Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17717] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I particularly wanted to raise the issue that has been raised by other speakers in this short debate with regard to new section 165C(1)(aa) and new section 165C(2A) in clause 21. They refer directly to the issue of the so-called Maori allocation. I want to establish the exact position of New Zealand First. 
In the first reading debate I raised the issue of the 20 percent threshold. As a caucus we carefully went back through this issue as it became more and more clear that 20 percent would be set down as the threshold. When I started to look at why that should be I came to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act which has already been much quoted in the Chamber this afternoon. I found that a memorandum signed by the Crown and Maori set the level at 20 percent. At that time the National Government—and I was hoping Dr Nick Smith would be here because he was here at that time—did a most extraordinary thing. It moved the first reading second reading Committee stage and third reading all at once because it was so keen to implement that newly discovered threshold of 20 percent. Therefore when I heard the Hon Nick Smith say earlier that the 20 percent allocation was based on race I reflected back to 1992 and saw very very clearly that that allocation had been set then with regard to the narrow issue of fisheries. 
When I went one stage further and looked at the material and documentation brought to the House at that time I found that it was very difficult as has been already stated by one member to see whether that was so. But in reality I believe that the National Party should have credit for its Government’s far-sighted move back then which by the way was opposed by I Peters and W Peters. It was a very far-sighted move on its part. Rather than go back in time as the Hon Nick Smith did it is far better to see that that threshold is one that we have come to understand—unwillingly on our part—should stand in this legislation. The National Government at the time with the Hon Doug Kidd and the Hon Doug Graham set it down. By the way other members of the House who were here at that time have verified for me that although it was not formally discussed it was mentioned in caucus and in relevant discussions at the time. That has come from members of the then select committee. 
Hon David Carter 
: No that’s wrong. 
JIM PETERS 
: The member who has called out that is wrong was not here at the time; he does not know exactly what we are referring to so his “wrong” is right! 
I want to say very firmly again that what the National Government did right back in 1992 has clarified for New Zealand First members where we should stand in 2004. In so doing we know that there are immense complications in this matter when it comes to Maori iwi having to resolve what should be in my mind a hapu and whanau issue. But we accept the bill because we also accept that it gives a huge economic and social opportunity to the country but particularly to my region of Northland. The process with regard to aquaculture management areas being identified of setting aside a 20 percent piecemeal allocation for Maori is a very small concession to pay on the part of would-be marine farmers in regard to their total ability to have investment and have a future such as we know this industry can achieve.