Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15624] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 5 which is about dispute resolution I would like to take up the concerns about the Maori Land Court. The bill states that if any disputes cannot be settled and are referred to the Maori Land Court the court can make a determination but it is non-binding. Why on earth would anyone want to take a dispute to the Maori Land Court and have a decision made when it is non-binding? I can see the potential for the courts to be clogged up to some quite serious degree. 
One of the minority views in the commentary refers to different iwi within the groupings of Hauraki Te Arawa Ngapuhi and Ngati Kahungunu that have a concern and a dispute with regard to their identification of their coastline and their entitlements within this bill. I suggest that they will seek an opportunity to relitigate their position in accordance with Part 5 and raise all the matters they have raised previously. I see in the Hui-a-tau Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission report that a number of these matters have been before the courts. The report states that the court dismissed all NgaiTahu’s claims against the commission. It also dismissed allegations made by the Urban Maori Authority’s Whata-Wickliffe and Thompson plaintiffs including the latter’s allegation that Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust would be inadequately funded. I am not sure of the relevance of that. However the report states that the courts determined: “The appellant’s arguments that the Commission had consulted with a closed mind (because in all its reports it had stated its view that there were no inequities) cannot be sustained.” 
Regardless of that I suggest that Hauraki and some of the other iwi may seek to relitigate this whole process in accordance with the dispute resolution because it has to do with the coastline and their entitlements and boundary issues in relation to that. I think that the Maori Land Court will become inundated with relitigation matters and will definitely need resourcing to deal with them. I think those cases will be long and protracted. It has taken about 10 or 11 years— 
Hon Member 
: 12 years. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: —12 years for this particular bill to get to this point. I suggest that those disputes could block the courts to that degree. So there are considerable concerns around that. For the decisions by the Maori Land Court to be only recommendations and not binding makes one ask oneself why any iwi would bother to take a case. 
Earlier on the Minister was challenged to make a response with regard to trusts and say what their taxation rates would be. The report I referred to earlier states that the commission developed deeds and constitutions for the respective trusts and that each of those entities will have a role in the central management of some of the settlement assets after the Maori Fisheries Bill has been passed. It also states that discussions with the Inland Revenue Department have clarified the tax status of all those entities. The department has advised the commission that based on the draft bill Te Ohu Kai Moana Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust and Te Wai Maori will all be charitable organisations for tax purposes. That means they will be paying 19.5c in the dollar. 
One has to wonder how that weighs up against other organisations. Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will be a Maori authority and I presume it will pay the same sort of taxation rates as all other entities with that commercial status. However it is not clear whether that is the case. Again I ask the Minister to take a call in relation to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and clarify what tax status it will operate under to ensure there is a level playing field in the commercial world in relation to fisheries.