Maori Fisheries Bill

Ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare nei, e tika ake anō i runga anō o te tū nei ki te mihi anō i a koe, tēnā koe. Nā te mea e mōhio anake anō tātou te tō roa noa iho o te tae ake o te tuhinga nei, o te pire nei ki roto iI te Whare nei, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou kāre i konei. Ka mihi anō hoki ki a rātou ngā kaiwhakahaere o te kōmihana, e mau kaha ake anō mō tēnei tino kaupapa, tēnā koutou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[To you the Speaker of this House, it is apt indeed that I extend greetings to you as I rise to speak. Greetings to you. Because we know how long it has taken for this document, this bill, to arrive in this House, I acknowledge those who are not present and those of the commission as well, who worked tirelessly on this matter of such significance. Greetings to you.]

Kī ake anō ki te mihi ake anō ki ōku hoa mahi i konei o te Kāwana me koutou ngā kanohi Māori. Tō tātau pakeke e Winitana, koutou katoa mihi ake anō i a koe, tēnā koe.

[I acknowledge my Government colleagues and those Māori members once again. To all of you, and indeed to you Winston, our elder statesman, thank you.]

I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by a committee to be established. The bill will give effect to the agreed model for allocating Māori fisheries settlement assets, as proposed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission in its report He Kawai Amokura. It is cause for celebration that this bill is finally before the House. It is the culmination of more than 10 years of discussion and debate amongst Māori. Its passage will begin a new era of Māori participation in the fishing industry, enabling the beneficiaries of the 1992 fisheries settlement to receive the assets and use them for the economic and social benefit of Māori. This is a settlement worth more than $700 million dollars—more than all the other treaty settlements combined.

In 1986 the introduction of the quota management system for fisheries prompted a number of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court from Māori. Three years later, in an interim settlement, the Crown agreed to transfer to Māori 10 percent of the existing quota, and the Māori Fisheries Commission was established to promote Māori involvement in the business and activity of fishing. I commend the commission for the efforts it put into that. The commission was charged with managing the quota while it developed the method of allocating the settlement assets to iwi. The final Māori fisheries settlement was agreed, following the Ngāi Tahu sea fisheries report from the Waitangi Tribunal, and it was signed on 23 September 1992. The settlement provided Māori with $150 million to purchase 50 percent of Sealord Products Ltd, and the Crown undertook to transfer to Māori 20 percent of the quota of all new species brought into the quota management system. As part of this celebration it is important to note how well the commission has brought that forward and increased it, and developed the regulations to manage customary non-commercial fishing.

The Māori Fisheries Commission was reconstituted as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and charged with developing proposals for a new Māori Fisheries Act, including a procedure to identify beneficiaries and allocate the benefits of the settlement. By 1998 the commission had developed the model for the allocation of the interim settlement assets, but a High Court order prevented it from reporting that model to the Minister of Fisheries. In due course the commission concluded that only a combined allocation proposal, dealing with both the interim and the final settlement assets, would secure enough support from iwi to proceed. The commission presented the Minister of Fisheries with its report He Kawai Amokura—its proposed model for the allocation of all fisheries settlement assets—on 9 May 2003. The commission has been candid in acknowledging that the model reflects some carefully balanced compromises needed to achieve a high level of agreement and support amongst iwi. The Government formally accepted the proposal in June, being satisfied that it is fundamentally sound and provides a just and workable framework for the future. When considering the details of the proposal, Cabinet noted that the process to sell inshore settlement quota that is proposed by the commission and contained in the bill would preclude the sale of packages of mixed quota, thus potentially reducing the value of the sale to vendors.

The bill is divided into seven parts, and includes eight schedules. Part 1 contains the preliminary provisions covering commencement, interpretation, and key concepts—including the classification of quota, the process to determine and register coastline entitlements, the functions and powers of mandated iwi organisations, and the criteria for their recognition. Part 2 provides for the establishment and review of a series of new entities. Te Ohu Kai Moana is a trust that will replace the commission and carry forward the allocation of settlement assets and other aspects of the scheme. Te Kawai Taumata is an electoral college created to appoint directors to the corporate trustee of Te Ohu Kai Moana. Te Kawai Taumata will have 11 members. One will be appointed by each of 10 iwi regional groupings, and one will be appointed by a group of representatives of Māori organisations. Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is a commercial company that will manage the settlement assets associated with a number of companies currently owned by the commission. It will have separate income and voting shares. All voting shares and 20 percent of the income shares are to be held in trust for iwi. The remaining 80 percent of income shares are to be distributed to mandated iwi organisations, on the basis of their iwi population. Te Putea Whakatupu Trust is a trust to provide funding to Māori for education, training, and research, including that in relation to Māori involvement in the business and activity of fishing and fisheries. Te Wai Māori Trust is a trust to assist with the development of Māori interest in freshwater fisheries. The commission has recognised that an organisation’s structures and processes that are appropriate for today may require changes to meet the evolving requirements of iwi and Māori in the future. Consequently, Part 2 also provides for reviews of the performance of the groups that I have named.

