need solutions, and Minister David Parker, we will support you where you do these big things and we’ll challenge you where you don’t.

Broadly speaking, this bill is, and can be placed as, part of the Treaty settlements process. It’s an area where, for National, we believe we may not get the votes but we have done the mahi, and over the nine years we were in Government we had an incredibly proud record, an unprecedented record, frankly, of Treaty settlements, of getting out and doing what needed to be done. Chris Finlayson bears much of the mana associated with that, but also the Rt Hon Sir John Key and the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, who were incredibly supportive of that.

It’s been a slow start for this Government, and I use the term Government—last term, this term very slow. So they’re doing this; this is the easy stuff. Look, it’s a bit better than motherhood and apple pie; it’s got a little cream on the side. But it’s pretty banal stuff, really. What we’d like to see is actual land, forest, Treaty settlements around New Zealand—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How about this bill?

Well, this is about this bill. I’m doing a compare and contrast, if the member would like—which, you know, keeps me within the scope, Madam Speaker, of this bill, which is a banal and perfunctory bill, as I’ve said. So a proud history of Treaty settlements, which this bill is part of, from National; a slow start from this Government. New Zealanders support the full and final Treaty settlement process and the need to redress past injustices, but let’s speed up the train, eh? Let’s see more happen this term than last term. This is a very small, tepid start. It’s nice, it’s simple; but let’s see more from the Government.

I want to, in the four minutes remaining, just touch on two other matters associated with this bill—firstly, aquaculture and just talk a bit about that. There is a huge opportunity which this bill helps with in its own little way. There is a huge opportunity in aquaculture in New Zealand, and we haven’t, let’s be honest, the last National Government and this Government, really done enough to un-tap and unleash that opportunity. It requires certain changes to the way we think and look at these and address these legally, and I say to the Government: actually I for one—I reckon, my colleagues as well—would be there and would fulsomely support changes that make doing aquaculture in New Zealand easier, frankly. I think it’s been in the “too hard” basket. But I think of Norway, which I had the privilege of visiting as a Minister. You couldn’t think of a more sustainable country. They’ve got themselves in large part—well, no, they haven’t got themselves out of oil and gas, but they’re doing a bunch of things to divest the oil and gas industry, and they have a trillion-dollar pension fund from that, but what people forget is the other massive sector for them is aquaculture. They are legends in this area, and there is no simple reason other than our will and our determination to do it that Aotearoa New Zealand couldn’t be in that class as well, with the willpower from the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and others.

Finally—who knew that I would get to eight minutes in this contribution, frankly? It is amazing how much one knows when you stand up and start talking about these things! I do want to finish on another integral part of this bill, the Minister for oceans and aquaculture.

Tim van de Molen: What’s the bill about again?

It’s about aquaculture, OK? Come on! It’s over there, and that is the Kermadecs. And I say to the other side—[Interruption] No, I say to the other side of the House that there are Māori rights and interests there—we get that—but you know what? That shouldn’t take a decent, competent Minister very long to sit down to work through and get us a solution to the Kermadecs, what should be something all New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, could be hugely proud of in that huge expanse, what would be, I think, the biggest ocean sanctuary in the world.

So I say, for one last time to this House and to the Labour Party, this bill is fine. It’s nice, everyone’s going to support it, though I don’t know what they’re doing. [Points to ACT Party members] I reckon even ACT is going to support this bill, frankly, because there is so little to it. But the work is just getting started. You need to do more as a party and as a Government in the areas of the Treaty, in the areas of aquaculture, and actually in the areas of protecting our oceans in the right places, like the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.

Congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, and warm South Auckland greetings. It’s a real honour and a privilege to be speaking with you in the Chair today, and I want to say to all South Aucklanders who may be watching that it is a real privilege to have someone with so much integrity and leadership based in South Auckland representing us.

This bill supports the increase over time of Māori interests in aquaculture, and though the member opposite in his contribution was at pains to point out that this was a small change, it is a very significant change to the people in his area. It supports iwi to maximise opportunities from settlement and helps generate meaningful work for young and rural Māori people at a time when those jobs are much needed. For those iwi who are experiencing delays because of these powers which are not available yet to Te Ohu Kaimoana, it will be a big change, and one which will be very welcome.

