English Bill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15636] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister just what the intent of Part 7 is. I am somewhat mystified by where this legislation is heading under this part. It is certainly important that the debate signals that this legislation is bound to cause major dispute. The way the bill has been written means that it will be only a matter of months after its passage that disputes will arise in respect of all sorts of aspects of it. The reason is the odd structure that has been put around this fisheries settlement. 
I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope to explain why the Maori Land Court is now to be involved in disputes around this matter because if we stand back a bit from the fact that this bill is being put together as a political deal rather than as a legislative ideal we will see that the organisations constituted under this legislation have the corporate powers of a person—the same as anyone else. We have a well-established contract law that has dealt with commercial and ownership disputes for many many years and I would like the Minister to tell us why the ownership of these particular assets merits a special jurisdiction when it comes to disputes. I would be keen to hear an answer from him about that. 
The other thing I would like the Minister to explain is why in this part the Maori Land Court now has a completely new jurisdiction over the operation of a mandated iwi. The issue of how iwi are mandated by this legislation is a major issue in itself but given that Parliament has now decided to legislate for iwi—to recognise them in statute in a way that has not been done before—why is it that the Maori Land Court has now been given extensive powers? I refer the Committee to the orders and interim orders that the Maori Land Court can make under section 26L inserted by clause 169. It can require new elections or the appointment of office holders of a mandated iwi organisation. That seems to be an extraordinary power to give to a court. 
 This Parliament has every opportunity to legislate in a general way for civic organisations and it often does. By civic organisations I mean corporate bodies of different sorts such as incorporated societies. In this case it has been decided to legislate for iwi. There is a whole set of processes of public law to deal with problems that arise in those organisations but here we are extending the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court in a way that I think is bound to cause trouble. Iwi have been a fluid type of organisation. Their membership tends to change. The views held by the people of the iwi about the iwi are being regarded as much more important than anyone else’s. But here we are putting them under the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court which can require new elections. It can require Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited to suspend recognition of a mandated iwi organisation until specified changes are made to its constitutional documents. Well that seems to be going much too far. 
This legislation has in it the kaupapa that is required to become a mandated iwi. I presume an iwi cannot be mandated until it meets the kaupapa laid down in the legislation. Why then does one give the Maori Land Court the capacity to change that constitution? The constitution is legislated here. It seems to me to be fundamentally contradictory that Parliament legislates the constitution of these iwi—I personally think that in the long run that will be a mistake; nevertheless that is what Parliament is choosing to do—and then tells the court that it can change it. I would like the Minister to explain that because if the Maori Land Court can change it what does it mean when we vote for these kaupapa later in the bill?