Maori Fisheries Bill

I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to the model for allocating fisheries settlement assets. These assets were transferred by the Crown in accordance with the 1989 and 1992 fisheries settlements, and have to date been held and managed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and its predecessor, the Māori Fisheries Commission.

Broadly, this bill provides for the establishment of a series of new entities, and for the distribution of settlement assets among iwi and the new entities. The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission will disappear and be replaced by a trust, Te Ohu Kai Moana, and its trustee, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. All settlement quota will be allocated to iwi represented by mandated iwi organisations. Settlement assets comprising companies and company shares will be consolidated into a single holding company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, whose income shares will be held by iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Two new trusts will be created: Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust will fund Māori education, training, and research; Te Wai Māori Trust will fund initiatives to promote the interests of Māori in freshwater fisheries. The bill sets out the criteria and preconditions for the assets to be allocated to iwi in a manner that is ultimately for the benefit of all Māori, and therefore of all New Zealanders.

I thank the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for their work on this bill. They heard evidence in Rotorua, Gisborne, Christchurch, Whangarei, and Wellington. They have carefully considered submitters’ views—often widely divergent views. In addition, they have clearly been conscious of the need not to undermine the allocation model developed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. In an extended process, the commission established the model’s basic framework and criteria to meet the requirements of the deed of settlement and direction from the courts.

Key issues raised in submissions to the select committee included: the need for greater accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi; greater accountability of mandated iwi organisations to their iwi members; changes in the timing and procedure to review the governance structures of new entities; greater flexibility in the disposal of settlement assets; the reduction of delay in the transfer of assets to mandated iwi organisations; and, finally, recognition of iwi for the purposes of the bill.

The committee has by majority recommended a number of amendments to address these issues. To improve the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi, it is recommended that mandated iwi organisations be able to table non-binding motions at general meetings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, and that all reporting documents should go to Te Kāwai Taumata, the electoral college, to enable it to assess better the performance of the directors it has appointed. The committee has also recommended that the constitutions of all the new entities require greater detail in reporting to their beneficiaries.

To improve the accountability of mandated iwi organisations to their iwi members, the committee has recommended changes requiring adequate notification of meetings and the provision for members to have the option of voting by postal ballot. These changes ensure that members are able to be informed of and participate in decisions to ratify or change the constitutional documents, elect office holders, or dispose of any settlement assets. In addition, the committee has recommended that mandated iwi organisations cannot be recognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd until they have a minimum number of iwi members on a register, and that the minimum number of registered members should be increased in the case of larger iwi. The changes should address the concerns of many groups, by making sure that a mandated iwi organisation acts for the benefit of all members of that iwi.

The committee has also recommended substantial changes to the review provisions, which are aimed at providing more timely reviews and ensuring that the governance review procedures are independent. To that end, amendments are recommended to provide for an operation audit every 4 years, to determine how well directors are carrying out their duties and functions. In the 11th year an independent review will be conducted to determine whether any changes in the governance arrangements or asset disposal restrictions would better serve the interests of the beneficiaries. A committee of representatives appointed by iwi will set the terms of the review and appoint the reviewer.

Changes have also been recommended to the processes for sale of settlement quota. These changes will allow mandated iwi organisations to maximise the price they can receive from the sale of a bundle of assets that include settlement quota, while maintaining the restriction that settlement assets can be sold only to iwi or members of Te Ohu Kai Moana group, including Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. To reduce delays in the transfer of settlement assets to iwi, the committee has recommended changes to provide for interim coastline agreements. Where there are disputes about coastal boundaries interim coastline agreements can be entered into, in relation to the areas that are not under dispute. Assets about which there is no dispute may be transferred to the relevant mandated iwi organisations.