I just want to touch on one important point that this bill will change. It promotes the ability for the Crown to act flexibly and to be able to act in good faith in its relations with iwi partners who are trying to support their people through the development of aquaculture in their regions. Whānau, hapū, and Māori are possibly at a disadvantage if Te Ohu Kaimoana does not have the flexibility to assist in situations of deadlock where iwi within a region cannot agree.

That is why I’m proud to stand and commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai mema kaimahi hou i roto i te Whare. My maiden speech is actually not until February and I thought I’d got away with not speaking in the House this side of Christmas, but it’s lovely to be here with you. We wish to commend this bill, firstly, because the principle of appropriate decision-making is very important to the Greens, which is that the decisions that affect our people are made at that level. So the fact that Te Ohu Kaimoana has done such extensive consultation and iwi are in support of this bill—for that reason alone, we would want to support it.

The other thing, though, that we would like to raise is that iwi have suffered throughout the Treaty settlement process by this concept of natural groupings, which has impacted me in particular from Tai Rāwhiti, my iwi of Ngāti Oneone and Whānau a Kai, where we’re expected to get on with and negotiate instead of directly with the Crown and its agencies, but with each other. And so I feel that this untangles some of that so it means that the iwi who are ready to go can access the resource they need to get on with developing their business and working for their people.

So, with those brief words, we would commend this bill and give our support. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party for the first reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. This is a way to provide and allocate aquaculture claims settlement to iwi in the event of a dispute resolution process; the primary bill had been unable to resolve a dispute between iwi on transfer and allocation.

There are two significant areas of change, primarily the empowering trust to allocate and transfer assets. After a period of 12 months, there have been no recognised iwi aquaculture organisations, and 24 months since the settlement assets were transferred to the trustee. Secondly, limitations on transfer under the new process—the transferred assets cannot be sold until they have been registered as allocation entitlements. The assets must be transferred in whole part to an iwi aquaculture organisation that becomes entitled to any portion of the said assets.

Mr Nash, the previous Minister of Fisheries, said at the time—and I quote—“The proposed Bill will improve the allocation and transfer of Māori commercial aquaculture settlement assets to iwi.” Some aspects of the 2004 original Act, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, have prevented some iwi from accessing and developing aquaculture assets such as marine farming space. Aquaculture contributes significantly to regional development. This is deeply important in our post-COVID recovery. It can grow sustainably, an illustration of which was in 2018, as the previous members in the House have referred to, when it generated some $600 million in revenue and employed upwards of 3,000 people in the regions.

Because of this reality and the potential of fiscal and further growth and certainty that this bill will bring, the ACT Party will support this third reading. On behalf of the ACT Party, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations to you on your role as well. It’s with pleasure that I rise to take a call on this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I think plenty of it has been traversed through the House already, but I think of note is that currently the main commercial aquaculture claims settlement Act is seen as working reasonably well, but what this amendment does is it gives us the opportunity to improve the allocation and transfer process for aquaculture settlement assets in a more timely manner for those iwi that are ready to move on with this, or allow those that are not ready to to leave it until perhaps they may be further on. It ensures that iwi have timely access to their aquaculture settlement assets and allows them just to get on with the job, and gives them the ability to get on and develop their assets. I think this is particularly important going forward and thinking about this—for the aquaculture industry, when we think about the fact that this industry has huge potential to support our economic recovery after COVID-19, and, more importantly, having Māori at the forefront of this.

We’ve heard that there was public consultation on this and there’s been broad support for this piece of legislation. Our aquaculture industry offers huge potential for sustainable growth and, I think, early action. Giving iwi the ability to have access in a timely manner and get on with it, develop their industry, is certainly going to deliver growth in this sector. We’ve got the ability here in New Zealand to be world leaders in this industry. So I commend this bill to the House.

