Carter David: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Aquaculture is an exciting industry full of potential that in recent years has been totally stifled by the Labour Government. The Government’s response to challenges regarding the future of aquaculture was to impose a moratorium. Then when it was still bereft of ideas it took the opportunity to extend that moratorium. I am pleased today to be associated with legislation that finally lifts the moratorium on aquaculture and allows this exciting industry to develop to its potential. It is potentially a billion-dollar export industry for New Zealand. We parliamentarians have a duty today to pass legislation that allows that industry to get on and do the job. I sadly think this legislation will not prove to be of huge assistance. 
It became evident to the Primary Production Committee that other countries embrace the potential of aquaculture. Committee members heard about New Zealand marine farmers—both large and small operators—who have now relocated part of their enterprises to Australia. Australia makes it easy for aquaculture and New Zealand makes it hard. Representatives of other companies came to the select committee and talked about those companies’ substantial potential investment in countries like Chile. 
This legislation still makes it costly to operate in our environment. It is costly to get a consent. We have a process now whereby aquaculture will be within the regime of the Resource Management Act but that means it will pick up the warts and the difficulties still associated with that Act. It means that anybody who proposes aquaculture must be involved in a consent process that gives everybody the chance to have a say. People who have no standing at all still have the potential to object to an aquacultural proposal. What is even worse is that in many cases some of those environmental organisations whether they are based in Auckland or in Queenstown can make an objection to proposals for aquaculture in for example the Marlborough Sounds. If they form themselves correctly they can actually apply for and obtain legal aid to do so. That is a nonsense. 
If one manages to get through the Resource Management Act process one still has to contend with the Department of Conservation. In this legislation that the Government will pass today we stupidly have given a provision whereby the Minister of Conservation can veto a proposal. That will not give the industry the certainty that people want. 
I move now to the most contentious part of this legislation—the Government’s decision to gift to Maori up to 40 percent of new space— 
Janet Mackey 
: That is not true. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member says that is not true. She should have paid more attention and not doodled at the select committee. Under this legislation Maori will get up to 40 percent of new space to be created so that at the end of a 10-year period they will have 20 percent of the aquaculture space that has been created since 1992. I say to Janet Mackey that that is the absolute truth. 
The Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope has pushed this legislation through the Labour Cabinet and caucus without foundation and without principle. The saddest thing is that we are now seeing a proliferation of the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry. Maori themselves came before the select committee and said that they would accept this gift but that they did not see it as a settlement because they had not been involved in the process. We are gifting this huge resource to Maori who will come back and say they are entitled to more. 
I take the opportunity to correct yet again the Minister who claimed that there was unfinished business associated with the 1992 fisheries settlement. The select committee sought proof of this unfinished business but was unable to obtain any proof of it at all yet the Minister came to the House today and again said that Doug Kidd had forbidden the inclusion of aquaculture in the discussions. That is not so. That has been proven and that information was given to the select committee. What Doug Kidd was not prepared to do was to allow discussion on aquaculture coming into the quota management system. Treasury had a report at the time proposing that aquaculture come into the quota management system and Doug Kidd said that no that was not on the agenda. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: He took it off. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He certainly took that off the agenda. He said that aquaculture would not come into the quota management system. But David Benson-Pope came to the House and misinformed us saying that Doug Kidd would not allow aquaculture to be discussed. That is absolutely untrue and what is more the member knows it. 
Part of the documentation that was presented to the select committee was the Gardiner and Parata report that I referred to earlier. I will read today the comments of Sir Tipene O’Regan. I respect his words. He negotiated fairly and honestly on the Ngai Tahu settlement. He was asked in 2002 about his recollection of whether aquaculture had been deliberately included in or excluded from the 1992 settlement. In answer to that question he said: “The settlement was about commercial fisheries rights. Such rights include aquaculture.” That is the National Party’s stand in the House today. The 1992 settlement was full and final it was signed by Maori as full and final yet the Government is undoing that work today with the passing of the aquaculture reform legislation. We are extending the grievance industry for generations; Maori will want another bite of the cherry and that is wrong. 
If there had been any truth to this folklore around unfinished business then there would have been a paper trail. A large number of people were involved in the discussions around the 1992 settlement. To its credit Te Puni Kokiri went back and interviewed those people. It asked them about their recollections of this unfinished business and collectively to a person they reported to Gardiner and Parata that there had been no mention of aquaculture. It certainly had not been put to one side as incorrectly stated by the Minister of Fisheries. There is no unfinished business. 
We are seeing today legislation that is designed entirely and manipulatively to rid the Government of its huge embarrassment around the seabed and foreshore legislation. I am saddened to see that not only Labour is pushing this legislation through; it is doing it with the support of New Zealand First the Green Party and United Future. Those parties were all represented at the select committee. Those members were there when National members asked the hard questions about the unfinished business. They were there when the information promised to us simply evaporated. Yet they are prepared to contribute to this folklore and to pass legislation today that hugely extends the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry. 
This legislation will not be good for aquaculture. We know that the proper process established by the legislation will not work and that Maori will be given bits and pieces all around the coastline that are of little value to them. We know that the legislation has been poorly thought out. Other members of the select committee said that to National members around the select committee table yet they have come into the House today and are being whipped into line to vote for legislation that I do not believe they sincerely believe in.