Finally, the committee has recommended changes to allow the iwi of the Hauraki and Te Arawa confederations to establish separate mandated iwi organisations, and to provide for Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine to withdraw from the mandated iwi organisations of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu. The withdrawal process requires the parties to negotiate an agreement on how the allocated settlement assets will be distributed. Upon withdrawal, the iwi will have the right to manage separately their share of the settlement assets. In the case of Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, the committee noted that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission had not completed its evaluation of iwi status. The committee reviewed the evidence provided against the commission’s iwi-recognition criteria, and concluded that provision should be included in the bill to enable Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine to establish mandated iwi organisations and to manage their settlement assets, if they chose, separately from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu.

The Government supports the amendments recommended by the majority of the select committee. The Government also intends to move a number of technical amendments at the Committee stage.

Passing the Maori Fisheries Bill is the final step that the Crown must take to complete the implementation of the agreements in the fisheries deed of settlement. The ongoing obligations to transfer 20 percent of new quota to Māori, to provide for tangata whenua input and participation, and to develop regulations to provide for customary fishing, are in place under the Fisheries Act 1996. Now we just need to enact the Maori Fisheries Bill to enable allocation of the assets transferred by the Crown in settlement of Māori claims to commercial fishing. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

The National Party, with reservations, supported this bill going to the select committee, because we saw that after 12 years of debate amongst Māori over the 1992 settlement assets, and with some sort of general agreement that the situation had to be moved forward within Māoridom up and down the country, this legislation provided an opportunity to do that very thing. It moves the settlement process forward so that there is an allocation and some sort of finality to what has been a controversial issue—that is, the allocation of Māori fisheries assets amongst iwi, hapū, and whānau throughout this country, to the benefit of all Māori.

We had those reservations because we found—certainly when we spoke to Māori groups throughout the country, and to others involved in the commercial fishing industry—that the bill was both particularly patronising, and tending to hold back Māori unnecessarily when they were dealing with their own assets. So we took something of an interest, especially in the details of the bill, to see that that patronising approach was addressed.

We had some degree of success and I would like to go through some of the successes that the National Party had in working with others on the committee, such as Dover Samuels—a very useful member—Nanaia Mahuta, and other members. However, I say first to this House and to those interested in the bill that National will certainly be introducing amendments during the Committee stage, to address other patronising features in this bill and the 20 percent of it that we believe the Government has got all wrong—the 20 percent that relates to the ability of successful iwi groups to take their assets and do what they want with them. Another amendment will look at making sure there is less of the bureaucracy that would otherwise hold back iwi groups.

The first issue of six that we addressed in the select committee—quite successfully, I believe—is the issue of recognising iwi organisations that are currently up and running. Some iwi, and Ngāi Tahu and Tainui certainly spring to mind as clear examples, have been recognised in other Crown settlements and have had structures in place to deal with settlements. Yet in the original bill they still had to jump through patronising and bureaucratic hoops to get recognition. The changes that we introduced are amendments to clause 14(2) so that such iwi organisations, thankfully, can be given automatic recognition as long as they are formally structured and accountable to their members, have an already established asset-holding company, and have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty settlement purposes. Clearly, Ngāi Tahu fits the bill there and Tainui does also—or at least comes very close. I congratulate other members of the committee on achieving that success.

The second issue was about the potential for disputed coastline agreements to hold up allocations. When the bill was introduced by this Labour Government, assets could not be transferred to iwi unless coastline boundary issues were resolved. That meant that if there was a dispute over a few kilometres of coastline, the allocation over the entire coastline would be held up, which is absolutely absurd. If there was general agreement about 95 percent of the coastline allocation, it should have been allowed to go ahead, and the other 5 percent to be resolved and moved forward. The changes that we introduced in the select committee now incentivise agreement, by allowing the assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred and allocated to appropriate iwi, while assets relating to the coastline in dispute can be set aside pending some sort of resolution. We were glad about that success.

