Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 A kia ora ano tatou e te iwi e whai taringa mai ki a tatou i tenei ahiahi mo te wahanga whakamutunga mo tenei pire e pa ana ki te pamu mataitai; me te mihi atu hoki ki te Ohu Kaimoana na ratou tenei kaupapa i poipoi i to ratou wa a tutuki noa penei i a tatou e matakitaki i tenei ra. Nga mihi noki ki te Minita tawhito a Piripi Heatley e noho mai ra a me tenei matamua o matou i te reanga Maori o te Ropu Reipa a Parekura. Na reira kia tau nga mihi nunui ki a ratou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to the people listening in this afternoon to the third and concluding reading for this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill; acknowledgments must go to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which kneaded this strategy about in its gestation to its conclusion that we are witnessing here today. I would like to acknowledge the role that the former Minister the Hon Phil Heatley sitting over there had in this process; and a senior to us of the Maori caucus in the Labour Party the Hon Parekura Horomia; the highest accolade upon them all 
.]  
Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Barker for the opportunity to address the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. First I join Dr Nick Smith in acknowledging the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission otherwise known as Te Ohu Kai Moana because in many respects much of the intellectual capital that lies behind the efforts reflected by the iwi as they came forth to derive a solution was undertaken under the leadership of Te Ohu Kai Moana and in particular by the chief executive officer Peter Douglas and the principal analyst Craig Lawson. Not only politics causes these things to move into a state where parliamentarians can reflect the will of the legislature and move it towards Royal assent; creative and very pragmatic people are also needed. Obviously the officials have their task which is at the end of the day to guard Treasury’s purse and they were dragged along into the process as well. In a fit of goodwill let us all acknowledge earlier politicians who made their contributions. 
This bill relates to an important part of the economy from which for a long time successive Governments have sought to generate greater export earnings. I refer to our ability to take coastal space apply to it farming technology within the vicissitudes of climate and weather choose appropriate species and create goods and services out of that enterprise. That is it in a nutshell. We have perfected techniques of farming in our country and aquaculture is an example of very intensive farming. It is not without its critics. 
This bill enables iwi to move into a position where they can stand as a part of the industry. Underlying this legislation is a desire not to perpetuate ongoing iwi wrangles or to have Maori standing aloof from the industry. It is based on a philosophy that the way to resolve historical grievances related to property rights etc. for iwi in resources is to turn them into contributors of value and developers of the resource and to give them a platform where their fortunes do not come from collecting lazy rent but from taking a risk along with their fellow New Zealanders by investing time and energy managing risks collecting capital and joining the race to create export-led wealth. That is what this bill is really about. This is a sensible bill because it prevents ongoing wrangling amongst our people—and by that I refer to our Maori iwi. We have been blighted in the seafood environment by far too much internal Maori strife. Dr Nick Smith was correct in isolating this as an example where people have been forced to acknowledge whether they came willingly or as a consequence of exhaustion that the only way that they would develop wealth in this industry was to park personality ancestral historical and geographical disputes and to commit to an industry. 
There are other ways to do this. For example there could have been a model where Maori would have received as the putative owners of the seabed and foreshore—whoever that class of Maori might be—some sort of royalty or rent. I am not in the school of thought that any Maori should be able to become a complacent observer and a recipient of rent. I think that Maori as a consequence of the Treaty settlement process ought not to do anything other than commit to the industry that they now find their rights based in. These historical rights were of place of a food-gathering variety but they were not static; they were organic. As circumstances facing Maori after the Treaty changed they have had to move in such a way that their entitlement has reflected societal limits tolerance and ambitions through our medium of politics to give institutional expression to these ancestral interests. 
This is a very important point: there can be no long-term joy from a Maori commercial aquaculture settlement unless revenue wealth and jobs flow from people’s being active participants in that industry. In that sense this bill is as much about economic development as it is about lawyers arguing the extent nature and character of an ancient right embedded in the seabed and foreshore. I think that anyone looking forward to deriving a solution for the seabed and foreshore must always remember that this issue came as a consequence of people feeling that they had been blocked from the marine farming industry. That issue went through a circuitous route and there was litigation at various points in the judiciary. As the then chair of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission I can assure members that no one was more surprised than me when Sian Elias delivered her judgment. In fact that particular body of work was at one time referred to by us as the “Lost in Space” project. However the space that we sought was coastal space and we were blocked. That is why we funded the litigants in this legislation to the tune of several million dollars. But it was never originally about recovering the title to the seabed and foreshore; it was actually about marine farming. Marine farming is what this bill provides an avenue for. 
Of course there is no way that the bill would have been a success unless it foresaw future problems. I isolated such an area last night concerning ensuring that political difficulties within the communities of interest do not spill over and impede economic development. I give full marks to the chair and the members of the Maori Affairs Committee in particular the Maori members who were being lobbied I should imagine by various participants and advocates in this process. Although we describe this legislation as innovative the real innovation has to come from the skills and imagination that we bring to the industry of aquaculture. As a consequence of the Minister for the Environment saying that he has other reform work I look forward to being able to take those areas that were historically used for growing shellfish and start growing other species of fish there. We should ensure that our future developments are driven by what the markets overseas will absorb. The key to making a long-term success of this industry is identifying where the burgeoning markets are where their ability to pay is what they want to purchase and whether we can now grow that type of resource to satisfy the changing markets. 
I say to Dr Smith that from this side of the House there will be a great deal of enthusiasm in seeing what innovations he and his Government are prepared to bring forward so that this area grows as markets change and so it is not condemned to grow just Pacific oysters or mussels—or in some cases salmon. Now that this potential blockage is out of the way it is important that all of us who regard this as a key natural resource capable of being used to generate export earnings allow other types of economic activity with other species of fish etc. to occupy those areas so that we are not growing produce or causing Maori to be locked in an industry that is based on a historical appreciation of what New Zealand can generate as opposed to what markets want. I think if that flavour is injected and that sort of vision is borne by the stewards of this settlement on the Maori side then the aquaculture industry will be a lot richer. Thank you very much.