Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Jim: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting in view of the speeches made last night and at the beginning of the day by National Party members that there seems to be a lack of understanding as to why the 20 percent threshold is there. It is certainly not a misunderstanding on the part of the industry. Yesterday morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 with regard to the very matters that we are looking at in Part 5 stated: “The industry has never been opposed to the fisheries issues of the treaty settlement.” That is the exact view that I had confirmed for me by a major player in Northland on the weekend. And why is that? It is because in 1992 a threshold was set by the then National Government as to what would be a fair allocation of the fishery resource at that time. As I stated yesterday so important was that at the time that the then National Government shot the whole deed of settlement in its legislative form through in one sitting as it were—introduction second reading Committee stage and third reading took place all at once. That shows how keen the Government and particularly Dr Smith were at that time to “provide a full and final settlement” which is exactly the language of clause 59 in Part 5 of this bill. 
So New Zealand First came to this as I said yesterday with an understanding of the 20 percent threshold established. Therefore we took up the issue as Mr Woolerton did in the Primary Production Committee of providing for the allocation and management of aquaculture settlement assets. We found nothing incompatible with that notwithstanding the fact that in 1992 Peters I and Peters W voted against the deed of settlement. Since then we have maintained major clarity as to issues concerning Maori and fishing. 
However the issue before the Committee is whether that will work. I want to bring to the Committee’s attention the fact that there will not be a huge amount of space out there ready to be absorbed. In Northland there are 149 farmers at present and going through and taking the Minister and the Government at their word over the last 2½ years we have consulted widely. The industry’s wish for 135 sites has been finally narrowed down to 19. When we go back and look at the actual space those 19 farms will use it is very small. So there will not be a large amount of space out there notwithstanding the fact that some operators or industry developers may want to go for some of the large farms such as we have seen in Akaroa Opotiki and other places. But in general if we take into account the criteria set out in this bill define it and work through it with regard to the local community having regard to the requirements of the Resource Management Act there is not a vast amount of space available. 
So that 20 percent allocation for Maori will be a significant issue because the space is very small and it is additional space. I say again that in the thinking of the bill the committee has done very well under the Hon David Carter in the previous part in setting out the rights of those who at present hold consents or licences. Those rights have been upheld as they were not in the original bill and those people have security virtually for life. There is nothing much more that one could expect despite what was said yesterday by my friends on my left with regard to lifetime security. 
So for the part of New Zealand First we as a party with a great affinity with the Maori world are very conscious of what this can do and would do. It is not unfair it is principled and most of all it is based upon the National Government’s mind in 1992 in setting that threshold. In concluding may I say that I find it very strange that there is so much concern about our national assets by a party that willingly sold off Telecom and New Zealand Rail to the wider world.