Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15643] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the invitation to treat this as a wide-ranging debate because it really gives one the opportunity to analyse the basic principles of the bill—which parts we agree with and which parts we disagree with. 
 National has been supporting this bill through the Committee stage and previous stages and we have good reasons for doing so. We recognise that the 1992 legislation which established the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission does have to be modernised. The only way that can be done is through this House. We also recognise that the commission’s solution was a difficult compromise that balanced a variety of interests and ultimately it had to make a call. It would never be in a position to satisfy everyone. 
Let us look at the formula the commission came up with. In essence it said that inshore fisheries were allocated on the basis of coastline and offshore fisheries were allocated on the basis of population. If the commission had left it at that and then allocated the quota for both in shore and off shore directly to the iwi that would have been a fundamentally better solution than the one that has been arrived at in this bill. But there is one further step that the commission suggested. The problem with it is that it is all about protecting a particular commercial entity—Sealord’s. Rather than the iwi getting direct control of the offshore quota which one would have thought would be the logical outcome it is all folded into a whole series of entities. The bulk of the complexity of the bill actually rests around this because all the entities would not be needed but for this fact and ultimately it is all a device to own Sealord’s. Through a whole series of intermediaries that is actually what it is all about. The only control and profit that the iwi get is through this very convoluted many times removed profit. Actually most iwi simply get a vote in an electoral college. That is their level of control—simply a vote in an electoral college. Who on earth could really believe that that is any kind of autonomy or sovereignty? 
National is left with a difficult choice because the question becomes this: do we support that process even though it is fundamentally unsatisfactory because it is at least a step forward from the current situation or do we say that frankly it is not good enough and vote against it? We will make that determination before the third reading. But it is a very serious question. 
We put forward suggestions that would have made it fundamentally easier for us to support this bill. The essence of our suggestions was to enable those iwi that have commercial expertise to directly access their offshore quota. Most self-evidently that would have been NgaiTahu but there would have been other iwi in that regard. We put a lot of thought into those particular provisions. The Minister was notified of those as was United Future because actually United Future had the key. This is one of those situations where United Future members could have said yes or no. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did they lose the key? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well yes because once again they acted like the lapdogs that they are and simply voted for the Government. I find that most disappointing. 
My colleague Mr Heatley also put forward Supplementary Order Papers that would have simplified the convoluted structure and removed some of the layers. Again these were simply rejected by the Government. It was very unsatisfactory. 
Not once have we heard the Maori members stand up and defend these solutions. We virtually never heard the Minister stand up and defend his solutions. What is worse is that tonight he did not even have the officials in the room which tells us everything. He had no intention whatsoever of taking a call even though this is one of the most important bills that this House will deal with this year. It involves $1 billion worth of assets. 
It is not often that Parliament deals with issues of that significance. We spend a lot of time on legislation that does not have that level of significance. One would think that when we do deal with important issues the Government members would take calls. One would think that the Maori members especially would take calls. Instead this side of the Chamber has seen the Government members essentially bankrupt and bereft of ideas. That is why ultimately their seats will go. Their silence speaks volumes and they stand condemned by that. I will bring this point to a close. This is important legislation and we do have a real choice ahead of us.