Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15217] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I join with others from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and acknowledge the earnest and diligent work the select committee did in considering this Maori Fisheries Bill. Dover Samuels made the comment that 12 years of uncertainty is coming to an end and that disputes in the courts are gone. I only wish I could believe that. I certainly do not believe it. In many instances I believe this bill will exacerbate the situation and make matters even more complex. 
I think I am one of the few remaining members of the House who was involved in this issue through the 1980s following the Muriwhenua decision and directly involved in discussions at the outset with the late Matiu Rata Graham Latimer the late Bob Mahuta Tipene O’Regan Maanu Paul and others. I recall many late-night discussions in what led to the first Maori fisheries select committee which I chaired. We spent some 18 months going around the country on that committee. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yesterday’s man. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Barker was just a union official in those days and some would say that that is where his mind still is. 
That committee did a lot of work that led to the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 which essentially gave Maori 10 percent of quota to be transferred over 4 years in 2.5 percent per annum tranches. In fact I was the subsequent Minister of Fisheries who made those transfers of quota to Maori. 
We know that the matter was not settled then. We thought it had been but no the Act was referred to as an “interim solution”. I will never know why because in the early days 10 percent was the settlement. That was the deal. Everyone had agreed to sign off on 10 percent and that was the deal but right at the last stages it was captured by those with an agenda. Those people called it the “interim solution” and that of course led to the National Party’s settlement in 1992 with the Sealord’s deal and with Maori getting 20 percent of quota. So the quota was bumped up to 20 percent. 
Be that as it may that is history. The key thing to bear in mind with reference to this bill is that the 1992 deed of settlement was supposed to be a full and final meeting and acknowledgment of the commercial fishing right sourced in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Indeed it was the intention to expunge the old section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act 1983 which the customary commercial take was based on. So it was to be a full and final settlement. 
The Maori Fisheries Commission was set up back in 1990. I always envisaged that it would probably last about 18 months. Obviously the Crown could not choose how much quota went to which particular iwi. The Crown would never get that right; it would always have been the meat and mustard in the sandwich. The commission was set up and its task was to make that determination. What happened? We know that we had 12 years of long costly painful litigation. Pita Paraone made the point that Maori had been obstructed from getting into the business of fishing. I say not to blame this Parliament. It is quite wrong to blame this Parliament. The resource was there—it had been there for 12 years. The delay was caused by the inherent problems within the iwi and the litigious nature and counterclaims. In a way it may have taken 12 years but what is 12 years in the long plan of things if there is a solution? However I do not believe we have a solution with this bill. 
In many respects I predict that we are in for a further round of protracted litigations because of the prescriptive nature of this bill and the way the Crown has brought it here. It is a compromise by definition. The structures lend themselves to ongoing and endless litigation. 
I also draw to the House’s attention the fact that the only justification for the settlement is that it is meant to be complying with an article 2 property right obligation. But we have seen that process perverted. We have seen the deed of settlement being perverted by this politicised process. 
In particular I refer to the provision for urban Maori. The whole property right was based on hapu and iwi. That was where the property right resided but because of some prominent people who got involved in the latter stages of the 1990s it was turned into a social welfare settlement. They said that we had to provide for Maori in urban areas. That is nothing more than a social welfare obligation not a right under article 2 of the treaty. Although one may feel that it is worthwhile it does good things and all Maori will benefit one undermines the basic property right justification by so doing. I think that perversion of the 1992 deed of settlement is a very serious aspect indeed. 
There are many aspects that I do not like about this legislation. It is very prescriptive complex and cumbersome. We want Maori to get engaged in fishing—and Maori are engaged in fishing. Over 50 percent of the individual transferable quota or annual catch entitlement is held by Maori interests. So to that extent it has been successful. However incredibly and unnecessarily complex and convoluted commercial structures are now being prescribed. They are not commercial structures actually; they are sort of bureaucratic governmental-type systems. No one setting up a company would impose those sorts of restrictions and constraints on a business if he or she wanted it to be successful but that is what this Government has chosen to do. It is a very burdensome complicated and convoluted set of prescribed constraints. The other aspect is that all those constraints diminish the value of the quota—the asset—and lessen the likelihood of those commercial entities being successful. Goodness knows we want them to be successful. That is why I am deeply concerned about the way this has been structured. 
The other aspect is the somewhat paternalistic attitude in this legislation. The property right belongs to the hapu and to the iwi. It should be theirs to use and benefit from as they see fit. The fact that the Government has prescribed that it is not transferable other than into the internal pool diminishes the value of that asset. Having had that treaty obligation fulfilled iwi and hapu should be free to use the asset as they see fit. It is not for this Parliament to prescribe to them how they can operate it or indeed whether they can sell it or to whom they can sell it. That is an unnecessary intrusion and restriction on their property right. 
I note that Ngai Tahu made that point to the select committee. It felt very strongly about that. Of course Ngai Tahu is a good example of a very successful runanga. It has taken its fisheries asset—its treaty resource—and made a very good commercial fist of it thus far. But Ngai Tahu recognises the unnecessary constraints prohibitions and prescribed restrictions that this legislation imposes on it. It made the point that all that does is diminish the value of the asset and reduce the probability of its continued success and it opposes that. 
The ACT party certainly is opposed to these administrative structures. We are also of the view that the inadequacies I have just outlined will have an adverse impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry to the extent that iwi interests do control over 50 percent of the quota which is probably a billion dollars worth of quota assets. Those sorts of governmentally imposed restrictions will impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry. So the ACT party will be opposing this legislation. Like the member for Te Tai Tokerau I would like to say that this is an end to it that the litigation has ended and we can now move on but I seriously predict that this is just the start of another round of litigation.