Fox Marama: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFox Marama: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): It is not very often that I find myself standing up and supporting my learned friend and colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour. Today I find myself in quite a—David Seymour: Oh it’s not that unusual.MARAMA FOX: Well it is quite unusual for most pieces of legislation. So here we are with the legislation about the Kermadecs. I completely agree—it is a taonga not just for the people of Aotearoa but also for the population of the world of the ao. I think the fact that we are able to gift this taonga to the world is a fantastic thing. It is a place that will be held in a sanctuary for all time.However—and there is a big “however”—we are unhappy that the rights of the 58 other iwi who have been granted rights for quota during the fisheries settlement have been ignored. In fact I think the Minister has been negligent in not consulting with them face to face. I fully recognise that he has been to mana whenua the people who border that area—our Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri—and they have been recognised with places on the board. I recognise that my learned colleague and Minister—the very able Minister—of Māori Development and not Māori affairs will be able to appoint someone to represent the rights of those other 58 iwi. However the Minister should have had discussions with them. The reason that the Government did not want to discuss it with anyone or announce it before it was announced to the world just does not wash. You have a contractual agreement through a fisheries settlement for these 58 other iwi who have interests in this area and that should as my learned colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour has pointed out be compensated.So let us have a look at that. We think that suitable compromise achieves sustainability and we need to ensure that iwi are included in that conversation—we have neglected to do that with the 58 other iwi which we could go into but that would take all day. The proposal extinguishes iwi customary and commercial and non-commercial rights which is contrary to the Crown’s duty to actively protect a settlement. This is no small thing. If we think that we can just go back on any settlements that we have had to date then we are going to see a whole lot of furore in this nation over previous settlements that have been done and declared full and final. Yet the Crown has compromised its duty to protect the settlement as part of its Treaty responsibilities in this case. Notwithstanding we agree that this is a beautiful sanctuary and all it would have taken I am sure was to have a conversation with the affected iwi who are involved and who have now had those rights extinguished through this bill.The proposal put to Cabinet states that the quota held by Te Ohu Kaimoana on behalf of iwi is an “administrative quirk”. That is how they have described the fisheries settlement that has been in place for quota in this country for some considerable time—as an administrative quirk. Well I am surely hopeful that when the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa settlement comes to this House it will not on some future date be referred to as an administrative quirk and dismissed as quickly as this has been. That contradicts the process conducted in early administration to analyse where fish stocks should be and were introduced into the quota system in that area. As a result of that process the Maori Fisheries Act provides for Te Ohu Kaimoana to hold quota until commercial catches can be assured. I say it again this was not well done. The Minister should have gone to the people and conducted a full and thorough conversation with them and they should have been adequately compensated because of the extinguishing of those rights.The proposal claims the sanctuary is a sustainability measure that is needed. In fact they have barely caught anything in that area for a long long time which in itself means that it needs to be sustainable not for catch numbers but for regeneration. Mining is one of the issues. The minerals that are found in that area might be something that everybody wants to grab for and I think the fact that we are going to protect it is a fine step again.The Māori Party wants to assure the country that we support the bill. We support the idea of the Kermadec sanctuary but the Government has been remiss in consultation with the other iwi and to describe it as an administrative quirk is simply a failure. It needs to go back and rethink how it does its negotiations and its conversations with our people.The proposal fails to identify the effect on quota rights and the quota management system. It states that the impact on commercial fishing is only small as the current catch is. Against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries it suggests the catch can be caught elsewhere. However the species currently harvested in that zone will then move out. The fish cannot be caught elsewhere at that time. Consistent catch throughout the year is important for the high-value niche markets involved. What it is saying is that not enough consultation was had and against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries the Government says that you are going to be able to catch this fish somewhere else but actually it does not know and the ministry has told it that. The proposal fails to identify the broader impact. The proposal does not reflect the true value of the quota shares.The proposal is likely to contradict international law around no-take zones. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea New Zealand must make access available to other nations to fisheries we are not using. The ring of international fishing around the border of the Kermadec exclusive economic zone indicates a strong desire of other nations to fish in the zone. Whether or not it does are we going to be met with litigation now given that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is coming in? It is wonderful to have a taonga but we should have done our homework and I think Minister that in all fairness the 58 iwi who talk about their claim have rightly stated their issues and to be described as an administrative quirk is simply irresponsible. There is something to be answered here. If you extinguish their rights then compensation surely must be a conversation to be had in the future. I invite the Minister to have those conversations with those iwi.I am happy today that we are going to support this bill at its first reading—the same as my colleague the lovely Rāwiri Seymour—but we would be looking through to the second reading for these things to be fleshed out further. The select committee process under which submissions can be made will I feel be vigorous. I am sure that iwi will take up the opportunity to put their case forward. All of that could have been avoided had the conversation been had in the first place. So it is with some trepidation that we support the bill through this first reading stage. We are happy that we are going to have a taonga for all of Aotearoa to enjoy but let us do our homework properly so that there is nothing to come back on us in the later years and we find ourselves having to relitigate this entire issue.Nō reira e Te Mana Whakawā nā nei te mihi atu ki a koe.[Therefore Mr Assistant Speaker I do indeed acknowledge you.]