Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15419] 
Maori Fisheries Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand to speak in the Committee stage of this legislation. The National Party will be putting forward some amendments to the bill. The Minister of Fisheries has presented some as well. 
Obviously the bill went through a quite extensive select committee process. We toured the country and we made some substantial changes to the legislation during the consideration phase based on the submissions that we had heard. Most of those submissions agreed on a whole lot of points. There were six major ones that were consistently brought up: recognition of up and running iwi; recognition that coastlines agreements are likely to hold up the allocation; restrictions on the sale of quota; the conflict of interest between Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd where they compete with iwi; iwi not being recognised in their own right; and the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I note that one of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers—and I acknowledge him on this—has addressed a number of those issues more extensively than the committee did and I commend him for that. 
We have some other issues that we would like to put to the Committee. One of them is in relation to the commitment of coastline to particular iwi groups. We want to make sure that that is clear in the legislation—or at least that the disputes resolution process is clearer and more assertive I guess in terms of defining coastal agreements particularly historical ones in other settlements. That will be the first one. 
The second amendment will be in relation to the appointment of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors. Members may not be aware and we are concerned that there are five layers between Maori beneficiaries—those whom the settlement is supposed to be directed to each and every one of them and from here through their children and their grandchildren—and the Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors and we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that removes one of those layers so that there is more direct accountability. 
Lastly as was signalled in the debate on the second reading Dr Wayne Mapp also has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the issue of iwi who want to withdraw their interest in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—particularly the deep-shore quota. So we will be addressing those issues. 
The preamble in the bill talks about the historical intent of the legislation and how we have come as far as this in the 12 years following the settlement in 1992—which the National Party Government took a great and sincere part in and was delighted to sign off. We will be questioning whether the intent of that sign-off back in 1992 has been followed through in the negotiations the toing and froing and the court battles that have occurred in the last 12 years that have led to the introduction of this bill the submissions process and the bill we finally have now. We will be continually questioning through our Supplementary Order Papers and amendments whether the intent of the 1992 settlement as talked about in the preamble has been fairly and rightly reflected in the legislation. We think it has generally—there is no doubt about that—and that is why we have agreed with the majority report but there are key areas where we do not think the intent has been reflected. Members will see in the preamble more specifically what the intent of that 1992 settlement was. It certainly was about empowerment of Maori and it certainly was intended that all Maori for all time would be beneficiaries of the settlement. We believe that there are clauses and substantial provisions of this bill that do not empower Maori but in fact disempower them and separate them from their asset and we will be addressing that. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Although my fellow caucus members have indicated support for the Maori Fisheries Bill I stand to indicate that I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper based around the issue of takiwa and in particular the defined takiwa iwi—takiwa defining the deed of settlement and takiwa defining enactment. It is important to recognise those iwi who have already signed or entered into a deed of settlement with the Crown. This bill is all about an agreement that was made some 12 years ago between Maori and the Crown. I am sure that when those iwi signed their deeds of settlement with the Crown they believed they were entering into an enduring settlement—something that would last for time immemorial. The bill as it stands in relation to the defined takiwa iwi issue suggests that those deeds of settlement do not apply to the contents of the bill so New Zealand First will certainly be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper I will put up. 
There are other issues with regard to the disaggregation of those groups who wish to be recognised as mandated iwi organisations separate from their iwi as listed in the schedules. We will certainly be commenting on the intention of those groups particularly given that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope has provided a Supplementary Order Paper covering those issues. We do not have too much difficulty with the intent of the Supplementary Order Papers but we will certainly comment on them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In debating the preamble tonight I begin by paying tribute to people like Doug Graham and Doug Kidd former members of the House who were visionary in seeing the opportunity to settle a treaty issue that for decades had been a huge drawback for New Zealand in terms of the management of its fisheries and who with the purchase of 50 percent of the interests in Sealord’s were able to see their way forward and through to a ground-breaking solution to Treaty of Waitangi issues in respect of commercial fisheries. 
I pay tribute both to the Maori negotiators and to my former colleagues who were part of that agreement. But I also express some concern about where this bill will take Maori New Zealanders and members of the fishing industry. That industry is of vital importance to the New Zealand economy and particularly to the community I represent in Nelson. 
I note that the preamble states: “The enactment of this legislation will complete the implementation of the agreements in the Deed of Settlement ...”. I say to the Committee that I will bet whatever any member in this Chamber would like to bet that we will be back to amend the bill’s almost 290 pages of quite detailed law within a year or at most two and that we will be back many times over the next decade. The Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope should not kid himself that the bill will in any way be a complete implementation of the agreements of the deed of settlement. In fact in a number of key areas the bill contradicts elements of that deed of settlement and I join with the very competent fisheries spokesperson for National Phil Heatley in signalling concern about the convoluted governance structure that this Government will impose on Maoridom. 
I have never quite been able to work out the Labour Party’s relationship with Maori. It paternalistically tries to do the right thing but fundamentally Labour does not trust Maori. It imposes paternalistic structures on Maori that will not let them exhibit their ownership rights over assets that Parliament should agree with Maori are theirs. I would love to hear a contribution from the Minister explaining how a five-stage convoluted governance structure will serve the interests of Maoridom. 
What is it that Labour believes about Maori that means they cannot own their own assets? Why is it that the Government has to tie them up in this sort of convoluted mess? My Nelson iwi will have a role in appointing some directors to a college which will then appoint some members to a trust. The trust will then appoint directors to a company and that company will finally have control of the substantive quota interests. What a bizarre set-up! If it were being imposed on any Pakeha or non-Maori property owner we would all be standing up in Parliament and saying that it was an outrage and a mess. So why is it that this Labour Government wants to impose on Maori all those restrictions on what they can do with their assets? 
Phil Heatley 
: They don’t trust them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I take the point. It is true that if Maori are trusted with their assets then like anybody else they will sometimes mismanage and lose them. We have already seen that happen with treaty settlements. Some groups have been extremely competent have built up their assets and have grown them. Others have been less competent. It is no different for Maori than it is for anybody else but it is a fundamental right of ownership to be able to take control and do one’s own thing. 
