Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15628] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I find it intriguing that the Labour Government’s Maori members who had so much to say on the marae about the Maori Fisheries Bill and Maori issues particularly during the last election and who had so much to say at the select committee about Maori fisheries issues—particularly the issues relating to the electorates that they were voted in to represent—have had nothing to say during the Committee stage of this bill. Dover Samuels has said nothing on the Maori Fisheries Bill. This bill is going to affect 400000 Maori in this country 60000 of whom Dover Samuels is supposed to represent yet he has said nothing in this Parliament to represent his people. What do members on this side of the Chamber say? Shame! Shame on Dover Samuels! Shame on his colleagues! Is it any wonder the National Party is looking to disband the Maori seats? Those members are so ineffective in Parliament. 
We are talking about Part 6 “Transitional and miscellaneous provisions repeal and amendments” which affects various organisations among other things that have worked over the last 12 years in getting this Maori fisheries settlement off the ground. Not least of all we are looking at the clauses that deal with the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission which has now worked for 12 long years following the 1992 Maori fisheries settlement to get some sort of consensus up and down New Zealand on that settlement. It is now worth roughly $800 million which is not that far off a billion and it is certainly a substantial asset for Maori. 
 Although I made that criticism about Dover Samuels not speaking up on any part of this bill I must say that he has worked hard on this issue for at least 12 years in the north trying to get consensus and bring ideas. 
With the passage of this bill we finally say goodbye to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. One concern we have is that the people involved in that commission have an expectation they will be involved in the next commission Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We think that perhaps they think they have a job for life. The message in this bill is: “No you haven’t; don’t think you have.” National if it votes for this bill at the third reading wants Maori to go forward with these assets. National wants Maori to go fishing instead of spending their time in the courts to resolve their differences with other tribes hapu and whanau throughout this country and to get on with the job. We are hoping that those involved with the fisheries commission will have little to do in the long term. This bill is a transitional bill. We are dealing with these issues in Part 6 about Te Ohu Kai Moana its demise if one likes its last reporting and the standards required there issues that it has resolved during that 12-year period and how it now passes the baton on to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. 
It is interesting that those in charge of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd unlike those involved in Te Ohu Kai Moana must have commercial experience in the fishing world. That is what Maori asked for. They did not expect at all that those involved in the previous fisheries commission would automatically get their jobs back in the new one. Maori want people with commercial expertise to run manage and oversee their fisheries assets. National absolutely agrees with them. 
There are issues to do with the employees of the fisheries commission—not just with directors on the board but also with employees and their liability in terms of unfinished or incorrect business that occurred while they worked with the fisheries commission. There are clauses that deal with continuity of employment and certainly we want to see some expertise transferred across. There are clauses dealing with compensation for technical redundancy when the fisheries commission winds down and issues to do with the Inland Revenue Department and the protection of names. 
There are also some clauses that I think are quite important. Clause 164 “Protection of names” states: “(1) No person may be incorporated or registered under any enactment or in any other manner using any of the following names: (a) Te Ohu Kai Moana; or (b) Te Kawai Taumata; or (c) Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust; or (d) Te Wai Maori Trust.” I fully endorse that.