Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17770. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In talking to the title clause clause 1 I point out to anyone who has been following the debate over the last day or so that this is nothing about reforming aquaculture. It is about getting rid of the incompetence of the previous Minister Pete Hodgson whose response to difficulties within the aquaculture industry was to impose a moratorium. It was too hard for the Minister to handle and he did not have the intellectual grunt to sort it out so he hands it over to David Benson-Pope who the Prime Minister thought had the intellectual grunt to sort out the aquaculture industry. That is why the Primary Production Committee had to spend something like 70 hours sorting out this mess for the Government. We should be calling this bill the “Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry Reform Bill” because that is what this legislation will do. This legislation extends the issue of grievance associated with the Treaty of Waitangi into the next generation the generation after that and generations after that. 
The legislation does not provide for the settlement of Maori grievances—quite the opposite. The submitters who came before the select committee particularly Maori said that this would not settle anything. Maori said: “We will take the gift if you are silly enough to give us up to 40 percent of aquaculture space. We will take it but don’t expect that we are bound to a settlement because you have never negotiated with us.” 
That is where this Government is making such a mistake. If there are grievances associated with the Treaty of Waitangi then they should sit around the table to sort them out and sort them out the way the National Party did with Ngai Tahu in 1996. But I say to you Minister that you cannot negotiate a settlement by decree. You cannot negotiate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should not bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not want to bring the Chair into the debate. I want to bring the Minister into the debate. I would be delighted if the Minister would come into the debate instead of sitting there fiddling with his comics and not prepared to take calls. Actually I would be delighted if anybody in the Labour Party came into the debate. Janet Mackey was on the select committee as deputy chair. Has she taken one call on the Aquaculture Reform Bill? We then had Clayton Cosgrove who did take just one call—he sought a closure. He was so embarrassed. He knows that this legislation will not be popular in the Waimakariri electorate. He knows that it is race-based legislation so he took one call to close down the debate. 
But we have other Labour members on the select committee. We had the Hon Harry Duynhoven. He sat through most of the debate over the last day or so but I do not think that he took a call. Does anybody remember Harry Duynhoven taking a call? They will not because he did not I tell the Minister. He was not allowed to take a call. 
Finally we had the Hon Dover Samuels. He is the member from the Labour Party who promised to deliver proof to the select committee that there was unfinished business associated with the Treaty of Waitangi settlement. He evaporated on that promise because he does not have any proof of unfinished business. So I say that I had no intention of bringing the Chair into the debate but I would be delighted to bring any member of the Labour Party into the debate. That is the purpose of the legislation— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Give us a good speech. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh Lianne Dalziel is going to take a call. She would know nothing about aquaculture. If she did take a call one would have to wonder whether it was the truth anyway. 
The other thing that we have before the Committee today is not one Supplementary Order Paper but four Supplementary Order Papers after the bill left the Primary Production Committee. The bill was reported back was meant to be ready for passing and the Minister found not one mistake but four mistakes associated with the drafting.