I say that this preamble is wrong in saying that it completes the implementation of those agreements in the deed of settlement. It was never envisaged in 1992 that we would have this sort of convoluted mess. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dr Wayne— 
Jill Pettis 
: Don’t trust him. He would sell your grandmother’s false teeth. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What do you think of those comments? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I notice that the senior Government whip made some rude comments about my grandmothers who are deceased. What is more the member was interjecting while away from her chair. I ask for some order in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I was not aware that the member was referring to anyone in this Chamber and for that reason I let it lie. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That explanation addresses the first part of the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s point of order which related to the specificity of the comments made. It does not address the second point of my colleague’s point of order. It is I believe a breach of the Standing Orders for members to make a comment in the nature of a debating comment whilst they are moving about rather than being in a seat in the Chamber. I would ask for you to rule on that matter as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The members are perfectly right on that particular issue: Speaker’s ruling 56/6 states that there shall be no interjections while a member is walking around. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will speak extremely briefly. Speaking sotto voce and making a comment to oneself is I believe quite usual in this Chamber. But if I offended the member I am happy to withdraw and see an end to the matter. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That point of order has been dealt with. Is this a new point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
JIM PETERS 
: Yes it is Mr Chairperson and that is the very issue I wish to address. Is it not unusual that as you are deliberating upon the point of order a member of the Committee is indulging in persistent conversation across the Chamber? If that is so I suggest strongly that she be brought to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and refer the member on my right to Speaker’s rulings 19/6 and Standing Order 84(3). 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This legislation including the preamble reflects a long period of litigation negotiation discussion and dialogue involving the courts various iwi lawyers—some motivated it seems to me by gain rather than serious intent—and the Government. I know many of the people who have involved themselves in all of this and I recognise that they have come to what they think is the best possible compromise. I guess the problem with all compromises is that they do not always reflect the best set of options but in many ways what people might argue is the least worst. National’s difficulty with this whole proposal is that it has departed too much from principle. In this regard we are not primarily talking about the allocation formula—I understand why the Maori Fisheries Commission came to the view of essentially splitting the inshore quota on the basis of coastline of particular iwi and theoffshore quota essentially on a population formula. 
Our major concern is twofold. Firstly the excessively paternalistic approach in essence does not trust people to manage their own assets. The case put by the commission of course is that the assets have to be protected on a generational basis. But I cannot see how that case can be properly made out because surely iwi have exactly the same interest and are in fact I would suggest probably even more powerfully motivated than a commission—now of course Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to keep the assets within the iwi rather than an entity somewhat removed from direct control. That is our first major objection. It seems to me that there has been far too much regard held to protecting particular commercial interests that have motivated the way that the offshore quota is managed so that it is removed from iwi and controlled by Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which really is all about protecting the viability of Sealord’s. That is the first objection and National will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that deals directly with that on a principle basis so that only those iwi with a proven commercial record would get direct control. 
The second issue which will be raised particularly by Mr Heatley is the whole issue of the layers of control—the multiple entities that cumulatively serve to remove direct iwi control of the entities involved in the fishing. In this instance we are not even talking about iwi ownership. The problem is that the owners do not even have the sort of control that one would expect a shareholder to have. Surely the proposal presented by the Government—because ultimately the Government had to endorse that of the Maori Fisheries Commission—should have provided the normal form of shareholder control even if that meant some additional level of protection owing to the generational factors. It has failed at that level. 
Finally I would also like to note—because a Supplementary Order Paper is being tabled on this issue—that scant regard is paid to the issue of prior settlements. Why would we set up a whole new potential for iwi boundary disputes—coastline allocation issues—to be once again channelled through the courts—because that will be the effect of the proposals—for that to be finally determined? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to the Maori Fisheries Bill. I hope that in the preceding speeches colleagues of mine have mentioned some of our reservations about this bill. These reservations will become clear as we progress through the many hours of the Committee stage that we expect the Chamber will take in its consideration of this bill. 
During the debate on the preamble to the bill I want to speak particularly about clause (8A) which is new and was inserted by majority. It is worth noting firstly that this bill is supposed to be a bill that sets up the regime for fisheries allocation to Maori from this point onwards. 
 Everyone knows it has been a very long road to get to this point. Clause (8A)—a new clause inserted by majority—in the preamble to the bill states: “The enactment of this legislation will complete implementation of the agreements in the Deed of Settlement between the Crown and Maori in respect of Maori claims to commercial fisheries as outlined in the Preamble to that Deed and in the Preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.” 
What worries us is that this which is supposed to be an end point and at the same time a commercial beginning could well be just another step along the way in this very long discussion so far. One of the alarming things that we have heard at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee in recent days is the repeated comment from various iwi groups that whatever settlement is reached in this generation is just for this generation. We have heard over and over again that many Maori view these matters as interim settlements and it concerns us that the Government it seems with this bill is in a position of not having strapped down that this is full and final. 
If members want a further example of how things get pushed out and how new opportunities are created the foreshore and seabed issue itself appears to do that. We have heard Maori talking about the confiscation of the sea from them and the economic opportunity that that provides. One submitter yesterday—only one but a very significant submitter—suggested that the sea space that his particular iwi would lay claim to in a single chain—not a chain in measurement but a chain if one likes of marine licences along that coastline—would be worth some $40 billion to the tribe over a very short period of time if it were able to be commercialised by them. I have to say that while those sorts of wild claims are out there there can be no certainty at all that the legislation this House is being asked to pass will stick. 
The trouble is that over the past 15 or maybe 20 years we in this country have made genuine efforts to try to sort out all these issues only to find that the ground shifts over and over and over again. No one will dispute that there are genuine grievances between the Crown and Maori that should be sorted out but what worries me increasingly is the number of Maori leaders who are prepared to tell their people that they are not part of the Crown. They tell them that in New Zealand in 2004 they are not part of the Crown. Under our current arrangements the Crown in this country is simply the people. We cannot have a Government trying to pass legislation in an environment where some people believe that they are owed a greater due by the rest of the people. In the ancestral sense if one likes in the grievance sense yes there are duties that have to be met and they will be. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to take up the issue regarding the historical setting that we see ourselves in with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act in 1992 and also to pick up on Gerry Brownlee’s point particularly his earlier point about precedent-setting. We in the National Party know that although this Maori Fisheries Bill states in some clauses that it is restricted to the matters that it deals with and cannot cast any precedent on future Acts and legislation or past Acts and legislation the structure set up under it will be the structure utilised in other settlements. In the case of aquaculture we know that the give-away by the Labour Government of 20 percent of aquaculture space to Maori will utilise the same governance structures allocation structures and iwi business models that this bill uses. As the Government talks about seabed and foreshore being entrusted in the Crown we know that it is going about negotiations with three different Maori groups throughout New Zealand on their own private settlements to do with the seabed and foreshore—unbeknown to all other iwi groups in the country. We know that those settlements will use a similar structure to what is outlined in this bill. 
