Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15208] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party with reservations supported this bill going to the select committee because we saw that after 12 years of debate amongst Maori over the 1992 settlement assets and with some sort of general agreement that the situation had to be moved forward within Maoridom up and down the country this legislation provided an opportunity to do that very thing. It moves the settlement process forward so that there is an allocation and some sort of finality to what has been a controversial issue—that is the allocation of Maori fisheries assets amongst iwi hapu and whanau throughout this country to the benefit of all Maori. 
We had those reservations because we found—certainly when we spoke to Maori groups throughout the country and to others involved in the commercial fishing industry—that the bill was both particularly patronising and tending to hold back Maori unnecessarily when they were dealing with their own assets. So we took something of an interest especially in the details of the bill to see that that patronising approach was addressed. 
We had some degree of success and I would like to go through some of the successes that the National Party had in working with others on the committee such as Dover Samuels—a very useful member—Nanaia Mahuta and other members. However I say first to this House and to those interested in the bill that National will certainly be introducing amendments during the Committee stage to address other patronising features in this bill and the 20 percent of it that we believe the Government has got all wrong—the 20 percent that relates to the ability of successful iwi groups to take their assets and do what they want with them. Another amendment will look at making sure there is less of the bureaucracy that would otherwise hold back iwi groups. 
The first issue of six that we addressed in the select committee—quite successfully I believe—is the issue of recognising iwi organisations that are currently up and running. Some iwi and Ngai Tahu and Tainui certainly spring to mind as clear examples have been recognised in other Crown settlements and have had structures in place to deal with settlements. Yet in the original bill they still had to jump through patronising and bureaucratic hoops to get recognition. The changes that we introduced are amendments to clause 14(2) so that such iwi organisations thankfully can be given automatic recognition as long as they are formally structured and accountable to their members have an already established asset-holding company and have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty settlement purposes. Clearly Ngai Tahu fits the bill there and Tainui does also—or at least comes very close. I congratulate other members of the committee on achieving that success. 
The second issue was about the potential for disputed coastline agreements to hold up allocations. When the bill was introduced by this Labour Government assets could not be transferred to iwi unless coastline boundary issues were resolved. That meant that if there was a dispute over a few kilometres of coastline the allocation over the entire coastline would be held up which is absolutely absurd. If there was general agreement about 95 percent of the coastline allocation it should have been allowed to go ahead and the other 5 percent to be resolved and moved forward. The changes that we introduced in the select committee now incentivise agreement by allowing the assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred and allocated to appropriate iwi while assets relating to the coastline in dispute can be set aside pending some sort of resolution. We were glad about that success. 
The third issue brought to us was about the restriction on selling or swapping quota. It was unbelievable that the Labour Party saw it useful to limit the realisation of the value of fishing operations through the sale of capital items quota or shares within only iwi groups or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. There was a rule set there and a right of first refusal process that required an iwi to sell each quota species separately rather than as a bundle of quota. We got the clear message from Maori that they preferred to see the assets transferred only within Maoridom—iwi to iwi or iwi to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—for the benefit of future generations. However it was foolish to have a rule stating that bundles of quota could not be sold amongst iwi groups. As well though the restrictions on the sale of shares and quota has a potential to affect their value there is an understanding supported by most iwi of the accepted consequence that Maori through the generations must benefit from the settlement. That was a fundamental principle in the allocation model but we have brought in amendments to Part 4 that will ensure an iwi can maximise the price it receives through asset sales which can now be offered by individual or collective stock—it is up to them. 
A fourth issue raised with us was the conflict of interest incurred when Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd competed with iwi groups. As the bill was introduced they were able to compete against iwi fishing companies and to grow by accumulating assets and quota. There is no significant change in this bill in front of us and the National Party will be bringing amendments to address that issue. We are concerned about it and we will be putting that to this House. 
The fifth issue which the Minister touched on was that some iwi were not recognised in their own right. Two iwi in particular Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine were not recognised in the allocation because among other things in order to have iwi status they had to be traditionally acknowledged by adjacent iwi. Other iwi wanted individual recognition as well because they lacked confidence that their current overarching iwi organisations would deliver benefits to them. Amendments though will recognise Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine if their members so choose. That is because in both cases a lack of recognition by their single adjacent iwi amounted to an unreasonable veto in the face of other evidence presented. We are delighted that those changes have been incorporated into the bill. 
Lastly we were presented with issue six which concerned the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi groups. The National Party remains concerned about that particular issue. We find it quite interesting that in the bill this Labour Government presented its whipping-boy so to speak—Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—had very little to make it accountable to iwi to hapu and to Maori. But in the bill the Government poured bureaucracy upon bureaucracy accountability upon accountability and paperwork upon paperwork to iwi groups receiving that allocation. The Labour Government stated in the bill to iwi groups that they had to be accountable to fill in the paperwork and to have a bureaucracy that is pretty endless—but Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd did not have to. We want to turn that around. The National Party believes that we can have a much less patronising approach to accountability structures. We will also seek to close the distance in the relationship between individual Maori whanau hapu and iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd over assets. 
So National supports the second reading of the bill but we signal to the Labour Party that we will produce amendments at the Committee stage. In the interests of Maori and of all New Zealanders and particularly of those in the fishing industry we reserve our right to vote as we best see fit on the bill’s third and final reading. We commend its second reading to the House.