Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15614] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Part 4 largely deals with issues to do with restrictions on the sale of and swap of quota. This is a vexed issue as the Hon Richard Prebble put to the Committee in the debate on Part 3. Members will recall his arguments regarding the freedom of Maori to buy and sell quota outside the Maori pool. As the legislation stands currently there are limitations on Maori in that they can sell quota obtained through this inheritance if one likes—under the 1992 deed of settlement—only to other iwi groups to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd or to other Maori. That raises the question of how that affects the value of the quota itself in the sense that there is a ring-fenced market for purchase of the quota. Also the capital items involved in the settlement such as trucks fishing-boats and all those other assets have to be sold within the Maori pool and their value is also in question. In terms of limitations on realising the value of fishing operations and assets the rule that capital items quota or shares are to be sold within iwi only and the right of first refusal process that requires an iwi to sell quota species separately rather than as a bundle of quota certainly do affect the value of those capital items. 
However although the restriction on the sale of shares and quota has the potential to affect their value and we in the National Party certainly acknowledge that—and Maori who came to the select committee acknowledged time and time again that it would affect their value—Maori also told us again and again individually in whanau groups in hapu groups and in iwi groups that the effect on value is a consequence accepted by them and supported by them because of the understanding that Maori through the generations must benefit from the settlement. In fact that is a fundamental principle in the allocation model. So Maori came to us and said that they accepted they might take some hit on the value of their quota or their capital items if they were able to trade only within Maoridom. They accepted that provision being in the legislation because they understood that Maori through the generations must retain ownership and be the beneficiaries of this asset. That is the argument they put to us. Although we asked them again and again whether they realised what the consequences of that would be they kept coming back and saying that they did that it was their decision and that that was what they wanted us to pass in the House with regard to their asset. 
So of course it is quite a vexed question. The appeal by the Hon Richard Prebble in the Chamber earlier this afternoon in relation to this issue was well-thought-out. It has merit and cannot be ignored. It is simply that Maori accept the consequence of their decision and still want to box on with these clauses. 
Amendments were made to Part 4 particularly to clause 127. Members will see that clauses 127A to 127C have been added. They ensure that iwi can still maximise the price they receive through sales being offered within the Maori pool. Through those amendments they will now be able to sell the quota either in individual parcels or as collective stock. The original bill as tabled contained restrictions on Maori splitting up the quota and selling them as individual stock or doing the reverse and selling a bundle of quota. We have no idea what the reason for that rule was. Perhaps it was just an oversight. However now Maori can actually split the quota into individual stock or sell quota as a bundle if they wish. Another addition to Part 4 is clause 132A which also allows Maori to pool small parcels of quota for sale.