Well, what a phenomenal debate this has been thus far, and I would say that the National Party contributions have been—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Strong.

—very strong, Mr Bridges, and you are a leader in that, as well as my colleague Tim van de Molen, who also led off with great fanfare. Can I first acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, in achieving this role. I’m sure you will bring great impartiality and wisdom to the Chair.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Very good so far.

Very good so far—well said. Look, what a remarkable debate. A few highlights before I get into the substance: when my colleague Simon Bridges was giving a superb outline of elements of this bill, and other personal reflections, he talked about how the Treaty settlement process has been one of the National Party’s great contributions to this country. At that moment, a remarkable thing happened, something that I have not seen in the six years that I have been in this House: William Sio looked across the House and smiled and agreed and said yes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a remarkable thing. William Sio, here today, has actually said in public that the National Party has done something right. I want that framed. I want that video framed and sent to his electorate, because he is perhaps one of the more Labour tribalists, and it’s very, very good to see a concession finally. The Christmas spirit has finally infected his heart and he was so generous to us, and we bank that. Thank you very much, Mr Sio.

Now, this actually is, as Mr Bridges said, a motherhood and apple pie with a bit of ice cream on the side—I would’ve described it as a prawn cocktail of a bill, really. It’s not the main course, but it is certainly something that deserves acknowledgment and is progressing an issue which has been quite constraining for a number of iwi: being unable to have their allocation progressed in a meaningful time. Of course, the Minister was silent around what a meaningful time period looks like, and we would like to test that. I mean, this is a very nice step forward, but I would like, when we get it to the Māori Affairs Committee, to look particularly into new sections—where are we—49A and B, because this is where the protections lie for those who feel that their interests have not been appropriately reflected in any determination of allocation.

Whilst the Māori trustee, Te Ohu Kaimoana, has the capacity now to step in and actually make a determination, it is absolutely critical that those who feel their rights and interests in terms of specific allocations have not been accurately assessed still feel that they are protected. If you actually look at the words that are listed there in that subsection, they are quite all-encompassing, and it raises the question for me around how operationally efficient this particular set of amendments will be. I say that in all seriousness. It’s all very well to have an intent to make it easier for disbursements, if you like, when there is tension and disagreement, but when you also have what appears to me here reasonably robust protections, I think we need to test as a committee what the operationalisation of this will actually look like, or we will end up with just a whole lot of good words but not a lot of action when it comes to releasing this economic potential.

I agree with Tim van de Molen’s and Simon Bridges’ contributions around the economic potential of aquaculture—$600 million now, with the Government seeking $3 billion in the next 15 years. Well, that’s not ambitious enough. Three billion in the next three years—look at what kiwifruit’s done; again, you know, well, supported by two very strong local MPs who understand the area, can get behind the industry, and it happens—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: And Todd McClay.

Yeah, and Todd McClay, yeah—him as well. And you look at Ōpōtiki, you know? Very soon, that area will return back to National—can’t wait for when that happens, because there is real opportunity here in Ōpōtiki for aquaculture, and it needs investment and it needs competence. This is part of the step forward, but we in the National Party will make sure that that opportunity is not just rhetoric, as it often is in this Government, but actually turns to action, and we look forward to deliberating on this when it comes to select committee. Thank you.

In the absence of the Māori Party wanting to speak on this bill, I will take the call and thank you for that.

This really is just about moving assets appropriately into iwi. In that sense, there’s been a few sticking points. And we know that sometimes iwi have a lot to resolve before those kinds of decisions can be made. Really this is just saying that, whilst iwi work through those matters, we want to make sure those assets are transferred where they most likely will go. But, as Mr Muller in his ramblings said, there is a lot of safeguards in there. So this is really just a bill to move that along to make sure the assets don’t remain with the Crown—they’re utilised and grown where they should be. It’s a good bill, it’s not a contentious bill, and really no more need be said. I absolutely recommend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take this call, and also congratulations to you. I don’t believe I’ve passed that on to you so far. The debate has already covered most points, I think—some more eloquently than others—but I think the most salient point is that Māori do have a significant presence in this aquaculture industry. That’s something that needs to increase, and this bill provides that. So it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Firstly, can I acknowledge and congratulate you and say congratulations on joining the Speakers’ team as Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with you, and I’m sure you’re going to do an absolutely outstanding job.

