Fairbrother Russell: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15221] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill. I do so having been appointed chair of the committee that considered the bill with great humility. I felt humility for two reasons—firstly that I was a Pakeha privileged to sit on this committee considering a matter so important to Maori and secondly that I was a Pakeha coming into this at the very end of 12 years hard work by Te Ohu Kai Moana which had put in a tremendous amount of work as reflected in the bill that was delivered to the committee to consider. The committee received a good bill. It made changes that have been addressed by preceding speakers tonight and we believe that that has improved the bill. The bill returned to the House is a very good bill. 
There is one matter I must take issue with tonight—that is the speech made by the ACT member Ken Shirley who described this structure as paternalistic and over-complicated. It is a pity that that member was not present when a New Zealand senior partner of an international accounting and audit firm advised the committee that the structure— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member should know that it is a breach of the Standing Orders to refer to a member’s absence either in the House or from a select committee. I ask you to draw that to his attention. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. I am sure that that has drawn the matter to Mr Fairbrother’s attention. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I note that the evidence of a New Zealand senior partner for an international accounting and audit firm who described the structure in the bill as being not unusual in the commercial field was not challenged by any member of the committee and was therefore accepted in its totality. It is somewhat surprising after an expert has given such clear evidence in support of the structure and the transparency changes that the committee made that someone in his absence should now rise to challenge it. I think that that describes the weight we should put on that criticism. The committee received 72 submissions— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether you are awake but the member just repeated the offence that he committed earlier which I drew to your attention. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take offence at the way the member said that. Please sit down. I am aware of what he said. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee received 72 submissions on this bill. Fourteen generally supported the bill while also seeking particular changes. Sixteen specifically sought recognition as additional iwi further groups sought other changes and 14 opposed the bill. Of those 16 seeking to be recognised as iwi the committee investigated the basis on which Te Ohu Kai Moana made its decision and taking the approach that we thought would withstand any legal scrutiny or any scrutiny in the court we decided that the hapu of Rongomaiwahine and Ngati Hine met the five requirements established by Te Ohu Kai Moana to determine that an iwi should be included as a mandated iwi organisation. Those two hapu or iwi were included in the schedule so that they may at some later date disengage from the iwi grouping they are at present listed with and be an iwi in their own right. The other 14 did not meet the test and therefore we made no such amendment. 
The committee worked very well I should say. The committee had three practising lawyers including a fourth non-voting member. It had six Maori and three people expert in fisheries matters and it brought to the consideration all this accumulated experience. I thank very much the deputy chair of the committee Georgina te Heuheu who worked constructively with me and with the committee right throughout. Our consideration and deliberations were much assisted by her willingness to assist us to produce a bill that met the two constraints under which we worked. Those constraints were that the benefits— 
Phil Heatley 
: Hoy! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: And “Hoy” over there should be included as well. Phil Heatley of course was an admirable back-up to Georgina te Heuheu. He sat in great awe as he learnt about tikanga Maori. We spent much time educating him in the finer aspects of the Maori culture and he brought to us the wisdom he has in the world of fishing. The committee assisted by Nanaia Mahuta Dover Samuels and Mahara Okeroa considered these matters in the detail as one would expect. 
It is a bill that has increased the transparency for all Maori. It is a bill that has increased the accountability without adding to the bureaucracy. It is a bill that meets the two constraints imposed upon us: first that the settlement should be for the benefit of all Maori and secondly that the distribution model should follow the traditional iwi lines. That was the injunction we received from the Privy Council. The preamble of the bill was amended to include the Privy Council citation so that any future court being asked to consider the provisions of this bill would be aware of the background that provided the constraints that the model contained in the bill reflects. 
I take great pride in bringing this bill back to the House for its consideration and I ask that the House do debate the bill in the spirit in which the committee did which was in a constructive cooperative manner. It was one where each party worked to ensure that the bill was improved. The contribution of each member was duly noted and the report reflects the genuine desire of most on that committee to produce a bill that this country could stand proud of. I recommend this bill to the House.