Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15213] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Ko te tikanga kia timata mai aku korero i roto i to tatau reo rangatira na te mea tuatahi he kaupapa tenei e pa ana ki a ngai tatau te iwi Maori tuarua na te mahinga hi ika a tuatoru na te iwi whanui o Aotearoa. 
It is correct that I preface my speech in our Maori language because this is a matter that concerns the Maori people in the first instance secondly it concerns the fishing industry and thirdly the people of New Zealand. I stand as a member of New Zealand First the only non-aligned political party in this House to signal our support for the intent of this bill in its second reading. I should also mention as I did from the first day I sat on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that dealt with this bill my vested interest—an interest that must be shared by other Maori members of this House because the findings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held: “… the benefits of the settlement to be allocated to iwi meaning the traditional tribes for the ultimate benefit of all Maori.” 
I recall in December last year the words of the Minister of Maori Affairs when introducing this bill to the House: “Its passage will begin a new era of Maori participation in the fishing industry enabling the beneficiaries of the 1992 fisheries settlement to receive the assets and use them for the economic and social benefit of Maori.” Of course we all know that Maori are already a major participant in the fishing industry and I now have a clear understanding of why the Minister no longer has a responsibility for the passage of this bill. 
The bill has its genesis in the deal that is commonly known as the Sealord’s deal—a deal signed some 12 years ago. Those who signed agreed to forego any further fisheries claims which included their customary fishing rights. So we can see that Maori have been waiting a long time to see the benefits of that deal and may I say that some have waited longer than others. I am mindful of the American Will Rogers who said that the ageing process could certainly be slowed down if it had to work its way through Congress. Although that might be a possibility it certainly has not applied to Maori. In fact many have passed on while waiting for this bill to come to fruition. 
Te Ohu Kai Moana the Maori Fisheries Commission was subsequently established and charged with providing a model for the allocation of a resource conservatively valued at $700 million. This bill is based on the model the commission presented following dialogue between itself and iwi. Although not fully supported by iwi the model received a limited sign-off for its presentation to the Government. Why? It was clearly a sign of their frustration in having to wait so long for the matter to be resolved and therefore to allow iwi to get on with the business of fishing. 
Notwithstanding the difficulty of the task of the process and in particular the duration all of that attracted much criticism towards Te Ohu Kai Moana. My observation and in particular hearing the utterances emanating from one or two of the principals of Te Ohu Kai Moana over recent weeks has given me a better understanding of why iwi have been critical of the commission. The model outlined a number of features concerning the ongoing governance of that iwi resource. Plans to recognise some groups outside of those recommended by Te Ohu Kai Moana will not delay the distribution of the settlement as those who clearly oppose these recommendations would have us believe. 
I say to those people who consider themselves leaders of their people that they should—if they are indeed leading their people—take a look back now and then to ensure that the people are still there. I say to those very people that if they had taken the responsibilities of good leadership on board and taken their people with them then those issues that they have suddenly become concerned about might not have transpired. Attempting to circumvent the recommendations of the select committee did not help their cause. The time is long overdue for them to stop this scaremongering and to get on with the job their people expect of them. Any talk of further litigation is just mere obstruction to the economic development of their people. This must clearly send a message to present and future leadership of all groups which will now become mandated iwi organisations under the terms of this bill. 
The suggestion that this recommendation will open a Pandora’s box suggests for me that members of the current leadership are still locked into the belief that they know what is best without understanding the level of feeling of the people they purport to lead. If anything what they should be doing is giving to their people what is contained in Pandora’s box—that is hope. It is the hope that they will do right by their people. In so saying I acknowledge that there is leadership that has proved this. Sadly I cannot say it for others. If there are those among the leadership I am referring to who are offended by my remarks then I say that if the cap fits they should wear it and do something about it. 
The publicity given to this recommendation describes it as a compromise on iwi recognition. The select committee had no difficulty in coming to its decision because it was consistent with the criteria set by Te Ohu Kai Moana. The select committee further contended that it was not right for any contiguous iwi to have the power of veto in that regard. The disquiet expressed by iwi around the country towards the commission concerning the time and process taken to get where we are today suggests to me that the future role of this group—including its new identity provided by this bill—in other fisheries matters involving Maori should not be given any further consideration. 
This bill establishes a number of new entities one of which will allow for the distribution of financial assistance. Just as important it will provide access for those who do not identify with an iwi thus creating in my mind a new iwi—all of which I find hard to accept but there it is. Of course the argument proffered by Te Ohu Kai Moana in support of that suggestion is that those people do not know their tribal iwi—and Ngati Hine does. One can only wonder why it is then that when those same people pass on they and their families know exactly which marae to return to and where they wish to be buried—thus suggesting to me that they do know their iwi. 
For me another issue that requires attention in order for due consideration to be given so that there is a clear intent notified is the question regarding the use for which data is provided in this respect. I refer to the use of the census figures. From the 2001 census data we are told that there are 107000 people who identify with belonging to the Ngapuhi iwi but I understand that in spite of this number there are only 7000 people on its own register. I would suggest that that number and the numbers for all other iwi listed on the census form may well prove to be lacking if respondents were informed that those numbers would be used for determining the fisheries allocation. However in this aggregation process those groups recommended by the select committee have the opportunity to draw their population numbers from the 2006 census if they so wish and of course it will not advance their position if they do not. Otherwise they can use the 2001 census figures upon which the commission model is based. 
In order to address what might be an advantage for those groups consideration ought to be given to utilising the 2006 census iwi population data for all iwi. Why? Because people will know that apart from telling the world how many make up the membership of their tribe they will be doing so in the knowledge that their choice will be used to determine the extent of their tribe’s allocation under this bill. Personally I would like to think that other parties in this House would lend their support for a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines. 
Again I would also like to support the sentiments expressed by the honourable member from Te Tai Tokerau in acknowledging those people who were responsible for putting together the original deal and who have since passed on. Na reira koutou e ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi haere hoki atu. Those who have gone from our sights go return to the spirit world. Na reira e te Kaikorero tena koe tena tatau katoa. 
[ 
So thank you Mr Speaker and everyone else 
.]