Peters Winston: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Peters Winston: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:15760] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is an old Maori saying that the kumara never says how sweet it is. When one is reduced to acknowledging and thanking oneself it brings to mind that old Maori saying: “Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.” which means: “When the old net is full of holes the new net goes fishing.” When the old net is full of holes—useless and obsolete—that is when the new net goes fishing. That is why New Zealand First is here today and we will be ready in 2005. 
I noticed that the two previous speakers did not want to own up to the facts behind this long-running battle with regard to assets. Between 1984 and 1990 the first State asset sale in this country was the sale to private ownership of the fishing resource of New Zealand. It was the first sale of a state asset and today we are seeing the aftermath of it. But of course why would anyone want to own up to that? It is so discredited now in 2004—not just here but worldwide. In 1986 the Labour Government as its first State asset sale sold the right to New Zealand’s fishing resource into private ownership. It was inevitable that by 1988 and 1989 the Maori people would be saying: “Yes but what about us?”. And that is what we are talking about today. In 1989 the Labour Government set up Maori fisheries legislation but it had one huge defect which was palpably obvious back then—it is in the  
Hansard 
 for anybody who wants to remember the facts; some of us pointed it out back then—and that was that there was no distribution or disbursement policy. We also warned that it would produce the longest-running legal battle that Maoridom would ever have with itself. There is nothing as antiseptic as the saying “I told you so.”—but I did. There is nothing as antiseptic or sterile as the saying “I told you so.”—but we did and here we are 15 years later and we still have only the legislation and have huge problems to come. 
My challenge to the Maori people on this issue is this: walk down the main street of Tauranga Rotorua or Ruatoria and ask Maori there how many of them have got a fish; go down the main street of Kaikohe Whangarei Wanganui New Plymouth Hawera or anywhere around this country where there are Maori and ask any Maori on the street how many of them actually have got a fish. I know what will the answer be: “Brother I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The deed of 1992 is a very interesting document. It was signed by all manner of people—whether they had tribal or iwi authority or whatever. Then there was still no distribution mechanism. We lived in a vacuum where for a while the Maori Fisheries Commission thought it could without any statutory authority take up the slack in that respect. 
So we see in this legislation a trust called the National Urban Maori Authority. That was John Tamihere’s idea. That is called postal box tribalism. If one changes one’s address one changes one’s tribe. What sort of ancestral historical thing are we talking about? Where in Maoridom’s antecedents could one change one’s address and change one’s tribe? I cannot hear a mutter or a murmur from those people over there now. I cannot hear a syllable or a sound. It is just one mess after another. Where in the world of Maori since the mythical time of Hawaiki could one change one’s postal box and change one’s iwi? But there it is in this legislation—one mess after another. 
If that happens I can tell members that Rongomaiwahine and Ngati Hine have far more rights than that. Who would ever doubt who the Ngati Hine people are? We know that Ngati Wai came first after all! Unless someone came from out of space or in a helicopter the people of the coast had to be there first. It is axiomatic. But we will not stand around arguing about their rights. We know what they are as Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine know what they are as well. The sooner we sort that out the better. 
But this debate has a great backdrop in the speech of the “Great Communicator” at Orewa. How difficult it was for the members of the National Party to have to admit that in every respect they were the architects of this legislation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh! They admit it now. Well I read Don Brash’sOrewa speech and it was clear that someone who is soon to be a pensioner does not remember our history—or more important does not remember how culpable his party is in this country’s history when it comes to this issue. How difficult it was for Gerry Brownlee to get up make a speech and say that National would support this legislation. What on earth was Don Brash’s speech at Orewa about? It was a great speech I am told because even though the year was not up Toastmasters gave him the prize for being the “Great Communicator” of 2004. This was in June. Nelson Mandela Winston Churchill Mark Antony or Dr Martin Luther King could make any speech they liked now because the prize has already been given out. I call that another little right-wing jack-up. Of course the media swallowed it—as they always do—hook line and sinker. The media never questioned that it was only June. But against today’s debate we have that speech made at Orewa. I ask the National Party how it squares its position today with what was said at Orewa. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: OK—yield. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am happy to yield. I seek leave to yield briefly in order for Mr Brownlee to get up and explain how he reconciles his speech today with the Orewa speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A yield is confined to a brief comment or question on the subject that the member yielding was speaking on. It is not a means of transferring the call. It is to be terse and to the point. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I so seek leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member does not need leave; he can yield. It is to be a brief comment and that is all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that even though I come from the party of great communicators 30 seconds is not enough to give the House the explanation Mr Peters wants. I am happy to ask the House to give me 5 minutes to give that explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Let me make it very clear that when Dr Brash stood up at Orewa and gave his speech there were a number of people there listening who were impressed. There were tens of thousands who did not hear it but who have simply got the flavour of what he was talking about and have applauded it. 
