Brownlee Gerry: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Brownlee Gerry: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:15756] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the third reading debate of these two bills. Can I at the outset acknowledge the presence in the House today of the Hon Koro Wetere and the Hon Doug Kidd two gentlemen who have had much to do with the settlement of this issue to this point. 
It has been a very long road to get to the point where this legislation is before the House today. But it is not the end of the road. I have to say that while the National Party is very keen to see Maori get hold of the assets that were negotiated under a National Government in 1992 and wants Maori to get on with the business of fishing of making a considerable contribution to the economy of New Zealand as is happening now with these assets we also want to see them get the benefit of the assets. We are not convinced that this legislation is going to deliver that in the way that is purported. So it is with some reluctance that we will support the legislation today—reluctance knowing that it will only be a matter of time before this issue is back before the House again and has to have a considerable amount of attention from Parliament once more. 
 I will tell members why we think that. It is because the assets that were given to Maori are not as a result of this bill going to get to them. Secondly the inshore fishery will be given directly but the big-money quota will not get directly to Maori. No matter what their capacity to use it they will not get it. Iwi groups will be asked to select representatives to choose a board to set up Te Ohu Kai Moana which will set up the trust to hold those assets. So iwi are at least three steps removed for a start from the body that will hold their assets. That body will not actually operate them. That body will simply appoint the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries which in turn will organise the fishing of that quota. When it comes to the profit flow much of it will be dependent upon the success in any given year of Sealord’s—an operation that we notice has been in some difficulty for some time. That profit will flow back to Aotearoa Fisheries then back to Te Ohu Kai Moana then perhaps and only perhaps back to iwi but not directly to iwi—to an organisation designed to receive that income that iwi are being forced to set up; an organisation to receive intended profits from fishing activity but an organisation prevented from fishing itself. 
We think that in the case of many iwi groupings around the country that is an utter nonsense. They are successfully operating fishing companies and should have been given the opportunity to take their deep-sea assets and work them as they do with other quota they currently hold. So we think it will simply be a matter of time before many people at the bottom of the pile start to work out that there is really not a lot of change in what is being proposed today and they will come back to Parliament to ask parliamentarians to sort out the problem. That is one of the irritations we have. 
It needs to be said that this measure is a Maori solution to the distribution of assets. The Labour Government of course took one look at it and its natural control-freak instincts overtook it and it said: “We love that sort of grip on people’s lives so we’ll buy it.” But I want people who are listening to understand that when Maori do come back to this House and ask a National Government to sort it out we will be sorting out a Maori solution that went wrong. 
One of the big issues for the future of this country is sorting out the ongoing historical treaty grievances. Our party has made a strong commitment to that. We note that the Government this year was advised to put more resource into the Waitangi Commission to speed the process but even with the Government’s massive surpluses it decided not to do that. We do not understand that; that is something we will do. 
The key to all of that is getting a good mandating process as to who is able to negotiate. I am a little concerned that this bill in the case of Rongomaiwahine and Ngati Hine establishes those two groups as new iwi. Maori will shake their heads and say: “No that’s not happening; they’ve always been like that.” If that is the case why was the select committee charged with the responsibility of making that decision? Because that is inappropriate; it should be Maori who decide who are iwi and who are not. Further that is enhanced—and my argument is supported—by the fact that the select committee turned down many other presumably hapu groups that wanted to be recognised as iwi. That is not the business of Parliament. One of the things that has to happen is Maori who want treaty settlements to be concluded quickly need to sort out the mandating process. 
I said we will support this bill with some reluctance and I have outlined the points on which we are reluctant but we wish those who will try to make this legislation work all the very best. It is important that 20 percent of the country’s fishing assets are fished well it is important that the benefit of those assets flows to the whole economy and it is important that the profits from those ventures flow to those who are the owners of them. They are the people at the bottom of the heap. We will be watching very carefully to make sure that that flow happens.