Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:15764] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge my former colleague the Hon Koro Wetere who was the co-Minister with me in 1990 when we nominated the first members to the Maori Fisheries Commission. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Doug Kidd who succeeded me as Minister of Fisheries and was the Minister at the time of the 1992 Sealord’s deal. The ACT party will not be supporting this legislation and in saying that I stress at the outset that it is not because we do not want to see Maori play a dominant successful role in fisheries. In fact the very nature of this bill and its inadequacies are why on balance the ACT party has decided that it cannot vote for it. Clearly we know that it will be passed and we wish all those who will be its beneficiaries every success in their enterprise. But we do want to record our opposition to it on the basis that it breaches the 1992 deed of settlement good commercial practice the basic principles of property rights and the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This issue is all about property rights. People enjoyed fishing rights based on common law but in the 1980s the Government introduced statutory law that gave clear property rights—first in 1983 and then in 1986—by establishing individual transferable quota under a quota management regime. Those fishing rights became tangible clear property rights. I do not think anybody in the Government anticipated at the time the simmering concerns of Maoridom but Maori had not been able to express their frustration at not having received sufficient acknowledgment based on their customary right. It was at the point when there were clear property rights that Maori firstly through the Muriwhenua decision and then through subsequent Court of Appeal decisions made it quite clear that the terms of article 2 of the treaty—full exclusive and undisturbed possession of one’s lands forests fisheries and taonga—certainly implied that Maori had a clear property right interest in fisheries. That interest is what the Crown has been negotiating on right from the late 1980s through to today—and I predict will be negotiating on beyond the present—to try to come to terms with what is a very important issue for New Zealand. 
We believe that this bill fails miserably because it imposes all manner of restrictions on Maori that other people do not have on their property rights. It sets up multi-tiered convoluted patronising bureaucracies and locks Maori into them. I believe that Maori—and NgaiTahu is a good example but there are other examples—are proving they are very good business people. And why should we be surprised at that? There is standard commercial law in this country so why do this Parliament and this Government need to say that Maori have to have special protections convoluted bureaucracies and checks and balances that no other commercial business has to have? When we do that it comes at a price: it diminishes the value of one’s asset and it diminishes the opportunity for an enterprise to be and the probability of an enterprise being a commercial success. It can foot-trip a business. The very patronising aspects that are done with good intent can actually foot-trip a business at the end of the day. 
The other aspect in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi is the pre-emption clause which is included in the article 2 property right clause. It states that the chiefs and tribes can hold the asset for as long as they so choose and that they then have the right to sell it. But this bill prevents the sale of the asset and that diminishes its value. In other words it establishes a dual quota. There is what one may call general quota and then there is Maori quota which is ring-fenced and can be sold only to a limited pool of people. That is being done with good intentions: because Maori may flog it all off. But it is actually their right to do that if they want to under article 2 of the treaty. I do not believe they will flog it off but that is their right. It is everybody’s right to make mistakes. However the other side of that is there may be good reasons for selling the asset. I would just like to run through some of those reasons. Fishing in a global sense is a hunter-gatherer operation. We underwent an agricultural revolution arguably 2000 to 4000 years ago and changed from hunter-gatherers to farmers. The same process is happening in the world’s fisheries and aquaculture is the new dimension. It may well be that many stocks and species in various management zones may become almost extinct commercially so why should we lock Maori into an asset of diminishing value when the sensible thing for them to do may be to take the value of the asset sell it while they still can and while it has its value and invest in aquaculture—become fish farmers instead? That opportunity should be provided to Maori as anyone else who holds quota would have that opportunity. 
It is for those reasons that the ACT party feels rather strongly about the bill and I certainly feel strongly about it. I chaired the first select committee over a period of about 2 years and I was the Minister who transferred the first quota to the Maori Fisheries Commission. But I have to say that this process has been horribly politicised. The point is that it was to be a property right settlement whereas what it has become is a social welfare cheque and that is not what it should be. The Crown may well have responsibilities with regard to the social needs of Maori in health and welfare but it should not confuse that with a property right. That is what this bill does. It is meant to be a property right settlement but the provisions that I think John Tamihere and others have brought to this bill as a compromise—it is stated to be a compromise but it is actually a politicisation of the issue—breach the intent of the deed of settlement. 
I predict that this legislation will provide an avenue for this matter to be relitigated in future years. There is a recipe for ongoing disputes in this legislation although we hope this is the end of it. We hope that 12 or 13 years after the Sealord’s deal a compromise has been achieved but I see in this legislation the seeds of ongoing disputes within Maoridom. That in itself could be very divisive. We members of Parliament are already receiving letters from various hapu stating that they want to disassociate from their iwi and that they do not acknowledge them. Possibly that will go down to the whanau level. That is the reality. With tangible assets resources and values of this nature why should we be surprised at that? This bill creates a climate whereby those problems are likely to become exacerbated. 
ACT will not support this bill. I listened to the speech made by Gerry Brownlee from the National Party. I agree with most of the points he made but I could not agree with his conclusion. Why on earth would one support this bill on the basis of one’s own analysis? It is not robust legislation and that is a shame. We have to make the point that we are currently working through the foreshore and seabed legislation and the aquaculture legislation. All those issues are intertwined and interrelated with common threads between all of them. I think we could well see the unfortunate elements in this fisheries bill compounded by what I think is a totally wrong approach on the foreshore and seabed whereby due process is being abandoned. The Government of the day has panicked and introduced legislation that cuts across due process and in an indirect way will exacerbate some of the problems that stem from this legislation.