Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15618] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
:  
Part 4 talks about the restrictions on iwi with regard to the quota. It is an important part of the bill. In the debate on the previous parts we identified the point which I also made in the last speech that in 1992 when we had the quota settlement it was actually a property right. That was established back in 1992 and here we are 12 years later with an opportunity now to use the quota and to be able to have it transferred out to iwi. The point made in the debate on the previous part by my colleague Dr Mapp was that there need to be very clear mandated restrictions on who can access the quota. The people concerned need to have business acumen to be commercially viable and to meet minimum standards. We believe those sorts of points are important but unfortunately Dr Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper was voted down. 
Part 4 actually deals with the same sorts of things that Dr Mapp talked about so I will look at the outline of that part. Clause 120AA “Outline of this Part” states it provides for: “(a) the registration under the Fisheries Act 1996 of a settlement quota interest against quota shares owned by asset-holding companies or subsidiaries of asset-holding companies; and (b) a general restriction on the transfer of settlement quota; and (c) the basis on which settlement quota may be disposed of; and (d) exceptions to the general constraint on disposal including provisions for the exchange of settlement quota; and (e) an option to purchase (right of first refusal) with a procedure for selling bundles of assets that include settlement quota.” So I think if we look at what is required there we see there are some constraints. 
One of the issues that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu mentioned was that it could well be in years to come that Maori come back and say that yes they had quota and it was transferred to them but there were not the provisions in place to maintain its sustainability in the long term. That is a real threat to what we see in this part remembering that Maori have come and said that they want to be able to share and have the transfer of quota but that they also want to ensure for the benefit of future generations that there is actually sustainable management in place in order to maintain the species and to maintain access to the asset that is there by right. That right was determined in the 1992 settlement but we have to be very careful that the resource—the asset—is not depleted. As we have gone through this debate this afternoon we have seen that the process can leave itself open to abuse. 
We have some concerns about the bill but we are happy to support it through its passage today. I would like the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call. A number of concerns have been expressed and I would certainly be interested to know what his view is. As we are supporting the bill it is not something that is a major issue but the Minister has an opportunity to set members’ minds at rest on those things and we believe that is important. 
To summarise Part 4 is about the limitations on realising the value of the fishing operations through the sale of capital items quotas or shares of iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the right of first refusal process that requires an iwi to sell each quota species separately rather than as a bundle of quota. It was included in the capital asset; that is how it was introduced. There were some changes made—they are now reflected in the bill—and we support them.