Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15419] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand to speak in the Committee stage of this legislation. The National Party will be putting forward some amendments to the bill. The Minister of Fisheries has presented some as well. 
Obviously the bill went through a quite extensive select committee process. We toured the country and we made some substantial changes to the legislation during the consideration phase based on the submissions that we had heard. Most of those submissions agreed on a whole lot of points. There were six major ones that were consistently brought up: recognition of up and running iwi; recognition that coastlines agreements are likely to hold up the allocation; restrictions on the sale of quota; the conflict of interest between Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd where they compete with iwi; iwi not being recognised in their own right; and the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I note that one of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers—and I acknowledge him on this—has addressed a number of those issues more extensively than the committee did and I commend him for that. 
We have some other issues that we would like to put to the Committee. One of them is in relation to the commitment of coastline to particular iwi groups. We want to make sure that that is clear in the legislation—or at least that the disputes resolution process is clearer and more assertive I guess in terms of defining coastal agreements particularly historical ones in other settlements. That will be the first one. 
The second amendment will be in relation to the appointment of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors. Members may not be aware and we are concerned that there are five layers between Maori beneficiaries—those whom the settlement is supposed to be directed to each and every one of them and from here through their children and their grandchildren—and the Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors and we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that removes one of those layers so that there is more direct accountability. 
Lastly as was signalled in the debate on the second reading Dr Wayne Mapp also has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the issue of iwi who want to withdraw their interest in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—particularly the deep-shore quota. So we will be addressing those issues. 
The preamble in the bill talks about the historical intent of the legislation and how we have come as far as this in the 12 years following the settlement in 1992—which the National Party Government took a great and sincere part in and was delighted to sign off. We will be questioning whether the intent of that sign-off back in 1992 has been followed through in the negotiations the toing and froing and the court battles that have occurred in the last 12 years that have led to the introduction of this bill the submissions process and the bill we finally have now. We will be continually questioning through our Supplementary Order Papers and amendments whether the intent of the 1992 settlement as talked about in the preamble has been fairly and rightly reflected in the legislation. We think it has generally—there is no doubt about that—and that is why we have agreed with the majority report but there are key areas where we do not think the intent has been reflected. Members will see in the preamble more specifically what the intent of that 1992 settlement was. It certainly was about empowerment of Maori and it certainly was intended that all Maori for all time would be beneficiaries of the settlement. We believe that there are clauses and substantial provisions of this bill that do not empower Maori but in fact disempower them and separate them from their asset and we will be addressing that. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Although my fellow caucus members have indicated support for the Maori Fisheries Bill I stand to indicate that I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper based around the issue of takiwa and in particular the defined takiwa iwi—takiwa defining the deed of settlement and takiwa defining enactment. It is important to recognise those iwi who have already signed or entered into a deed of settlement with the Crown. This bill is all about an agreement that was made some 12 years ago between Maori and the Crown. I am sure that when those iwi signed their deeds of settlement with the Crown they believed they were entering into an enduring settlement—something that would last for time immemorial. The bill as it stands in relation to the defined takiwa iwi issue suggests that those deeds of settlement do not apply to the contents of the bill so New Zealand First will certainly be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper I will put up. 
There are other issues with regard to the disaggregation of those groups who wish to be recognised as mandated iwi organisations separate from their iwi as listed in the schedules. We will certainly be commenting on the intention of those groups particularly given that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope has provided a Supplementary Order Paper covering those issues. We do not have too much difficulty with the intent of the Supplementary Order Papers but we will certainly comment on them.