Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9693] 
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 4 Purpose 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 requires the Crown to provide iwi with the equivalent of 20 percent of the aquaculture space created between 21 September 1992 and 31 December 2004—the pre-commencement space obligation. These amendments are designed to shore that up and the Labour Party will be supportive of them—certainly they are timefly. In addition to the provision of the 20 percent of all new space created between these dates the Crown has assured that it will endeavour to meet its pre-commencement space obligations by 31 December. 
The amendments to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 have provided the Crown with an additional option to comply with its aquaculture pre-commencement space obligations. One thing to say from the outset is that the interrelationship that has grown between the Crown and iwi and iwi and iwi has allowed us to reach a joint agreement on the amendments. That is something that has to be commended and recognised. The main purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Crown to deliver on its contemporary Treaty of Waitangi obligations which is a process that the previous Labour Government began and put a whole lot of effort into. The Minister needs to be commended now for getting it to this stage and taking it through to finality. 
There were problems with the existing settlement framework and the progress for discharging the Crown’s space obligations and responsibilities was something that the Labour Government and other iwi partners have worked on together. Again I commend the Minister for his efforts. The proposed change allows practical solutions that certainly are at the forefront for the Hauraki iwi and the Te Wai Pounamu iwi. The amendments will certainly give effect to the agreement between the Crown and the iwi of the South Island Hauraki for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations and certainly that is why the Labour Party is very supportive of this legislation. 
E whakaaro atu i roto i a tatou mo te mahi penei tonu. E mohio atu tatou i roto i a ngai Maori te kaha rawa i te mahi atu i nga mahi e rite atu ki te ahu whenua na te pai o te mahi penei tonu kei te mahi tatou haere atu ki te wa i te mahi atu mo te whakatikatika o nga hua o te takutai moana. I tautokotia te Ropu Reipa mo te mahi pera tonu e whai hoki tatou hei oti te mahi e timata atu i tera kawana o te Ropu Reipa mai o te tae i te wa nei. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
There is a view within us that we continue to work towards this end. We are mindful that within Maoridom there is a will to achieve much as they did in agriculture and repeat it here in terms of harnessing adjusting and harvesting the benefits from the sea. The Labour Party endorses these initiatives and will continue to work towards completing what the previous Labour Government set out to do from the outset to the present time. Thank you 
.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi ki oku nei korero ki te whanau pani. Raiha mihi kau atu au ki a koe mo to kaha mo to manaaki ki ahau ki toku whanau. No reira he mihi aroha ki a koe e whaea me to whanau hoki. Ano he mihi aroha ki a Nanaia me tana whanau. No reira he wa potopoto tenei tangi ki a koe. 
[ 
I wish to firstly acknowledge the bereaved family. Lady Raiha I thank you for your efforts in taking care of myself and also my family. Therefore I express my condolences to you and your family and to Nanaia and her family too. This then is just but a brief moment to lament you 
.] 
Very briefly the purpose of the bill is to add some tools to the tool box of the Crown for its complying with its obligation under section 22(1) of the main Act in respect of the pre-commencement space. I echo the words of my colleague Parekura Horomia who said that the level of cooperation and consultation between iwi and the Crown iwi and iwi and everybody involved was a sight to behold. 
The bill is about making good on a promise of using the settlement to better everybody rather than just one group. This pre-commencement settlement is in everybody’s best interests. I can say without contradiction that the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who heard submissions were astounded at how easy the process before the select committee was namely because we all agreed on it but also because we wanted to see— 
Kelvin Davis 
: We always agree. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: We always agree yes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it goes without saying that we always agree. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding leadership. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you very much. It was also about trying to get a swift turn-round. As you Mr Chairperson Barker know better than a lot of people sometimes the cogs in this place can turn very very slowly. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time on these provisions because I do not think we need to do so. 
I suppose the winners in the first instance are the Hauraki people and Te Wai Pounamu people. They now have the opportunity to make good on their wishes to have an economic base for their iwi members. It also gives the Government the opportunity to look maybe later on at dealing with Treaty settlements and at how fast we can move if there is a will to do that. 