Part 3 provides for the allocation and transfer of settlement assets by Te Ohu Kai Moana. All settlement quota will be transferred to iwi, once the iwi has a mandated iwi organisation. The amount each iwi will receive is calculated on the basis of population, coastline length, and the scheme for classification of quota. Settlement money will be used to provide the capital reserve for Te Ohu Kai Moana, Te Putea Whakatupu Trust, and Te Wai Māori Trust, to fund the transitional functions of Te Ohu Kai Moana, and to make payments to iwi in specific circumstances.

Part 4 provides for restrictions on the sale and exchange of settlement quota. Mandated iwi organisations can sell settlement quota only to other mandated iwi organisations or to Te Ohu Kai Moana. For inshore quota, a right of first refusal must be offered to buyers of coastline entitlements for the fish stock. Part 5 provides for dispute resolution processes to deal with disputes within and among iwi, and between iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana trustees. In respect of matters relating to certain decisions made under the bill, disputes may be referred to the trustee for a determination or to the Māori Land Court if the trustee is a party or is unable to resolve the dispute. Part 6 provides for transitional and miscellaneous provisions, repeals, and amendments. Part 7 amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to reflect the Māori Land Court’s new role in dispute resolution.

In summary, this bill provides for the allocation of approximately half the settlement assets directly to iwi, and for the remaining assets, mostly company shares, to be centrally managed on behalf of iwi. The model requires the establishment of a series of new entities. The bill has the support of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, and I want to commend it. The commission has an important role now to manage the transition towards the future needs of Māori, both in the sense of structure and in the sense of the usage of the benefits for the Māori people. Perhaps inevitably, the allocation model does not command universal support amongst Māori. Nevertheless, more than 90 percent of iwi agreed that the model should be presented to the Government. Parliament now has the opportunity to bring the 1992 deed of settlement to a conclusion, and to usher in a new era of opportunity for Māori in the fishing and seafood industry.

I a koutou anō o te kōmihana, te tiamana, koutou katoa, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. To my colleague Minister Hodgson, who is not here today, I commend him for his effort and tenacity, and certainly I thank my colleagues in Parliament for the support they will bring to this great turn in history for Māori.

E mihi ana au ki a rātou katoa i āwhina i tēnei kaupapa mai i te tīmata ki tēnei wā hōhonu. Ngā roimata ki a rātou e kore e kitea i tēnei wā, ā, ki a tātou te hunga ora, huri noa tēnā tātou katoa. From the time of the beginning of this process, to this very important time, the present, one cannot forget those who have helped to deliver this taonga, those who have gone before, and those of today, and I would like to pay tribute to them all.

I am very pleased to stand to the first reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The introduction of this bill represents, in my view, a significant milestone in the treaty settlement process, and, in particular, in the process of clarifying Māori entitlements to fisheries, resources, and assets under the Treaty of Waitangi, and of effecting a transfer of those assets into the hands of iwi and Māori. The Maori Fisheries Bill is designed to effect that transfer. Its source is the deed of settlement of 1992, which was preceded by the Maori Fisheries Act of 1989. Its purpose is to implement the agreements in the deed of settlement and provide for the development of iwi interests in fishing and fisheries, in order to benefit all Māori. The bill establishes a framework for half of the settlement assets to be allocated directly to iwi, and for the remainder to be managed centrally on behalf of iwi and Māori. It provides directions to establish new entities and rules to govern and guide the distribution of settlement assets.

The Minister has referred in some detail to the provisions of the bill. I would like to remind members of some of the background and history of the bill, and also to comment about the position of Māori in the sector today. In my view, the overriding objective for Parliament—given the 11 years of litigation, dispute, compromise, consultation, and debate among Māori—should now be to make sure that this bill reflects the agreements of the 1992 deed of settlement and the underlying aspirations of those who negotiated that deed. Clearly, the underlying aspirations were that the Māori beneficiaries would be able to establish for themselves a firm and significant stake in the sector, and create both wealth and opportunity for their own communities, and for Māori. From that point of view, this bill represents an economic plank of which we should all be supportive. The bill represents economic prosperity, not just for Māori, but also for New Zealand.

We should remind ourselves that Māori now have influence over in excess of 40 percent of the commercial fishery. They are represented through all sectors of an industry that has a global reach. The Sealord’s company, which is the Māori flagship of this asset, has an influence throughout the world, and, I understand, is respected both for its professionalism and the quality of the business acumen it has displayed. This represents a major go-forward economic plank, and from that point of view National is very pleased to support the bill to the select committee.

💬 Pita Paraone: Which one?

That is a good question. Which select committee? As someone has raised the question, I want to comment on that. This bill is about a Māori asset. It represents years of work by the Māori Fisheries Commission to get broad agreement from Māori stakeholders about a model of allocation that will hopefully see the asset grow and be nurtured in a way that will make those who were responsible for kicking this process off in the first place proud of what has happened. I would have thought that as it is a Māori asset, as it is for the benefit of Māori, and as it represents agreements reached by Māori, that it ought to have gone to the Māori Affairs Committee, so I raise the issue about a special committee having been set up.

I understand that the Government has been looking at this issue in the context of foreshore and seabed, and marine farming and aquaculture matters, but those two issues do not really bear any resemblance to this one. This represents agreements—albeit sometimes begrudgingly given by some—among Māori, and the other two issues are of interest to all New Zealanders. I am glad someone asked that question, because I think that point has to be made.

