Smith Nick: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17701] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 After hearing that contribution from Clayton Cosgrove I now know why Kate Wilkinson will be the next member of Parliament for Waimakariri. At heart this bill is against everything that Trevor Mallard the so-called Coordinating Minister Race Relations promised. Supposedly at the beginning of the year this Government was going to eliminate all race-based politics. That is what we were told but this bill is proof that Labour is more interested in buying votes than in being fair to all New Zealanders. This bill is all about two very different standards of citizenship. With this bill a public resource worth hundreds of millions of dollars is being allocated to a group of people based on race. The National Party— 
John Tamihere 
: Based on rights. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I suppose it is the same sorts of rights Mr Tamihere thought he had to the $200000 golden handshake that he promised he would not take; the same sorts of rights he believed he had to a car paid for by the Wairapeira Trust when he already had a car provided by— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I refer members on my right to Speaker’s ruling 56/1(1) which states that interjections are to be rare and reasonable. They should not be a running commentary. If members want to make a speech they can take the next call. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill reinforces everything that New Zealanders dislike about this Labour Government. It is saying that if people are non-Maori New Zealanders— 
Mark Peck 
: National down! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One of the reasons Mr Peck has decided to throw away his seat in Invercargill is that he knows that the people there do not want to live in a country where the opportunities to create wealth are based on race not fairness. Trevor Mallard promised there would be complete race neutrality in the policies of this Labour Government. There is anything but that in this bill. 
Let us reflect back on the history of the fisheries settlement in 1992 the provisions of which were absolutely comprehensive. The settlement was to satisfy all claims current and future in respect of all commercial-fishing rights. This deed of settlement defines commercial-fishing rights as those that require a fishing permit under the Fisheries Act. If we look up what the Fisheries Act requires in terms of aquaculture we note that to have an aquaculture farm a person requires a fishing permit. There can be no question at all that the 1992 settlement involved aquaculture yet no member of the Government has been able to explain why the gravy train has been reopened. Under Labour full and final settlements do not mean full and final. Labour is happy to reopen the chequebook if it suits its political agenda. 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the judge say about this man? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite want to get into all sorts of irrelevancies because they cannot defend what they are doing in this regard. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since I have been on my feet I have faced a continuous barrage of interjections. I have heard three in the last minute in respect of what members opposite claim was a conviction. That is factually incorrect and it has been clarified by you on many occasions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter would not have been in  
Hansard 
 in that regard and I was trying to help the member out. Now that he has drawn attention to the matter there will be no further interjections on it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we go back to the 1992 settlement we will see as I have carefully explained that it did include aquaculture because it was full and final settlement of all matters yet members opposite have reopened the chequebook. Let us ask the question why they have done that. Well it is actually very simple. When the foreshore and seabed issue arose the Government got itself into difficulty. It lost one of its Maori MPs then searched out as to how it could buy back some support. So in April the Government suddenly got extremely generous about throwing away rights that should have been shared by all New Zealanders and providing them exclusively for Maori. I say again that that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy because all New Zealanders should have an equal right to apply for and develop marine farms in this country. To have a race-based system under this Labour Government whereby people of one ethnicity have different rights is quite simply wrong. 
I also want to reflect on another botched process by the Minister Mr David Benson-Pope. Only last week we were in urgency dealing with legislation that was being rushed through under that Minister and here we are back in the House again once more in urgency dealing with matters promoted by that same Minister. The tragedy is that the aquaculture industry was put under a moratorium by this Government a long 4 years ago. During the 1990s under National’s careful stewardship we saw— 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will put my record on it. I ask members: do you know how much the aquaculture industry expanded— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do not bring me into the debate please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You are so finicky with me Mr Speaker and so inadequate with every— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now resume his seat. His speech is terminated. I am not having that sort of rudeness. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what I am talking about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.