Woolerton R Doug: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woolerton R Doug: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the speakers who preceded me and I do not want to be mean-spirited but to thank and congratulate the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee the Hon David Carter because I think that as the chairperson he did an excellent job. I want to thank my colleagues who worked diligently alongside me. I do not know how they would have got on without me but we got there in the end. But since the select committee hearing I have been disappointed with David Carter’s comments and I think that in many ways as Janet Mackey said he has become a victim of his own success. In fact all that was required to be delivered by this legislation was delivered and David Carter introduced to the select committee a very innovative way of dealing with problems that—and this is sincere praise—I appreciate and applaud. That is the ability to bring in people who are involved commercially in an industry to work directly with officials. That works very very well. So it is no surprise that as chairperson David Carter has been able through some changes and with the assistance of officials to achieve legislation that is accepted by the aquaculture industry and the players within that industry. With due respect it is legislation they are very happy with. I just wish that Mr Carter would accept the praise that I am sure others are happy to give to him and would not make mean-spirited speeches that first he does not believe in and second are not worthy of him. 
The aquaculture industry is indeed an exciting industry. We have heard Mr Eckhoff talk about how although it could earn many billions of dollars into the future that will not happen. I am sure that it will happen as time goes on but the industry has not reached the first billion yet. I am sure it will do so and this legislation will not stop it from doing that. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that an industry that takes up public space for private profit—and profit is not a bad word; we believe in profits and we say we have to have profits and we have to have this industry—should according to the ACT party have hardly any regulation at all. It is demeaning to our hard-working bureaucrats or advisers—call them what we will—that such a situation could exist. I want to praise those people for the minefield they have worked through in order to bring this legislation to fruition. There are multiple uses for the space that marine farms will occupy—not the least being its use by the public of New Zealand for swimming fishing or whatever else. All of those things had to be taken into account and the advisers have done that. 
It is interesting that throughout the submission process people talked about moving to Australia Argentina or somewhere else around the world because New Zealand was far too restrictive on the aquaculture industry. On further questioning and on talking privately to people one usually finds that a very interesting thing happens which New Zealand First actually applauds—that is that those people are going out and increasing their holdings in aquaculture farms throughout the world. They are not selling up their assets in New Zealand and moving to another country; they are retaining their assets in New Zealand and using the expertise they have gained here to increase their holdings in other countries. New Zealand First says that that is fantastic. It is what we encourage people to do. It is what our entrepreneurs in New Zealand should do and we applaud it. We just hope and trust—and I am sure it is so—that they bring the profits earned from overseas countries back to New Zealand and increase the living standards of us all. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What does Winston say? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: He has not had much to say on this legislation as a matter of fact. He rang me a wee while ago just to make sure that what I was saying was OK but he has not had much to say himself. 
I want to talk briefly about the business of giving 20 percent of the aquaculture space to Maori. We have stated many times—and this is that last time I will do it—that it is based on a precedent set in the fisheries legislation in 1992 which was pushed through the House by the previous National Government and which my leader Winston Peters voted against. Having set that precedent it is inconceivable that this industry could go ahead without a 20 percent allocation of space—not of aquaculture but of space—to Maori. If that were done Maori would immediately challenge that in the courts and they would win. So New Zealand First says that we accept that and that these things have to go forward in a sensible manner. We applaud the Government for accepting reality and moving on the issue. I know my ACT colleagues have said in a somewhat derogatory way that I have said we are trying to get away from a fight. Well it is not a case of getting away from a fight in a cowardly way; it is about foreseeing a potential problem and overcoming it. I think that the Government—in fact any Government—should be applauded for doing that. I say hallelujah and there should be more of it. It is not a matter of running away from a fight; it is about foreseeing and acting on a problem. 
It is also a fact that when I have talked about these situations on behalf of New Zealand First I have been accused of perpetuating the problem of treaty grievance. New Zealand First rejects that totally and we want to say quite clearly now that it is settlements like this that will avoid problems in the treaty process. This legislation is a sensible recognition of the facts of life in New Zealand in the 21st century. We do not want to go back to the dark old days when almost everything that was done caused problems with our fellow New Zealanders particularly with those who are Maori. So I reject the notion that New Zealand First is running away from some sort of a fight. We are not known for doing that. We commend the Government for the sensible inclusion in this legislation of things that are inevitable.