Hide Rodney: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17737] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The country now has an answer to the question of how long full and final settlement lasts. I used to say that it was probably a generation but it is actually half a generation—it is now 12 years. That is how long full and final settlement lasts in New Zealand. New Zealanders as represented by the Crown can negotiate in good faith and achieve a full and final settlement. Then 12 years later it is renegotiated and once again the taxpayer of New Zealand forks out. 
I can understand why the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope is not prepared to stand and defend this most important part of the bill. It is indefensible because as we have heard from the Hon David Carter this entire part of the bill is based on a lie—it is. The lie is that somehow when full and final settlement was negotiated in 1992 aquaculture was “unfinished business”. Ministers of the Crown promised to produce proof of that. They promised that to Parliament but could produce nothing. We just have to read the commentary on the bill to learn that it states: “The basis of the claim to the Tribunal was Maori concern”—members should note this well—“over their ongoing access to coastal space to undertake marine farming …”. Where is the property right concern or question in that statement? Does that mean that any group in New Zealand can come along and say it has a concern about access to Doug Woolerton’s farm or to Dover Samuels’ motel? Would that mean that Parliament would meet under urgency and give them all 20 percent of the area? I do not think so. 
That point proves something else about this Government and sadly about what is happening to this country. Our country our legislation and our policies are becoming riddled with race-based preferences that are available only to people of a certain skin colour and genetic origin. It does not matter how many times Helen Clark stands on a public platform or in this Chamber to pretend and say that a particular measure is based on need. This legislation gives the lie to that claim. There is only one thing that is driving the 20 percent reservation of the area for Maori and that is race. It is not based on a property right claim or on the Treaty of Waitangi. It is simply based on a racial preference. What is the logic of a 20 percent reservation? With whom was the 20 percent negotiated? David Benson-Pope cannot stand and say that the Government went through a negotiation process for the 20 percent. I say that the figure was plucked out of the air. 
What can New Zealanders assume about how long this measure will last as full and final? Will it be 12 years? Will it now be 10 years? It is clear that we have set up an incentive for one racial group in New Zealand just to bitch whine and complain to the Government and for the Government to come along offer it 20 percent and ask whether that will keep it quiet. That is what this Government is doing to New Zealand. Is that the way to develop an industry? I do not see Doug Woolerton saying that dairy farmers should hand over 20 percent of their farms because there is concern over access. 
I was astonished to learn that New Zealand First was supporting legislation like this bill which is race based. I can understand the Labour Party doing that because it speaks with a forked tongue. But I thought that New Zealand First prided itself on there being one law for all New Zealanders and on not supporting race-based preferences. I know that David Benson-Pope is a useless Minister. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t say that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well when that member was a Minister she would take a call.