Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13764] 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Has he been informed of any reports which suggest that Maori currently own more than 20 percent of marine farming space around the coastline of New Zealand; if so why is he proposing to allocate 20 percent of marine farming space to iwi? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I have received reports that Maori have varying levels of interest in marine farming around the country. Nonetheless the Waitangi Tribunal has found that Maori have interests in marine farming that remain outstanding. The Government’s proposal recognises those outstanding interests and this proposal is intended to settle them in line with the 1992 deed of settlement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Government’s proposal iwi will not only get 20 percent of marine farming space but will be guaranteed up to 10 percent of space through treaty settlements and also retain the right to tender for general allocations of space; and does he think that the three opportunities given to Maori to tender for marine farming space compared with the single chance other New Zealanders have is fair? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. No the proposal is post-1992 and yes. One of the key elements of the proposal is dealing with the unfinished business of the 1992 deed of settlement without adversely affecting private business interests. Progressing that issue in the view of Government is critical to the progress of the aquaculture reform bill and the future of the aquaculture industry. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What reports has the Minister seen supporting the Government’s position on this issue? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen the  
Ahu Moana 
 report of the Waitangi Tribunal of December 2002 which states on page 50: “We note the response from the Minister of both Fisheries and Maori Affairs at the time the Hon Doug Kidd. He thought that the Treasury had wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system but he had personally forbidden Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions on the deed of settlement since it would confuse an already complex set of negotiations.” 
I am also pleased to see the former National Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Rt Hon Doug Graham commenting last week that the Government’s proposal for an allocation of 20 percent of post-1992 marine farming interests was very much “in line with the 1992 deed of settlement”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm by way of background information for the public that the 1992 settlement was opposed by one parliamentarian who was promptly expelled the next day from the National Party caucus and National then went on to give Doug Graham a knighthood—and what does one call that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have any responsibility for that but the member has made his point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect this is a very serious political issue. I may have gone too far in the last part of my question but I am entitled by way of background to have the facts that this House this Parliament and the press gallery know about put back in front of the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will disregard the last part of the member’s question. The member has asked whether the Minister can confirm a fact as it relates to his portfolio. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am clearly not as au fait with the matters of the time as the questioner is but I can confirm that the  
Hansard 
 of the debate makes extremely interesting reading and I commend it to all members of the House. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister sought clearance from the Coordinating Minister Race Relations Trevor Mallard that this 20 percent allocation to Maori is entirely needs-based and not race-based; if so what specific needs does this allocation address that are unique to Maori? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can assure the member that as these discussions—and discussions are what they are—of the Government proposal proceed then such considerations will clearly be taken into account. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt whatsoever to reply to a very clear question from my colleague and I ask that he be asked to at least attempt a response to the question asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought he addressed the question. 
Metiria 
 Turei 
: How can the Minister have any confidence that the 20 percent allocation will benefit all Maori as the 1992 deed of settlement intended when the current allocation model in the Maori Fisheries Bill excludes a large number of iwi and hapu because they do not have a coastal rohe boundary or are simply not included in the bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As the member will be aware the invitation from Cabinet is to Te Ohu Kai Moana to provide to Cabinet an allocation process for approval by my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs and myself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that section 5(1) of the 1992 settlement Act does not talk about the allocation of marine farming but does in fact state: “The settlement shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of Maori whether in respect of sea coastal or inland fisheries including any commercial aspect of traditional fishing rights and interests whether arising by statute common law including customary law and aboriginal title and the Treaty of Waitangi.”; if so why does he give the answer he gave to the primary question today? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It should be no surprise that the deed of settlement is silent on the issues of marine space given the prohibition I detailed earlier from the Minister of the time for that to be discussed as part of that settlement. Clearly this is unfinished business which that party was not prepared to face up to. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister sighted any other reports indicating support for this proposal? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I have. They include the following statement from Graham Coates executive officer of the New Zealand Marine Farming Association: “Using the tools that the Government has provided we can move forward. Anything that removes one of the hurdles has got to be a good thing. Let’s get on with things!”; Terry Schwass from the Port Mussel Company believes that the Government has chosen “the most sensible option”; Doug McKay chief executive of Sealord’s was reported in the  
Waikato Times 
 as telling a seafood conference last month that until law reform was settled there would be no investment in New Zealand aquaculture development. Second to last I quote from the editorial column of the  
NelsonMail: “ 
Criticism from deputy leader Gerry Brownlee and fisheries spokesman Phil Heatley is little more than predictable shallow politicking”; and finally from the Christchurch 
 Press— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does the Minister propose to get a 20 percent allocation of the marine farming industry to iwi when they currently own more than 20 percent of existing licences and space and will that mean he will buy back that space from iwi only to turn around and hand it back to them for nothing? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The answer to the last part of the question is no. In answer to the first part of the question clearly the Government has indicated that any acquisition of property would be on a willing-buyer and willing-seller basis. As I said in my answer to the member’s first supplementary question the Government’s prime intention in this matter is to achieve resolutions that are satisfactory to all parties the industry and iwi without interfering with private marine farming interests or private business interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of historical accuracy I seek to table the relevant  
Hansard 
 debate of the evening— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave to table an editorial from the Christchurch  
Press 
 commenting that National’s policy is especially hollow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that  
Press 
 editorial. Is there any objection? There is.