Anderton Jim: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
Anderton Jim: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6888] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 When the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 it was a major piece of legislation and a historic moment for this House. It was legislation that was roundly debated both here and throughout New Zealand. Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill 2006 is not of the same scale. It proposes technical amendments that are needed to fix three oversights or drafting errors. Fisheries legislation—I say from my 1 year’s experience—is extraordinarily complex and this legislation is no exception. Tonight we have to repair the status of a species of red crab we have to fix an anomaly that arose because preferential rights were allocated 20 years ago we have to correct the omission of one step in the administrative procedures and we have to validate decisions that were made before anyone knew that the anomalies existed. The amendments are not a new allocation model or an interference with the model; they give effect to the allocation model agreed to by iwi. 
The first amendment fixes a problem that meant Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd could not strictly comply with the legislation’s provisions about the way fisheries are allocated. This story goes back to 1986 when the quota management system was first introduced. At that time some quota owners had their rights reduced without compensation because an effort was being made to reduce catches to sustainable levels. Although they lost their right to take some of the catch they kept the right to get preferential quota if the total allowable catch was ever increased again. Section 23 of the Fisheries Act implements this preferential right. Then the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 which tied all decisions about allocation of fisheries to a number of quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd at the time the Act was passed. These shares are listed in schedule 1 of the Act. 
The problem is that the number of shares can change through preferential quota dating back to 1986 as I have described. This can effect the number of shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd for distribution to iwi. When that happens schedule 1 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 will no longer reflect Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd’s true holdings. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd is unable to comply strictly with the allocation provisions of the legislation. The amendments contained in clause 22 of the bill will rectify that situation. The amendments in clause 22 are not retrospective so clause 23(1) of the bill deals with seven fish stocks that were affected by the preferential allocation rights in October 2004 before this issue was recognised. 
Section 25 of the Fisheries Act 1996 allows the Minister of Fisheries to recommend changes to quota management areas if this will improve fisheries management. This also would change the shareholdings of quota owners. Both the name of stocks and the number of quota shares held can be changed. If that happened Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd would be left with no guidance from the legislation on how to allocate the new quota shares. It would also have a technical obligation to allocate stock that no longer exists. It is a bit like how the Opposition would like to reallocate the technical parts of the fiscal surplus that do not exist. 
The need for this amendment was raised in the select committee by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and it has been added to the bill in clause 22A. The amendment provides instruction for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to deal with these circumstances in a way that fully reflects the intention of the allocation model for fisheries settlements assets agreed among iwi. The Ministry of Fisheries is in agreement that this amendment is necessary and it has the full support of the Government. I congratulate Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the committee members on achieving this addition to the bill. 
The second issue in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 addressed by this bill is an error in the classification of deep-water red crab species. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd classified stocks listed in schedule 1 to the Act as inshore or deep-water. Of the hundreds of stocks in the schedule the stocks of red crab were classified wrongly as inshore rather than deep-water stocks. This is doubtless of significance to the crabs who remain unaware of their circumstances. It was also however significant for the allocation of the settlement quota to iwi. Deep-water and inshore stocks are allocated differently. Inshore stocks are allocated primarily according to the relative coastline length of the iwi’s rohe. Deep-water quota is weighted heavily on the basis of iwi population. Therefore it is important to the distribution of assets whether stocks are classed as deep-water or inshore. This reclassification is achieved through the amendment put forward in clause 23(2) of the bill. 
The third issue dealt with in this bill corrects the omission in the drafting of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The allocation procedures in the Act are complex. In the preparation of the legislation a process step was omitted from schedule 6 of the Act. This step concerns the final calculation of allocations for generally small amounts of quota attributed to particular harbours around the coast. Clause 24 of the bill puts forward new clause 10A for inclusion in schedule 6 of the Maori Fisheries Act. It completes instructions for the administrative procedure that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd uses when it allocates this quota according to the model agreed by iwi. 
Other provisions in the bill tidy up matters associated with these three issues. For example clause 24(4) inserts new clause 11A into schedule 6 of the Act. It deals with a special case of inshore quota already allocated but not yet transferred to iwi. It reflects a similar provision to clause 21 of the bill which does the same thing for deep-water allocations. Clause 25 then provides for the validation of some actions associated with technical problems in the Maori Fisheries Act. As I mentioned the holdings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and seven stocks were affected by preferential allocation rights in October 2004. The stocks are listed in clause 23(1). Before this issue came to light Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries took statutory action to register a settlement of quota interest over all settlement quota shares. The numbers of shares listed in the paperwork for those actions reflected the schedule of the Act not the true number of shares as modified by preferential allocation. Naturally only the shares actually held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd could have a settlement quota interest registered over them. Clause 25 validates these actions. 
Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has gone ahead and allocated quota to iwi in order to get assets to them as quickly as possible. In doing so that organisation also allocated the seven stocks in accordance with the shares actually held rather than the numbers currently listed in the schedule. So the second validation is of allocations made by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd until now for the same seven stocks affected in October 2004 by preferential allocation rights. This is the only sensible approach to take in the circumstances. This validation just confirms those facts. It ensures that the decisions made are legally robust. 
The final matter in the bill that I will speak to is in respect of Part 4. It concerns the amendment of section 20 of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. That Act settles contemporary Maori claims to coastal space for aquaculture development from September 1992 into the future. Section 20 of the Act is an interpretation section and contains a definition of pre-commencement space. These amendments tidy up matters from the development of two landmark pieces of legislation passed in close succession by the House in 2004. The provisions carried forward in the Maori Purposes Bill 2006 will assist in the allocation of fisheries assets and in the management of fisheries under the Maori Fisheries Act.