We talk about the patronising nature of this bill about the distance between the Maori beneficiaries who are supposed to receive the settlement—the power the monetary value and the mana of the settlement—and a sum of the settlement assets particularly those in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I have talked about five layers. There are the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd board of directors who select the Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd board of directors with the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd directors having already been selected by the trustees of Te Kawai Taumata—that is three layers—who are selected by iwi representatives and of course those iwi representatives are selected by the people. That structure is highly bureaucratic and it will be utilised not just in this Maori Fisheries Bill but in the 20 percent aquaculture space give-away as well. So any bureaucracy that Maori unnecessarily face through this legislation or any patronising approach that Maori have to face through this legislation they will also have to face when it comes to the aquaculture settlement or to any seabed or foreshore deal. 
That is why this bill is so significant to the National Party. We want to see the bureaucracy and the unnecessarily patronising approach in this legislation removed because all that they will do is give lots of lawyers lots of work amongst Maori who will see their financial benefit disappear in the courts as they argue about 250 pages of legislation. Maori unfortunately will be forced into the position where they argue about clause upon clause—over 169 clauses. There are lots of subclauses lots of layers and lots of accountability. In fact the accountability goes far above that of any normal mainstream organisation that Maori would have to appease. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to make a point with regard to the part of the preamble that refers to the Maori Land Court. One of the concerns I have is related to an issue that has been in the media and has attracted a lot of attention in this Parliament in terms of the Maori Land Court. 
First I refer to the responsibility that the Maori Land Court will have under this bill particularly in the area of certain disputes that are to be referred to the court. My concern is that nothing in the bill makes reference to the allocation of resources in order for the Maori Land Court to be able to do that work. Already under its present workload the Maori Land Court is running behind. That certainly gives credence to its often-said description: “Taihoa the Maori Land Court!”. I want to make that point. 
Secondly I refer to the attention the Maori Land Court has been given by this Parliament and I note the issue of disputes resolution. If the court is to deal with those issues then what comes into question is who the judge is who sits on the bench to determine them. Given that there are a number of Maori judges the comments that have been made about the recent actions of a particular Maori Land Court judge suggest to me that those same people will have to remove themselves from those deliberations. Therefore the issue of resourcing the Maori Land Court adequately to deal with this issue becomes a matter of concern. 
So I rise just to raise those two issues. Kia ora. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to and preamble as amended agreed to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise a matter of order in the Committee. A great deal of this place functions on the basis that we have loose agreements and understandings about where things are going and what is supposed to occur. Everyone knows that a date is being organised for the third reading of this bill that will suit the large number of people who wish to be here for that purpose. I want to let you know that although the Labour Party may not wish to debate this legislation other parties do and under the Standing Orders we are entitled to speak up to four times on each part. Mr Chairperson I think it would be unwise in these early stages to look for early closures. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and I will consider all things on an equal basis when I make such rulings. I thank him for drawing that to my attention. I call the honourable member Phil Heatley— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does that work! We will have another think about that Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well is Mr Heatley seeking a point of order? 
Phil Heatley 
: No no I was taking a call as you well know. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the risk of offending my good colleague the member for Whangarei I want to say that my understanding is that there is a loose convention that would have you at least allow the senior member of the Opposition present to take the first call on a part. Given that the deputy leader of the National Party is present in the Chamber and sought the call I would think that perhaps in those circumstances and with no disrespect to my colleague Phil Heatley Mr Brownlee should be—if I could be so bold—offered the call in the first instance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I have made a mistake because I have not actually put Part 1. Of course under Speaker’s ruling 25/4 once I have called someone I cannot take the call away. But given that I did not put Part 1 because I took a point of order from Mr Brownlee I will do so now. 
Part 1 Purposes of Act key concepts and key iwi organisations 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This includes debate on schedules 2 3 3A 4 5 and 6. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson you can see how eager Opposition members are to make a contribution to this debate and I refer you again to the points I made before. Part 1 is about the preliminary provisions key concepts and key iwi organisations. It is a very large part of the bill and it should take the Committee quite some time to deal with it. As the Chairperson has already said we are dealing with several schedules as we go through it. 
What is very evident in this part is just what hopelessly patronising legislation this is. I wonder how many New Zealanders out there would be happy if they were told that they were being given some assets but that they could never ever get their hands on them—if they were told the assets were theirs as of right but that they would never get their hands on them or be given the opportunity to determine how they would be used and who was to have the say over them. That is the trouble with this legislation. I do not have too much of a concern about who might have been involved with this legislation before Mr Benson-Pope became the Minister. He is the Minister who will go down in history as the paternalistic old grandfather who treated Maori in the appalling way that they have been treated for so many generations in the past. I can see future generations of young Maori coming to the Crown again and asking why that was done to them. Maori will ask why the Crown gave them assets but then did not let them get their hands on them—did not let them directly determine how the assets were to be used and what sort of return they would get off them but rather combined Maori into a very very convoluted and bureaucratic structure that saw them take only what they were given. 
The irony of course is that this legislation will hand over in a fairly substantial way control of all those assets to Maori—but to a very very exclusive group of Maori. It will be interesting will it not in the time of future generations when people come back to the Crown and say that it made a mistake and they want redress for that. I have no doubt that that will be the result of this legislation—and it may not be very long before people come back to the Crown quite frankly. Then we will see the extraordinary situation of the Crown having to sort out a mess for Maori created by Maori. That is one of the concerns the National Party has about this legislation. The purpose clause states that the bill is to “provide for the development of the collective and individual interests of iwi in fisheries fishing and fisheries-related activities in a manner that is ultimately for the benefit of all Maori.” But Maori can never hold the assets. The assets will be locked up by a very elite group which will be able to choose the directors for the various companies that may operate a good chunk of the quota that will go into those assets and other Maori will simply have to take whatever they can get. 
I remind people who may be interested that very recently the Maori fishing assets must have been under some peril as Sealord’s itself was a company that for a moment or two seemed less than viable. Would it not be awful for the country if in the future Maori quota is somehow lost—or if the value of it is lost which is probably the real point? The value of it could be stripped away through bad management and the asset given to Maori could become worth very little. If one or two people had had their way with regard to the Sealord’s arrangement about 55 percent of the country’s fishing assets would have ended up in one place. If one big company has 55 percent of the assets and a whole lot of small companies have various little bits who sets the value? The big player does. I think that is the real tragedy in this bill. From my perspective I am reluctant to support it. The rest of my concerns will become evident as we go further through the bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to point out an issue that came to us in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that probably best typifies the absurdity of some of the bureaucracy and the patronising approach evident in the bill originally tabled by the Minister of Fisheries. Some iwi came to us—NgaiTahu and Tainui in particular—and said that they had already been recognised in other Crown settlements as having structures in place to deal with settlements as having a mandate on behalf of their people to negotiate or work through a settlement and as having systems in place whereby they are accountable to their shareholders. Those iwi asked why they could not just pick up their assets and put them to work for their people almost immediately. They asked why they had to go back to the Crown and prove that they had some mandate that they had some sort of trust or company set-up that could handle the assets and that they could be accountable for their actions. 
