Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17716] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to agree with my learned colleague on what has been said in the Committee about the atrocious nature of the amount of aquaculture space being accorded to Maori through the process of this bill when I note that there is no justification for it because aquaculture has existed only in the last 40-odd years. So really where is the premise on which that allocation has been based? I think it is disgraceful. I note that the Greens think it is a logical sequence of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. I cannot understand why they would support that—or actually perhaps I can; it is the type of thing they would support. But why should they? If this is something that is new and did not exist in 1888 or whatever why should they be accorded that particularly or especially? Why will they have that ongoing advantage—and not only that the advantage of having authorities or organisations under the Tax Act that pay only 19.5c tax in the dollar? So there is no level playing field when it comes to their operations in regard to other operations which are managed by other organisations that do not have that exemption. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I shall resume my discussion on the 20 percent gift. In essence that is exactly what it is—a 20 percent gift to Maori if one applies for a plan change to undertake aquaculture marine farming in an area. [ 
Interruption 
] Does that come under the definition of koha? Well it does because a koha is a gift and that is a 20 percent gift. We have already had the brain drain as a result of the huge delay in this legislation coming to some form of finalisation. People have gone overseas to establish marine farming in other countries. So we have had a brain drain in that regard. Why would people want to even bother looking at marine farming further in New Zealand if they now have to give a 20 percent gift of that area they are applying for when they apply for a plan change? As we know if they want to establish a new area they have to go through a plan change under the Resource Management Act and that is after they have applied for authorisation from the Ministry of Fisheries. 
First they have to apply to the Ministry of Fisheries for an authorisation. When they get that they then apply for their plan change. Imagine if a farmer on land had to give up 20 percent of his or her farm if he or she applied for a consent or a plan change! That would be absolutely unthinkable. I cannot understand why the Government has gone anywhere near this when as I said before aquaculture is a new industry for New Zealand. It has not been historic or been part of the lifestyle or the culture of anybody before 1920 at the very least. It has been suggested that aquaculture has been around for about 40 years but certainly in the last 10. It has been a significant advance in innovation in our marine area but then of course it became absolutely stifled by the delays in coming to some sort of finalisation. 
We are appalled that there will be that 20 percent gift and by the time it is added up it will be looking like 40 percent. When one has to go through the processes that one has to go through the Department of Conservation can make life very difficult and add incredible cost to the whole process. The department can be an objector under the Resource Management Act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are talking to Part 1. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: We are talking about private plan changes under the Resource Management Act in Part 1. This whole section refers to the Resource Management Act and also crosses into all the other sections. However as we know the Resource Management Act is a pretty dreadful document when it comes to applying for anything. Of course the proposed amendments by this Government will make it incredibly worse especially when it is affording iwi authorities just about the same status as local authorities. When people apply for a plan change I do not think they will be prepared for the amount of time and money involved to go through that process. It will take only one or two applications for the whole thing to grind to a halt yet again. We have seen that on land and we will see that on water; people will halt the process to such a degree that the activity will be driven off shore. People will not want to invest yet again in another industry that has huge potential.