Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15594] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes all this legislation. We particularly oppose Part 2 which is under discussion at this time. Anyone listening to this debate and anyone in the Chamber who has not gone through the detail from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee would have already come to the conclusion that Part 2 establishes an extremely complex multi-tiered convoluted commercial structure. One surely must ask the basic question of why we cannot use normal commercial law to deal with these company structures. Instead the Crown is legislating for convoluted multi-tiered cumbersome structures in a commercial sense that confuse everyone who looks at them. Iwi after iwi told the select committee that they do not want them. Inevitably the Crown will end up as the meat and mustard in the sandwich. When some of these iwi organisations fail—and they will—everyone will say: “Oh we failed because of these burdensome structures imposed on us by Parliament.” One would have to say that is a legitimate position for people to take. 
Another aspect is that along with these iwi electoral colleges there are all sorts of unique situations. In any commercial organisation where there is discontent the discontented leave. They vote with their feet. The problem with this structure is that malcontents are locked in. There will always be malcontents in the commercial world and under this structure they are locked in for all time under a structure they particularly did not want or embrace and with thousands of excuses as to why it will not work or deliver in an optimal manner. What we do by imposing a structure of this nature is we diminish the value of the asset. That is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of this bill. It diminishes the value of the asset. That is a real problem in itself. 
The ACT party goes a step further as do NgaiTahu actually. They are saying it is their property they want to be left to get on with the business they want to use commercial law and they do not want all these encumbrances put in their way. They go a step further and ask why they cannot transfer the asset. In other words if they want to ditch one load of species quota because in a commercial sense they see problems on the horizon or if they want to invest in aquaculture they should have the flexibility and freedom to maximise and optimise the use of that property. But this bill specifically precludes that from happening. They are locked in. They cannot use the asset and they cannot exit. Any malcontents are locked in. It is not a good sound commercial framework. 
I would have hoped that from the outset having finally delivered a framework for the settlement of the Maori fisheries successful claim pursuant to article 2 of the treaty we would leave in place a framework that optimised the chance of it being successful. In this bill there are all manner of barriers and problems that will actually justify excuses and all the other problems that go with it. I could for instance run through the multilayered lists of various company structures. They are all there—from clause 20 through to about clause 100. They are extremely complex. Various parties feel aggrieved that their interests will not be protected. The electoral college is distorted. 
This bill is a recipe for ongoing debate and that comes back to one of the basic inherent problems whereby we are trying to provide for a communally owned or collectively owned property right. But this bill is one of the worst governance structures that could be put in place for a communally owned property right.