That seemed sensible to the select committee so we went back and made amendments to clause 14 so that such iwi organisations can if they want it be given automatic recognition as iwi groups. I find it quite absurd that we in Parliament are deciding for Maori that they are iwi. Maori know they are iwi and their ancestors knew they were an iwi group. They know about their whanau and hapu and where they came from. The future generations will know about their whanau hapu and iwi group and where they came from. Why is Parliament doing this? Anyway the select committee decided it would make amendments to that clause so that iwi organisations such as NgaiTahu and Tainui can if they want have automatic recognition. All that they have to do is demonstrate that they are formally structured and are accountable to their members which they are; that they have already established an asset-holding company that can take those fisheries assets on board and put them into action straight away which they have; and that they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement purposes which they have. 
New Zealanders know about the NgaiTahu settlement and the Tainui settlement. Those Maori groups have already been through all the hoops that a Government bureaucracy can throw at them. They have been through all the paperwork and all the court cases. They have answered all the patronising questions. They have dealt with all the accountability that the white man would throw at them—plus some for some reason just because they are Maori. They have been through all of that and this Government wanted them to go through it all again in order to get these fisheries assets—which incidentally have already belonged to them for 12 years now anyway. 
National is delighted to support the changes to clause 14 to make sure that iwi groups such as NgaiTahu and Tainui that are proven in those areas—that are formally structured and accountable have already established an asset-holding company and have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty negotiations—can just pick up a large bulk of their settlement assets and get on with the job of running a fishing business. Sadly that is only to do with the inshore quota. National wants to see that extended to a degree—Wayne Mapp will address it in his amendments—to offshore quota. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We see in the Chamber this evening a level of arrogance and a patronising attitude from this Government that are truly extraordinary. We have a bill of 281 pages and a Supplementary Order Paper of 30 pages and not one Government member has taken a call—not one. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Who believes this member? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to know from Rick Barker why not a single Maori Labour member is participating in this debate. I say to Mr Barker that it is no wonder the last opinion poll showed that Labour will lose every single one of the Maori seats. It is no wonder at all because those Maori members are not prepared to participate in this debate which is of vital importance to Maori and to all New Zealanders. Why have they not been down in the Chamber to debate this bill so that we can have a proper debate? 
Mr Barker is propping it up as is the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. Neither of them is prepared to take a call but both chip in. The Minister in the chair said we should support this bill because Maori support it. I say to the Minister that Maori are no more homogenous in terms of having a single point of view than any other group. They have a range of views. 
What is paternalistic about this bill is that it is Parliament telling Maori how they are to manage their assets. That is what we are doing with this bill. If the responsibility is passed over to Maori and they want these structures—[ 
Interruption 
] We would not complain about that but that is not what the bill says. The bill says Maori must do it this way and do it this way forever. That is a nonsense. I challenge Mr Barker to tell me where in the 1992 settlement it says the fishing resource will be managed centrally. Clause 3 states that the Maori quota is to be managed centrally. I have to say that in 1992—and I participated in the debate at the time of that settlement—that was never part of the agenda. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Barker and Mr Benson-Pope want to get personal and raise irrelevancies because they do not have the substance to be able to argue the points in as simple a form as this. I ask Mr Barker where in the Maori fisheries settlement it supports the contention that the assets are to be managed centrally. Where? The silence is deafening. I will ask Mr Chris Carter; he might be able to answer the important question. Where in the Maori fisheries settlement does it say the fisheries assets will be managed centrally? 
Those members do not know. They have no idea. Here we are talking about $800 million worth of assets—a key issue for Parliament—and Ministers in the Chamber have no damn idea of what their bill even does and no idea whether it will serve the interest of Maori and other New Zealanders. And it will not. I want to know from the next speaker on the Government side—but I have to note that we have not heard a single speaker from that side of the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all very well for Chris Carter to make personal attacks but will he have the courage to get to his feet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Challenging someone’s courage is a personal reflection and is out of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Let us make it very clear: if your ears are closed to what we who sitting further away from that man than you are can hear and if you do not deal with it we will. If there is a question to be raised about someone’s courage then those people over there making those comments are putting their hands up for the allegation to be laid at their doorstep. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for that contribution. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to know what your ruling is. You get all upset when I say that Chris Carter does not have the courage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated; I am on my feet. The member is a longstanding member. He has been in this House for a long time and he knows that to challenge someone’s courage is to make a personal reflection. It has been ruled out of order by a number of Speakers in the past. I recognise that there have been interjections from the other side. The member is making a hard-hitting speech and some interjections can be expected. When the interjecting is to the extent that the member cannot be heard then it is out of order and I will take note of that and rule accordingly. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would draw your attention to this fact. I point out with the greatest of respect that the fact that interjections and vigorous debate are occurring is not the point; the point is the nature of the interjections that are coming from the Government benches. You know as members on this side of the Chamber definitely know that if interjections such as those are allowed to continue you are inviting disorder from members on this side. I ask you to think very carefully before dismissing the matters that have been raised by the deputy leader of the National Party and the Hon Nick Smith and I invite you with the greatest of respect to rule accordingly if those interjections continue to occur. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Under Speaker’s ruling 50/7 I have to take into account the context in which words are used in the House. If the member is insinuating that there was a personal reflection—I refer to Standing Order 116—and if offence has been taken I would ask the member concerned on my right to withdraw. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Labour Party members are not prepared to play the ball so they play the man. The reason they will not play the ball is that their policies are patronising and arrogant towards Maori and deserve to be challenged. I ask the Labour Party again why a ministerial salary is being paid to not just a Minister of Maori Affairs but three Associate Ministers none of whom is prepared to get to his feet and defend this important part of the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party was a very strong advocate of the withdrawal provisions in Part 1 particularly clauses 14B to 14F but we are putting forward an amendment to clause 14E. Our amendment would delete clause 14E(2) from the bill in its entirety. 
In terms of the withdrawal provisions there are two conglomerate iwi structures in the bill: Hauraki and Te Arawa. The negotiations that occurred around the establishment of those conglomerations were significant. The Greens do not want to undermine completely those negotiations and we understand the history behind them. However the issue remains one of whether the independence and status of iwi are entitled to be equally recognised and provided for in the legislation. We heard from iwi from both those groupings who did not necessarily want to be forced to remain included in those conglomerates if their choice at some point in the future was to exercise their right to manage their assets of their own accord. The officials the Minister of Fisheries and Te Ohu Kai Moana all agree that the groupings listed in the notes in schedule 3 are in fact iwi in their own right. They are entitled to assets and they are entitled to be identified as populations and treated exactly the same but negotiations in the past have meant they are now included in a large grouping. But they are entitled to be properly recognised to have their entitlement made plain in the bill and to have the choice in the future as to whether they want to remain in the conglomerate. 
