6. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Minister of Fisheries
Does he agree with Northland oyster farmer and Ngāti Kurī and Ngāi Takoto chief executive, Ben Waitai, that in respect of the allocation of marine-farming space, this Government “worries about tax evasion—this is Treaty evasion”, and what will he be doing to respond to the claims that the Government's aquaculture legislation is unworkable?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) Link to this
No, I do not agree in total with that statement. Of course, the Government worries about tax evasion, because it is theft. The Government also would see it as a worry if there were evasion of legitimate treaty agreements. The Government does not agree that the aquaculture legislation is unworkable. There are, of course, some implementation issues that central government councils and industry are working through, and that will take time, but I am confident that we can achieve good objectives.
Does the Minister agree that the Government is evading its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?
No, I do not. Those agreements and policy objectives have to be realised by 2014. If members just have some patience and do not panic, they will see that this Government will achieve its objectives.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Is the Minister concerned that no aquaculture management areas have yet been promulgated since the aquaculture reforms were legislated?
A central objective of the aquaculture reforms was to devolve planning for aquaculture to local communities to manage themselves through local authorities under the Resource Management Act. It is interesting to note for the House that that process was supported by both the aquaculture industry and local government. Personally, I tend to favour more support through central government. So the moral is: “Don’t ask for what you want; you might get it.”
Phil HeatleyWill the Government come clean and admit that—just as Dover Samuels said—the aquaculture legislation is seriously flawed, that Māori have been duped into thinking they would get 20 percent of space as a quid pro quo for the seabed, that local iwi are now fighting Sealord’s, owned by Māori, in Golden Bay and Tasman Bay, and that affected quota holders will now not get a say on aquaculture in Golden Bay or Tasman Bay, or can the Minister explain away Judge Kenderdine’s ruling last month?
Madam SPEAKERI am aware of the recent interim decision by the Environment Court in Tasman that has led to the comments from Mr Waitai. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries are analysing the interim decision and will be reporting to the Minister for the Environment and myself shortly on the nature of that decision, the implications for the Māori aquaculture settlement and the wider aquacultural reforms, and the steps necessary to address any difficulties that arise. I can assure the House that this Government will be working to ensure that the integrity of the aquacultural settlement with Māori is maintained.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Ka whakaae te Minita ināianei me aro ia ki ngā tohutohu a te tangata whenua kei roto i tōna uepū, arā, ko ngā kōrero a Dover Samuels nāna i kī nei, kei te “kaha hōhā” te iwi Māori kei te takutai moana e noho ana nā te mea, kāore he painga i roto i ngā ture mahi kai moana?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Will the Minister now acknowledge that he should take heed of indigenous advice from within his own caucus, particularly that of the Hon Dover Samuels, who reported “huge frustration” among coastal Māori over the unworkability of the aquaculture legislation?]
The indigenous advice within my caucus would be me talking to myself. [ Interruption] I doubt whether the National Party would know what “indigenous advice” is. But in terms of the Government’s position, the Government will ensure that the integrity of agreements entered into with the tangata whenua of New Zealand, in terms of aquacultural resource, is honoured.
How will the Government meet the 20 percent obligation, of its own making, if, firstly, no marine farmers are selling established space to it to use for the settlement; or, secondly, no new space is being created that the Government can skim off 20 percent for the settlement; or, thirdly, has the Minister accepted that a big $250 million cheque will have to be written to Māori in 2014 in lieu of the 20 percent?
I do not accept that a cheque for $250 million will have to be written out. I assure the House again that there are 8 years to go before this matter reaches a conclusion. It will be 8 years of a Labour-led Government in this House, and the National Party will not have to worry about the solutions. We will fix it ourselves.
How will he respond to the interim Environment Court decision, which suggested that iwi may be at the back of the queue in the allocation of aquaculture space in the coastal marine area, and is this another example of what the United Nations special rapporteur’s report found, that the inherent rights of Māori were not constitutionally recognised?
I do not want to make a direct comment on decisions of the Environment Court at this point, suffice it to say that, as I said earlier, the Minister for the Environment and myself will receive advice from Crown Law and from our own ministries and we will consider what actions need to be taken to honour the agreements we have made with Māori.
I seek leave to table the interim decision showing that the law does pit Māori against Māori when it comes to the 20 percent settlement.
I seek leave to table section 22, the Crown’s obligations under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act.