Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9701] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. After having followed that presentation which was defined— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Did you follow it? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I followed it not in a comprehension sense but perish the thought in the physical sense. I want to direct our attention to regional agreements and in particular to subsections (4) (5) (6) and (7) of new section 29A inserted by clause 8 of the bill. There is a lesson that has been applied in this section pointed out in subsection (6) where it states that “No court or tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the quantification or the adequacy of the benefits to be provided by or under a regional agreement.” Of course what this refers to—and I give full marks to the Maori Affairs Committee which worked through this legislation with the advisers—is that we will not see a reversion to the protracted debates as to who and which party should get which particular entitlement as a consequence of the regional agreements being agreed to. Maoridom has been blighted by no end of litigation as to what was an adequate entitlement in relation to the historic fisheries settlement. So without sounding too nauseous nga mihi. I acknowledge the chair and other members of the committee who have prevented a repetition of that. 
However the bill goes on to say—and the qualified senior lawyers in the House would know this—it is impossible to close down the right of appeal to the High Court. Indeed our party has learnt that as a consequence of the seabed and foreshore exercise. The High Court will have as part of its inherent jurisdiction I dare say under subsection (7) the ability to perform an interpretative function. As the regional agreements are entered into there will inevitably be conflict. Why will there be conflict? Because many of those agreements will reflect the ancestral aspirations of the hapu and tribes who have historically occupied harbours and other areas along the takutai moana along the foreshore. They will have had over the years their own favoured sites for mataitai gathering etc. and the regional agreements are really an attempt to shoehorn them into an industry. These agreements cannot be based on a static view of where and how Maori live along the coast because aquaculture at the end of the day derives its revenue and its power in terms of an economic force from international markets. So that is a very sensible contribution in my view. 
For those participants who cannot get their affairs into order or who acknowledge that they actually need a trustee to enter into the regional agreements on their behalf the trustee will be required to abide by actionable obligations—actionable duties. But it is always a double-edged sword when one provides justiciable ability in relation to Maori issues. What might be settled on the marae—I can assure members that getting agreement over seafood assets is no mean task—through negotiation needs only one party to feel slighted about before that party dashes off to find an ever-ready lawyer whose contribution is inversely related to his or her cost structure and then one is back to somewhere near zero. So the fact that the duties of trustees enable them to enter into such regional agreements and be bound by those agreements is very sensible providing it does not lead to a fresh bout of litigation. 
In addition to that the reference to the trustees is important because the participants in the regional agreements must focus on aquaculture as part of the New Zealand resource-based economy not focus on it being a new theatre for conducting historic and largely irrelevant debates that have very little to do with the future economic pathway of Maoridom and more to do with recitations of history of a time that has passed us by. It is likely to become particularly problematic and vexatious when we get to the point of making decisions about harbours because some harbours are regarded as areas for collecting spat. Others are regarded as areas for growing the mature product into a form that the market can absorb. I support having less litigation and more economic activity. Kia ora tatou. 
Part 2 agreed to.