Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill now be read a second time.

The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill 2021 is an important bill that amends the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 to improve the allocation and transfer process of aquaculture settlement assets. The amendments in the bill are the result of extensive process with the trustee Te Ohu Kaimoana. It also involved iwi, other Māori, and Government over several years. Currently, iwi in some regions are facing indefinite delays in receiving their aquaculture settlement assets from Te Ohu Kaimoana, as it has not been possible to get unanimous agreement by all of the iwi in those regions on how the assets should be allocated amongst them. The dispute resolution process provided in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act has been unable to address those issues because unanimity has been required and unable to be achieved, and there’s a risk that similar situations will arise in future regional settlement processes. So the policy objective of the bill is to improve the allocation and transfer process provided for in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act, to better enable the allocation and transfer of aquaculture settlement assets to iwi.

The remedy that the bill provides is to enable assets that have already been allocated to an iwi by Te Ohu Kaimoana to be transferred to those iwi aquaculture organisations who wish to receive them. It seeks to improve the delivery of assets in regions where some do not have the required governance structure to participate in regional negotiations or the dispute resolution process, and it also ensures that assets will be preserved for those iwis who choose not to participate in those regional negotiations.

The bill achieves its objective by amending the sections in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act relating to the allocation of settlement assets. It provides Te Ohu Kaimoana with a limited discretionary power to allocate and transfer aquaculture settlement assets to iwi. The bill will ensure iwi can access their aquaculture settlement assets within an appropriate time frame. It will improve the delivery of the Crown’s aquaculture settlement obligations, and it will protect the interests of iwi who do not wish to claim their aquaculture settlement assets at this time, whilst also supporting iwi aquaculture aspirations and the growth of the aquaculture industry more generally.

Can I thank the Māori Affairs Committee and the submitters for their time and contribution to the bill. The committee received 10 written submissions and six oral submissions—the majority of whom were from Māori groupings. The Māori Affairs Committee heard that the current provisions of the Act prevent Te Ohu Kaimoana from delivering aquaculture settlement assets; this is due the inability of iwi in those regions to reach agreement between themselves in accordance with the Act. This is partly because some iwi don’t have the required governance structures to participate in regional negotiation. It’s also partly because some iwi are unwilling to participate in those negotiations, from their perspective, as a matter of principle. The Māori Affairs Committee agreed there was a significant risk of similar situations occurring in future settlement processes if we don’t make the change in this bill.

Submissions on the bill were supportive. The Māori Affairs Committee also heard that the proposed option for asset allocation is similar to a provision for the transfer of assets provided for in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. As noted in the select committee report, if the bill gains Royal assent, then the limited discretionary power could be used almost immediately for allocation issues in Northland and the Bay of Plenty. Some submitters said that they’d been waiting for years to access their settlements and they don’t want any more delay. Submitters also commented that iwi have an important role in the Government’s aquaculture strategy and could contribute to the growth of the aquaculture industry and therefore the improvement of the economy.

The Māori Affairs Committee also referenced in its report two matters raised by submitters which were considered to be outside the scope of the bill, and I thought I would address them for the benefit of the House. The first was a request for wider recognition on the involvement of hapū and whānau in the allocation process for settlement assets, with an amendment requested to widen the definition of relevant iwi to include hapū and whānau. The Māori Affairs Committee were advised that these suggested amendments would require governance changes that are beyond the remit of the bill and would require substantive additional consultation, which would yet again further delay the transfer of settlement assets.

The second request was to include provisions that give consideration to applicants who are currently before the High Court on Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 applications or who are in negotiations with the Crown. The select committee were advised that including such provisions would be repetitive of section 6A which is already in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act, and already describes the relationship between that Act and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. The Māori Affairs Committee accordingly, after its considerations, recommended that the Act be passed without amendment. I again thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill and the submitters who went to the trouble of providing their written or oral submissions to the committee. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to be able to speak here tonight on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill at the second reading. Now, I’ve heard a very robust summary there from the Minister of the process this bill has been through and the select committee contribution to that. Ultimately, we’re supporting this bill, as we did at the first reading, and the reason for that—well, there’s a number of them. I’ll outline some of those now, but primarily it’s around providing economic opportunity. That is what is really important for us here. These iwi that are impacted by this are unable to realise some of that economic potential, and from the National Party’s perspective, that is a key opportunity that we need to ensure any party is able to do. Economic potential means jobs for the regions. That means people innovating, adapting, expanding their businesses, and all those things will ultimately be beneficial for New Zealand. But of course, for the iwi involved, it has a lot more impact than a nationwide perspective.

