Smith Lockwood: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17715] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The Minister owes the Committee the respect to explain some of the complex issues contained in Part 1. I want to focus particularly on something said by my good colleague David Carter the chair of the Primary Production Committee. As chair he has some detailed knowledge of this bill; I confess that I do not—I am just reading the bill as it is in front of us. What I think deserves clarification is the issue around the new sections inserted by clause 21 starting probably at about new section 165X. The Primary Production Committee by majority inserted a whole new section 165Y going through to section 165Z and to 165ZA. 
I would like the Minister to focus on those sections in particular because they relate to where an individual seeks a change. It seems that the select committee suggested that the word “plan” should be dropped and it has suggested “request for change”. As I understand it these sections cover changes to areas that are covered by aquaculture. What is important is what exactly is meant here. There have been allegations that if an individual seeks a change—and the individual is going through all the expense of seeking the change—and should a council grant that change 20 percent of any area would be allocated to Maori. 
I think the Minister spoke to the Chair Ross Robertson to indicate that that may not be covered by this part—if I correctly interpreted the Chair’s hand signals. They were such that he wanted my good colleague David Carter to come back to this part of the bill. What is troubling me though is that it seems that this part does refer to this issue. I draw the Minister’s attention to new section 165ZA “Acceptance of request or part of request for change” which all goes back to section 165X and the issue of request for changes. What it actually states under subsection (1) is: “If the regional council accepts the request under clause 25(2)(b) of the First Schedule the council must specify that the person or persons who requested the plan change are to receive an authorisation under section 165ZB for 80 percent of the available space in the aquaculture management area.” It seems to me that the difference between 80 percent and 100 percent is 20 percent. The question is: what happens to the other 20 percent? Is that the 20 percent that is being actually withheld and allocated to Maori or is that in addition to 20 percent that has already been required to be allocated to Maori? This is what I believe that listeners deserve to be advised on and I would appreciate if the Hon Damien O’Connor would take a call—and I think he is one of the better Ministers in this Labour Government. I have to confess that I think he is actually a darn sight better Minister than the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
But the public does deserve to know what this means. Does it mean that where a change is requested—an additional area perhaps; say an existing aquaculture farmer for want of a better word has sought a change and been able to expand his or her operations and goes into a new area—in accepting this request the council has to allocate only 80 percent? Will that remaining 20 percent be allocated to Maori? Is that totally separate? If not where does that 20 percent go? Or is that 20 percent in addition to an overall 20 percent allocation that is being made to Maori out of aquaculture allocations in New Zealand? Because we hear it said from those who have been on the Primary Production Committee that in fact to bring Maori up to 20 percent overall 40 percent of new allocations could be going to Maori. 
I just think that the public of New Zealand deserves an explanation because clearly these clauses I am referring to refer to changes. They refer to what someone will have to go through and pay for if he or she is seeking an expansion to an existing aquaculture area. We deserve to know because it is not clear from the new sections. Does this mean if there is a new area to be allocated to an existing farm and he or she goes through the aquaculture operator or through the cost of seeking it 20 percent of that new area will be allocated to Maori?