te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15615] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with restrictions on iwi in relation to their assets—their quota. The many restrictions on iwi in the way that they manage their assets were signalled earlier. It is a worry. It is a vexed area obviously. The major submission made by Te Ohu Kai Moana—the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission—to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was that somehow an allocation model had to be found that would recognise that the settlement was an intergenerational one—that its benefits must flow through to coming generations. I as a Maori understand—but not just me; all of us can understand—the importance of such a concept. None the less it does seem that we are saying to Maori that we recognise their claim to the fisheries we recognise that the Treaty of Waitangi refers to fisheries and we recognise that in 1992 the fisheries settlement was proceeded with but now in the 21st century we are saying how it is to be allocated and there will be restrictions on the way that Maori can deal with it restrictions relating particularly to the sale of quota. 
So a dilemma lies in there for the Committee—there is no doubt about that. Mind you I often thought and I am sure my colleagues and other colleagues on the select committee would agree with me that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission used that excuse far too many times. Its argument was that the select committee could not make any changes because the settlement was a complete package and if one part of it was altered then the whole thing would be dismantled. Ultimately the select committee did not accept that argument but I think it underpins this issue of an intergenerational settlement. Therefore the need to put some restrictions on how iwi can deal with their quota is a real issue. It was an issue for the select committee and it remains an issue now. 
I suppose that ultimately what members need to guard against—and I listened closely to the Hon Richard Prebble’s comments on this issue; I certainly appreciate the underlying thrust of his contribution to the Committee this afternoon—is the risk that long term we are accused of not making sure the asset was maintained. 
Fisheries are named in the treaty as the property of Maori and a fisheries settlement was reached in 1992 that recognised that Maori had a property right to fisheries. It recognised that the Crown had to reach an agreement which it did to ensure that Maori became stakeholders in what might be called the current property in terms of fish—which is quota basically—and of course the income that flows from it. Although nobody in this Chamber wants to see assets lost or frittered away—and nobody need take from that that I do not have any confidence in the ability of Maori to manage their assets—in the long term there is a risk that a future generation might come back to Parliament and say that yes we settled the fisheries issue and allocated quota to Maori but we did not essentially take proper steps to make sure that that asset was maintained and sustained and some generations later some of it has been lost. It provides a quandary for parliamentarians.