I personally do not understand why the bill had to go to a special select committee. However, among other things, this bill makes provision for those iwi entities that will receive the assets. In the select committee, I will be interested to look in some detail at those provisions. I will be keen to pay particular attention to the governance requirements. We are told by the Māori Fisheries Commission that issues of transparency, accountability, and constitutional propriety will be foremost in the minds of the commission before assets are transferred. I think that is in the sense that this is a treaty-based package and asset, and that the obligation of its future managers will be to ensure that the benefits accrue not just to this generation, but are there for future generations.

It is important that the commission pay due regard to the new entities, because we would all want to make sure that 17 years after the fisheries claim was first kicked off in Te Hapua, up in the Far North, the iwi governance entities are in a sound position to receive and manage the assets that are transferred.

I would imagine that this bill has now reached the House because even though there is residual disagreement on some points—which might be quite strong, as evidenced by the fact that there were actions in the High Court in Auckland just last week—somehow the commission has finally managed to reach broad agreement with all the stakeholders that this legislation should come to Parliament. I would like to think that parliamentarians are keeping their eyes on the big picture, and are thinking about what this legislation represents if it is implemented in the way envisaged in the bill. They need to understand that if Māori have agreed to the bill being introduced, they, as much as anyone, have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and understand the latent economic potential that resides within the bill.

Despite the misgivings of various interests—which they are entitled to bring before the select committee, and which we will no doubt hear quite a lot of during the committee process—it would, in my view, be a disappointment if somewhat of a group of parliamentarians tried to second-guess the work that has gone into this allocation model. The last thing any of us want to see—and the last thing New Zealanders want to see—is more dispute and litigation. We cannot have that. That asset has to transfer to its beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are iwi—Māori—out there in their communities. They are entitled to receive those assets. As I say, I will be putting the bill under some scrutiny but, ultimately, this is an economic opportunity that must move forward.

The Government’s handling of the Māori and the general fisheries area in this country is an utter and total mess.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Oh!

The first person to complain about that is Mr Swain. That is typical, because he knows nothing about it, whatsoever. I ask him where the framework for the oceans policy is, after 2 years of unmitigated delay.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Where is it?

Where is it? He is the first to shoot his mouth off, but he cannot answer the question. Where is the framework for the oceans policy in this country? Where, for example, is the resolution of aquaculture management in this country?

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Good progress is being made.

He says that good progress is being made. We have a moratorium that is now to be delayed at least until 31 December 2004. In the meanwhile, all sorts of groups—European and Māori—have their investments languishing and all their programmes on hold because the Government cannot resolve a critical issue of this country’s resource management.

Regions and industry are unable to proceed. I ask the member where the Marine Reserves Bill is. That is three in a row. The Marine Reserves Bill is probably delayed until the end of 2004. That is a mess, and into that mess the Government throws this bill.

Some of us at least had the presence of mind, back in October 1992, to say that this issue would be the biggest area of legal contention with Māori, and over 11 years that is precisely what it has been. In fact, I can recall—

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Move on.

Tariana Turia says to move on. I will be moving on to her very shortly. I can recall being expelled from the National Party caucus the day after I was the only member of Parliament to oppose that deal. I was expelled on 2 October 1992, and I have moved on. There is nothing so sterile or antiseptic as the phrase “I told you so.”, but I did—and I paid a big price for that.

We need to remember that the Government’s claim in respect of iwi support needs to be revisited. It says that Ngāpuhi supports this bill. What about Ngāti Hine, the biggest hapū? It has about 45,000 members, and they do not support this bill. What about Ngāti Porou? What about Ngāi Tahu, that huge landed tribe? What do they say?

💬 Edwin Perry: What about Ngātiwai?

I will get to Ngātiwai shortly. I pick up the bill and I see that the resource will be distributed on the basis of population. How is that fair to Ngāi Tahu?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Treaty property rights.

Yes, it is amazing, is it not? When the Government says that the bill has the support of Māoridom, I ask whether it does. Is it not a fact that one of the reasons the Māori people wish this bill to go to a select committee is so that the model can be revisited? Those are all facts. It is no use for Government members to say they are doing something about it when, after 4½ years, we have an utter and total mess and delay across the whole fisheries scene, and the Māori people are no better off.

Mr Horomia said: “I am going to refer it”—that is, the bill—“to a select committee yet to be formed.” I ask the Māori members over there in the Labour Party whether this bill will be going to the Māori Affairs Committee, because that committee is formed, and has been for decades. Is the bill going to that committee—yes, or no? I want to hear the answer.

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: No.

Oh, no. They do not trust their members. They do not trust those Māori members. So, here we go. We do not have the “magnificent seven” in the seven Māori seats; no, we have seven vertically challenged followers of Snow White—or, at least, her ugly sisters. Here we go—“It’s taihoa, taihoa, off to some other select committee we must go.” When are those Māori members going to stand up for their honour, their mana, and the integrity of their people? How long can they go on being doormats to people like Helen Clark, Cullen, and Swain? Have they got a Māori member chairing this committee?

💬 Opposition Members: No.

Oh, no; they cannot have a Māori member from the Māori seats chairing a select committee!

