English Bill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15648] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 In the earlier stages of the debate in this Committee our spokesperson Phil Heatley outlined National’s general concerns about this legislation. After having listened to that debate in some detail and having followed the discussions that have gone on over the last 10 years or so I think most of us are led to the conclusion that this bill is worse than almost anything except one thing which is to have no settlement. Really that is the only reason that I think Parliament ought to tolerate the pretty obvious weaknesses in this legislation. It is better to have this legislation than to leave the 10 or 12 years of discussion without a conclusion. 
We have looked in detail at three areas that I think matter. The first has been referred to by my colleagues and it is the commercial structures that are involved. They are not commercial structures. The only parallel I can think of is that they resemble in some way the Fonterra settlement that came through this Parliament. But this matter is much more complex although many of the same issues are involved. The iwi involved here—in fact everyone who is involved—need to understand that the easy bit of developing Maori fisheries is over. Running an export fishing business when the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar is at US65c is hard work. If anyone believes that the fishing industry can deliver significant dividends to the beneficiaries of this settlement without the best of commercial and strategic management then he or she is wrong yet this legislation does not permit the best of commercial and strategic management. I would bet that a number of the beneficiaries of this legislation will find before too long that the aspects of it regarding collective ownership Maori exclusivity and limited trading are a hindrance to the decisions they want to make rather than a help. 
Another part of this bill that does concern me is the layers of vested interests that are built in here. In some respects the existing structure is certainly easier to understand more transparent and better able to manage the asset than what the bill provides for. We are now moving into a much more complex and indirect structure and as one of my colleagues here in the Chamber has pointed out the interesting thing about the layers of accountability is that Maori have chosen that for themselves. No one who benefits from this settlement will be able to say that some colonial doctor a has-been has dropped it on them. This has been— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You wait and see. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Maybe we should. In some ways Parliament is colonising iwi thinking through this legislation. Give them 20 years and then it will all be our fault do members think? 
The Maori people have chosen this structure for themselves and I am concerned as are many Maori that it will result in high salaries unaccountable management politicised decision-making and people whom one can never quite get one’s hands on particularly if one wants to get one’s hands around their throats. With the growing commercial awareness and capacity in iwi they will want to get their hands around the throats of the people who are running this asset because it is high-risk commercial business now. There will be losses and there will need to be accountability. So in a way Parliament is throwing its hands up and saying to Maori that they have chosen this structure so they can live with it. I would not mind betting that in a lot less than 10 or 12 years’ time Parliament will be playing around with this legislation again. It looks to me as though the future path of Maori fishing will parallel that of the restructuring of the meat and wool boards where we had an amendment bill about every 2 years for 5 or 6 years until finally we got to a conclusion that was sustainable. 
The other issue I am concerned about is the way that Parliament is legislating and mandating iwi. That is not something we have done before. We have not set up a statutory basis for iwi registration and therefore for beneficiary registration. The debates we have already had in the far north and in Hawke’s Bay tell us that that is difficult territory for Parliament to stray into.