The third issue brought to us was about the restriction on selling or swapping quota. It was unbelievable that the Labour Party saw it useful to limit the realisation of the value of fishing operations through the sale of capital items, quota, or shares within only iwi groups or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. There was a rule set there, and a right of first refusal process that required an iwi to sell each quota species separately rather than as a bundle of quota. We got the clear message from Māori that they preferred to see the assets transferred only within Māoridom—iwi to iwi, or iwi to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—for the benefit of future generations. However, it was foolish to have a rule stating that bundles of quota could not be sold amongst iwi groups. As well, though the restrictions on the sale of shares and quota has a potential to affect their value, there is an understanding, supported by most iwi, of the accepted consequence that Māori through the generations must benefit from the settlement. That was a fundamental principle in the allocation model, but we have brought in amendments to Part 4 that will ensure an iwi can maximise the price it receives through asset sales, which can now be offered by individual or collective stock—it is up to them.

A fourth issue raised with us was the conflict of interest incurred when Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd competed with iwi groups. As the bill was introduced they were able to compete against iwi fishing companies, and to grow by accumulating assets and quota. There is no significant change in this bill in front of us, and the National Party will be bringing amendments to address that issue. We are concerned about it and we will be putting that to this House.

The fifth issue, which the Minister touched on, was that some iwi were not recognised in their own right. Two iwi in particular, Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, were not recognised in the allocation because, among other things, in order to have iwi status they had to be traditionally acknowledged by adjacent iwi. Other iwi wanted individual recognition as well, because they lacked confidence that their current overarching iwi organisations would deliver benefits to them. Amendments, though, will recognise Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine if their members so choose. That is because in both cases a lack of recognition by their single adjacent iwi amounted to an unreasonable veto in the face of other evidence presented. We are delighted that those changes have been incorporated into the bill.

Lastly, we were presented with issue six, which concerned the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi groups. The National Party remains concerned about that particular issue. We find it quite interesting that in the bill this Labour Government presented, its whipping-boy, so to speak—Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—had very little to make it accountable to iwi, to hapū, and to Māori. But in the bill the Government poured bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, accountability upon accountability, and paperwork upon paperwork to iwi groups receiving that allocation. The Labour Government stated in the bill to iwi groups that they had to be accountable, to fill in the paperwork, and to have a bureaucracy that is pretty endless—but Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd did not have to. We want to turn that around. The National Party believes that we can have a much less patronising approach to accountability structures. We will also seek to close the distance in the relationship between individual Māori, whānau, hapū, and iwi, and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd over assets.

So National supports the second reading of the bill, but we signal to the Labour Party that we will produce amendments at the Committee stage. In the interests of Māori and of all New Zealanders, and particularly of those in the fishing industry, we reserve our right to vote as we best see fit on the bill’s third and final reading. We commend its second reading to the House.

Te mea tuatahi māku, he mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare i tēnei pō.

[The first thing to do is to extend a greeting to you the Speaker of the House tonight.]

Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi. Translated, that is to say: “The old net is cast aside, and the new one goes fishing.”

Te mea tuatahi māku, he mihi atu ki te komihana o Te Ohu Kai Moana me ngā kaiwhakahaere katoa nā rātau nei tēnei kaupapa i whakahoki mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Kei te mihi hoki ki a rātou mā kua huri atu ki muri i te ārai. Kei te maumahara atu ki tērā o wā tātou rangatira a Matiu Rata. Koia tētahi o ngā kaipoipoi o tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō. Ko rātau kua moe, kua puāwai, kua puta ngā hua o ā rātou kaupapa whakaaro, moemoeā. Ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi hoki nā rātau tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō te tārewatanga mō te 12 tau, kua puāwai ō rātau moemoeā i roto i tēnei pire i tēnei pō.

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

[The first thing to do is to extend a greeting to the commission of Te Ohu Kai Moana and to all those who played a leading role in getting this bill back into Parliament. Acknowledgments are also extended to those who have crossed the divide, namely one of our chiefs, Matiu Rata. He was one of the ones who played a leading role from the outset. While they have passed away their vision and dream have come to bear. To the families, sub tribes and people who have worked on during the 12-year period of suspension, their dreams have blossomed tonight with this bill.]

