Prebble Richard: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15608] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I will first just comment on Mr Mapp’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 257. While it has some appeal to me I say to him that I do not like the phrase “commercially qualified iwi organisation”. I wonder how people would work that out. I do not like it first because it requires somebody to work out whether an iwi is commercially qualified and second—[ 
Interruption 
] I have listened to the member and I am now replying to his point. The second point that I do not like about it is that it talks about iwi organisations. We all know or those of us who have bothered to study the matter know that in 1840 of course iwi did not own anything. It was all held by hapu. If the member had put into his amendment that the quota be able to be transferred to hapu—actually to families—which is an economically sound unit rather than one that is artificial tribal and requires politics to run it I would be much more inclined to support it. I probably will vote for it because it is an improvement but I say it has not gone far enough. 
Let me return to clause 125 and say just how shocked I am at such an amendment being proposed because it is absolutely contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi. The clause provides that a mandated iwi organisation must not sell its settlement quota. Well if one looks at the treaty one finds there are only three articles. Article 1 is the sovereignty clause. The second article recognises that Maori own land forest and fisheries—which is why we are having this settlement—then empowers Maori to sell them. In fact in the treaty there is a restriction that they must be sold to the Crown but Maori are entitled to sell—there is no doubt at all about that—and that is a very very powerful right. One does not actually own anything if one cannot sell it. This Parliament says it believes in treaty principles but where is the treaty principle that says that Pakeha can sell fishing quota that Chinese can sell fishing quota that in fact any New Zealander can sell fishing quota unless one happens to be a mandated iwi organisation? I object to this clause because it is racist and contrary to the treaty and I would like to hear from members opposite why they believe they can get up and preach the principles of the treaty to this House then introduce a clause that is so contrary to it. 
I have no doubt that there are Maori bureaucrats and politicians who have said they want this clause. Of course they do; they see this clause as a way of keeping them in their jobs forever. But I say that I believe it is quite possible for Maori to decide that they want to invest their money somewhere else. In a free society they ought to be able to do that. An iwi ought to be able to say: “On balance we don’t think fishing is for us. We have something else we would rather do with our money.” That is what New Zealanders and companies do every day. 
I tell the Committee that this clause is contrary to the treaty. There is no doubt about that; it is a black and white matter. I want to hear from the Minister how he can be in favour of this clause and then say that his Government is trying to implement the treaty. He cannot say that Maori have the right to rewrite the treaty; if the Crown does not have that right nor have Maori and nor has this Parliament. This clause is contrary to property rights. It is contrary to the fact that every citizen—and under article 3 of the treaty Maori are given the rights of citizens—is entitled to buy and sell. But in clause 125 the only way one can sell quota is to sell it to another Maori group—or one can gift it. What an outrage! How could a Government in 2004 pass such a patronising racist clause that is contrary to the treaty!