I mentioned the cooperation of iwi and the Crown. I also want to say something about the cooperation of iwi. Sometimes cooperation between iwi is very difficult because of the boundaries because of old stories and because old wars and fights are being fought on another battleground. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Only up north! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That does not happen in the north. Thankfully on this occasion the cooperation between iwi and the consultation has been second to none. I just want to say that the purpose of the bill is about making a quick start on economic development for the iwi involved. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 A kati ra e tu tautoko ana i nga mihi ki tenei o o tatau whaea rangatira e takoto atu ra i te mahau o tana tipuna whare. Na koia ra kua huri ki tua o te arai kua piripono atu ra ki tana hoa rangatira kua mate noa atu i mua i a ia. Koira e Raiha haere atu ra e koe i runga i to huarahi wairua kia tae atu ra ki nga ringaringa mahana o to rangatira e tatari mai ra mou. No reira koinei te tu ki te tautoko i nga mihi aroha ki a koe. No reira haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra. 
[ 
I stand to support the acknowledgments to our matriarch who rests on the verandah of her ancestral house. She has passed away to be with her husband who died long ago. So Lady Raiha go on your spiritual journey to the warm arms of your husband who awaits you. Therefore I rise to endorse the loving tributes accorded you. Farewell farewell farewell 
.] 
I join earlier speakers today in honouring the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta and I endorse the complimentary statements that have been made about her in this House this afternoon. Certainly she was a very very strong-willed and determined person when it came to the interests of her people and that has to be applauded by all particularly in this House this afternoon. 
We are in the Committee stage of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. Specifically this afternoon we are discussing aspects relating to the purpose of the bill itself. My colleagues the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Tau Henare have covered many of the aspects involved in that particular clause. Later in the debate on the bill I am sure we will cover the necessary amendments to bring about the particular changes to the legislation but I will put those matters aside for now. 
What has not been raised up to this point in time is the history around the aquaculture settlement and in particular the Maori fisheries settlement reached some years back. It is important to make it clear to the Committee that the aquaculture interests of Maori were set aside to be settled separately from Maori fishery interests in general. Many former Ministers from both sides of the House considered these matters to be very difficult and to require considerable time for consultation before they could be properly settled or should I say properly defined in terms of how Maori were to not only enter the industry but also become a force to be reckoned with within it. 
I see that the Minister in the chair Nick Smith is not the Minister who brought the issue to the House on behalf of the Government. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the former Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley because I said at the time of the first reading debate that he had tackled this issue very quickly. I was very surprised that he was prepared to act so early on in his ministerial career on the challenges that this legislation places before any Minister. So I take the opportunity now to congratulate that Minister. 
In particular as the previous speaker Tau Henare raised this bill is about iwi-to-iwi relationships in a very competitive industry. When I say “competitive” I mean not only in aquacultural terms but also in terms of mana moana the water space that is required for Maori to enter the industry. Where there are rich areas of water space there certainly will not be too many difficulties for Maori in entering the industry. But that space is not always of the best quality. It is very much like land. In some parts of the country the land is pristine. I am not talking about the conservation estate; I am talking about farming land up and down this country. That situation is very much the same with regard to the aquaculture industry. There are areas of water space that are rich and would certainly promote Maori success in the aquaculture sector which is already happening. But there are also other areas where there is perhaps not the same sort of richness in the water space. 
I recall one former Minister putting a moratorium on aquaculture development simply because the race was on the battle was on to secure good water space. Although some concerns were expressed at that time it was understood that a moratorium needed to happen and it did happen. As I recall matters the Minister having placed a moratorium on the aquaculture industry gave us the opportunity to rationalise the use of the water space because there were many stakeholders involved in the use of the water space not only in the commercial sector but also in the customary sector. A lot of areas of water space that Maori consider to be their traditional or customary mahinga mataitai areas were also being exploited and plundered and were under pressure from various iwi and commercial groups that wanted to develop certain areas. 
There were also environmental issues. I recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee and hearing submissions on the moratorium. I think that was in 2002. Although there was strong opposition in some cases to the moratorium there were also strong concerns from the industry that the environment in which it worked—I am talking about water space—was showing problems in terms of tidal movements erosion water quality and also the quality of the marine produce. In this case I am talking about the mussel industry. 