The Māori Fisheries Bill is in its final step in its final and well-considered process, which has been undertaken to transfer and allocate assets from the Crown to Māori in settlement of treaty claims for commercial fishing. Once this legislative process is completed, the casting of the new net will begin. Twelve years of uncertainty for our people is coming to its finality and to an end. Māori are looking forward to the transfer of 20 percent of new species, also, to the quota management system, and I am highly thankful that the Opposition, as the Government of Jim Bolger, many years ago, saw fit to recommend that the highly migratory species be transferred to Māori. I thank him for that, and I also thank members of the National Party for supporting it. I hope, when that happens, that they remember the wisdom of their elder, Jim Bolger, in recommending that 20 percent of those species be transferred over to Māori.

The second reading of the bill follows on the recommendations of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. The committee has made valuable recommendations in response to key issues in submissions from the general public and from Māori. Those recommendations have been given preliminary consideration by the Government, and we intend to move further amendments at the Committee stage in order to better respond to those recommendations. I extend my sincere appreciation to my colleagues and to the members of the select committee, specifically my colleagues Phil Heatley, the member for Whangarei, Georgina Te Heuheu, Pita Paraone from New Zealand First, my colleague from United Future, and other colleagues, who certainly made a very substantive contribution to the formulation of the bill.

They reminded us time and time again that Te Ohu Kai Moana said that this is not the bill of the politicians but of Te Ohu Kai Moana and the Māori people, who, over years, have made a contribution to its formulation. However, without the challenges, the select committee sat down and listened to the submissions from the Ministry of Fisheries, Te Puni Kōkiri, and other officials, advisers, and interested parties, including Te Ohu Kai Moana, which enabled us to be able to put this bill together, and we are here today to move its second reading.

In a little bit more detail, I wish to touch on some key amendments that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, Mr Benson-Pope, referred to. To improve efficiency and effectiveness, the committee recommends establishing a fast-track process for iwi treaty settlement entities to acquire the status of a mandated iwi organisation and, therefore, be eligible to receive assets from Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Some existing iwi structures probably already fulfil the requirements identified in the bill as being needed for the recognition of a mandated iwi organisation. Sensibly, the committee recommends that a pre-existing iwi structure should be recognised as a mandated iwi organisation if it fulfils certain criteria, which include a listing in schedule 3; formal structure and accountability to members; establishment of an asset-holding company; acceptance by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty purposes; settlement of historical claims, such settlement completed through to legislation; and the use of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. The provisions will help ensure that iwi who have completed the settlement of their historic treaty claims and meet the requirements of the new legislation do not have to start the mandating and other establishment processes all over again.

The committee recommended that recognised iwi organisations also receive increased responsibilities. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will be able to recognise iwi organisations for various purposes, such as participating in the process for sale of catchment entitlement, although recognised iwi organisations cannot bind iwi into agreements to receive or use settlement assets on behalf of iwi. The accountability requirements of mandated iwi organisations to iwi members have been strengthened, such as requiring each mandated iwi organisation to make its iwi registry available for inspection by registered members of the iwi. These accountability requirements balance the practicalities of asset-management with the trustee role of mandated iwi organisations and the right of the ultimate beneficiaries of the assets, the Māori people generally.

It is important that the people on the ground—the fisherman who was displaced simply because of the introduction of the quota management system many years ago—be given a system that is accountable to our people at the grass roots. Being a past fisherman, I say that many of our Māori fishing villages and Māori fishermen were displaced many years ago, and their hopes and dreams have been around the introduction of this legislation so that their whānau and their hapū can go back out fishing. I am talking from a customary perspective. I am not talking about giant corporations like Sealord’s, but about the close relationship that Māori people have with their fishery and the traditional ways. This will give them the opportunity not to secure the pūtea and quota for themselves but to be able to allocate and distribute those assets to the people who really own them—the people there living by the sea who have been involved in commercial fishing for generations.

