Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17758. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I want to take up where my colleagues left off in Part 6. Dr Lynda Scott is absolutely right: the deed of settlement was absolutely clear that it was full and final. Now what are we doing through this bill? We are setting up a whole new raft of situations where there will be dispute between different iwi. They will have to take their matters to the courts—to the Maori Land Court and the Maori Appellate Court. Those will be the courts to adjudicate in the mediation between disputing iwi. 
I know of situations where iwi have joined together just to help progress the fisheries settlement. After 12 years of that they will now be able to litigate their part again and what they can achieve through this process. There will be a lot of disputes that will clog up the Crown process of the court. I guess one saving grace is that applicants to the court for adjudication will pay for that part of the process. I guess that that is the only saving grace but I am sure it will be funded by the taxpayer somewhere along the way. So that is what this part is about. 
If we go to section 26Z inserted by clause 107 “Unsuccessful mediation” I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to an issue there on which he might like to take a call and give an explanation about what it really means. Subsection (3)(b) states that a judge who refers unresolved issues to the court may be the judge who hears the matter or who provides advice. So I see that rather than have a fresh look at the matter one has the same judge who then hears the matter in court after being involved in the mediation process. 
Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and give an explanation for that as he has not taken many calls on this bill at all. We do have to wonder whether the Minister really understands everything involved in this legislation. I would like him to take a call and give an explanation about why the judge who hears the mediation can also then hear the matter during the court process. 
There will be plenty of matters to be heard. Iwi up and down the country will be looking to see what they can get out of the aquaculture system. They will be looking to see what portion they can get out of whatever is on offer from that 20 percent. I know that in my own area there will be conflict between some groups. Ngati Maru have an interest over on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames as well as one on the Thames side and I can well imagine that disputes will arise as a result of their interests conflicting with those of other iwi who perceive that they have an interest over and above that of Ngati Maru on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames. 
Even on the Coromandel side of the Firth of Thames there are already competing interests. Maori groups have united for the fisheries settlement but I believe that that position will change when they perhaps have an opportunity to go for claims for aquaculture. They will be seeking to go to the Maori Land Court in accordance with Part 6. 
There will be huge litigation from this part and while adjudicators have to have some understanding of tikanga Maori I do not know how that will help with the competing interest groups who have their own ideas around what is relevant to them in terms of tikanga Maori. So when that type of understanding is being asked for there will be conflicting interests within that situation as well and conflicting understandings of what tikanga Maori will mean to different participants. 
I see a whole raft of litigation and I see courts being bogged down so I believe that this part does not serve Maori at all. It does not serve New Zealand well at all and perhaps the Minister could take a call as to why matters have not been resolved so that we do not actually need a resolution disputes process. That should not be necessary if the legislative process had been followed correctly; and if legislators had taken heed of the deed of settlement the document Dr Lynda Scott read from before it would not be necessary. If the 20 percent had not been allocated as a part of any aquaculture application the disputes resolution process would not be necessary.