Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15219] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. I want first of all like other members before me to make some comments about the constructive way in which the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee worked together throughout this process and achieved I believe some excellent results in the amendments that were made to the bill in response to the submitters we listened to. I believe that the bill we delivered back to this House is a better bill because of the way in which the committee members worked together and dropped their party ideology on many occasions to get to the nub of the issues presented to us. 
I want to express my thanks to the officials and to our adviser who worked very hard on our behalf and provided us with very good support. I also express my thanks to the many submitters who came to the committee from all over the country to present their views to us. 
At the introduction of the bill the committee was cautioned by many not to change anything. It was not long though after hearing submitters that it became clear some changes were indeed required. At this point I acknowledge the contribution of Te Ohu Kai Moana and the many years of hard work discussion consultation and negotiation that they engaged in. I can understand how nervous they might have felt at passing their baby—the baby they had created—on to the select committee for the committee potentially to mess with. While I understand their concerns I do not believe that it excuses some of their comments throughout our process. 
We accepted fairly early on in the hearing of the submissions that some changes would improve the bill and were absolutely necessary. It is good that Te Ohu Kai Moana had to pass the bill on to the committee for an objective analysis of it so that we could—by distancing ourselves from the long process they had been engaged in—come up with constructive suggestions for amendments. 
While we were often reminded of the polycentric nature of the bill I believe that it was possible to achieve some important improvements to the legislation yet not upset the delicate balance that had been achieved in the negotiated agreement among Maori which had taken some time. One of the areas that most tested this polycentric phobia was the appeals by Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine and others who were seeking to be given iwi status for the purposes of allocation under this bill. In being able to decide this complex issue the select committee had first of all to inquire into the criteria that the commission had used to determine iwi status. We had to determine whether those criteria were reasonable and then we had to determine whether they had been applied consistently to all those who had sought iwi status. 
The criteria were that they had shared descent from an ancestor they had hapu they had marae they belonged historically to Te Kiwa and that they had an existence that was traditionally acknowledged by iwi. We agreed that only Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine met those first four criteria. There was some concern about the fifth criterion—having been traditionally recognised by iwi. The committee was unanimous I believe that it could not accept that the fifth criterion—recognition by other iwi—was to be a power of veto by another iwi especially for the iwi that would potentially lose most from the recognition of that appealing iwi. It is with real pleasure that we have been able at least in part to recognise Ngati Hine and Rongomaiwahine perhaps not to their full satisfaction but at least to enable them to move forward within the settlement allocation of this bill to achieve their own iwi recognition. The committee was 100 percent committed to that and United Future remains 100 percent committed to that also. 
 Concerns were raised by submitters about the lack of accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and it seemed very clear to us that waiting 12 years for any review process to occur was unacceptable. Too much could occur over that long stretch of time and the negative aspects of wrong decisions being made and being unchecked within those 12 years would be too devastating for the asset base that was being entrusted to them. 
We discussed issues such as a shareholder council as an option perhaps for how an input or oversight could be given but ultimately settled upon an audit review process after 4 years and again after 8 years. Then the major review would be brought forward 1 year to an 11-year time frame. I believe that it was the right approach that the committee arrived at. 
A concern expressed by submitters about the over-accountability of the mandated iwi organisations was discussed at great length. Issues about their smacking of paternalism were often raised but I believe that one submitter summed it up very well by saying that those measures were necessary because the assets entrusted to those organisations were not theirs alone but were held in trust for future generations as well. I particularly did not want to commit to something that was paternalistic—we have had enough of that throughout our history—but there needed to be a recognition as was made clear by the Privy Council ruling that those assets are not just for this generation of Maori who are receiving them but they are an intergenerational settlement and the quota particularly is something that will continue to generate income for future generations—provided it is held by that iwi. So it was right that the Committee did not reduce the accountability but in fact in some instances we increased it. Because it was to be intergenerational in nature we wanted to make sure that the mandated iwi organisations would notify all the members of their respective iwi about general meetings and that they would be given the opportunity to participate in any decision making that was going on—initially of course at the ratification of the constitutional documents that are required. However it was also important that it be required for all general meetings so that everyone would be kept well informed. We also recommended that the percentage of the iwi notional population be increased to 20 percent which would further strengthen that provision. 
These changes will give greater protection against the alienation of settlement quota for future generations while still ultimately leaving the decision about the sale of quota with each iwi. The issue concerning offshore islands also came before us. We discovered that there was only one island that met the criteria set out by the commission for inclusion that it had not included—Motiti Island in the Bay of Plenty. I am particularly pleased that the committee was unanimous in including that island for the purposes of coastal allocation. 
We also made some modest changes to the dispute process to address concerns about coastline disputes holding up the entire asset allocation in response to some submitters’ concerns. They have probably not gone as far as some requested but I believe we made some significant progress in that regard. The dispute resolution process is still available to ultimately sort out disputes where they cannot be reconciled. They will end up in the Maori Land Court. 
In conclusion I wish to express United Future’s hope that the passage of this bill will advance the aspirations of iwi and hapu throughout the country that have waited a long time for redress in this regard. Not all have been involved in the litigation process; many have waited patiently for things to be resolved on their behalf so that assets can be transferred to them. We hope it will lead to them being able to build a prosperous future for their children and grandchildren.