Franks Stephen: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17743] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 5 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill has disgraceful provisions that bluntly appeal to race prejudice and appease threats as Mr Walton acknowledged. What was it he said—“head off trouble before it arises”? The provisions bluntly admit that they have nothing to do with the treaty. The clauses simply state that they relate to Maori commercial aquaculture claims settlements. There is nothing to do with the treaty in the heading and next to nothing to do with it in the clauses. Clause 61 “Settlement of claims” applies to all claims by Maori in respect of commercial aquaculture activities whether they are founded on rights arising in common law the Treaty of Waitangi or otherwise. Well they are otherwise founded because there is nothing in the treaty that justifies Maori claiming 20 percent—or any part—of aquaculture. Aquaculture was not even capable of ownership until a few years ago. Aquaculture is simply not capable of ownership until one can delineate and designate the areas that will be subject to it. It was not considered that we farmed the sea in that way. The notion that in some way the promise in the treaty of property rights and equal rights has been or could have been breached in relation to aquaculture is simply fanciful. 
Having noted the excellent speeches that have covered the general principles I want to look at some specific provisions. Clause 63A states that the space to be allocated to Maori must be of an economic size. It goes on to state under subclause (2): “However if it is not possible for a regional council to comply with … [that] the regional council must identify new space that is of an economic size even though the new space is not representative.” That will tie up local authorities iwi—or the iwi trustee—and other claimants before the courts for years. Councils are directed to find that 20 percent and to allocate it as representative of all the new space including a representative portion of amounts that are subject to reservations and then they are told that the space must be of an economic size. If a space is not of an economic size even though it is representative then councils must identify a new space that comprises a single area. Can members just imagine lawyers crawling over this legislation? It is all so subjective that anyone who wants to get a negotiating advantage will be able to tie this legislation up in court for as long as he or she wishes. Once again we will see our aquaculture tied up not because there is any justified claim but simply because of the delay in the procedure that this bill consciously sets out. 
It gets worse than that. When we look at allocations in respect of staged developments and harbours under clause 63B(1)(b) we see: “… that space must be representative of the new space available at each stage of the staged development or harbour;”. That 20 percent will obviously produce uneconomic areas. Some of the stages will be suitable for only one farm yet the space has to be given. We then go on to see that by the year 2014 the Government is supposed to have provided a value that is the equivalent of 20 percent of the existing space. The year 2014 is 10 years from now yet this process is expected to be still going on then. I believe that the National Party and the ACT party should make a pledge right now that the moment they get into power they will cancel the process and that if there is any space that has not been allocated at that stage all bets are off. It is a windfall in any event but there is no part of this racist provision that would survive longer than 60 days after the coming into power of an ACT and National Government. 
Certainly from ACT’s perspective we would vote to terminate a piece of racist theft like this the moment we had the ability to do so. It is quite possible to do so because this legislation contemplates that the process will go on for years. Anyone who has been involved in this bill knows and I am sure that the officials are well aware that none of the space will be allocated before the courts have crawled over it. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to address directly Rodney Hide’s question to the Committee tonight which was: how long do members think this settlement will last with this Government? We know that treaty settlements with this Government—full and final settlements—last only a matter of years. My answer to Rodney Hide as to how long this treaty settlement will last is simply to say that if he would take today’s Order Paper and flick through it he will find that 32 bills are listed under Government Orders of the Day and after those comes the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which has an aquaculture component. 
Debate interrupted.