Let me tell members why. When he spoke so openly so clearly and so freely at Orewa he allowed a debate to begin in this country that is long overdue—not just for those who are non-Maori but for Maori as well. I said when I spoke in the House today that we are not happy about this bill. We will support it because we will not deny anybody the assets that are theirs. We are not happy about this bill because it will not see those people in the various provincial towns of this country who have an ownership stake in the 20 percent of quota whom Mr Peters spoke of getting anything out of it at all. 
We see that as a proliferation of the current arrangements. Te Ohu Kai Moana is nothing more than the Fisheries Commission in drag. Its members are the people who will determine how much money goes back to Maori. So why would we have any conflict between a position that said we should treat everybody in this country fairly and equally—which was the message from Orewa—and expressing some disappointment about a bill that will say to people who have an asset that they can own it but they cannot touch it and that they can have an expectation of getting something out of it only if those members over there choose to give it to them? That is why there is no conflict on the position we take on this bill I say to Mr Peters and the message in Orewa. 
I say one further thing. There was nothing for any Maori in this country to fear or be concerned about in the message that Don Brash gave at Orewa. There was rather a huge amount of hope and optimism. In that speech he made a commitment to the preservation of te reo Maori to a haste in the process for dealing with historic treaty settlements. We have in front of us right here an Official Information Act request granted to us which shows that the Labour Government makes a big noise about settling historic treaty grievances but when its own Office of Treaty Settlements tells it that the office does not have the resource to do that any quicker than it is doing at the moment does the Government put some extra money in? Does it show a bit of goodwill—a word its members constantly throw around the House? Does it show any goodwill towards getting that process moving along any more quickly? No even though the Government is told it will take years and years without more resources it will simply throw it on the table without providing the resources. There is no conflict between our position on this speech given the great history the National Party has of dealing in a very upfront way with issues to do with Maori rights and the message in Dr Brash’s speech. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He was asked how he reconciled the two speeches and he could not. At Orewa Dr Brash said that Maori are not even a people or a culture and that they do not deserve special or separate treatment. We know what the Orewa speech was about. It was a case of walking out of a saloon stealing a man’s horse and trying to ride it out of town. That is very hard to do. A man can steal a horse but he cannot stay on it. We just heard why. The National Party’s DNA—its fingerprints—is all over the issue in respect of separate treatment for Maori. It is no use Dr Brash coming along here. He cannot find the parliamentary toilets yet he starts stealing my speeches and my party’s policy and trying to call it his own. The ACT party cannot call it theirs because Shirley and Prebble signed up— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use members’ full names. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It will not work. Dr Brash was asked whether he believed in Maori Television and he said he did not know. Does he believe in the Maori seats? No. Will National candidates be standing in the Maori seats? Yes. That is confusion. Does he believe in kohanga reo? “I’ll wait and see how it’s working out.” It has been going for 25 years. 
I will get back to my point. There is today an inevitability about this legislation because of what people did in the past foolishly. I can recall the 1992 legislation and many Maori can as well. It was always my argument—and New Zealand First’s argument as we are saying today—that what Maori need are the fundamental things that all humans need: decent housing decent medicine decent first-world wages decent salaries and great education. They want to be part of the first world and all this paternalistic nonsense will not uplift Maori at all. There will be the usual people arguing the teat for all they are worth but the mass great bulk of Maoridom need better policies than that. My message to them is very simple: hang on because help is on its way.