So a lot has happened in the aquaculture sector and it has brought us to the point where now we not only have a strongly regulated industry—for want of better words—but we also have agreements in place that hopefully in the near future will prevent inter-tribal conflict of a commercial type and also encourage iwi to work collaboratively with each other to promote their own involvement in the aquaculture industry. That is all I have to contribute to this part of the debate. I am mindful that we are talking about clause 4 and I have probably wandered way beyond that but I thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I join with the Prime Minister and members of the House who have made their tributes to the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta. I want to acknowledge working with her in my role as the Minister for the Environment particularly on the issue of the Waikato River. I know she was a person who will be deeply missed but also one who has made a huge contribution not just to Waikato-Tainui but also to New Zealand. 
The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill puts into effect a settlement for an issue that has been quite divisive in my own community of Nelson: the whole issue of the foreshore and seabed. Aquaculture is very much a new industry. In my view if we reflect on the Parliament and the big debates that occurred in the early years of this Parliament about land law or more recently on debates on fishing we see that this is the latest of those resource issues which we need to work through in a considered way. I think most of us would regret the way in which the gold rush for marine space got away a bit in areas like the Marlborough Sounds and the Tasman Bay which gave rise to a huge sense of grievance from Maoridom that led to the very divisive issue of the foreshore and seabed. I hope that in considering this bill we can lay some of the foundation for the more contentious way this Parliament will have to find a way through the more difficult challenge of the foreshore and seabed. 
It is worth noting also that although we went through that sort of gold-rush era in the 1980s and 1990s around the development of aquaculture we then went to the opposite end with the moratorium. This bill comes about because of the failure of policies in the last decade to provide for aquaculture space. When the agreement was reached with Maoridom that 20 percent of aquaculture space would be made available it was intended that Maori would get that space from new areas that were being created. What actually happened was that the 2005 aquaculture legislation did not live up to its promise. It did not get the incentives right. So the essence of this bill is to provide an alternative mechanism effectively through the payment of cash by the Crown to iwi in areas that have a particularly high development of aquaculture. 
So although I support this bill and see it as a pragmatic response to and a way through a problem the more critical debate that this Parliament will have to deal with will be to reconfigure those aquaculture laws so that we can grow the wealth of that industry overall. I welcome the fact that this bill has very broad support in the House. It is important for those communities particularly in the top of the South Island—whom I am privileged to represent—and also in the Coromandel. But it is very much a stopgap measure to deal with the issue of the aquacultural space that was previously provided and to get some money into the hands of iwi so that they can invest and be part of the industry. However if this bill is really to deliver on the expectations of Maoridom it is beholden on this Parliament to sort out aquaculture laws so that aquaculture is an industry that can grow and grow without the sort of gold rush that we had in the 1990s. That will be a difficult balance for this Parliament to address but one that we must urgently do if we are to move from cleaning up the mess to looking forward on the future of aquaculture and particularly Maori involvement in that important industry. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tuatahi maku hei tautoko i nga mihi kua tukua i roto i te Whare nei ki to tatau whaea a Lady Raiha. Kua tae mai nga korero hei tona wa ka hikinga ka kawea atu ki tona ukaipo i roto o Ngati Manu. Na reira e te whaea Raiha e moe e moe e te rangatira. 
[ 
Firstly I support the acknowledgments expressed in the House to our matriarch Lady Raiha. News has arrived that she will be taken in time from where she is lying in state to her motherland in Ngati Manu. Therefore rest in peace the matriarch Raiha rest 
.] 
It is probably coincidental that today on the day that we talk about the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill I was given a pottle of Bluff oysters. The problem with giving just one pottle of Bluff oysters to a Maori when he is surrounded by colleagues such as Shane Jones Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia is that— 
Hekia Parata 
: You get a sniff. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: One gets a sniff but that is about all. But not wanting to be accused of not sharing with my colleagues I did whisper out to them. When they did not come running I decided that they were not interested. 
The Labour Party supports this bill. In essence it is a bill that helps to allocate 20 percent of the aquaculture area to iwi. I believe that this is a way forward for Maoridom. I have spoken before about the fact that Maoridom has always relied on aquaculture or kai moana as we say for sustenance and now it is only appropriate that we move from the traditional gathering of seafood into doing this as a business. This bill helps Maori to move ahead in terms of the aquaculture industry. 