In our view the legislation—any legislation—should treat like with like if that is the right way to put it. Those who are the same should be treated the same and there should not be discrimination in the bill. Iwi should not be given first-class second-class or third-class status which is what the provisions in Part 1 do by effectively identifying three separate kinds of iwi: those listed in schedule 3; those listed in the notes in schedule 3 as being part of the conglomerates; and Rongomaiwahine and Ngati Hine who are given third-level status of not quite being iwi except they may be later sometime in the future under some other provisions. So the Greens are proposing that clause 14E(2) be deleted. That clause provides that any iwi that does withdraw from their conglomerate whether it is Rongomaiwahine Ngati Hine or any of those from Hauraki or Te Arawa will be entitled to all of the same rights and voting rights as other iwi except that they will not be able to vote for a member of Te Kawai Taumata which is the board that enables full voting on other structures and which would enable them to have some control over Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. 
Clause 14E(2) was put there specifically as a disincentive to those iwi withdrawing. The vote for members of Te Kawai Taumata is the only way that iwi have any control over Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and therefore Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd the company that will actually control 50 percent of the assets that are supposed to be being allocated to iwi in the first place. The vote for members of Te Kawai Taumata might seem like a small thing but it is in the end the only access that any iwi has to voting for the structures that control the majority of its assets. It is not appropriate it is not fair and it is not right that some iwi are entitled to that vote and some iwi are not because of past negotiations when in fact those iwi are recognised by the Government recognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana and recognised by everyone as being the same as those other iwi who do have that vote. 
The Greens sincerely hope that other members of this Committee will support the amendment to delete clause 14E(2) because it is unfair. It is discriminatory. It treats those iwi as second-class iwi and it is completely unjustified. There is no reason why they should not have exactly the same rights once they withdraw. They have mandated iwi organisations. They have to have the same constitutional structures as every other iwi. They have to have an asset-holding company like all other iwi. They have all the other rights and obligations of all other iwi except in this single instance. The Greens are sincerely hoping that other members of this House do support that amendment. It is right that we ensure that any legislation passed in this House treats people and iwi equally. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I say at the outset that I found the argument we just heard a very convincing one. I support it as a matter of principle because we are talking about property rights here and I think it was very well put that the conglomerate iwi structures are very paternalistic. They are imposed by the State but I believe that maximum choice should be left with the various iwi—and with hapu for that matter—to exercise what is their property right. That is what the treaty settlement pursuant to article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi was all about with regard to fishing. 
I was also greatly heartened by the speeches we heard from National members. I know they supported the first reading of this bill and its referral to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. The ACT party did not but the speeches I am hearing from National members now are consistent with the arguments the ACT party has been making right from the outset. I gather that National members will now be opposing this legislation because it is paternalistic as they say. It is imposing on Maori unnecessary layers of bureaucratic constraints that could become the biggest impediment in the defeat of the very objectives of the bill: getting Maori engaged in active participation and as full participants in the business of fishing. 
NgaiTahu is perhaps the most advanced of the iwi groupings. It has a very successful business and I think we all acknowledge that. Its submission is very pertinent. It does not want any of those bureaucratic structures; it has done it for itself. It just wants good commercial practices and it says that existing commercial law is all it needs. The people of NgaiTahu do not want the Government telling them how they have to handle everything and all those crazy regulated impositions from the Government. 
NgaiTahu actually goes a step further. They are saying that it is their asset their property right and they should be able to manage it operate it and indeed dispose of it at their will and as they see fit. The ACT party certainly supports that because a key part of property rights is transferability. By the Government imposing restrictions on transferability value is diminished. If one looks ahead it could well be that in the not too distant future some fish species may well become seriously depleted and economically almost extinct. That is quite possible. Why force people to hang on to the bitter end to a diminishing asset that will have nil value after the expiry date if perhaps they want to liquidate it and decide they want to invest in aquaculture? 
That would be a good sensible thing to do—that is normal commerce—but oh no this bill is so paternalistic. It is really the Crown—represented by this executive Government bringing this bill to Parliament—using the numbers of the executive to impose paternalistic restrictive bureaucratic inconveniences and encumbrances that could well defeat the successful commercial enterprise of Maori in fishing. 
We have had some wonderful success stories. NgaiTahu is one; there are others. We should not be surprised. Maori have proven to be very good business people over the decades and certainly fishing is very dear to most Maori hearts. I think the whole intent was to get Maori engaged in fishing but why does the Crown have to prescribe that? Why not give Maori the freedom the choice and the opportunities that anyone else would have to go about their business with their property rights? 
That is the basic reason why the ACT party is opposing this legislation—because it is an absolute nonsense! What we have with this Maori Fisheries Bill is part of a trifecta. We cannot ignore the interaction of this Maori fisheries settlement bill with the aquaculture bill and with the foreshore and seabed legislation. They are all interconnected—much more so than many people realise—but instead of it being a winning trifecta it is actually a losing one. This Government will find that with the way it has gone about those three bills it will be lose lose lose on each account because it is not giving a proper property right. The Government is giving on the one hand but then in a very paternalistic way it is prescribing how that property right can be exercised and used. So the ACT party is opposing the three legs of that trifecta mainly because of the issue of property rights and the lack of recognition for them in this bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Yes National does have grave reservations about this bill. Its direction is excessively paternalistic. We believe that it is too complex and as a consequence we have amendments that we ask the Government to support in order to ameliorate the worst effects of the bill. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And if the Government turns down your amendments will you still support the bill? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is a serious question that has to be addressed because in the second reading we voted for it and for the preamble. We did so reluctantly but the problem is that we have now had a decade of litigation negotiation and discussion. The Government presented this inadequate bill but unfortunately it is the only bill out there that represents a compromise—a compromise that is very much the lowest common denominator. 
It is our intent to improve this bill and to give iwi who are empowered—who have a proven commercial track record—the ability to manage their assets directly. After all what the bill proposes is for the commission to have control of the offshore quota which is at least half of all the assets it will manage. I simply cannot understand why the Government does not see the logic in our intent—that is to provide a reasonable and fair proposal to enable iwi to do that. Our proposals will not fundamentally destroy the system proposed here but they will provide an evolutionary pathway out. 