It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill as the iwi development spokesperson. Without doubt, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill is a very pragmatic piece of legislation, as we’ve been talking about, and the National Party supports it. The reason is, as we’ve been talking about, we want to unleash and we want to accelerate the potential of Māori business, and we think that’s a good thing. We actually think, on this side of the House, that accelerating business in general is a good thing, and as we heard from some very eloquent speakers in the Hon Simon Bridges, the honourable Todd Muller—people that I can learn so much from, as I am new to the House today. They have been giving us some really good things that we could accelerate—Treaty negotiations. We could also accelerate having more ambition for aquaculture. We could also accelerate protecting those ocean sanctuaries, which would be so important to also unlocking and unleashing the potential, the ambition, the aspiration of Māori business here in New Zealand.

Obviously, the issue or the problem that this bill is addressing is that iwi in some regions are facing indefinite delays in receiving aquaculture settlement assets from the trustee, and that’s due to the inability, as we’ve all talked about, of iwi in those regions to be able to reach agreement about how those assets should be allocated amongst themselves. Obviously, this dispute process is incredibly time consuming. It’s unduly delayed by any stakeholder, including any individual, and just the thought that one person is all it takes to actually stop the process and to stop that potential being realised is a big, big challenge. It is frustrating for iwi, because we want Māori participating in the aquaculture sector, in the broader fishing industry, and we know aquaculture in itself represents $600 million. It’s 3,000 people that are, importantly, employed all across the regions of New Zealand that desperately need that employment, and we have to do everything we can, I think, to unleash and help Māori acquire and develop their own commercial assets.

I have to say, I’ve seen that firsthand in my former life as CEO of Air New Zealand. We had a challenge with, actually, serving prawns on board aeroplanes in business premier, and we had to kick it off because we didn’t know where those prawns were coming from. As an ethical supply chain, where we’d signed up to the Modern Slavery Act in the UK, we couldn’t tell where those prawns were coming from. Were they from enslaved fishermen in South-east Asia or wherever? So we went to Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Porou had this great smoking operation, which was just for smoking fish for iwi.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I bet they did.

Yeah, it was fish—it was smoked fish. Yeah, it was smoked fish. We moved from prawn cocktails to smoked fish. And it was incredible, because what we saw over a series of engagements was that we were able to work with Ngāti Porou to build a proper smoked fish operation to such a high standard to pass food safety quality standards and everything. It was a phenomenal process, to be able to supply you all, as fine customers of Air New Zealand, on your services on the Tasman Sea—to have wonderful smoked fish coming from Ngāti Porou. It scaled up a business that can now sell that smoked fish all around the world to other airlines and to other caterers. That was a pretty awesome story, and that’s a pretty exciting thing, when you see that benefit, that financial ability, passed on to the community, which is fantastic.

So this bill here gives very limited, very discretionary powers to the trustee to allocate and transfer those aquaculture settlement assets to iwis. It also does, in fact, protect the interests of iwi who don’t wish to claim the aquaculture settlement assets. So, whichever way you want it, it’s covered. It’s good news in that it doesn’t fundamentally alter or manifestly change the core elements of the original base legislation and, certainly, the dispute resolution process.

So I think the final thing I’d say is it’s important that it is consistent with Treaty principles and that there is scope here for iwi and the Crown to work together in good faith and in partnership together. We support the bill and we commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. My congratulations on your appointment. I’m going to take a very brief call on this bill. I think a lot has been said so far. This is, of course, a very important bill that has broad support from iwi to improve the allocation and transfer process of aquaculture settlement assets. The potential scale of iwi involvement in the future of the aquaculture industry is such that the sector as a whole will not reach its full potential until iwi realise their aquaculture settlement assets, and this bill progresses that important work. There’s been much debate today, and so I won’t add anything further, other than to say that I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.