Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15621] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Part 5 deals with the dispute resolution process. Where there is dispute over issues such as coastline or any other issue to do with governance of a particular iwi organisation such as Te Ohu Kai Moana Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd or Aotearoa Fisheries Part 5 makes it clear that there is a way forward for Maoridom. I will not dwell too much on the excessive need—we might say—within Maoridom to have a disputes resolution process but it is fair to say that this country has seen that often Maori groups do not agree. There is dispute particularly over tribal areas and where the boundaries have been. It certainly should not come as any surprise that changes of boundary amongst different hapu iwi and whanau groups occurred over the centuries and undoubtedly happened in this country and it has just as it has happened in other countries such as the United States of America with its indigenous people and in Australia and European nations. There will always be changes in boundaries. 
However it is particularly pertinent to this legislation simply because the allocation model of inshore quota of various fisheries such as snapper mullet flounder and all sorts of inshore species is largely dependent on the length of coastline that can be attributed to a particular iwi grouping. Therefore by definition the length of coastline where that coastline starts and stops is intrinsically tied back to how much quota iwi groupings get and what value the final settlement will be. Around the fringes we will get debate about coastline where it stops and where it starts. 
Unfortunately as introduced this legislation saw that all assets were unable to be transferred to an iwi until it had concluded its coastline boundary agreements with neighbouring iwi. In other words an iwi could not get any of its allocation if it was still arguing about the length of its coastline and where it stopped and started. That meant that a dispute over a few kilometres of coastline whether it was warranted or just vexatious could hold up the allocation of all assets over the entire coastline. So a disgruntled iwi group could hold up the allocation for some other iwi group just because they were disgruntled and we saw that as quite absurd. Changes were made at the select committee and Pita Paraone will improve on them again through a Supplementary Order Paper that he has tirelessly put together and put his name to. However the select committee did come some way to improving on that current situation. 
The amendments now incentivise agreement by allowing assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred immediately while the assets relating to the coastline that is in dispute will be set aside pending coastline resolution. In other words if 95 percent of an iwi group’s coastline is not under dispute if there is agreement that that coastline is relative to a particular iwi always has been and no one is going to argue about it then the assets and the quota relating to that coastline can become the iwi’s and be allocated to it whereas the 5 percent that is still under dispute can be held back from allocation until dispute resolution occurs.