Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15598] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to take a call on Part 2 of this debate to challenge some of the comments made by Labour member of Parliament John Tamihere in his contribution. Mr Tamihere took the opportunity to say that this bill was here today in an attempt to sort out the mess created by the 1992 deed of settlement. It is true that the deed of settlement in 1992 was put together in a rush over a short period of time. The issue of ultimate distribution to Maori was not resolved at the time but for very good reasons. The point I want to address is Mr Tamihere’s suggestion that that was a mess created by the National Party and he cited both the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Rt Hon Doug Graham. I suggest to Mr Tamihere—and the Minister might like to confirm this—that he should make contact with those people who could bring him up to date with what actually happened over that brief period. 
In 1992 an investment company—at that stage quite a proud investment company—called Brierley Investments Ltd made a decision that it wanted to sell its shareholding in Sealord’s. That window of opportunity was grabbed by the Government of the day as a means of resolving grievances that existed in the fisheries area. It was an opportunity that had to be grabbed over that very short period of time. It is totally improper and incorrect for Mr Tamihere to come down to the Chamber to try to rewrite history when he does not know the facts. 
It is for that reason that the National Party now supports this legislation with caution because it moves an issue further after a long 12 years. The issue about the division of the ultimate benefits to Maori has been something we have left Maori to decide for themselves. Mr Tamihere said in his contribution that effectively the bill was written by Maori because they have now been given the opportunity to determine how they think the assets are best resolved and distributed and I accept that. 
But there are one or two issues that I think the Committee needs to look at quite seriously—in particular the issue on the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by my colleague Phil Heatley National’s fisheries spokesperson that concerns the way the ultimate determination is made of directors for Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That organisation will be a huge commercial entity. As Mr Heatley explained to the Committee we see now a very laborious five-stage process by which we ultimately end up with the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. However I think that that process could be curtailed quite dramatically and therefore that the Committee should take serious note of the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Phil Heatley that attempts to eliminate at least one step in the election of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd directors. 
My colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu referred to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd as a flagship organisation. The Committee needs to realise that the assets involved in that flagship organisation will be very significant. This afternoon the Committee has a duty to make sure that we establish a process whereby the best commercial brains ultimately get selected as directors to run that commercial entity. I certainly do not want to see a situation whereby we find that the legislation allows people to impose directors on Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd for their abilities loyalties or something other than their financial expertise. If that occurred the ultimate gains available for Maori that are being distributed with the Maori Fisheries Bill would not be delivered. 
I hope that with these comments in mind the Committee will seriously consider the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by my colleague Phil Heatley.