te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10473] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 E mihi ana au ki a ratou katoa i awhina i tenei kaupapa mai i te timata ki tenei wa hohonu. Nga roimata ki a ratou e kore e kitea i tenei wa a ki a tatou te hunga ora huri noa tena tatou katoa. From the time of the beginning of this process to this very important time the present one cannot forget those who have helped to deliver this taonga those who have gone before and those of today and I would like to pay tribute to them all. 
I am very pleased to stand to the first reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The introduction of this bill represents in my view a significant milestone in the treaty settlement process and in particular in the process of clarifying Maori entitlements to fisheries resources and assets under the Treaty of Waitangi and of effecting a transfer of those assets into the hands of iwi and Maori. The Maori Fisheries Bill is designed to effect that transfer. Its source is the deed of settlement of 1992 which was preceded by the Maori Fisheries Act of 1989. Its purpose is to implement the agreements in the deed of settlement and provide for the development of iwi interests in fishing and fisheries in order to benefit all Maori. The bill establishes a framework for half of the settlement assets to be allocated directly to iwi and for the remainder to be managed centrally on behalf of iwi and Maori. It provides directions to establish new entities and rules to govern and guide the distribution of settlement assets. 
The Minister has referred in some detail to the provisions of the bill. I would like to remind members of some of the background and history of the bill and also to comment about the position of Maori in the sector today. In my view the overriding objective for Parliament—given the 11 years of litigation dispute compromise consultation and debate among Maori—should now be to make sure that this bill reflects the agreements of the 1992 deed of settlement and the underlying aspirations of those who negotiated that deed. Clearly the underlying aspirations were that the Maori beneficiaries would be able to establish for themselves a firm and significant stake in the sector and create both wealth and opportunity for their own communities and for Maori. From that point of view this bill represents an economic plank of which we should all be supportive. The bill represents economic prosperity not just for Maori but also for New Zealand. 
We should remind ourselves that Maori now have influence over in excess of 40 percent of the commercial fishery. They are represented through all sectors of an industry that has a global reach. The Sealord’s company which is the Maori flagship of this asset has an influence throughout the world and I understand is respected both for its professionalism and the quality of the business acumen it has displayed. This represents a major go-forward economic plank and from that point of view National is very pleased to support the bill to the select committee. 
Pita Paraone 
: Which one? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is a good question. Which select committee? As someone has raised the question I want to comment on that. This bill is about a Maori asset. It represents years of work by the Maori Fisheries Commission to get broad agreement from Maori stakeholders about a model of allocation that will hopefully see the asset grow and be nurtured in a way that will make those who were responsible for kicking this process off in the first place proud of what has happened. I would have thought that as it is a Maori asset as it is for the benefit of Maori and as it represents agreements reached by Maori that it ought to have gone to the Maori Affairs Committee so I raise the issue about a special committee having been set up. 
I understand that the Government has been looking at this issue in the context of foreshore and seabed and marine farming and aquaculture matters but those two issues do not really bear any resemblance to this one. This represents agreements—albeit sometimes begrudgingly given by some—among Maori and the other two issues are of interest to all New Zealanders. I am glad someone asked that question because I think that point has to be made. 
I personally do not understand why the bill had to go to a special select committee. However among other things this bill makes provision for those iwi entities that will receive the assets. In the select committee I will be interested to look in some detail at those provisions. I will be keen to pay particular attention to the governance requirements. We are told by the Maori Fisheries Commission that issues of transparency accountability and constitutional propriety will be foremost in the minds of the commission before assets are transferred. I think that is in the sense that this is a treaty-based package and asset and that the obligation of its future managers will be to ensure that the benefits accrue not just to this generation but are there for future generations. 
 It is important that the commission pay due regard to the new entities because we would all want to make sure that 17 years after the fisheries claim was first kicked off in Te Hapua up in the Far North the iwi governance entities are in a sound position to receive and manage the assets that are transferred. 
I would imagine that this bill has now reached the House because even though there is residual disagreement on some points—which might be quite strong as evidenced by the fact that there were actions in the High Court in Auckland just last week—somehow the commission has finally managed to reach broad agreement with all the stakeholders that this legislation should come to Parliament. I would like to think that parliamentarians are keeping their eyes on the big picture and are thinking about what this legislation represents if it is implemented in the way envisaged in the bill. They need to understand that if Maori have agreed to the bill being introduced they as much as anyone have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and understand the latent economic potential that resides within the bill. 
Despite the misgivings of various interests—which they are entitled to bring before the select committee and which we will no doubt hear quite a lot of during the committee process—it would in my view be a disappointment if somewhat of a group of parliamentarians tried to second-guess the work that has gone into this allocation model. The last thing any of us want to see—and the last thing New Zealanders want to see—is more dispute and litigation. We cannot have that. That asset has to transfer to its beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are iwi—Maori—out there in their communities. They are entitled to receive those assets. As I say I will be putting the bill under some scrutiny but ultimately this is an economic opportunity that must move forward.