That is our major objection to the bill. It takes us some way—it does get the assets to the iwi at least in relation to the onshore assets. It enables a certain level of continuing commercial viability for the offshore assets but then it stops. 
This bill is as Mr Brownlee said intending to provide a forever situation but we know from past experience that that is wrong. We know that almost certainly we will have to come back to this whole issue and provide a new pathway for dealing with the offshore assets so there is an effective way of getting those assets to iwi. Right at the moment they are locked into Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and at best there is a review. Well frankly that is inadequate. Sure it is better than the current situation. One would not deny that. It is at least a move along the path and it is for that reason that National is voting for it. 
But it is an interim measure at best. The Government portrays this bill as a finality but in reality we all know and Maori up and down the country know that at best it is an interim measure. Maori really want control of their offshore assets. The only way they can see a pathway to ever getting that is to support this measure so that the next step can then be embarked upon. 
It is disappointing that Government members have not got up to speak tonight. Where is the contribution from Maori members to this debate? It is of vital interest to Maori up and down the country and it is at times like these that we expect the Maori members to contribute. 
This Government says that the Maori seats are necessary. It should prove it by having its members debate an issue that is fundamentally affecting Maori. If there were ever a case for the Government to prove the relevance of the Maori seats this would be it. Yet what do we have? We have silence. That of itself shows us why the National Party position of abolishing the Maori seats is so cogent because on the really big issues we have a deafening silence from the Maori members. 
I see Nanaia Mahuta sitting opposite. It looks as if she wants to take a call. Well where are her colleagues? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the concern that we have about the paternalistic nature of this bill. Some of the points that Mr Shirley of the ACT party made earlier are quite right. Essentially what is happening is that Maori have been told: “Here is an asset.” but other Maori have negotiated with the Government so that there is a series of hurdles between the asset owner the operation of that asset and the opportunity to ensure that that asset produces good results for the owners. 
I want to know who in their right mind would accept some of the provisions that are imposed in this bill. I refer to clause 14A “Functions and powers of asset-holding companies”. Let us be clear first. The assets apparently are going to be allocated to mandated iwi. There is an enormously complex formula in here for how an iwi becomes mandated. I do not know why we are doing that in the year 2004. If iwi were not established operational and effective prior to 1840 then how on earth do they get under way now? What is the point of having to put it in law when Maori themselves should know exactly who is iwi and who is not. 
As I said before clause 14A deals with the functions and powers of asset-holding companies. So the iwi groups will have to go out and form a company to hold the assets. That company has a duty to wholly own those assets in perpetuity. They have to have all the appropriate documentation for a company and they are going to be a company that holds fishing assets—but guess what? They are not allowed to fish. They are not allowed to go out and acquire other fishing assets. They will just be a group of people who sit around and decide what they will do with the flow of income that might come from those other companies that are actually working their assets. So we will get viable organisations like for example NgaiTahu Fisheries as an iwi having to set up another company to hold the assets that are going to come through this settlement never mind the fact that they are already successfully fishing about 5 percent of the country’s quota acquired commercially. They will have to keep that group completely separate from the other and pretend that they have nothing to do with fishing. 
Then when it comes down to determining who actually gets their hands on the asset they will have to negotiate with a group of other iwi to get one person to go on to an electoral college who will then be able to cast a vote for seven as I understand it who go on to this outfit called Te Ohu Kai Moana. Then Te Ohu Kai Moana will get together and decide who their directors will be on the company that will actually put the boats out to sea. Who in their right mind will sign up for that? The problem that we have as a party is that Maori up and down the country think we hate them. They kick us all the time and they say that we never give them a fair go. But what is in front of us is what Maori have served up. We have to ask: “Well why don’t we just vote for it and let’s see what sort of a mess it turns out.” 
National has a number of Supplementary Order Papers that we will put forward during the course of the Committee stage. I say to the Government that if all those Supplementary Order Papers are rejected then we will reject the bill. We have as much stake in making this work for the future as any other party in this Parliament. It is not appropriate that only the Minister and his officials—whom quite frankly one would think after looking at this must be completely loopy—have a say in how the bill will be altered. Here we have a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister that is pages long. It contains 20 pages of changes to the bill and it has never been before the select committee. So the committee has done its work and our members certainly did a lot of work. They scratched their heads and got this huge bill together. The officials quickly raced through it and found 20 pages of changes. It is a mess. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has two amendments on the floor for Part 1. The first is to delete clause 14E(2). As I explained earlier clause 14E(2) prevents any mandated iwi organisations among withdrawing iwi from having a vote on Te Kawai Taumata but it also prevents them from having a vote on the committee of representatives. I want to alert the Committee to that. 
The committee of representatives is the group that establishes the terms of reference for the 11th year review of the entities established in the bill. That is a critical operation and activity in the bill because Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the other entities established by the bill have 4-yearly audits but they have only this single review at the end of an 11-year period. The committee of representatives is the organisation that establishes the terms of reference for the review that appoints the reviewer and that then receives and distributes the report at the end of that process. 
Those iwi who withdraw from the conglomerates who have mandated iwi organisations who have asset-holding companies and who are then out doing their own business—having recognition and being established as iwi in their own right to do what other iwi are doing—will not be able to vote for the members of the committee of representatives if clause 14E(2) is allowed to proceed. 
The Greens also have an amendment to delete clause 15 in its entirety. Clause 15 enables Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to prescribe further criteria that the mandated iwi organisations will have to meet in relation to their constitutional documents. Clause 38 sets out exactly how that happens. It enables Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to make changes to the procedures for sale to set out the criteria that constitutional documents must meet and to govern access to the register. Effectively that means that for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—which in effect controls Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd the company that maintains 50 percent of the assets—to change the constitutional documents of the iwi who are operating companies in direct competition to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd it has been given a huge competitive commercial advantage that is not justifiable. 
Clause 15 not only allows the trustee to make changes to criteria but gives no time limit on those changes. They can be made at any time from the enactment of the bill. They can be made after the mandated iwi organisations have been established and after the iwi have met the constitutional requirements at the time those have to be met. Those parameters can change in the future and iwi will then have to meet those changes as well. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd does not have any limitations on whether the criteria that have changed will affect only one iwi or mandated iwi organisation all iwi or mandated iwi organisations or a range or group of them. 
Therefore Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd could change the criteria for those it does not like. That is not to suggest that the trust will necessarily do that but the bill allows for it to happen and those changes can be made. The criteria that mandated iwi organisations will have to meet can be established at any time in the future and can affect one a number or all of those mandated iwi organisations. They will have no opportunity to make the decision themselves. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will have to tell them about those changes. The trustee will then have to ask them for their submissions on the changes and take the submissions into account but in the end it will make the final decision. 
