Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17752. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Here is the bottom line. The 1992 fisheries settlement went through negotiation and discussion a deed was signed the assets were put into Te Ohu Kai Moana over a period of 12 years the issues about allocation were resolved and this year the Maori Fisheries Bill was passed giving power for that allocation to happen. With this aquaculture treaty settlement which the Minister of Fisheries thinks is full and final there has been no negotiation. The Minister cannot table any deed of settlement. Goodness knows how long Te Ohu Kai Moana will be arguing and chasing its tail going round and round in circles in order to get an allocation acceptable to anyone and here we have legislation that will pass aquaculture space into Maori ownership! 
Maori have said themselves that they do not accept this as a settlement. That is what they have told us. They have said that no one negotiated with them no one signed a deed of settlement with them. They reject this as a settlement. That tells us only one thing and that is that the Indians are coming over the hill again—that there will be another claim on aquaculture space. So why does the Minister not admit to this House that Part 5 “Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement” is simply a horse-trading deal with Maori whereby if the Government throws Maori 20 percent of aquaculture space Maori will be satisfied over the seabed and foreshore deal? That is what this is all about and it has satisfied no one. 
Maori came to the select committee quite concerned. They were worried that they would end up with two worthless things. One was aquaculture space designated to them by regional councils that they never would have chosen for themselves and the second was aquaculture space that was so small and insignificant—for example 20 percent of a development of 5 hectares which would give them 1 hectare—it was of no use or value to them whatsoever. They could not understand why the Government did not negotiate with them over this. We set them right and the lights went on. “Ah!” they said “This is to buy our silence.” Even the dim light of Doug Woolerton went on. He went: “Ah I see now. This is a deal. We’re tossing Maori 20 percent of aquaculture space and they’re to shut up about the seabed and foreshore legislation. The Government is trying to buy them off.” When the lights went on in Maoridom and the dim light of Doug Woolerton shimmered everyone understood what was going on. Part 5 talks about that. 
I can tell members that Maori submitters and the member from Gisborne will concede this were concerned that there was no negotiation no settlement and they are wondering whether they should come back for more. I am intrigued that this particular so-called treaty settlement—I shall call it a pseudo - treaty settlement—is post-1992. Maori can still make claims pre-1992. Here is a question for the Minister: if Maori can make claims pre-1992 and this settlement is post-1992 what did New Zealanders do to Maori after 1992 that means they deserve 20 percent of aquaculture space? What have we done in the last 14 years— 
Hon David Carter 
: Go to a Labour Government. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Is that what it was? What have we done in the last 12 to 14 years that means for some reason we owe Maori 20 percent of aquaculture space?