Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10482] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 May I first of all thank the Hon Richard Prebble for giving the National Party an opportunity to reflect on its position on this bill. He questioned whether we should be supporting this bill and he gave us the opportunity to reflect on it. We have reflected on it we do support the bill and we support it going to a select committee. We thank him for that opportunity. 
The reason for our position is that the longest-serving member of Parliament who has taken an interest in fisheries happens to be from the National Party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who’s that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Georgina te Heuheu. She spoke on this. She is the longest-serving member of Parliament who has spoken on the bill and she supports it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about Mr Prebble and myself? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Sorry I forgot about Richard Prebble. Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Maori member of Parliament who has spoken so far on this bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No another mistake! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: What? Another mistake? Sorry! Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Maori member who has been constructive in the last 10 years when it comes to Maori fisheries. I have never seen Winston Peters so easily fall into a trap in this House as he fell into that one just then. He was sucked along one by one by a young white boy from the north. Clearly for Winston Peters the light is dying the sun is setting and the old man is beaten at his own game. I am hoping that over the Christmas break he will go up to Whananaki in the north catch a few snapper and reflect on his future in this House. When a young white whippersnapper from Whangarei can beat Winston Peters’ at his own game it is time for the old man to retire. I am disappointed to see him fall so easily for that trick. 
I would like to acknowledge Georgina te Heuheu as a speaker in the House today who acknowledged National’s support for this bill going to a select committee. We will give it serious consideration because certainly we have some questions in relation to it. 
I took great interest in Wayne Mapp’s comments over the last fortnight in relation to this bill coming into this House at this time. He had two major concerns. The first was that this bill would come into this House before the two High Court judgments had been heard and viewed by the New Zealand public. That was a bit of a mistake—somewhat of a marketing error by Labour—simply because one should respect what the courts have to say one should listen to what the courts have to say and one should take into account what the courts have to say. However I do recognise that the bill was delayed. It was due to come in last week but it was delayed for 1 week so that we could hear some of those findings. 
The second issue that Wayne Mapp brought up which was of interest to me was the structure of some of the trusts being set up—the Te Wai Maori trust and the Te Putea Whakatupu Trust. The latter is commonly known as the urban trust which John Tamihere has taken an interest in. The Te Wai Maori trust is all about research and development of freshwater fisheries. Wayne Mapp raised the need for those trusts to have Maori trustees. He questions the requirement for legislation to state explicitly that they should be Maori trustees particularly given that those trustees are appointed by the seven commissioners above them who through legislation must be Maori themselves. Our concern simply is that—and I concede that Wayne Mapp put it better than me—Maori may find that there are non-Maori who are able to fill those roles and do a better job and they deserve the freedom to choose whom they have on those trusts. I accept though as Richard Prebble clearly does not and as Winston Peters clearly does not—and the Greens clearly have not even thought about it—that this asset is a Maori asset. Because of the Fisheries Act 1989 and because of the 1992 fisheries settlement this asset is a Maori asset and decisions on its future should be in Maori hands. I certainly acknowledge that but I am just a bit concerned that there is a requirement in legislation that Maori oversee some of that asset and the disbursement of funds. I am not quite sure that is necessary. 
There is no doubt it is a big asset—$700 million to $750 million once one takes the quota cash companies and various other assets into account. But it is worth bringing to the attention of the House that on a population basis based on the electoral roll and who is on the Maori roll it is only about $2000 per Maori person living in New Zealand at this time. It is a significant amount to Maoridom but the reality is that the future of Maori in this country their economic prosperity their cultural prosperity and their prosperity when it comes to education and their families—all the statistics that Maori are measured by inside and outside this House—will not rely on this $750 million given that it amounts to only about $2000 per head of Maori population. What will count is how Maori use assets like this. What will also count is how they approach the education system and get success there how they approach all sorts of other areas in life and how Government and private enterprise can assist them in doing that. That is what will really count. This is simply a nest egg—a significant one yes—of $700 million but the reality is it will not save Maori from the damning statistics that we hear about time and time again. 
I would like to take some time to look at some of the issues about what will be received through the allocation model as per the legislation. There will be allocation of quota from before the 1989 settlement and of post-settlement assets as well—roughly post-1992. There will be cash and what they call income shares which generate an income stream for each iwi group. The interesting thing is that the quota that will be allocated in that way to iwi can be sold only within the iwi group. They cannot be sold outside that grouping of Maori. That is quite interesting in that on reflection it affects a quite significant portion of the quota—I think it is 20 30 or 40 percent of the quota out there in the marketplace. In terms of the market within Maoridom for those particular quota which are locked in there it will be interesting to watch how much effect that provision has on the pricing structure both within that Maori system and without that Maori system. 
I was interested to hear from the Fisheries Commission yesterday that the most significant aspect is the leasing value of that quota—not so much the value of the quota itself being bought and sold but the leasing value. Of course quota can be leased outside Maoridom and can be leased inside it. So there is no effect on that pricing structure at all. 
I also raised the issue of whether quota purchased from outside the Maori system would be locked into that regulatory framework and could no longer be sold on the free market to other commercial fishers. I understand that the asset can be built up within and set aside as part of the settlement asset or it can move freely outside and be sold without that Maori group—which is quite an interesting prospect for other commercial fishermen. The important thing of course is that that settlement quota will not be whittled away over time.