Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15222] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I can appreciate that this bill does bear the labours of Solomon. The allocation formula will in fact never satisfy everyone. National recognises that any possible solution would have winners and losers. It is in a sense the inevitability of the compromises contained within the bill. I just want to very briefly deal with those big-picture items. The inshore fisheries go to iwi based on their coastline. They go directly to iwi to be controlled by the iwi themselves and that has I guess pretty universal consent. The offshore fisheries are however a much more complex picture. 
 In essence they go into a global trust and I am using that term in a very broad way. The only control that individual iwi have in that situation is through an electoral college. It is several steps removed. There are intermediaries between iwi on the one hand and fishers on the other. There is not just one intermediary but several intermediaries. On top of that the allocation of the shareholding in that global trust—in fact a company—is based essentially on population. There are two different models. The first part inshore fisheries is allocated on coastline. The second part offshore fisheries is allocated on population. As members of the committee members of the House and certainly the Maori population well know that of itself has been very controversial. Some iwi want the whole allocation inshore and offshore to be based entirely on coastline. Certainly for a party whose principles are on the basis of property rights there is an inherent attraction in that model. Others—notably northern iwi—want the allocation to be based entirely on population. In fact one outlandish submission suggested that the population formula should be based on the population as it existed in 1840 which would be rather hard to reconstruct I suspect. Nevertheless that submission was made. 
Of course the bill represents the compromise. National understands why the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission had to make that compromise. It was the only way to bridge the diverse and indeed disparate interests between the different iwi viewpoints. That is not our fundamental difficulty with the bill. Our difficulty is not on the issue of allocation in global terms. Our concern lies in the excessively paternalistic system that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission developed in how the offshore quota is to be managed and controlled. 
It is not as if the approach it has adopted has an effective sunset clause in it. Certainly it has a review provision but only that. In fact that is largely done by the commission or Te Ohu Kai Moana itself. One has to ask whether that is the best way forward for the future. Is there a better way whereby iwi could have greater control of their offshore quota even though it is allocated on a population formula and not on a coastline formula? 
The argument of the commission is that Aotearoa Fisheries which effectively is the holder of the offshore quota has to be kept intact. The reason it has to be kept intact is that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—and it is not stated directly in the bill and that has been one of the problems of the bill; it is far too obscure—owns the shares in Sealord’s. Sealord’s does the fishing. In effect we are legislating to protect Sealord’s. That is what this approach does. It became clear through the hearings that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which is contained in the statute does not actually own any quota. Another entity—a trust—that is not even referred to in the legislation actually holds the quota and then through a complicated series of contractual arrangements apparently then leases that to Sealord’s. That is the problem. 
The problem with this as I have already indicated is that the system the Government has accepted protects Sealord’s. It protects it against any substantial changes of ownership management and control. National has very serious questions about that aspect. We believe that within the overall allocation formula developed by Te Ohu Kai Moana there should be some possibility at least for iwi to be able to get direct control of their offshore quota just as they control their inshore quota. The argument that is put up by the Maori Fisheries Commission is that if we alter that system we disturb the intergenerational effects of the allocation model. That cannot possibly be true because after all that argument has not been run in relation to the inshore quota. So National will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that will give iwi in specified circumstances the ability to get direct control of the quota. We will be asking and perhaps challenging the Government as to why it would not accept that. 
We do not believe that that should be just an open situation where every iwi straight off would have that ability. We do understand there has to be some kind of management system in place and some ability for a transition of it effectively. So our Supplementary Order Paper will provide that iwi with sufficient financial and management capability to be measured on historical performance to date should be able to take their quota directly. In reality not many would qualify but inevitably some would qualify. It is likely and the Government knows this full well that Ngai Tahu might be such a beneficiary. 
Who on earth could possibly argue that Ngai Tahu does not have the capability to manage their own fishing assets? It would be fatuous to argue to the contrary. Everyone in the House actually knows the truth of this. Ngai Tahu could do it. They surely have just as much of an interest in retaining the intergenerational aspect as Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That I believe is not the issue. When we strip away the commission’s argument it comes down to commercial protection for Sealord’s. As I said I recognise that there need to be transitional provisions so that we do not destroy the value of the company overnight; but at the same time it should not have the right to last forever. There has to be ability for iwi to get direct control under a principled approach. 
National will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper and we want other parties in this Parliament to look seriously at whether we can get a pathway that will enable iwi with capability to get direct control of their assets. Why would we totally stop that? I was going to say “restrict” but it is worse than that. The Government’s current formula actually totally stops it. I say that that simply goes too far. There must be an ability to get a pathway out of that. I am strongly of the view that although the effort by the commission was a good effort more could be done. National will be doing precisely that.