Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:15766] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is with a sense of gratitude that I rise on behalf of United Future with the privilege of speaking at the third reading of this legislation which hopefully will be the end of the legislative resolution of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement negotiated in 1992. As a member of this House who is in his first term I begin by paying my respects to those honourable members in this House and in previous Parliaments who acted with integrity good faith and courage in the initial negotiation and ongoing development of that settlement. I acknowledge the presence here today of Mr Wetere and Mr Kidd. I also pay tribute to Maori leaders who with good will accepted the terms of settlement on behalf of all Maori in the interests of the welfare and development of Maori. I know that some of those leaders of considerable mana have since passed from the world but they are no doubt here with us in spirit today. I acknowledge the hard work done by the members both past and present of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission Te Ohu Kai Moana. I know they will welcome this day which sees the passing of this legislation. 
This legislation is different from the Maori Fisheries Bill that was referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on 4 December 2003. Despite having been cautioned not to make too many changes to that bill the committee did in my opinion make a number of improvements in response to submitters’ concerns while still respecting the delicate balance achieved by Te Ohu Kai Moana’s negotiations with iwi and hapu across the country. It is important also to acknowledge the excellent work and support given to the committee by the support staff the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the independent adviser who served the committee so well. Personally the working relationship that developed in the select committee is a positive memory that I will retain for some time. The Committee of the whole House passed further changes to the legislation which were recommended by the Minister and that has resulted in the final version of the legislation to be passed here today. Despite all the debate criticism and proposed amendments during the last phase of the passage of this legislation it is notable that it will be passed by an overwhelming majority of the members of this House. It is encouraging that such significant legislation of benefit to all New Zealanders is being passed at the end of such a long parliamentary process. 
It is our earnest hope that this legislation will facilitate further growth in the economic development of Maori with iwi and hapu tribal affiliations and also of urban Maori as well. Maori economic development and prosperity is good for all New Zealanders. The strengthening and restoring of the Maori economic base will enhance the Maori entrepreneurial opportunities that are already evident in the New Zealand economy. Pakeha and other ethnic communities should welcome every aspect of that success and growth. 
The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has to date been given two bills to deal with: the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I would at this point like to make a few comments about the contrast between the goodwill that is being developed by the passing of this legislation and the situation we are faced with as a committee as we hear day in and day out the disappointment anger and frustration that is expressed by Maori and others over the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This legislation has not been without controversy. Certainly there was considerable concern when the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act was passed in the early 1990s. Despite that this legislation is welcomed by the majority of people and it makes a positive contribution to the resolution of past issues. Yet in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill it is hard to recognise that it is the same Labour-led Government which has a laudable record of listening to Maori and addressing Maori issues that is in danger of demonstrating it seems to have forgotten all it has learnt about listening. The National Party also seems to be shying away from constructive engagement on such important issues. 
The legislation we are passing today is the combination of work carried out in good faith by both previous Labour and National Governments. It was started by Labour in 1989 was carried on by National in 1992 and is now being concluded by the Labour Government in 2004. United Future is pleased to have been able to play some small constructive role in the completion of this legislative process. It demonstrates some of the best attributes of how the members of an incoming Government irrespective of the political party it is comprised of can lay aside the mantle of having been the Queen’s Opposition—and therefore of challenging disagreeing with and criticising many of the previous Government’s actions and policy—and on assuming the reigns of power can carry on the good work that was done by their predecessors for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
This bill deals with the distribution of assets to Maori based upon the recognition of a property right in fish. Surely a consensus can be found that will recognise similar rights in the marine environment of the foreshore and seabed where those fish live. This legislation is part of the answer. However at this stage at least the Foreshore and Seabed Bill rather than being part of the answer is in danger of contributing towards—and is heading towards—becoming a serious part of the problem in my opinion. Hardly any of the submitters I heard were fully in support of that bill whether they were Maori or Pakeha. Submitter after submitter has appealed to the Government to slow down the passage of that bill and to allow more consultation to occur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come to this legislation. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I am Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is not. He is straying. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: The Government needs to accept that the journey is often as important as the destination. Therefore I call on the Government to accept United Future’s offer of at least taking one step in the right direction by responding to the appeals of submitters as has been the case with regard to this legislation. The select committee should be given an extension of time to enable it to make an interim report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. He must not refer again to that bill and the proposals for it. He is to talk on the third reading of this legislation only or his speech will be terminated. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I believe it is time for us to have a cup of tea. We must acknowledge all the truth about our history as a nation but not forget that that is one of the many high points that demonstrate the ability and willingness of New Zealanders to resolve seemingly irreconcilable relationship challenges. The passage of this legislation is an example of that. I am sure that Te Ohu Kai Moana’s directors and staff would have many stories to tell about the process that has been gone through. This legislation is the end of 12 to 15 years of work and it is the beginning of another 12 years of work as well. Although many people have lamented the length of time that has passed the money spent on litigation and the hours of discussion and hui none of it is wasted if we really believe that the journey can be as important as the destination. 
