Smith Nick: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17790. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori seats to Tariana Turia and the Maori Party so it is prepared to throw away all principle and all good government in a simple crude attempt to buy back Maori 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 Maori. 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.