💬 Pita Paraone: Don’t trust them.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS:They do not trust them—precisely! No, they will have Mr Fairbrother from Napier. This man is so steeped in Māoridom, Māori history, and Māori anthropology that in a court case he said the reason why a Māori was offending was that he had been colonised. The Treaty of Waitangi was not being honoured, and that was his defence. Here is this man, Russell Fairbrother, who knows nothing about Māori whatsoever, and he is to chair the committee on Māori fishing assets. How do members like that for an insult? I tell members not to talk to me about tino rangatiratanga and all of those beloved lofty statements they make out there on the marae where they are real lions, but in the caucus—lambs, utter lambs. Helen Clark and Cullen stomp all over them, and they do not care what it means as the image of representation for Māoridom. Can members imagine Ngata putting up with this?

💬 Opposition Members: No way!

Can members imagine Bill Gudgeon putting up with this?

💬 Opposition Members: No way!

Can members imagine Pita Paraone putting up with this? Can we imagine Ron Mark, Edwin Perry, or, for that matter, my brother and I putting up with this?

💬 Opposition Members: No way!

There are seven Māori members in seven Māori seats, which those in Government say they must retain because they are “the voice of Māoridom”. It is that peculiar, special voice—unparalleled and unique in Parliament. The only problem is: I cannot hear it. I cannot hear a syllable or a sound, a mutter or a murmur. It is absolutely mute—silenced.

I think that when young Māori look at this Parliament they will wonder why we need those seats. They never asked that question in the time of Ngata, Pomare, and Buck, or in our time, but they are asking it every day now because they cannot hear the voice. Worse still, in their name, those seven Māori members are subjugating them to absolute insults. Why will this bill not go to the Māori Affairs Committee? Because the Government does not trust its members. Why is the chairman of the committee not to be a Māori member? Because the Government does not trust its members.

💬 Pita Paraone: Sorry, Mahara.

Yes—“Sorry, Mahara. You are a good man but we don’t want you chairing this committee.” But he chairs the Māori Affairs Committee now. Why does the Government not trust the member for southern Māori? He is an honest sort of guy. Why will it not trust him? What is it about Fairbrother that tells us he knows more about Māori fisheries and Māori matters than the honourable member for southern Māori?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: He does what Helen wants him to do.

Is that what it is—because Fairbrother does what Helen wants him to do? The member is right, except that my question is: why are those seven Māori members allowing this to happen to them?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Who’s the sycophant?

That is what it brings to mind—sycophancy. There is a better phrase for it, but I cannot use it. It starts with a “b” and ends with “nosing”.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member is referring to other members, he must refer to them by their correct names.

I will. What did I say wrong? Is it honourable sycophants?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Here is another great defender of the Māori people, eh? Apparently, I am insulting someone. The insults are coming from that party over there, in this bill. When Labour says it will not trust the seven Māori members in Parliament, that is the insult. I ask whether that party would be asked to get up and apologise.

The Greens want to see the fisheries assets that were taken in breach of the treaty returned to their rightful owners. To that extent, we are pleased to see this long process come to some kind of resolution—as uneasy a resolution as it is. But the bill does not meet the criteria the Greens consider to be ethical, either in equity of distribution or in giving sufficient authority to iwi and hapū. There remain a number of serious unresolved issues.

The introduction of the Maori Fisheries Bill into Parliament brings an opportunity to critique and scrutinise the provisions in the bill, and to present issues that reflect Green considerations over this—an early treaty settlement. Our concerns include the strongly corporate framework in the settlement structures, asset distribution that is not sufficiently beneficial to iwi and hapū, and the marginalisation of tikanga in deference to corporate models of management. I want to outline some of our concerns.

We agree that the quantum for, and restrictions on, the use of Te Putea Whakatupu Trust do not offer urban Māori the level of support and benefit they are entitled to. The High Court has very recently acknowledged that the Government and the Minister of Fisheries are not fulfilling the obligations of the Crown to accord fair treatment to all persons who have rights and interests extinguished by the settlement. The court also noted that iwi benefits will not reach those whom the iwi does not know, and that iwi mechanisms will not be able to deliver the benefits of the settlement sufficiently, such that the pūtea will suffice to cover those gaps.

This leaves unresolved the serious questions of the fragmentation of iwi produced through the alienation of our land base. We do not agree that the centralisation of 50 percent of the total asset holdings in a new company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, is the best way to protect the fisheries assets. Te Ohu Kai Moana believes that this is the right thing to do, because Māori do not necessarily have the capacity to hold their assets long term. It argues that central management of this proportion of the assets is essential for the retention and protection of the assets for use by future generations. But iwi argue that the assets are their property, which they are entitled to control as they see fit. Many do not want to see half of their assets held and controlled by someone else. That is what this settlement was supposed to stop. We agree that this structure undermines the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū to manage their assets and interests in commercial fisheries.

Some have argued that the centralisation of assets will help develop the industry as a collective, rather than numbers of smaller competing companies. But in fact it is the imposition of a competitive model that establishes that risk of competition, which is then used against the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū as collective communities, not as corporate entities. We are concerned that Te Ohu Kai Moana Ltd, the new group, will exclusively control Aotearoa Fisheries, as Te Ohu Kai Moana will retain all the voting shares over that company. It will also retain all the income shares until it accepts a mandated iwi structure, which will then take on its share. This means that iwi will at some other unspecified time in the future receive only income shares, and have no direct authority over the company that manages half their assets. This centralisation looks very much like a means by which those who have controlled these assets for some time will be able to maintain their control.