In closing on behalf of New Zealand First I not only convey our support for this legislation but also express our support to those who will take up the responsibilities outlined within it as well. To the kaumatua and rangatira o nga iwi o Aotearoa who have been elected or will be elected to Te Kawai Taumata with the responsibility to appoint the members of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd who will carry much of the burden for the next phase of the journey to those who will become directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to the many kaumatua and rangatira who will be given the responsibilities of trust in the mandated iwi organisations and to other leaders who will assume responsibilities I say: whakapainga e koutou te ingoa o te Atua. Kia kaha kia toa kia manawa nui. No reira tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
You must praise the name of God and be strong brave and stout of heart. So greetings to you and to all of you 
.]  
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 E te Kaihautu te kaiwhakaruruhaui a matou Jonathan tenara koe. E nga rangatira matua Koro raua ko Doug a tenarakorua tenarakorua tenarakorua. No reira e ngarau rangatira rongonui o te komihana e nga iwi hurinoa tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. A kei te tautoko kei te whakamiha ki a ratoungatipuna. E te rangatira a Pari e ratoumangatipuna haere haere haere ki a koutou. 
[ 
And greetings indeed to you Mr Speaker Jonathan the one who shelters us. To you two chiefs and father figures Koro and Doug greetings greetings and greetings to you two. And so to the well-known chiefs of the commission as well as the people gathered about greetings greetings and greetings to you all. I endorse and acknowledge the ancestors who have departed especially Pari. Depart the ancestors farewell travel on 
.] 
It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand to bring the saga of this legislation to closure. It had its genesis at the time of the settlement. It had its genesis in this House where Maori rights with regard to the fishing assets were always protected. We bring closure to the issue today in relation to legislation that in large part went through a long tortuous process—a litigatory process. We have arrived. As one of the combatants in part of the process it is great to stand up in this House and to know that we have brought inclusion and closure so that our people out on the street can now start to participate more fully and fulsomely in a wonderful asset. The only regrettable thing about that is the time line it will take before the rubber starts to hit the road out in our communities. The acid test is now on Maori leadership full stop. 
I want to acknowledge a number of the leaders who have brought this legislation to conclusion and without picking anyone out separately or individually I do acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Matiu Rata who was one of the forefathers in the Labour Party and one of its statesmen. I acknowledge also as I already have the Hon Koro Wetere. I acknowledge the work of National Party members when the National Party actually stood for nationhood building. The members concerned were the Hon Doug Kidd the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Rt Hon Douglas Montrose Graham. But those days are gone and I regret that the National Party does not have statesmen of their ilk any more. 
I now want to turn and acknowledge others as I should—I want my kids to read this. The reality is that I have stepped on many toes and a number of the chiefs and a number of the tribes who may well be here in the gallery or listening to the radio broadcast of this debate would acknowledge that. But at least they should give me some Brownie points for being consistent. I want to say of the great chief Sir Robert Mahuta that it was a joy and a pleasure for me as a younger Maori merely to have had the opportunity to watch him operate. It is regrettable that he is no longer here to see this legislation come to closure. He was a chief who was always light years ahead of his people. He was always putting things into place for them in terms of expectations. The fact that they could not see that then but know it now is regrettable. So I want to acknowledge the superb work and effort that Sir Robert put in. I am pleased that his daughter will take the opportunity to stand up in the debate as part of this closure. 
I also want to acknowledge Sir Graham Latimer. Now I have said some naughty things about Sir Graham but as our other speakers have said as the young net goes fishing certain things like that do occur. That is just how things work. But I want to acknowledge here today the work of Sir Graham and Auntie Emily—an auntie of mine from the Whakatohea people. They championed these issues whilst we were always sitting on the fence and throwing all sorts of naughty things at them. 
Finally I want to acknowledge Sir Tipene O’Regan. Although at times I have thought that he has been ill considered and that I probably would have taken a different approach from his I think that chief will go down in history as one of the greatest chiefs that Maoridom has produced in the last 50 years regardless of the tribe. So although I am from NgatiPorou Whakatohea and Hauraki whanui I want to salute that NgaiTahu chief who through force of personality significant intellect and the like has placed NgaiTahu on the map for all time. I just wanted to acknowledge those people in that particular way. 
I want to move on now to address three things in the legislation very quickly. The Hon Winston Peters often gets it wrong when he tries to address matters Maori. For instance he challenged myself and Parekura Horomia over hiding under the dress of a woman or under the apron strings of a woman. Little does he know it but NgatiPorou men actually rejoice in that—we rejoice in it. We are born out of Ruataupare and Materoa—the great chieftainesses. Our tribe is born out of great chieftainesses. We rejoice in being under the skirts of women and so I say all power to the arm of the Prime Minister. That just carries on a great tradition. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And he married our cousin. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That is right. I now want to turn to three things because in the third reading debate it is important that they are nailed and definitely nailed. In the Committee stage I addressed two items. The first was clause 65 of the Maori Fisheries Bill “Purpose of Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust”. That trust is merely set up to ensure that all the obligations of the settlement arrive at the doorstep of all Maori and so it is a bridge. It is a bridging trust that acknowledges exactly where we are in terms of our development and evolution. The clause has been amended so that the purpose which is the heart and the soul of the trust is indeed very wide in terms of the promotion of education training and research. It can also have an application in relation to fisheries. The final clause that I will talk to concerns the appointment of the directors of that trust. It is quite clear that consultation can be had with only one defined group of Maori over the directorship and that is urban Maori. 