That gives the trustee an extraordinary power in a very sensitive and vulnerable commercial industry that cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever. Neither the ministry nor the ministry officials could explain why that provision is necessary except to say that the trust might need that power some time in the future for some unknown reason. If we are to enact legislation that gives one organisation which already has a commercial advantage extraordinary power to alter the constitutional arrangements of other organisations with which it is in direct competition it is extremely bad law. It is not law that this Parliament should pass. I urge members to consider the issues around clause 15 and to support the Green Party amendment. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand in support of the issues surrounding clause 5 and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled. I do so in particular on behalf of those iwi who have settled with the Crown. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks an amendment to give effect to those iwi who have already had their takiwa defined in terms of their deed of settlement. I do so in order to maintain the integrity and finality of those iwi that have already entered into the deed of settlement in the belief that they had reached a binding and final settlement that would endure not only when it was signed but also into the future. 
A further compelling point I would like to make is that there is no doubt the clear intention of the parties to those settlements was that the boundary or takiwa was to be applied for all purposes. This has been evidenced in its practical applications by both Crown agencies and local authorities. Allowing the boundaries to be relitigated where they have been defined in an existing settlement sets an adverse precedent. It will result in each resource allocation process being subject to boundary disputes. It could give rise to different boundaries for different resources. 
I want to say that as an example NgaiTahu have spent in excess of $13 million in litigation over this very issue. In all cases those competing iwi groups hapu groups or however members may want to describe them have failed in their attempts. There are considerable commercial implications in permitting a situation where an iwi boundary must be revalidated before allocation of assets is to occur. Iwi have waited 15 years in the case of pre-settlement assets and 12 years in the case of post-settlement assets to get allocation. Further they will impact on the ability of that iwi to develop tribal wealth and economic security. So therefore I ask that support be given to the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled particularly where we have asked for the insertion in clause 5 of definitions so that there is a definition for defined takiwa iwi a definition for takiwa defining deed of settlement and finally a takiwa defining enactment. So I seek support from all parties in this Chamber for that particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to reiterate what Gerry Brownlee said to this Committee regarding these amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that we are putting up particularly in relation to this part. If the Government rejects these Supplementary Order Papers and amendments that will make this bill less patronising and bureaucratic the National Party caucus will discuss its position on supporting the bill in the final analysis. I will repeat that and make that very clear to the Committee. We will discuss it in caucus in the final analysis and decide whether we will support the bill in the third reading. 
I rise in defence of Pita Paraone’s amendment because we in the National Party support it. I have to say that during the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee when we talked about the coastline agreements between iwi we pretty much sewed it up and had it solved. The problem was simply this. Assets upon allocation were unable to be transferred to iwi groups until iwi had decided amongst themselves what coastline related to them because the allocation was based on coastline. The problem was this. If iwi were secure in 95 percent of their coastline—in other words everyone agreed that that particular coastline was theirs and any allocation related to 95 percent of it was not in dispute—and if 5 percent of it was in dispute then all of it was held up in allocation. In other words one could not get on with the job utilising one’s assets for one’s people over the entire coastline just because 5 percent of it—the last few kilometres—was unresolved. 
So we brought about amendments in the select committee that incentivised agreement by allowing assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred and allocated so the iwi could get on with the business and assets relating to coastline that was in dispute to be set aside pending a coastline resolution and further providing a clear disputes resolution process—an incentive to make sure that those disputes were actually addressed in a timely manner. 
However upon reflection it is our view that where there have been previous deeds of settlement and a coastline boundary such as in the case of NgaiTahu has been set through a previous Crown settlement has been legitimised through legislation has been challenged in the courts exhaustively and never once come up wanting in fact that coastline should be the coastline that is used for allocation in this Maori fisheries legislation. 
So we support the amendments to clause 5 to ensure that defined takiwa iwi takiwa defining deed of settlement and takiwa defining enactment should be included in the definition of deep water quota. The takiwa relates to that coastline that is pertinent to that particular iwi. Now these particular amendments to the clause address it where it has been considered and recognised as legitimate without doubt through the court. So there has been a settlement. It has been legitimised through legislation. It has been challenged through the court and it has withstood all that. 
Now where that has happened there is no reason why iwi should have to go through the whole process of the courts paying lots and lots of lawyers lots and lots of money only to prove it again and again. That is why we support this amendment. There is no reason whatsoever why iwi groups such as NgaiTahu should have to go through these hoops again. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 When I reflect back on the debate in 1992 on this issue there was a lot of talk about getting Maori out fishing. I want to cut to the chase and bring to the attention of the Committee just what is happening because it very much exposes the concerns expressed by Opposition members about this bill. Only last week I was contacted by a young Maori man in my electorate who had trained as a fisherman had been out on two substantive trips and has just been laid off by Sealord’s which is the company that owns the bulk of these assets that we are discussing. His job is being replaced by cheap Filipino labour. That is what is happening. 
 Members opposite have approved work permits so that young Maori in my electorate have been kicked off fishing-boats they are losing their jobs and they are being replaced by Filipinos. I shall tell members why. What is happening is that the commercial imperative is that it is cheaper to employ a Filipino than it is to employ a young keen Maori fisherman. It is an absolute indictment of this Labour Government that that is going on right now. If it occurred under a National Government Labour members would be on their feet screaming blue murder. However when the Government’s own Ministers are doing that it is absolutely silent and happy to simply see that taking place. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister says that it’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the Minister. Three constituents have contacted my office in the last fortnight about being displaced and being told that they will no longer have jobs with Sealord’s on those fishing-boats. The Minister knows full well that permits for 20 Filipinos working for Sealord’s have been approved by the Minister of Immigration. 
The reason I make the point is that I do not think that ordinary Maori in my constituency are happy with that. Indirectly they own Sealord’s. However this legislation creates so many barriers between the owners of the fishing resource and those who are managing assets like Sealord’s that they will not have a bolter’s hope under what is in this legislation to ever hold accountability. They will not have a bolter’s hope at all because basically Labour members do not trust Maori. I said earlier that that approach will cost Labour every Maori seat at the next election. Labour needs to reflect and to change. 
I also challenge the Minister in the chair on a further point. National is proud of its heritage in terms of the 1992 fisheries settlement. We want to have an approach as part of nation building in New Zealand of the major parties being able to progress substantive settlements so that we can make progress as a country. But that requires a commitment from the Government to work with others. That is why Gerry Brownlee said in the Chamber this evening that if Labour would just bend a little even just take on the very able amendments put forward by Wayne Mapp that will see at least some of the bureaucracy reduced then we will be happy to compromise and maintain our support for this bill despite the fact that there are other provisions we are unhappy about. 