Te Ohu Kai Moana argue that if iwi had the voting shares, they would exercise that vote in their own interests to the detriment of the whole. In my view, that is a sick argument. It says that Māori are incompetent, incapable, and have no capacity to think of anything but their own self-interest, and that is unacceptable.

It appears that Te Ohu Kai Moana is not subject to the same rigorous levels of accountability and governance controls that iwi organisations will be subjected to. Iwi governance entities have to meet a set of stringent conditions imposed by this outside agency before they are entitled to receive the property that they lost due to breaches of the treaty. But these provisions force iwi into corporate models of management that best fit the current economic theory, not the needs of iwi or hapū. This is the imposition of the corporate over the community, along the same lines as that imposed by the Office of Treaty Settlements.

We question the synergy between governance structures to be established for the fisheries allocation and the direct negotiations. Will iwi have to turn themselves into structural pretzels to meet all the various requirements of the bodies that hold their property and refuse to hand it over? Given the difficulty iwi have had with the Office of Treaty Settlements over the mandating of governance entities, I entirely understand the very real fear of iwi that, once again, their rangatiratanga will come second to imposed processes.

The Greens are very concerned that this allocation process entrenches existing power disparities between different iwi participating in this industry, and that those disparities will mean that the smaller players—iwi, hapū, and whānau—will not benefit from their fisheries assets in the long term. The mandated governance structures are an example of a very real barrier for smaller or poorer iwi. They will struggle to meet the requirements of the bill; they have no control over their assets, which are held by Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd; and then they will have to try to compete in a market already dominated by long-term, established iwi players. Some of those long-time players have been significant and, it has been strongly argued, unjustifiably significant beneficiaries of the previous release rounds, which are reportedly worth $230 million in total.

If the process picks winners and losers, and entrenches their positions, there is no justice here. Even if we factor in the review of Te Ohu Kai Moana in 12 years’ time, the high vote threshold for making any changes to the structure of that organisation means that those smaller players will not be able to make the changes necessary to ensure some equity for them. Even the review process protects the status quo, where the status quo benefits the stronger groupings.

The select committee that will eventually consider this bill will be under some intense pressure to both change this bill and to retain it in its current form. The Greens want to make sure that there is a rigorous testing of this bill against principles of fairness, justice, and equity, as well as economic considerations. There are some major flaws underlying the structure of this allocation process that date back to the original inception of the settlement, and we acknowledge that we will not be able to fix all of those problems. But having said that, we do not believe for a minute that the bill could not be altered to be fairer and to better reflect Māori community aspirations rather than corporate ones, because, despite some views to the contrary, those are not the same thing.

To quote from the explanatory note of the bill: “The report, He Kawai Amokura, was delivered to the Minister on 9 May 2003 and accepted by the Minister on 7 June 2003. … The purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreements made in the Deed of Settlement and to provide for the development of iwi interests in fisheries and fishing”.

In recent times important issues such as the Ngāti Ruanui land claims and the claim in process with Ngāti Tama have been within the jurisdiction of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has been very competent in the handling of those issues. The Maori Fisheries Bill is within the bounds of the Crown and Māoridom—just as land issues have been—and now the Government wants to form another committee, when there is already one in place. Why is that? The Māori Affairs Committee is already in place and ready to go. New Zealand First does not support the bill going to an ad hoc committee, as we have heard previously from our leader, Winston Peters, but supports this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. I feel that select committee is competent enough to handle the affairs of Māori. When issues such as tikanga come before the Māori Affairs Committee and we have to go on to the marae to explain the issues to the people, the select committee is familiar with them. I would say all those who are on that select committee are familiar with te reo and with the tikanga of all iwi and hapū throughout the nation.

So why is this ad hoc committee to be formed? As Mr Peters said, a chairperson may be appointed—I say may be, but I hope not—to direct issues that he or she is not familiar with. The meeting of that select committee could be like Cinderella: the shoes will be picked up later on, and then we will find out whom the owners are. Is that what is going to happen with regard to the fisheries and the Māori people, when someone else has been allocated the amount that they are entitled to? We have enough problems amongst Māoridom as it is, and we need to get these issues straight. I wonder what the Privy Council would say about this issue, if it were taken to the Privy Council—or will that just happen in the building that is to be refurbished in another couple of years’ time? And who will pull the strings? The ones pulling the strings will say “Jump”, and the answer will be “How high?”. How high are they going to jump?

The Māori Affairs Committee is in place now, and New Zealand First supports the move to bring this bill before that committee.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to advise the House that the ACT party will vote against the Maori Fisheries Bill. I say to the two old parties that they should think very carefully about whether they ratify this proposal, because it contains within it many further injustices. I say to the National Party that just because it put forward a bill—and Mr Peters is right—in 1992, that is not a reason for it to continue to support it. If one looks at the Hansard record, one sees it is true that Mr Peters voted against that bill. I was a member of the Labour Party then; I was not allowed to vote against it. But if members read my speech they will see that I predicted that the allocation model would lead to a huge legal battle. Anyone who is a lawyer could see—and Mr Peters and I could see—that what the Government of the day did was to say it was handing over an allocation of fish to Māori, without giving them any advice as to how it was to be apportioned, and was then asking them to settle that amongst themselves. People criticise Māori for taking such an amount of time to do that, but I say there would have been problems if we took any group of New Zealanders and said there was $700 million worth of assets, that we did not know who owned them, and that those people should sort that out amongst themselves. It is a miracle that Māori have come up with any sort of agreement, at all. But just because that is a miracle it is no reason for us then to say that the quota allocation model is so fragile that we should rubber-stamp it.

