Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15435] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to reiterate what Gerry Brownlee said to this Committee regarding these amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that we are putting up particularly in relation to this part. If the Government rejects these Supplementary Order Papers and amendments that will make this bill less patronising and bureaucratic the National Party caucus will discuss its position on supporting the bill in the final analysis. I will repeat that and make that very clear to the Committee. We will discuss it in caucus in the final analysis and decide whether we will support the bill in the third reading. 
I rise in defence of Pita Paraone’s amendment because we in the National Party support it. I have to say that during the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee when we talked about the coastline agreements between iwi we pretty much sewed it up and had it solved. The problem was simply this. Assets upon allocation were unable to be transferred to iwi groups until iwi had decided amongst themselves what coastline related to them because the allocation was based on coastline. The problem was this. If iwi were secure in 95 percent of their coastline—in other words everyone agreed that that particular coastline was theirs and any allocation related to 95 percent of it was not in dispute—and if 5 percent of it was in dispute then all of it was held up in allocation. In other words one could not get on with the job utilising one’s assets for one’s people over the entire coastline just because 5 percent of it—the last few kilometres—was unresolved. 
So we brought about amendments in the select committee that incentivised agreement by allowing assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred and allocated so the iwi could get on with the business and assets relating to coastline that was in dispute to be set aside pending a coastline resolution and further providing a clear disputes resolution process—an incentive to make sure that those disputes were actually addressed in a timely manner. 
However upon reflection it is our view that where there have been previous deeds of settlement and a coastline boundary such as in the case of NgaiTahu has been set through a previous Crown settlement has been legitimised through legislation has been challenged in the courts exhaustively and never once come up wanting in fact that coastline should be the coastline that is used for allocation in this Maori fisheries legislation. 
So we support the amendments to clause 5 to ensure that defined takiwa iwi takiwa defining deed of settlement and takiwa defining enactment should be included in the definition of deep water quota. The takiwa relates to that coastline that is pertinent to that particular iwi. Now these particular amendments to the clause address it where it has been considered and recognised as legitimate without doubt through the court. So there has been a settlement. It has been legitimised through legislation. It has been challenged through the court and it has withstood all that. 
Now where that has happened there is no reason why iwi should have to go through the whole process of the courts paying lots and lots of lawyers lots and lots of money only to prove it again and again. That is why we support this amendment. There is no reason whatsoever why iwi groups such as NgaiTahu should have to go through these hoops again.