Peters Jim: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15422] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That point of order has been dealt with. Is this a new point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
JIM PETERS 
: Yes it is Mr Chairperson and that is the very issue I wish to address. Is it not unusual that as you are deliberating upon the point of order a member of the Committee is indulging in persistent conversation across the Chamber? If that is so I suggest strongly that she be brought to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and refer the member on my right to Speaker’s rulings 19/6 and Standing Order 84(3). 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This legislation including the preamble reflects a long period of litigation negotiation discussion and dialogue involving the courts various iwi lawyers—some motivated it seems to me by gain rather than serious intent—and the Government. I know many of the people who have involved themselves in all of this and I recognise that they have come to what they think is the best possible compromise. I guess the problem with all compromises is that they do not always reflect the best set of options but in many ways what people might argue is the least worst. National’s difficulty with this whole proposal is that it has departed too much from principle. In this regard we are not primarily talking about the allocation formula—I understand why the Maori Fisheries Commission came to the view of essentially splitting the inshore quota on the basis of coastline of particular iwi and theoffshore quota essentially on a population formula. 
Our major concern is twofold. Firstly the excessively paternalistic approach in essence does not trust people to manage their own assets. The case put by the commission of course is that the assets have to be protected on a generational basis. But I cannot see how that case can be properly made out because surely iwi have exactly the same interest and are in fact I would suggest probably even more powerfully motivated than a commission—now of course Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to keep the assets within the iwi rather than an entity somewhat removed from direct control. That is our first major objection. It seems to me that there has been far too much regard held to protecting particular commercial interests that have motivated the way that the offshore quota is managed so that it is removed from iwi and controlled by Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which really is all about protecting the viability of Sealord’s. That is the first objection and National will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that deals directly with that on a principle basis so that only those iwi with a proven commercial record would get direct control. 
The second issue which will be raised particularly by Mr Heatley is the whole issue of the layers of control—the multiple entities that cumulatively serve to remove direct iwi control of the entities involved in the fishing. In this instance we are not even talking about iwi ownership. The problem is that the owners do not even have the sort of control that one would expect a shareholder to have. Surely the proposal presented by the Government—because ultimately the Government had to endorse that of the Maori Fisheries Commission—should have provided the normal form of shareholder control even if that meant some additional level of protection owing to the generational factors. It has failed at that level. 
Finally I would also like to note—because a Supplementary Order Paper is being tabled on this issue—that scant regard is paid to the issue of prior settlements. Why would we set up a whole new potential for iwi boundary disputes—coastline allocation issues—to be once again channelled through the courts—because that will be the effect of the proposals—for that to be finally determined?