The first thing I want to say for the record and to those who are appointed to the new committee—and I note that the Māori Affairs Committee is not being trusted by the Government to consider the bill—is that this is not a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. I have consulted the Clerk, and the advice that the Crown is trying to put around that this bill cannot be amended by the select committee is not right. This is a bill that a select committee is able to look at, in order to see whether it is just. When we look at the bill, we can see immediately that it is not just. Members do not have to take my word for that. We have had an opinion from a High Court Judge, Mr Justice McGechan, and he has already pointed out that there are some very, very odd things in the formula. The whole formula is pretty odd, but one of the odd things relates to the coastline. The more coastline that an iwi has, the more quota it gets. However, the Kaipara Harbour, which is the largest harbour in the Southern Hemisphere—

💬 John Carter: The second-largest in the world.

I thank the local member. And, of course, the Kaipara Harbour is a very good fishing area, because there are maraes all around it. Is that coastline counted? No. Who made that decision? It would not help Sir Tipene O’Regan’s tribe, would it? Then, if we look at the coastal spit off Nelson—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Farewell Spit.

Is Farewell Spit counted? Yes, right up one side and down the other, for another 52 kilometres. Which tribe happens to benefit from that? I believe that members of Parliament are entitled to look at those things, even if the local Māori members did not think they were worth looking at.

I was the Minister who first started this whole thing off.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right.

That is right. David Lange passed the issue over to me, and the offer I made was more generous than this one. I said that if any Māori wished to go fishing, the Crown would find quota for him or her right up to 50 percent of the total allocation. Of course, “Sir Tipene and Co.” was not in favour of that, because it did not want to go fishing. It did not want to work. Sir Tipene O’Regan made it quite clear that he just wanted to be a landlord, and to take the rent. He saw the quota allocation as a sort of cargo cult. I still think that is wrong.

The ACT party is in favour of a property settlement. We are in favour of this House honouring the treaty, and of fisheries being owned by Māori. If we do that, of course, we then have to look at the fisheries that Māori had in 1840—where Māori were likely to have been fishing—and at the technology they had available to them. Does this bill do that? No, it does not. We find that under this bill, anything from above a depth of 300 metres is deemed to be a coastal fishery. That means that we have fisheries areas going into the sub-Antarctic being described as the local fisheries of Ngāi Tahu. There is no way whatsoever that in 1840 Ngāi Tahu fished them. In that sense, this model is not an honouring of the treaty.

But there are further principles that apply. This model does not give fisheries to the Māori hapū and iwi that had them. This is a racial settlement; it is race-based. It says that if one happens to be Māori, one is entitled to a certain percentage of the fisheries allocation because of one’s race.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Race-based welfare.

I call it “cargo-cultism”. So there are iwi that have no coastal area being granted quota, but then there is a further requirement. Some Māori members want to represent urban Māori, and they have had them put in on a racial basis. I say this to Mr Tamihere: if that is the proper criterion, and if that is the right way to do it—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mailbox tribes.

The member calls them mailbox tribes. Justice McGechan pointed out that if that is the basis on which those members are doing the allocation, then urban Māori are not being treated fairly. He is basically saying that if the Government is going to use a population basis, then every Māori in New Zealand should be treated fairly, and that it is illogical to treat urban Māori differently from others. I ask Mr Tamihere this: if the judge thinks that is unjust, then why is Mr Tamihere supporting it? Perhaps he did not hear me. If a High Court judge, as recently as last Friday, when making a decision before Parliament considered this bill , says that the bill is unjust to urban Māori, why is Mr Tamihere, as a Minister and as the local member who says he champions urban Māori, supporting the bill? [Interruption] Oh, he says it is because he loves them—it is aroha. I say that the real reason is that Mr Tamihere puts loyalty to the Labour Party and his position in Cabinet ahead of looking after his own people. He knows that this is an unjust bill.

I also say to the House that we are being told by Sir Tipene O’Regan and others that 91 percent of all iwi support this bill. Rubbish! Absolute nonsense! But if they believe that is so, and if they think that that is an important principle, why not put it to the test by having a vote? Why not go and ask the iwi? But, of course, we know that the Government will not do that.

Let me make it clear what I think should happen. I believe that this House has to take responsibility, because the proposal comes from a Government bill. Yes, the ACT party is prepared to recognise property rights, and we say it is possible to have property rights in fishing. Of course, the property right that Māori had in 1840 was the right to fish. That is how they put it. We can identify, even now, without much difficulty the fishing areas that particular Māori tribes and iwi had. That is what we should have done, and we should have done that in a proper legal fashion. But instead, we have a squalid, political deal with some Māori groups that are now powerful and rich, and they have actually drawn up the maps themselves. We all know that the maps are unjust; we all know they are unfair. And we also know something else. We know that on this particular matter the Rt Hon Winston Peters is right. The average Māori in New Zealand has not seen a snapper, and what is more, we know that under this bill Māori never will see one. This bill is actually an injustice.