Now, we’ve seen under the Budget this year that just over $16 million—I think $16.19 million—of funding that had been set aside for aquaculture settlements has had to be carried forward from last year’s Budget because it simply hasn’t been able to be resolved and distributed to those impacted iwi. So that to me is a pretty clear indicator that the current model is challenging and it is complex and it takes time and it can hold up that progress. So these amendments that are proposed here, the limited discretionary power given to Te Ohu Kaimoana to allow them to have some more flexibility when there are clear disputes that would otherwise hold up the process unnecessarily—and, look, the key thing here is actually not that they are making a judgment on the validity of any particular dispute, but they are able to instead say, “Well, OK, let’s park that dispute to the side, and, in the meantime, these other parties who we are confident in their claim, their allocation, or the willingness to get on and proceed—we can make a limited discretionary allocation on that basis to them to enable them to capture some of the opportunity in front of them at the time.”

So aquaculture in New Zealand, in my view, has a huge opportunity. There’s huge potential in that space, and I commend the Government for coming out with an ambitious strategy for aquaculture growth. We just now need to see that implemented, and we haven’t seen much detail around how that might actually roll out. The delivery of that, of course, will be the test for them, which will be measured over the next few years. But ultimately, that plan to grow the industry is a good one, and I’ve seen strong support for that amongst the aquaculture industry. When we consider that in any new aquaculture space that’s consented, 20 percent of that is allocated to iwi under the settlement basis, that presents a significant opportunity for those iwi players, as well, to develop those skills, to make that economic contribution, to provide jobs and employment within their particular rohe. So this is one of the key things that’s important in this particular bill.

As I mentioned, funding at the moment, that $16-odd million carried forward—hopefully we’ll be able to see a significant portion of that allocated out under the current financial year as a result of this bill progressing. So I think it’s quite ambitious. We’re looking at, what, a $600 million aquaculture industry. They’re wanting to go to $3 billion. That is ambitious, but I believe it can be achieved if we put the right processes in place. Part of that is actually overhauling the Resource Management Act (RMA), because the current RMA makes it incredibly difficult to consent new aquaculture space, and that is one of the key issues that the industry are facing. So when we talk about unlocking that potential—which is always a priority on this side of the House—and providing the platform that enables people to get on and do business, that’s one of the key factors that we really need to see addressed.

So I’m hopeful—always the optimist—that we might see some progress from the Government in that space that will enable the aquaculture industry—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: That’s a lot of optimism.

—to proceed. Yes, perhaps it is a lot of optimism, Mr Mitchell, but in the Waikato, that’s how we roll. So, look, I think I’ll wrap it up there. We’ve heard a good summary, as I said, from the Minister. We support the intent of the bill. There is massive potential here, and we always love the idea of being able to capture potential. So on that basis, we support the bill and look forward to it proceeding. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in support of this bill, because it’s returning settlement assets to iwi and it’s putting those settlement assets into their hands to ensure that it can grow the aquaculture industry, which is so important to our regions and to growing our food and export-led recovery.

We know that the aquaculture industry, as it grows, Māori will grow with it, because this is a prospective settlement. As it grows, 20 percent of it, whether it’s through space or cash, will be transferred to iwi. What we’re doing here is we’re just removing these little blockages which probably weren’t contemplated at the time when it was originally crafted, which will enable the trustee to be able to transfer those assets to those iwi that have been long waiting for those assets to be received. Likewise, those that may not agree, their assets will be preserved to a future time when they may be in a position to receive those assets.

So this is all about ensuring those assets can flow through so that we can continue with the growth of this exciting aquaculture industry. Can I support the Minister David Parker, the work of the select committee and all the submissions that were made on this bill. I commend it to the House.

Oh look, thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems somewhat strange to be speaking for the second time tonight supporting a Government bill. I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister and also my very learned colleague Tim van de Molen, who gave, I thought, a very good analysis of the situation. I’ve got the good fortune to represent the Coromandel electorate in this House, which has one of the longest coastlines in the country actually—of any electorate in the country. We’ve got a thriving aquaculture sector in my part of the world and one that has potential to grow significantly.

💬 Hon David Parker: Mangroves.

Well, no, that’s a subject that my predecessor used to get very exercised about in this House, but she’s now the mayor of the Thames-Coromandel District Council, so that falls well and truly into her sphere of influence, Minister.

So I didn’t have the opportunity to sit on the select committee but I do understand the issues that are at play in this bill and that are trying to be resolved and they are, as a previous speaker has said, an opportunity in this legislation to remove some of the little roadblocks that are preventing the distribution of the aquacultural assets. That’s probably a very good thing, because if we can free up the distribution of those assets to enable those assets to be used for the creation of greater opportunity, greater wealth, greater initiative in the aquacultural sector, then we on this side of the House are all for that. So I find myself twice in one evening having to support a Government bill. I know that the members on the other side will think that this is a rare and unusual rush of blood to the head, but on this occasion I think it’s probably deserved and I do support the bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on this. The iwi that presented to us in the submissions are looking forward to this passing quickly. They have been waiting for a very long time to be able to realise their aspirations when it comes to aquaculture, and I want to thank for that Chris Insley, who led the charge from Te Arawa Fisheries; Dickie Farrar from Te Whakatōhea; and Rikirangi Gage from Te Whānau-a-Apanui. They are passionate about aquaculture because they believe that, actually, we can do some really cool, really innovative stuff: offshore rainbow trout, offshore kingfish for premium seafood, offshore seaweed, offshore greenshell mussels for high value nutraceuticals, offshore scallops for premium seafood. All of these things are possible, but they haven’t been given the opportunity to be. This bill frees them up to be able to realise those aspirations, and for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

I call on Dr Liz Kerekere.

