Smith Nick: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17741] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What is so important about this debate on Part 5 is that New Zealanders have learnt that the only two parties in this Parliament that can be relied upon to bring an end to the treaty grievance industry are the National and ACT parties. I find it particularly extraordinary that New Zealand First which campaigned on ending the grievance industry would vote for Part 5 which will result in hundreds of millions of dollars of resource being handed over. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: A bit of extra water. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Doug Woolerton that people in Hamilton may not understand what aquaculture means but that we in Nelson and Marlborough do. This part is as good as writing out a cheque to Maoridom for $200 million or $300 million or more. That the young member Darren Hughes does not give a hoot about handing away public resource solely on the basis of race is one reason why those members opposite will lose their seats at the next general election. It is so interesting to reflect back on the 1992 fisheries settlement. 
Jim Peters 
: Were you there? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have looked at the  
Hansard 
. As my colleague David Carter quite properly asked when was it ever stated back in 1992 that aquaculture was unfinished business? Who said that? Did Winston Peters ask in 1992 about aquaculture? No he did not. Did any member of the Labour Party ask in 1992 about aquaculture? Did Rick Barker—who is over-excited and who knows that he is wrong that he is further in the treaty grievance industry and that this is unprincipled legislation based solely on dishing out public resources on the basis of race—or any other Labour member say at the time of the settlement that aquaculture was unfinished business? I have looked through every single page of the  
Hansard 
 
and not one member of the House said anywhere that there was a further issue with regard to commercial fishing and aquaculture. 
Jim Peters 
: You voted for a 20 percent threshold. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell members to hang on for a second. The New Zealand First member Jim Peters campaigned at the last election on ending the grievance industry. The member was going to end it. That has to be the biggest have ever. Let me tell members how it will work. One of my constituents whom I met at the weekend has worked in the aquaculture industry for 30 years. He is a good Kiwi battler. He is one of the pioneers of that industry. He has created an industry that creates hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth for our country. We are saying to that 55-year-old Nelsonian: “Sorry bud you missed out. Your skin is the wrong colour. Because you are not Maori you will be treated as a second-class citizen when it comes to allocating aquaculture space.” I say to Mr Benson-Pope that that is wrong. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says ‘No”. Let us look at what Part 5 states. The Minister in the chair is saying that Maori will get access to that aquaculture space due to their having preferential treatment over anybody else. What is it about Labour members who believe that somehow Maori are inferior? They are New Zealanders like everybody else. They have the same right to go to their regional council to apply for aquaculture space so why in this part are we giving them additional rights? Why will they automatically get 20 percent of the space? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You set a precedent. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Woolerton the member from Hamilton—who campaigned on ending treaty grievances and who will allocate another $200 million to the Maori bureaucracy—and to those in New Zealand First that every New Zealander now knows that New Zealand First members cannot be relied upon. There will be no full and final settlements while this sort of policy is adopted.