I say to the National Party members that they should rethink their position. If they rethink their position, if New Zealand First is against it, if ACT is also against it, and if the United Future members for the first time in their lives stop being a doormat, we can start to get close to stopping this bill. I listened to the Green Party members. I do not know quite why they are against the bill, but apparently they are. I am prepared to take their vote, and we can then defeat this nonsense.

I rise on behalf of United Future to lend support to the passage of the Maori Fisheries Bill at this first stage. Much that was conveyed in the speech made by the Hon Richard Prebble I agree with, actually, but I do not see the logic in our deciding ahead of the examination of this bill by a select committee to make up our minds right now not to support it. We are very happy to allow the bill to go to a select committee, but we do so with some of the comments that have been made by Richard Prebble.

We would like the select committee not just to be a rubber-stamping body. I have read the document that was given to the Minister of Fisheries in May of this year. It is a very complex document. It involves, for example, a lot of arithmetic and, as has been pointed out, a lot of measurements and maps, and a whole range of things. I do not think we should simply kiss goodbye to and ignore 11 years of work and go back and start again at this point in time. I do not think that is a wise thing to do, at all. So that is one thing—I do not think we should rubber-stamp the bill. We should look at it, but I do not think we should be relitigating the whole thing.

So we need to strike a kind of middle way—an attitude one would expect from United Future— to make some progress. We have to keep in mind the big prize, and that is to get this matter settled so that the benefits can flow through to the people, who have been waiting for a long, long time to see something of consequence flow from this process.

I want to make another comment that Richard Prebble made: I think the comments of Justice McGechan, made on 17 December, should be taken into account by the select committee. I refer to the one that he calls the judicial bay line, which he has mentioned already, and also the appraising of grass-roots appreciation of the benefits passed down to Ngāi Tahu. I think those two issues should be relooked at.

I also agree with him—and I think John Tamihere does, as well—that further consideration should be given to an equitable allocation to urban Māori beyond that which is currently on the table. This settlement process somewhat reminds me of the historical situation in some of the old countries of Europe, where, over time, an aristocracy grew up because certain people in certain families owned land and assets to the exclusion of all others. Over time, one’s success and opportunities in life actually depended on the family one was born into. I have a bit of a fear that, with the way this model works, that is going to be the future of Māoridom, as well. One’s future prosperity and one’s future opportunities in life will depend on which family one is born into. That, I think, is completely against the whole ethos of New Zealand as a nation. We have a very strong “Jack is as good as his master.” ethos in this country. We believe in every child and every human being, regardless of race, getting a fair go in this country, and I would certainly want to see that for all Māori as we move forward.

In view of the time constraints this evening, I am not going to say much more than that at this point, but will just say that United Future wants to see this bill go forward to a select committee. We wish the committee well in its endeavours, and we look forward in due course to its report coming back to this House.

May I first of all thank the Hon Richard Prebble for giving the National Party an opportunity to reflect on its position on this bill. He questioned whether we should be supporting this bill, and he gave us the opportunity to reflect on it. We have reflected on it, we do support the bill, and we support it going to a select committee. We thank him for that opportunity.

The reason for our position is that the longest-serving member of Parliament who has taken an interest in fisheries happens to be from the National Party—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who’s that?

Georgina te Heuheu. She spoke on this. She is the longest-serving member of Parliament who has spoken on the bill, and she supports it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Mr Prebble and myself?

Sorry, I forgot about Richard Prebble. Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Māori member of Parliament who has spoken so far on this bill.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, another mistake!

What? Another mistake? Sorry! Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Māori member who has been constructive in the last 10 years when it comes to Māori fisheries. I have never seen Winston Peters so easily fall into a trap in this House as he fell into that one just then. He was sucked along, one by one, by a young white boy from the north. Clearly, for Winston Peters the light is dying, the sun is setting, and the old man is beaten at his own game. I am hoping that over the Christmas break he will go up to Whananaki, in the north, catch a few snapper, and reflect on his future in this House. When a young white whippersnapper from Whangarei can beat Winston Peters’ at his own game it is time for the old man to retire. I am disappointed to see him fall so easily for that trick.

I would like to acknowledge Georgina te Heuheu as a speaker in the House today who acknowledged National’s support for this bill going to a select committee. We will give it serious consideration because, certainly, we have some questions in relation to it.

I took great interest in Wayne Mapp’s comments over the last fortnight in relation to this bill coming into this House at this time. He had two major concerns. The first was that this bill would come into this House before the two High Court judgments had been heard and viewed by the New Zealand public. That was a bit of a mistake—somewhat of a marketing error by Labour—simply because one should respect what the courts have to say, one should listen to what the courts have to say, and one should take into account what the courts have to say. However, I do recognise that the bill was delayed. It was due to come in last week, but it was delayed for 1 week, so that we could hear some of those findings.

