Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this

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 Māori 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 tātou, mō te mahi pēnei tonu. E mōhio atu tātou i roto i a ngāi Māori te kaha rawa i te mahi atu i ngā mahi e rite atu ki te ahu whenua nā te pai o te mahi pēnei tonu, kei te mahi tātou haere atu ki te wā i te mahi atu mō te whakatikatika o ngā hua o te takutai moana. I tautokotia te Rōpū Reipa mō te mahi pērā tonu, e whai hoki tātou hei oti te mahi e tīmata atu i tērā kāwana o te Rōpū Reipa mai o te tae i te wā nei. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[There is a view within us that we continue to work towards this end. We are mindful that within Māoridom 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) Link to this

Te mea tuatahi ki ōku nei kōrero, ki te whānau pani. Raihā, mihi kau atu au ki a koe, mō tō kaha, mō tō manaaki ki ahau, ki tōku whānau. Nō reira, he mihi aroha ki a koe e whaea, me tō whānau hoki. Anō he mihi aroha ki a Nanaia, me tana whānau. Nō reira, he wā potopoto tēnei tangi ki a koe.

[I wish to firstly acknowledge the bereaved family. Lady Raihā, 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 Māori 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—

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) Link to this

Ā, kāti rā, e tū tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki tēnei o ō tātau whaea rangatira, e takoto atu rā i te mahau o tana tipuna whare. Nā, koia rā kua huri ki tua o te ārai, kua piripono atu rā ki tana hoa rangatira kua mate noa atu i mua i a ia. Koirā e Raihā, haere atu rā e koe i runga i tō huarahi wairua kia tae atu rā ki ngā ringaringa mahana o tō rangatira e tatari mai rā mōu. Nō reira, koinei te tū ki te tautoko i ngā mihi aroha ki a koe. Nō reira haere atu rā, haere atu rā, haere atu rā.

[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 Raihā, 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 Raihā Māhuta, 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 Māori fisheries settlement reached some years back. It is important to make it clear to the Committee that the aquaculture interests of Māori were set aside to be settled separately from Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori to enter the industry. Where there are rich areas of water space, there certainly will not be too many difficulties for Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori consider to be their traditional or customary mahinga mātaitai 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) Link to this

Firstly, I join with the Prime Minister and members of the House who have made their tributes to the passing of Lady Raihā Māhuta. 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 Māoridom 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 Māoridom that 20 percent of aquaculture space would be made available, it was intended that Māori 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 Māoridom, 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, Māori involvement in that important industry.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

Tuatahi māku, hei tautoko i ngā mihi kua tukua i roto i te Whare nei ki tō tātau whaea a Lady Raihā. Kua tae mai ngā kōrero, hei tōna wā ka hikinga, ka kawea atu ki tōna ūkaipō i roto o Ngāti Manu. Nā reira e te whaea Raihā, e moe, e moe e te rangatira.

[Firstly, I support the acknowledgments expressed in the House to our matriarch Lady Raihā. News has arrived that she will be taken in time from where she is lying in state to her motherland in Ngāti Manu. Therefore, rest in peace, the matriarch Raihā, 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 Māori when he is surrounded by colleagues such as Shane Jones, Mita Ririnui, and Parekura Horomia is that—

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

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 Māori colleagues only was seriously limiting and limited. I will talk to him about that issue later. Although this bill is about Māori commercial aquaculture claims settlements and we have not had this conversation yet, I can assure the member that some Pākehā 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 Māori 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 Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāi Tahu of course in Te Waipounamu, and Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Toa, Rangitāne, and Te Ātiawa 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 Māori. 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) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātau. Hei tīmatanga, tāpiri kau atu he kupu ki ērā atu o ngā mihi i utaina ki roto i tō tātau Whare i tēnei rā. Kāti e te whaea e Rai, takoto. Takoto mai rā i roto i te whare, i roto anō hoki i te whare tātai o Waikato, ki ngā tahataha o te awa, me āna au. I pau i kawe atu tō kaha, kia mā, kia harakore ai. Tērā anō atu te au o Waikato ka hari i a koe ki te Tai Tamatāne. Ka whai atu koe i te rerenga a tō tūpuna a Ueoneone ka hoki me āna kuia tokorua a Reitū, a Reipae ki roto o Te Tai Tokerau. Ka whakauru atu koe ki roto i te moana, tae noa ki Rotokākahi, te piringa o Waikato ki a Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu i tōna wā. Kātahi koe ka whakawhiti atu ki te puna e kore rawa e mimiti, e kitea mai ana ki roto o Taumarere. Hei konā koe takoto ai, hei konā koe okioki ai. Nā 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 Raihā, 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 Reitū and Reipae, the two sisters. You will travel across the sea to Kākahi, a key connection between Waikato and Ngāpuhi 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, Raihā 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 Māori 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 5,700 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, Māori 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 Māori 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 16,000 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 Māori against Māori, 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 Māori 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) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora tātou. After having followed that presentation, which was defined—