I look forward to the day when Maori can help to expand this industry. I believe that we are looking to expand it to over a billion dollars for the economy by 2025 and I look forward to that. I have travelled extensively overseas and being a connoisseur of seafood I always try the local delicacies wherever I go. I have to say that New Zealand seafood is second to none. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Been to Japan? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I have to say I have not been to Japan so I cannot comment on the comparison there. I do recall going to Canada and having a meal of what I was told was scallops which were in fact stamped fish flaps. To me that is not seafood whatsoever. 
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Crown to deliver on its contemporary Treaty of Waitangi obligations in relation to commercial aquaculture by recognising the problems with the existing settlement framework and the progress for discharging the Crown’s pre-commencement obligation. The proposed change allows a practical solution to the issues without renegotiating the underlying intent of the settlement. 
Going back to Maori and the aquaculture industry there are technical difficulties and bureaucratic red tape that hinder the expanse and development of the aquaculture industry. I would like to raise again the issue of a friend of mine who is an oyster farmer in the very far north. He has to post a bond of $9000 per hectare for his oyster farm. He has 13 hectares and that equates to something like $117000 that he has to post up front before he even starts making a dollar from his farm. That sort of red tape hinders his development and his desire to progress his oyster farm. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s the bond for? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: The bond is for the clean-up if he ever has to abandon the farm. I am not sure how the regional council came to the sum of $9000. He should count himself lucky in that it started at $22000 a hectare. He was totally unable to come up with that sum of money. In the far north there have been only two instances of people walking off their farms. One was the Waikare Inlet where the conditions were totally outside of the control of the farmers in that there was supposed effluent spilling over into the Waikare River. There was one other incident which I am not sure of. It is hard to justify the extent of that bond and there could be better ways I feel to make sure that we cover the need to have some sort of contingency fund if oyster farms are abandoned but that that fund is not a hindrance to their development. Kia ora. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise with great pleasure to speak to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. I do need to take issue however with my colleague Kelvin Davis in that his extension of an invitation to taste Bluff oysters to Maori colleagues only was seriously limiting and limited. I will talk to him about that issue later. Although this bill is about Maori commercial aquaculture claims settlements and we have not had this conversation yet I can assure the member that some Pakeha are also devotees of kai moana. So the next time that he has a pottle of Bluff oysters delivered to his office I will ask to be on the invitation list. They will go even less far than they went when the invitation was extended to the member’s Maori colleagues. 
The purpose of this bill is clearly to provide the Crown as the bill states with an additional option for complying with its aquaculture pre-commencement space obligations. As the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment said a few moments ago this of course was an issue of particular anxiety and difficulty in Te Tau Ihu. For the eight iwi who are associated with Te Tau Ihu the top of the South Island this bill has been a long time in coming and is something they have welcomed. I too have the privilege and the honour of living in the top of the South Island. It is an extraordinary place. It is imperative to make sure that the resources of that area are shared in a way that reflects the obligations that are incumbent upon both the Crown and iwi under the Treaty of Waitangi. This legislation goes some way towards correcting an imbalance of the past and towards addressing the contemporary needs. Therefore it has support from across the Chamber and that is as it should be. 
There is also of course the iwi of Hauraki who are engaged with this legislation. But Ngati Apa ki Te Ra To Ngati Koata Ngati Kuia Ngati Rarua Ngai Tahu of course in Te Waipounamu and Ngati Tama Ngati Toa Rangitane and Te Atiawa from the top of the South Island are all iwi with whom I engage on a regular basis. Their satisfaction at the resolution of this matter is of great satisfaction both to the Crown and to Maori. Although the wait has been a long one—and I recognise that—it is important that we move forward collectively as a Parliament and support this legislation because there is indeed enormous economic potential in the industry. Even just in the Te Tau Ihu area there is enormous potential in aquaculture and I look forward to it becoming a significant and thriving industry. 