💬 Hon Member: Mōrena!

I’m awake! I’m paying attention! OK—thank you for the opportunity to take this short call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

Tim van de Molen: Good speech.

Yeah, I’m nearly done. At the first reading of this bill, we raised two issues that helped determine our support for it. The first was the level of consultation that went into the first creation of the bill, and that’s probably why there were so few submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee—that, generally, people were quite happy with what you had done, and the ones that you did receive were quite supportive. So I think that is a testament to the work of that committee, but also that that tautoko was because iwi saw that the powers given to the Te Ohu Kaimoana to allocate and transfer assets to iwi would advance their interests and their aquaculture opportunities. Importantly, it would allow iwi to progress their economic, social, and cultural objectives: their own tino rangatiratanga.

The select committee also heard that iwi were well over waiting to access their settlement assets, and then part of the problem creating that delay is the Government’s instance on large natural groupings, or regional negotiations, in its settlement processes. This practice is based on the colonial proposition that iwi which are small should all just get together and sort things out amongst themselves. We’ve experienced massive delays back home at Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa because of this. The Greens have long disputed this process that pits small iwi against each other while larger iwi have the mana to directly negotiate with the Crown. This process undermines the mana of smaller iwi and unnecessarily delays them having their assets returned to them. Unsurprisingly, some iwi have refused to engage with the process, which, inevitably, ends up in dispute. So, with this bill and Te Ohu Kaimoana given limited powers to resolve those disputes, we think that is a good thing.

One of the things we also notice with successive Governments is that they do not trust iwi to take care of their own assets. They require iwi to jump through multiple hoops and add heavy administrative and compliance burdens. For the Treaty settlement, we see this in the requirement for iwi to establish post-settlement governance entities, or PSGEs. As we have travelled the country to visit land occupations, we have heard from many iwi that their PSGEs are using their status, as the organisations with the cash, to override the wishes not only of the iwi leaders and their rūnanga and trusts but also the wider iwi. In the case of Māori aquaculture, iwi are required to establish iwi aquaculture organisations, or IAOs. Some submitters suggested that whānau and hapū should have greater recognition in decision-making in relation to those IAOs. Let’s remember that hapū signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, not iwi—hapū.

So one of the Green Party’s six priorities for our Māori priorities is that whānau, hapū, and iwi have a say in the issues that directly affect them. So we wholeheartedly agree with this; however, we understand it is outside the scope of this bill to have that better representation. Engari, in support of all the iwi just wanting to get on with their life and their work, and waiting for assets, which, let us always remember, were theirs in the first place, we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to take a short call on this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. This bill can only be considered to be a clear, concise, and transparent piece of legislation with full cross-party support of all the members of this House. Its premise is to give certainty to assets for those that own them in the commercial aquacultural industry. The bill seeks to allocate assets in aquaculture in the event that a dispute process is unable to be resolved. The bill has broad support of the respective iwi that were involved in the consultation process. As the member Mr van de Molen previously noted—and I quote—“potentially 600 million could be several billion with 3,000-odd people employed in the industry.”

What was noteworthy recently in select committee, in several conversations with New Zealand fisheries, it was suggested that the aquacultural industry could grow substantially. This bill seeks to streamline that process where discretionary powers are given to the trustee, Te Ohu Kaimoana, to allocate settlement assets to iwi. This ultimately allows for greater industry certainty.

The largest sum of the bill is found under clause 7 in replacement section 49, noteworthy of which new section 49B(2) states “a transfer of settlement assets … must be made in proportion to the length of coastline … relevant [to a particular] iwi who agree on a partial allocation and that the trustee is satisfied [and] is unlikely to be disputed.”

The overarching premise of this bill seeks to add clarity to assets and owners and gives certainty to iwi settlement claims to minimise disputes. Previously, the member Dr Kerekere noted in the first reading that Te Ohu Kaimoana and iwi had extensive consultation in support of this bill.

Obviously, this bill meets consensus across the House and gives further weight to supporting the bill in its entirety. The ACT Party, therefore, supports this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

This is an outstanding bill. We fully support what the Government is doing. We commend this bill to the House.

Brilliant, outstanding, wonderful bill. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a fantastic moment, and I commend this bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.