The final thing I will say is on the issue of the disaggregation model. It is up to Ngapuhi to Kahungunu to Hauraki whanui and to Te Arawa Kotahitanga to honour and respect the constituent iwi that make them up. No one would disaggregate if he or she was treated with some honour and respect. The law is there to allow us to take our mana away from a new corporate entity in the event that it does not honour and respect the iwi. Rongomaiwahine Ngati Hine the 12 iwi of the Hauraki and the eight iwi of Te Arawa will have the right to walk in their own mana but let us get this right: it would be better if their interests were served under one umbrella. 
I acknowledge all the work of the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee in bringing this matter to a conclusion and I thank them very much. This is a great day for Maori. We will hit the street and we will be positive. We will understand our promise and fulfil our potential—and I say we should not vote for the Maori Party. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party wants Maori to go fishing. We want them to fish their assets their quota on their boats for their people. We do not want Maori forced into the courts. We do not want Maori in constant debate with the Crown. Like Maori themselves we just want them to go fishing. That is why the National Party supports this bill. After 13 long years and a century for many we just want Maori to go fishing. However we know that this is a transitional bill and that is what we will publicly call it. Maori will be back for changes and we say rightly so. We expect them to be. We will not be surprised when they appeal simply because this Government has refused some freedoms where there is limited control for Maori over their own assets—not anybody else’s assets; not the Government’s to decide what they do with them but their own assets. 
In fact the Minister did introduce a bill—and we are not going to stand back from this; we will state it—that was in part quite condescending and patronising. For instance we were intrigued to see a low level of accountability for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi in one aspect yet iwi—mandated iwi organisations within the bill—had a huge amount of accountability that they had to fulfil to their members and to Government institutions like the Inland Revenue Department and the like. A huge amount of accountability is entailed for them such as audits reporting back going back to their members having to get votes and so on. 
The question that Georgina te Heuheu and I asked at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was: “How is it that mainstream organisations businesses and companies do not have to meet these stringent requirements of accountability but we are going to make Maori organisations in the fishing industry jump through all these hoops?”. We say that it cuts both ways. Don Brash has been talking about the fact that there has not been a level playing field whereby in some instances in health and education Maori might be receiving more attention than others. It cuts both ways. Why should Maori under this bill have to jump through more hoops and be more accountable than mainstream organisations? Does the Government not trust Maori to organise their own assets and their own affairs? 
The bill remains condescending and patronising in other aspects. The National Party put forward some amendments that were glossed over by the Government. We asked that Maori should have more say in the directorship of New Zealand’s largest fishing company Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. We asked that some of the layers—there are about five layers of governance between Maori on the ground and the directors of the company—be taken out. We suggested a way of doing that but it was rejected. We also presented amendments to enable proven Maori organisations to withdraw all of their assets including deep-sea quota to put into use as they saw best. With the current arrangement Maori are able to directly control only half their quota and we see that as a tad patronising. 
Iwi did have some victories though with this bill. In the bill as introduced some iwi like NgaiTahu and Tainui were not recognised but had to jump through all sorts of recognition hoops. Even though they had had a Crown settlement had been through the courts and had structures in place to deal with settlements they had to prove their mana again. Iwi came to the select committee and said that that was absurd and the committee which I am proud to have been part of made sure that there was a significant amendment so that if such iwi organisations want they could be given automatic recognition. That was a win. If they are formally structured and accountable to their members if they have established an asset-holding company and if they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement purposes they should be given recognition and I applaud that change. 
There were also issues around coastline agreements that were likely to hold up the allocation whereby if there was a dispute over a part of a coastline the allocation for the whole coastline would be held up in the courts. A change was made there. Now if a small area of coastline is under dispute that is held and it goes through a process but the rest of the allocation can go forward and that is sensible and we were glad to support it. 
We did have the issue of the restriction of sale and swap of quota because there are limitations on realising the value of fishing operations because of the requirement for iwi to sell capital items quota or shares only to iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We said to Maori that their asset and their quota will be devalued if they can sell only within Maoridom. But they told us time and time again that although the restriction on the sale of shares and quota has the potential to affect their asset’s value it was an accepted consequence of the settlement. They understand that but they want their generation the generations after them and again generations to follow to get the benefit. They support this aspect of the bill. 
National supports this transitional legislation because we want to see Maori go fishing. But we know that it is transitional legislation because Maori will need changes to it. These issues will come up because they eventually will want full control of their asset and that is something they should certainly have. National though supports this bill.