That is a very reasonable offer from the deputy leader of the National Party—that is give a little ground and we could keep this ship going forward. But while there is that absolute arrogance from the Government not taking a single call on this significant bill dumping on the House a 20-page Supplementary Order Paper without the Minister so much as even getting to his feet to explain it that is a disgrace. This country deserves better Maori deserve better and certainly the fishing industry in New Zealand deserves better. 
National has made a very reasonable offer. Yes we can keep this on a bipartisan basis; yes we want Maori fishing to be successful and we think that it is more likely to be successful when there is a wider consensus of this Parliament. However the current arrogance from that Minister and this Government will not do. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
deepwater quota 
 the following definition: 
defined takiwaiwi 
 means an iwi whose takiwa is identified in a takiwa defining deed of settlement or a takiwa defining enactment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I cast my vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes the vote has not closed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member was not in the House when the vote was called. I do not think that it is proper that a member then seeks leave to cast a vote after we have already cast our vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I did look at it. The member was actually at the door when her name was called. She is the last one to be called. I accept it and I allow the member to vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
subsidiary 
 the following definitions: 
takiwa 
 defining deed of settlement 
 in relation to an iwi— 
(a)means a deed signed by the Crown and the mandated representative of an iwi that identifies an area as the takiwa of the iwi; and 
(b)includes— 
(i)the attachments and schedules to the deed (if any); and 
(ii)any amendments from time to time to the deed or to the attachments or to the schedules. 
takiwa 
 defining enactment 
 in relation to an iwi means an enactment that identifies an area as the takiwa of the iwi. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to proposed new clause 14E set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want some clarification. Is it correct that we just voted on clause 14E? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We voted on clause 14E and we voted on that after clause 15. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Can you explain why we voted on clause 14E after clause 15? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It was an amendment to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 which are just coming up. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I understood that the Minister’s amendments are put first. It has always been the process that Ministers’ amendments go ahead of members’ amendments. So I would like clarification as to why we voted on a member’s amendment prior to the Minister’s amendment being put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It is the correct procedure. It is set out in Standing Order 301. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If you are quoting from— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am just checking to see whether I have the right year for the Standing Orders. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Standing Order 301(2)(a) states: “an amendment proposed by the member in the charge of the bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member” so in fact those amendments were out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. We are proceeding under Standing Order 301(3). 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well can you explain to me why Standing Order 301(2)(a) states that an amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member? It has always been my understanding from debates over the years that the Minister’s amendment are put first because if they are passed they actually rule out members’ amendments that have been proposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Tisch for that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I may be able to help. I notice that your ruling was in terms of Standing Order 301(3) but of course that refers to paragraph (1) and Standing Order 301(1) states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that any or all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” In other words it would imply that it is discretionary and not mandatory. In other words the member in charge of the bill—in this instance it would seem to be the Minister as it is in his name—can require that if he so chooses. It is not mandatory. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. The Minister does require that they be taken as one amendment. In response to Mr Tisch’s query I point out that these Standing Orders were changed not too long ago. Standing Order 301(2) is subject to paragraph (3) and that is why I mentioned that we are proceeding under paragraph (3). My advice is that that is the correct procedure and the amendment to new clause 14E was correctly taken after clause 15 and before the Minister’s amendments. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Establishment and review of new entities 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This includes debate on schedules 1 and 7. Members please note that there are six very large subparts. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We see in this part exactly why the National Party has been so concerned about the extraordinary bureaucracy that is to be set up under this bill. The bill puts in place a huge range of hurdles between the owners of the asset and those who will actually fish the asset. 
Firstly we see in this part the establishment of an organisation called Te Ohu Kai Moana. Then we find that Te Ohu Kai Moana has to have one trustee. The one trustee is to be known as Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd a company. So first we are to have Te Ohu Kai Moana the purpose of which essentially is to assist the Government in the distribution of the asset—to make sure it is enduring and everything else. That is a bit of bureaucracy. Then to handle the work of the bureaucracy there is the company itself. The company will have a board of directors a chief executive and a raft of staff. It will do a range of things that are about meddling in the affairs of various iwi and checking up on their registers. It is the compliance arm of this bill that is established especially for Maori. No other fisheries outfit will have to deal with this sort of stuff but this company will. Then it has to establish another organisation called Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust. If anyone wonders what that trust will do it has to establish another group called Te Wai Maori Trust. So a chain of four organisations is to be set up for various purposes. One of the fascinating things is that when one starts to look through the bill and wonders what on earth those people do one suddenly finds out that there is another group called Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That group will have its hands indirectly on the assets. Its function is stated in the bill as well. 
One gets a picture of a fishing asset that is given to Maori who are then told: “Well hang on. You people aren’t capable of looking after the stuff—let’s face it—so we will set up all these fascinating little organisations along the way to help you do it. And by the way this will all be paid for from the profits or dividends from the company Sealord’s which will go out there and fish your assets.” So as I understand it the money will be paid from Sealord’s to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and the board of directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will get together and say: “We will advance some money to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd.” Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will say that it has to give money across to Te Putea Whakatupu for a period of years so it can engage in research and it also has to put some money into Te Wai Maori Trust until the figure accumulates to about $20 million before it can start paying out any dividends to the iwi that actually owns the asset. All along there will be this body over the top running back to the iwi and saying: “It’s going well. Your asset is doing a splendid job. We’ve been in it for 10 or 12 years now and you haven’t had a penny but guess what? All the bureaucracies are strong and we have lovely offices. We have a raft of people out there in jobs making sure that everything that belongs to you is being looked after well. It is completely useless to you but we’re looking after it well. And by the way thank you for forgoing income and paying for this extraordinary bureaucracy.” I just wonder who on earth thought this up. Who thought it up? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Minister. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister is the man who should stand on his feet now and tell members why so many organisations have to stand between the owners of the asset and the fishers of the asset. In many cases the owners of the asset will in other entities be out fishing anyway. They just will not be able to get the same value out of the asset that they have been given under this bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I thank the deputy leader of the National Party Gerry Brownlee for pointing out so eloquently to the Committee—and it would normally take much more than 5 minutes—all the layers of bureaucracy wrapped up in this bill. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that would take out at least one layer of bureaucracy between Sealord’s or Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and the Maori beneficiaries on the ground who are supposed to own the asset and I ask members to support that. It is simply this. As the member for Ilam pointed out to members in selecting the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd Maoridom currently has to go through five processes. Firstly Maori registered with an iwi group have to choose iwi representation. That iwi representation then selects its representatives who are just a few in number. 
Progress reported.