The second issue that Wayne Mapp brought up, which was of interest to me, was the structure of some of the trusts being set up—the Te Wai Māori trust and the Te Putea Whakatupu Trust. The latter is commonly known as the urban trust, which John Tamihere has taken an interest in. The Te Wai Māori trust is all about research and development of freshwater fisheries. Wayne Mapp raised the need for those trusts to have Māori trustees. He questions the requirement for legislation to state explicitly that they should be Māori trustees, particularly given that those trustees are appointed by the seven commissioners above them, who, through legislation, must be Māori themselves. Our concern simply is that—and I concede that Wayne Mapp put it better than me—Māori may find that there are non-Māori who are able to fill those roles and do a better job, and they deserve the freedom to choose whom they have on those trusts. I accept, though, as Richard Prebble clearly does not and as Winston Peters clearly does not—and the Greens clearly have not even thought about it—that this asset is a Māori asset. Because of the Fisheries Act 1989 and because of the 1992 fisheries settlement, this asset is a Māori asset, and decisions on its future should be in Māori hands. I certainly acknowledge that, but I am just a bit concerned that there is a requirement in legislation that Māori oversee some of that asset and the disbursement of funds. I am not quite sure that is necessary.

There is no doubt it is a big asset—$700 million to $750 million once one takes the quota, cash, companies, and various other assets into account. But it is worth bringing to the attention of the House that, on a population basis, based on the electoral roll and who is on the Māori roll, it is only about $2,000 per Māori person living in New Zealand at this time. It is a significant amount to Māoridom, but the reality is that the future of Māori in this country, their economic prosperity, their cultural prosperity, and their prosperity when it comes to education and their families—all the statistics that Māori are measured by, inside and outside this House—will not rely on this $750 million, given that it amounts to only about $2,000 per head of Māori population. What will count is how Māori use assets like this. What will also count is how they approach the education system and get success there, how they approach all sorts of other areas in life, and how Government and private enterprise can assist them in doing that. That is what will really count. This is simply a nest egg—a significant one, yes—of $700 million, but the reality is it will not save Māori from the damning statistics that we hear about time and time again.

I would like to take some time to look at some of the issues about what will be received through the allocation model as per the legislation. There will be allocation of quota from before the 1989 settlement, and of post-settlement assets as well—roughly, post-1992. There will be cash, and what they call income shares, which generate an income stream for each iwi group. The interesting thing is that the quota that will be allocated in that way to iwi can be sold only within the iwi group. They cannot be sold outside that grouping of Māori. That is quite interesting in that, on reflection, it affects a quite significant portion of the quota—I think it is 20, 30, or 40 percent of the quota out there in the marketplace. In terms of the market within Māoridom for those particular quota, which are locked in there, it will be interesting to watch how much effect that provision has on the pricing structure, both within that Māori system and without that Māori system.

I was interested to hear from the Fisheries Commission yesterday that the most significant aspect is the leasing value of that quota—not so much the value of the quota itself being bought and sold, but the leasing value. Of course, quota can be leased outside Māoridom, and can be leased inside it. So there is no effect on that pricing structure, at all.

I also raised the issue of whether quota purchased from outside the Māori system would be locked into that regulatory framework, and could no longer be sold on the free market to other commercial fishers. I understand that the asset can be built up within, and set aside as part of the settlement asset, or it can move freely outside and be sold without that Māori group—which is quite an interesting prospect for other commercial fishermen. The important thing, of course, is that that settlement quota will not be whittled away over time.

E tū ake au kei te tautoko e te mihi i mihia e te whanaunga me te Minita Māori, i te kōmihana, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihiaina mō te kaimahi, mō te kōmihana, aroha ki a koutou.

I just acknowledged my relation’s acknowledgment of the commission and the workers in it. In Māoridom, we have this saying that rings up and down the maraes, year in, year out, month in, month out, and the short version of it is: he aha te mea nui ki te ao, he aha te mea nui ki te ao hōu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in the world; what is the most important thing in the new world? It is people, it is people, it is people.]

With regard to the tortuous approach that has been taken to this bill, that saying has been perverted: he aha te mea nui ki te ao hōu? Kei te moni, kei te moni, kei te moni.

[What is the most important thing in the new world? It is money, it is money, it is money.]

As we move forward into the select committee, let us now start to concentrate for a change on the people, rather than on the distribution, the division, and the greed.

The final thing I want to say with regard to this issue is that in large part the asset has been distributed. This allocation model just brings it to closure. In terms of the lease rounds, the few have done very well in the name of the many. We must now put the spotlight on Māori leadership going forward with regard to how they will connect the performance of our assets—and this asset has been performing well, there is no doubt about that—with the under-performance in our communities. We can no longer continue to tolerate that.

I conclude by saying that in terms of his decision Justice McGechan was absolutely prescient in his comments in the High Court in Auckland when he stated quite clearly that the way the Te Putea Trust is being operated is right on song. On that basis, in terms of the submissions to the select committee, I commend the bill to the House.

I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill be considered by a committee to be established.

Before I put that resolution, we have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The amendment is to omit the words “a committee to be established” and insert the words “the Māori Affairs Committee.”

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this new committee and its membership able to debated now, or is it a non-debatable motion?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The motion is the next motion on the Order Paper, which is to set up the committee. It was discussed at the Business Committee and has all parties on it.