Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17774. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the title I wonder whether the bill could be called the “Mishmash Reform Bill” or the “Gift and Grievance Bill” because that is what the legislation will establish—it will establish a 20 percent gift. Contrary to comments made by a previous speaker National did not set that precedent way back in 1992. There was no precedent set to give Maori 20 percent of a new area that has been applied for in order to carry out aquaculture. Clearly that is a gift and I reiterate the concerns expressed by my colleague Dr Lynda Scott. We were supposed to have settled all grievances related to the fisheries in the deed of settlement. She read that out and it was quite clear that that was it—the finish. Now we are seeing through the process of this bill that that is not the case. So the public have cause to be duly alarmed and they will be. This will all come back to bite the current Government because it is totally unacceptable to be making a gift of 20 percent of the area to Maori on the establishment of new applications. 
I see that the iwi organisations are defined by referring back to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. They are drawn from mandated iwi organisations and there are opportunities to withdraw from them. It states that in the case of the iwi of Hauraki or the iwi of Te Aroha any iwi of a group may withdraw if it so chooses from the mandated iwi organisation of the group. That signals that iwi can withdraw from the current organisations. We have seen in this bill—the “Mishmash Reform Bill”—that under the disputes resolution processes in it iwi can compete. Because they are all going to want some of the aquaculture asset they will compete. So if an iwi is currently in an organisation it may want to break away from it and then compete for part of the 20 percent of the space that may be up for grabs. Iwi will certainly want to do that. Aquaculture is an industry that is on the rise although we have lost a huge amount of capability overseas. Because of the moratorium and the time it has taken to get things through the process a lot of our competent capable experienced and specialist people have gone overseas have taken their expertise to places like Australia and elsewhere and are setting up aquaculture activities there. 
This legislation is about gifts and grievance because the Maori Land Court will be clogged up with grievances as iwi dispute among themselves over who has rights and to what. Of course members will be aware that the iwi organisations as defined in the Foreshore and Seabed Act come under the definition of “Maori organisation” in the taxation Act which allows them to have a taxation rate of 19.5c in the dollar. That does not provide a level playing field so it is another preference that is being shown to Maori although it is not accorded to other operators of aquaculture activities. So there is one standard for one group as opposed to another. There definitely is not one rule for all and we see plenty of examples of that throughout this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cosgrove is trying to interject. He may like to take a call. Although he has been exhorted to take a call he has not done so. 
This bill is so messy that in clause 111(4) it states: “The purpose of this section is to present alternative arrangements for ease of reference and nothing in this section limits or affects the other provisions of this Part.” We have all sorts of listings of different parts of the bill for ease of reference which clearly illustrates that it is a bit of a mess. It is very hard to follow because so many different Acts are being amended. If we look at the heading of clause 141 we see it referred to the Resource Management Act 1997 and the date was then amended to 1991. For some reason the Minister must have thought there was a Resource Management Act of 1997 although I am not aware of it. Perhaps he may like to take a call.