te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15596] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with the establishment and review of new entities. Of course one has only to look at the first part of this part to see why it is that the National Party has serious reservations about this bill. It is bureaucratic it is patronising and even though Phil Heatley and I who represented the National caucus on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee worked I think in a reasonably consensual manner with members of the committee that does not get over the fact that this legislation will go down in history as even more bureaucratic than the bureaucracy itself. 
In my mind it should signal to Maori that this legislation represents this Government to a T. Everything is to be centrally controlled and that is basically what happens here. The bigger part of the asset stays with the central body. The layers of bureaucracy are such that they separate by times six the actual owners of the asset from a significant part of the asset itself. I am surprised that John Tamihere who is the small business expert and the Minister for Small Business—which should indicate that he also cares about big business—would be party to such legislation. As a member said earlier this is the most convoluted complicated legislation one would see in this Chamber. Therefore it is no surprise that it is a Maori bill and why should we be surprised anyway? 
 Just to comment on John Tamihere’s issue in relation to the urban trust as it is commonly referred to and the issue of fisheries-related activities I hope that the trust does keep in mind that that is the genesis of this putea. It comes from fish and the property in fish. We do not want the trust to start treating the allocation that comes to it as a welfare cheque. The trouble I have with Minister Tamihere and his ilk is that they always seem to be focused on dependency and wanting these things for health welfare and education. That is not the genesis of this asset and I hope that the urban trust keeps its mind on getting young people trained to participate in an industry that is critical to our economy going forward. It is so now and it will be going forward. 
I support my colleague Phil Heatley’s Supplementary Order Paper. He is quite right and he has set the matter out very clearly. From my point of view it is heartbreaking that Maori people are so separated from their asset. They are also separated from having a direct say on who sits on Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is the flagship organisation of this asset and it is utterly tragic that their input into who sits on it is whittled down in the way it has been. 
Mr Heatley’s Supplementary Order Paper which takes out one layer of the appointment process is admirable. I think the Government should support it. If the Government really cares about the people on the ground whose asset this is actually getting a say on who is running the flagship organisation then it should support it. It should work to cut out at least one layer of bureaucracy; otherwise it is patronising and it is insulting. What other set of companies or trusts would one find where the owners of the asset are so far removed? It flies in direct contravention of proper commercial practice and it says to iwi that we do not trust them and we will put in as many layers as we possibly can to keep on top of them. The National Party rejects that. 
We realise that this measure has been a long time in gestation—12 years—and we certainly see the need for legislation to come to this Parliament but this is the worst piece of legislation one could find.