Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15122] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 For those who are now unsure what legislation we are talking about after that contribution from the junior Government whip it is the Aquaculture Reform Bill which National will oppose and oppose vigorously. It has to be the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation that I have ever seen introduced into this House—the most incompetent piece of fisheries legislation ever introduced into this House. The other aspect of it to which I am opposed is that it is the most racially biased legislation we have yet seen delivered by this Labour Government. 
The reform of legislation around aquaculture is long overdue—of that there can be no doubt. I think it is worthy to recall Labour’s first response. Jill Pettis now says she is pleased with the leadership and the speedy moves to resolution. Labour’s first response to this issue was to impose a moratorium back on 28 November 2001. That moratorium— 
Phil Heatley 
: I thought the moratorium was their second response. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The next response which I will talk about shortly was a further moratorium. The Government imposed the first moratorium and said that it would use that time to sort out its position. To be fair to the bungling David Benson-Pope the current Minister of Fisheries that legislation was advanced by Pete Hodgson who after a disastrous performance was finally sacked by the Prime Minister because he could not make progress on that effort. The Government gave itself 3 years to prepare that legislation. Towards the end of its self-imposed deadline on the first moratorium—namely 25 March 2004—what was its response but to rush back into the House and pass another piece of legislation which was the second moratorium for that particular important industry. 
That was after poor old Mr Hodgson had gone up and down the country promising the industry that his response to the first moratorium would not be to impose a second moratorium. Because of Mr Hodgson’s disastrous leadership in that industry he was finally replaced by Mr David Benson-Pope who has produced what I think will prove to be some of the worst and certainly the most poorly drafted legislation we have seen presented to the House. 
The second point I make is that while this industry has been constrained by legislation it has not been able to make the contribution it could have to the wealth of this nation. The industry is currently worth $340 million exporting close to 70 percent of that amount. Industry spokespeople are on record as saying that by 2020 providing they are given the opportunity it could be a billion-dollar industry. What has the Government done to reap that potential? 
This legislation was presented to the House 2 days ago on 24 August and then surprisingly when the Minister made his contribution to the first reading he effectively gave the select committee 2 months to work on it. The committee has to bring it back to the House by 29 November 2004. That date is closely connected to the seabed and foreshore legislation; this legislation is nothing but a blatant bribe and an attempt to buy Maori support on that issue. Of the 3 months given to the committee 1 month will be lost to advertising for submissioners and giving them the opportunity to prepare their submissions. We will receive hundreds of submissions and the select committee will not have the opportunity to give them due consideration. 
David Benson-Pope is shaking his head. He could not care less because he knows that he has given the select committee an impossible task in consulting with the industry. He has every intention of simply ignoring the work done by the select committee including by members of his own party as he has done with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill came back into the House with the recommendation that it not be passed and the incompetent bungling David Benson-Pope pushed on regardless. The Minister should ask why he is sending it to the select committee if the whole process will be just a sham because of the timetable. 
The most controversial part of this legislation is the Government’s move to give 20 percent of current space to Maori and 20 percent of future space to Maori. I listened with huge interest to the contribution from John Tamihere who obviously got the Prime Minister’s permission to make a contribution today. His history of the deed of settlement signed in 1992 is simply not fact. He talked about the involvement of Doug Graham. I spoke to Doug Graham personally and asked him for the history around the 1992 deed of settlement. The House has to realise that that deal was cobbled together in a matter of weeks because suddenly an opportunity developed with Brierley Investments Ltd selling out of Sealord’s. There was no mention of aquaculture despite the contribution from John Tamihere earlier. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Doug Kidd took it off the table that’s why. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It was not mentioned in the agreement and if David Benson-Pope manages to get off his chuff and read the deed of settlement he will note that aquaculture is not included. It refers to giving Maori 20 percent of species that come into the quota management system. Today this legislation is an attempt to extend the deed of settlement well past the quota management system. We are not about to bring aquaculture into the quota management system. This is about space for aquaculture and it was never mentioned in the deed of settlement. 
I want to talk about one particular clause in the 1992 deed of settlement. I refer David Benson-Pope to clause 5.1. Maori signed that and this is what it states: “Maori agree that this Settlement Deed and the settlement it evidences shall satisfy all claims current and future”. This Government is today driving yet another division into race relations in New Zealand by giving Maori the opportunity to reopen the debate. Maori signed the deed of settlement in 1992 as full and final but because the Government is totally embarrassed over the seabed and foreshore legislation it has done this crafty deal by giving Maori far more than they expected and giving them 20 percent of space. I say to David Benson-Pope that it is a race for space and that he should be ashamed of himself. 
 National will vigorously oppose this legislation. Hundreds of submissions will not be given a reasonable hearing at the select committee because David Benson-Pope has done a deal with the Maori caucus on this legislation— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That member should stand aside. He is clearly prejudiced. He is the chair of the committee. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now the Minister calls me prejudiced because I raised the issue. That is just so typical of the Labour Party. We had Jill Pettis interjecting earlier when another member raised this issue and she referred to him as a racist. It is time the Government was prepared to debate the issues based on the facts. Government members should read the deed of settlement signed by everybody including the Rt Hon. Doug Graham but they should not attempt to rewrite history to get themselves out of an embarrassing position over the seabed and foreshore because that is what they are doing. 
I tell David Benson-Pope that it is not me who is prejudiced. It is the honourable member himself if he is prepared to support this sort of legislation. What it will do is just continue to divide race relations in this country and to suggest that I am the one who is prejudiced is the most insulting remark and probably the most inane remark that that Minister has ever passed across this House. 
I conclude by saying that the future of the fishing industry is in aquaculture. The Government needs to find a way of moving it forward without rancour and prejudice. That is not what this legislation achieves. I oppose the legislation vigorously.