Scott Lynda: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Scott Lynda: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I want to follow on from where my honourable colleague David Carter left off. This debate is not just about the eight iwi at the top of the South Island. We are talking about hapu and whanau as well. How will it be decided who has access to the 20 percent of aquaculture management areas? It is extremely difficult. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds at a place called the Portage Resort Hotel. It is a really lovely tourist hotel and was a wonderful place to grow up in. I always remember that on the wall we had this big painting of Maori carting their canoes over from the Kenepuru Sound to the Queen Charlotte Sound. That is why the area is called Portage—Maori used to take their canoes across at that lowest point. 
There are many different Maori groups that do not put up a wall gate or fence to say that a bit of land is theirs. They live in an area and move to other areas. They were a very mobile society. We all know that Te Rauparaha used to come down and wage war in this area. There would be huge casualties; whole hapu would get wiped out and then other people would move into that area some time later. The disputes will be very difficult to sort out. 
A Maori chap came into my office a few years ago and said—I always remember him saying this—that when there was no land no fisheries and no money people did not care but “now we do”. He was in dispute with his brother over a patch of resource that he would have liked. 
Hon David Carter 
: Plenty for the Maori Land Court. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: That is right. Where do people go? The whole of Part 6 directs people to the Maori Land Court to sort out their disputes. There will be massive disputes. Ian Ewen-Street gave an example before that if Maori are looking at a coastal area or an inland tidal area and if they happen to be from a hapu or iwi that was based out on the coast and there is aquaculture in a lagoon they would want to claim rights to the lagoon. They will miss out. But members can bet their life that they will not want to miss out so there will be a dispute. Some Maori will say that there were plenty of times when they planted crops and harvested food from that lagoon. What happens if eight different iwi all claim the same space and we cannot sort it out because at different times they did all use that land? Will they get one-eighth each? Is that what will happen? 
Nobody knows how this issue of 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be resolved. That is the whole problem with Part 5 and Part 6. There was no deed of settlement. Maori have not accepted this legislation; it has been foisted on them. Sure they will take the 20 percent—who would not take a free handout from the Government? Everyone will do that if the Government is silly enough to give it. But there was no deed of settlement. It has not been worked out with Maori. The whole of Part 6 sets up mediation disputes resolution the procedures of the court and how a judge will make determinations. 
In those situations there are costs. This legislation will cost New Zealand more. The 20 percent of aquaculture going to Maori will cost and then there are the costs under Part 6. We do not even need Part 6. It does not need to be in the bill because we do not need the deal whereby 20 percent of aquaculture management areas will be handed out to Maori. The Government has done this to try to buy off the anger associated with the seabed and foreshore legislation and make Maori a little happier with it so that it might get a few votes at the next election and not have the Maori Party clean it out. That will happen. 
Maori in this situation have said—and we have heard Maori members say in this Chamber—that they do not accept this. So we will see disputes. Earlier I read out the deed of settlement from the 1992 fisheries legislation which clearly stated that it was a full fair and final settlement. I think that will go down in New Zealand history. How many full fair and final settlements will we see in this country?