There are some difficulties around the aquaculture industry at the moment as it is currently being experienced by the fishers and the industry representatives in the top of the South Island. I hope that we can move from where we are now with this industry on the basis of this legislation to something that is dynamic that is profitable that adds value that provides much-needed jobs in the top of the South Island and that provides employment that is properly remunerated. However much people love to live in the Nelson area they cannot live on “sunshine” wages. I look forward to the development of aquaculture benefiting not only New Zealand’s economic position but also very particularly the position of the people in the top of the South Island. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatau. Hei timatanga tapiri kau atu he kupu ki era atu o nga mihi i utaina ki roto i to tatau Whare i tenei ra. Kati e te whaea e Rai takoto. Takoto mai ra i roto i te whare i roto ano hoki i te whare tatai o Waikato ki nga tahataha o te awa me ana au. I pau i kawe atu to kaha kia ma kia harakore ai. Tera ano atu te au o Waikato ka hari i a koe ki te Tai Tamatane. Ka whai atu koe i te rerenga a to tupuna a Ueoneone ka hoki me ana kuia tokorua a Reitu a Reipae ki roto o Te Tai Tokerau. Ka whakauru atu koe ki roto i te moana tae noa ki Rotokakahi te piringa o Waikato ki a Ngapuhi Nui Tonu i tona wa. Katahi koe ka whakawhiti atu ki te puna e kore rawa e mimiti e kitea mai ana ki roto o Taumarere. Hei kona koe takoto ai hei kona koe okioki ai. Na reira e te whaea e moe moe oti atu. 
[ 
Greetings one and all. To begin with I would like to add some words of condolence to those expressed before the House today. Lady Raiha rest. Lie there in Waikato’s aristocratic house beside the river and currents that carried your strength as well as cleansed and purified you. Another of the Waikato River’s currents will take you to the west coast where you will follow the journey of your ancestor Ueoneone who returned to the far north with Reitu and Reipae the two sisters. You will travel across the sea to Kakahi a key connection between Waikato and Ngapuhi in days gone by. Then you will cross over to the spring that never runs dry which can be seen in Taumarere. Here you will lie and rest. Rest there eternally Raiha the matriarch. 
] 
It is a pleasure to stand very briefly and talk in favour of this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. Let us bear in mind that this bill flowed from litigation that originated with the tribes in Te Tau Ihu who fought to secure marine farming rights and were denied that opportunity as a consequence of bureaucratic inflexibility and provincial prejudices within the local government community of that part of New Zealand. After a successful bout of litigation and the very highly publicised seabed and foreshore issue an attempt was made to address unsettled business flowing from the 1992 full and final fisheries settlement. I refer here to the Maori interests in the marine farming environment. That was undertaken at a time when there was great debate as to whether such a claim had any merit whatsoever. So at least it is pleasing this afternoon to see that both of the main parties are of one mind that there was merit to those claims and we are endeavouring to give effect to that today. 
The aquaculture industry already covers 5700 hectares of water and it generates somewhere between $350 million and $400 million worth of revenue. According to Doug Kidd in the early 1990s it was to be a $1 billion industry. As a consequence of this settlement Maori are finding a place in this industry. Although this industry has growth potential it needs to be pointed out that the growth can come only through stimulating greater market demand and making sure that the production process in the future for these exports whether they be oysters fish or mussels is operated in the most efficient way possible. Those Maori who acquire financial capital as a consequence of this settlement need to be very skilful in how they invest those moneys because the aquaculture industry is no El Dorado. 
We are told that the aquaculture industry can grow to 16000 hectares although possibly it will be arrested by those existing property right - holders in the marine environment who fear that the profligate spread of aquaculture space up and down the country that does not take an account of the undue adverse effects test on those who have prior property rights can end up pitting Maori against Maori marine farmer against commercial fisherman. But in terms of the passage of this legislation it is another goal that is being achieved. It is good that both major parties and their various supporters see merit in advancing it and the true test as to whether it is durable will depend on the quality of the stewardship of the people who take possession of this financial capital and invest it knowing that aquaculture is a long-term game. It is not a game where wealth can be created by simply claiming space through the Resource Management Act and then hoping to hock it off at an inflated value because capital is short in this industry. Capital is short throughout our entire economy and until Maori and suitable partners manage to amass the necessary level of capital we will not see a massive increase in the amount of farmable space. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 Amendments relating to remaining provisions of principal Act 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for accepting my call. I will canvass the clauses set out in Part 2 but before I do that I place on record my congratulations to the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee and to all the members of the select committee. Members may not have noticed this but most if not all of the bills that come back to the House from the Maori Affairs Committee do so with the unanimous support of that committee. It is no wonder that members on both sides of the Chamber join as one in commending the excellent work that the Maori Affairs Committee does. 
Having placed those comments on record I will cover a couple of provisions of Part 2. This part is the operative— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Which page? 
