Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15629] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The provisions in Part 6 are aptly named transitional provisions. The problem is that the whole bill is transitional and the reality is that the Government does not yet seem to recognise that. 
Mr Heatley got the issue right when he asked why Labour’s Maori members—members who are on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—are not speaking today on the bill. That issue has been raised because the Government believes in the Maori seats; that is what it says and it has members in them to prove that fact. So one would think that in the Committee stage when we are debating Part 6 and are near the final part those members would take the opportunity to explain why the bill has the character it has and why it is very much a halfway step. I think even Mr Samuels recognises that. When members are accountable to their people this Chamber in particular is the place where they should speak and hold forth to their people as to why they do or do not support a bill. That is what this Chamber is for. It is proof of the relevance of their being members of Parliament. Everyone in this Chamber knows how hard it is to get here. One expects members to take calls from time to time and those members’ failure to do so is an indictment on the Maori seats. Part 6 gives the kind of opportunity that National expected those members to take. 
I opened my speech by saying that the bill is transitional. We are talking about transitional measures. They are measures that take the Maori community from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission to a new era. If only that were completely true! We all know—and I know that Mr Samuels recognises this—that it is not true. Just as Part 6 is transitional so is this entire bill. We will be back in this House to deal with the final allocation. 
Essentially the Government is pretending that the offshore allocation will forever and a day be owned by Aotearoa Fisheries through its various intermediaries. That is not sustainable. Ultimately the iwi will want to get hold of that quota directly. Simply to have a review after 10 years does not meet the measure of a suitable transition. That is our major concern on this side of the Chamber. It is why we have said that Mr Heatley as the Minister of Fisheries will in a few years provide the final bill that deals with the final allocation. Unfortunately— 
Phil Heatley 
: Next year! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—it will be later than next year—this bill does not meet the test. The provisions in Part 6 are transitional and frankly it is not worth our analysing them in detail. We should be looking at the broader picture because the bill itself is transitional. There will come a time when we have to revisit this whole thing. So long as Parliament keeps passing legislation to deal with other people’s assets Parliament maintains the final responsibility to do the allocation. Would it not be a great thing if we could say to the Maori people of New Zealand that Parliament is getting off their back and that it will no longer pass legislation dealing with their assets? Would it not be a marvellous thing to say that the end of paternalism has been reached? Unfortunately with the passage of this bill we will not be able to say that and that is a failure of this legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 6 I raise the point that there are a lot of miscellaneous provisions in this part. There are references again to the Maori Land Court and to the ability to apply for determinations through it. I suggest that that will be used extensively. I wonder how matters are going to be resolved if they have to be resolved taking into account tikanga Maori and of course different tribal groups. The dispute resolution provisions in Part 6 are what I am talking about in terms of the Maori Land Court. If these matters are to be considered in light of tikanga Maori which has special meaning for each of the different groups that will be applying for a determination the litigation will be constant and ongoing because how can one iwi contest the tikanga of another and come to a workable solution? The Maori Land Court will have its work cut out in trying to come to a determination. [ 
Interruption 
] This is applicable to Part 6 as clause 140 relates to the resolution of disputes and I am talking about people bringing disputes to the Maori Land Court. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are dealing with clauses 146 to 166. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are on Part 6 are we not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are on Part 6. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: This is all about dispute resolution is it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is about transitional arrangements and also dissolving the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: So it does refer to dispute resolution does it not? These matters I am raising pertain to Part 6 and they are also in Part 7 as well. They actually cross a few parts of this bill Mr Chair. So shall I carry on? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Carry on. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Now that we all know what is in this part I will continue. I am focusing specifically on dispute resolution and as I said earlier we have had concerns about and court resolutions around challenges to boundary settlements. That is why I am saying that there will be further disputes that end up going to the Maori Land Court. Is the court going to be properly resourced to handle those disputes? Those disputes will be lengthy and ongoing because it will be so difficult to make decisions and iwi will be insistent on their positions with regard to what they consider to be their boundaries in accordance with their tikanga. I suggest to members that there will be substantial issues around that. I am quite sure that Hauraki if not the other groups identified in this bill—Te Arawa Ngapuhi and Ngati Kahungunu—will contest their boundary areas or the areas that are defined. 
In recent times as this bill has been debated in the House we have made a couple of amendments to the iwi groups that are recognised within it. That reinforces the contention that there will be ongoing disputes that will be taken to the Maori Land Court. I put it to members that it will be very difficult for the court to come to a determination on them. That is something we can look forward to. I would go further and suggest that this matter will take some years and be ongoing. 
Those are some of the matters that have already been raised in the Committee by other people. I am sure that an iwi group like Hauraki will be putting a lot of time and effort into trying to further what it considers to be its rights in the context of this bill and it will take the opportunity to have those matters raised yet again in the dispute resolution process in spite of the fact that it has been turned down by the court.