Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15645] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make some comment with regard to the title of this bill now known as the Maori Fisheries Bill. I am not quite sure whether that is an appropriate title because given the perceived support by the Government to things Maori I would have thought that a more appropriate title for this bill would be a Maori one. I suggest that the bill would be more appropriately named “Te Ture Hao Ika Maori” which essentially is the Maori Fisheries Bill. Now perhaps it is beyond the realms of possibility that this suggestion might be a consideration that the Government might feel like providing in a late Supplementary Order Paper. 
Should it not consider that I can suggest an alternative title for this bill. It is the “Privy Council Memorial Bill” because this bill came out of a decision from the Privy Council and as we all know the Government is determined to sever our ties with the Privy Council. It did so without consultation with Maori and one can see why as it seems to me that the Privy Council has been quite sympathetic to the Maori argument. 
However another alternative could be the “Fish and Loaves Bill” because some people believe—and it certainly is the case at the moment—that they have not received anything out of this settlement. However this is unlike the original feast of fish and loaves because those who partook in that feast had faith. Now I am not quite sure even at this stage given the differences of opinion that exist outside the Maori world—and certainly within the Maori world—that this might be an appropriate name for the bill. 
I believe that a number of issues come out of this bill—not least of all the recognition of iwi groups; and in fact there is a recommendation from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee concerning two groups in particular Ngati Hine—and I declare I am a member of Ngati Hine—and Rongomaiwahine. The bill does not give them iwi status. That has to be recognised by those people particularly within Maoridom who have been critical of that. But what it does do is allow those groups to be considered alongside iwi to receive their separate allocation if they so wish. That in no way deems them to be iwi because only Maori can do that. 
The second point is the recognition of existing treaty settlements. I must express my serious concern about this particular issue which was brought to notice by NgaiTahu who signed their deed of settlement with the Crown in good faith where that settlement recognised their tribal boundaries. Yet that same recognition is not given due regard by this bill. To me that signals that future deeds of settlement will have only a limited use and that this bill will not give any recognition of that. Of course that adds to the burden that the Maori Land Court will have to bear. 
The other issue is that I believe that too much authority or power has been given to the offspring of the present commission; that is Te Ohu Ki Moana Trustee Ltd. We heard throughout the discussion this afternoon and early parts of this evening the concern of members about this issue.