PAUL QUINN 
: It is Part 2—page— 
Simon Bridges 
: How many clauses? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —well there are a number of clauses in here. Firstly I will focus on clause 7 which sets out the Crown’s obligations in respect of this particular bill. Members will see a number of insertions are to be made into the principal Act and— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Amendments. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —these amendments; I thank my colleague—are the operative parts that enable— 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re pretty passionate about this aren’t you? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha; excuse me—the proposals to be carried out. Those proposals are to replace or bring into effect the fact that if you will the undertakings made in what has already been referred to quite correctly as the pre-commencement stage may be able to be fulfilled with a lump-sum payment. These provisions of this bill will enable that. 
I now move to clause 9 which is on the next page I say to Shane Jones. Members will see there some specitivity around or it makes some reference— 
Simon Bridges 
: Specitivity? What’s specitivity? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —to section 31 as amended by the substitution of new subsection (4). 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Oh this is really excruciating. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Please! 
Hone Harawira 
: Can you take your seat please Mr Quinn? 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am being distracted. 
Hone Harawira 
: You’re coming apart! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yeah. Just again focusing— 
Hone Harawira 
: Have some more oysters. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha—on that as I said I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to that section. I think that the rest of Part 2 is all pretty straightforward. 
My concluding remark is that I hope that brings a better understanding of the bill. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. After having followed that presentation which was defined— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Did you follow it? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I followed it not in a comprehension sense but perish the thought in the physical sense. I want to direct our attention to regional agreements and in particular to subsections (4) (5) (6) and (7) of new section 29A inserted by clause 8 of the bill. There is a lesson that has been applied in this section pointed out in subsection (6) where it states that “No court or tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the quantification or the adequacy of the benefits to be provided by or under a regional agreement.” Of course what this refers to—and I give full marks to the Maori Affairs Committee which worked through this legislation with the advisers—is that we will not see a reversion to the protracted debates as to who and which party should get which particular entitlement as a consequence of the regional agreements being agreed to. Maoridom has been blighted by no end of litigation as to what was an adequate entitlement in relation to the historic fisheries settlement. So without sounding too nauseous nga mihi. I acknowledge the chair and other members of the committee who have prevented a repetition of that. 
However the bill goes on to say—and the qualified senior lawyers in the House would know this—it is impossible to close down the right of appeal to the High Court. Indeed our party has learnt that as a consequence of the seabed and foreshore exercise. The High Court will have as part of its inherent jurisdiction I dare say under subsection (7) the ability to perform an interpretative function. As the regional agreements are entered into there will inevitably be conflict. Why will there be conflict? Because many of those agreements will reflect the ancestral aspirations of the hapu and tribes who have historically occupied harbours and other areas along the takutai moana along the foreshore. They will have had over the years their own favoured sites for mataitai gathering etc. and the regional agreements are really an attempt to shoehorn them into an industry. These agreements cannot be based on a static view of where and how Maori live along the coast because aquaculture at the end of the day derives its revenue and its power in terms of an economic force from international markets. So that is a very sensible contribution in my view. 
For those participants who cannot get their affairs into order or who acknowledge that they actually need a trustee to enter into the regional agreements on their behalf the trustee will be required to abide by actionable obligations—actionable duties. But it is always a double-edged sword when one provides justiciable ability in relation to Maori issues. What might be settled on the marae—I can assure members that getting agreement over seafood assets is no mean task—through negotiation needs only one party to feel slighted about before that party dashes off to find an ever-ready lawyer whose contribution is inversely related to his or her cost structure and then one is back to somewhere near zero. So the fact that the duties of trustees enable them to enter into such regional agreements and be bound by those agreements is very sensible providing it does not lead to a fresh bout of litigation. 
In addition to that the reference to the trustees is important because the participants in the regional agreements must focus on aquaculture as part of the New Zealand resource-based economy not focus on it being a new theatre for conducting historic and largely irrelevant debates that have very little to do with the future economic pathway of Maoridom and more to do with recitations of history of a time that has passed us by. It is likely to become particularly problematic and vexatious when we get to the point of making decisions about harbours because some harbours are regarded as areas for collecting spat. Others are regarded as areas for growing the mature product into a form that the market can absorb. I support having less litigation and more economic activity. Kia ora tatou. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.