Smith Murray: Third Readings 
Smith Murray: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4833] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have already talked at length with regard to Part 1 in the second reading debate and the Committee debate. The only comment I want to make about that is that I believe clauses 5A and 5B are a real mess. Nevertheless it was important that the bill go through so that the claims that are sitting around—the Hauraki claim the Kaipara inquiry and the Wellington Tenths inquiry—will get published and we can progress things. But I ask the House to mark my words that the first time somebody is removed from the tribunal without his or her consent and seeks to challenge it we will find the Courts criticising this House for passing law that is ambiguous that we cannot even agree upon among ourselves and that we simply throw to them rather than fixing it now. 
Moving on from there I want to address Part 3 because it is quite important and its effect has been understated. It is worth going back to the part of the Act that it has sought to amend which is section 14 of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The provisions of that Act were a result of negotiations between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa. In particular section 14 of that Act provided that for the purposes of giving effect to an agreement entered into under the provisions of section 29 of the Act: “(1) The bed of the lake known as Lake Taupo and the bed of the Waikato River extending from Lake Taupo to and inclusive of the Huka Falls together with the right to use the respective waters are hereby declared to be the property of the Crown freed and discharged from the Maori customary title (if any) or any other Maori freehold title thereto:”. 
Lake Taupo and the Waikato River are in public ownership and it was through the indulgence of Ngati Tuwharetoa who had legitimate claims concerning ownership of those bodies of water that we are able to freely enjoy them. They are to be commended for that even though it happened way back in 1926. The  
quid pro quo 
 for them giving up those rights of ownership which one must accept as being quite a substantial right was under section 2. It provided that “There shall be reserved to the members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe the right to fish for and catch for their own use any fish in the said lake that are indigenous to the said lake but no such fish shall be sold except with the consent of the Board hereinafter mentioned”; and later under section 9(c) of the Act that “such members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe as are nominated by the Board hereinafter referred to shall be entitled to have issued to them free of charge licences to fish for imported fish in accordance with the regulations: provided that not more than 50 such licences shall be issued in any one year without the consent of the Governor-General in Council:”. It is that figure of 50 that we are now seeking to increase to the figure of 200. 
 At the time that the 50 licences were granted in 1926 the total number of licences in operation was 4900 so that Tuwharetoa had 50 out of 4900 licences. Today the Department of Conservation in its 2000-01 provision of information states that the current number of licences is 74293—an increase of 1500 percent—and Tuwharetoa have continued to have only 50 such licences. We are now looking to increase that to 200. It seems to me that if we had given Tuwharetoa a similar increase they would be entitled to 1300 licences today being relative to the increase in general licences and in Tuwharetoa numbers which have increased from an estimated 1104 in 1926 to roughly 29000 now. 
Some have challenged whether customary rights are a power that can be enforced today but this is not a customary right. It is important that the public understand that the right being granted today—the increase from 50 licences to 200—is not an increase in a customary right but an increase in a statutory right. It is a right given to Tuwharetoa in return for them giving to the public of New Zealand as a whole the whole of Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. I think we have done pretty well out of that deal. 
The only concern I have relates to the comment made by the select committee in the commentary that the number of fish has decreased. I hope that the Department of Conservation and Tuwharetoa are working together to ensure that the indigenous fish population is environmentally sustained and that whatever licences are given—and the number given generally obviously far outweighs what Tuwharetoa will use—they will not deplete the fishing resource further. I think it is important to take that into account. None of us wants to get into a situation whereby we are depleting our fisheries resources to the detriment of future generations. I therefore encourage Tuwharetoa and the Department of Conservation insofar as they both have interests in the fishing resource to work together to ensure that it is sustained. 
I commend the legislation to the House. United Future will be supporting the third reading.