Provisions to allow for Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine to withdraw from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu respectively have been the subject of recent media attention. However, the select committee’s recommendations allow for a careful and considered withdrawal by Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, if those groups wish to withdraw from the mandated iwi organisations of the larger groups. The time frame provided for such a decision has been set at 5 years from the date the mandated iwi organisation for the wider group comes into being. Finally, I tell members that the select committee recognises that the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has duties as the trustee and voting shareholder for Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, to ensure statutory compliance and to ensure that Te Ohu Kai Moana’s purpose is upheld. The committee recommends that adequate funding for the trustees in the commission is preserved, and that Te Ohu Kai Moana may hold quota but not undertake fishing. All interests of the trustees, other than capital and funding prescriptions, will be transferred to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That meets objections raised in a number of iwi submissions. Finally, I would like to wish Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd well, and I wish all those groups responsible for receiving the allocation—the pūtea—and assets well, because I believe that the majority of our people out there wish to get on with the business. They want to go out fishing, and they want to be able to contribute to their communities. This is an opportunity for our people to be positive in terms of the fisheries and the aspirations they have had over many years of waiting for the final allocation—so that our days of having disputes in court are gone. Our people now have the assets, they have the ability, and they also have the opportunity to be able to go out fishing.

Nō reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa ngā mema o tō mātou komiti, te kaiwhakahaere o te komiti whakatau i tēnei kaupapa, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou.

[And so I congratulate all you members of our committee who played a part in this bill, and the chairman as well. Greetings to us all again and to everyone else.]

Ko te tikanga kia tīmata mai aku kōrero i roto i tō tātau reo rangatira nā te mea, tuatahi, he kaupapa tēnei e pā ana ki a ngāi tātau te iwi Māori, tuarua, nā te mahinga hī ika, ā, tuatoru, nā te iwi whānui o Aotearoa.

It is correct that I preface my speech in our Māori language, because this is a matter that concerns the Māori people in the first instance, secondly it concerns the fishing industry, and thirdly, the people of New Zealand. I stand as a member of New Zealand First, the only non-aligned political party in this House, to signal our support for the intent of this bill in its second reading. I should also mention, as I did from the first day I sat on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that dealt with this bill, my vested interest—an interest that must be shared by other Māori members of this House, because the findings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held: “… the benefits of the settlement to be allocated to iwi, meaning the traditional tribes, for the ultimate benefit of all Māori.”

I recall in December last year the words of the Minister of Māori Affairs when introducing this bill to the House: “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.” Of course, we all know that Māori are already a major participant in the fishing industry, and I now have a clear understanding of why the Minister no longer has a responsibility for the passage of this bill.

The bill has its genesis in the deal that is commonly known as the Sealord’s deal—a deal signed some 12 years ago. Those who signed agreed to forego any further fisheries claims, which included their customary fishing rights. So we can see that Māori have been waiting a long time to see the benefits of that deal, and may I say that some have waited longer than others. I am mindful of the American, Will Rogers, who said that the ageing process could certainly be slowed down if it had to work its way through Congress. Although that might be a possibility, it certainly has not applied to Māori. In fact, many have passed on while waiting for this bill to come to fruition.

Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Māori Fisheries Commission, was subsequently established and charged with providing a model for the allocation of a resource conservatively valued at $700 million. This bill is based on the model the commission presented, following dialogue between itself and iwi. Although not fully supported by iwi, the model received a limited sign-off for its presentation to the Government. Why? It was clearly a sign of their frustration in having to wait so long for the matter to be resolved and, therefore, to allow iwi to get on with the business of fishing.

Notwithstanding the difficulty of the task of the process, and in particular the duration, all of that attracted much criticism towards Te Ohu Kai Moana. My observation, and in particular hearing the utterances emanating from one or two of the principals of Te Ohu Kai Moana over recent weeks, has given me a better understanding of why iwi have been critical of the commission. The model outlined a number of features concerning the ongoing governance of that iwi resource. Plans to recognise some groups, outside of those recommended by Te Ohu Kai Moana, will not delay the distribution of the settlement, as those who clearly oppose these recommendations would have us believe.

I say to those people, who consider themselves leaders of their people, that they should—if they are indeed leading their people—take a look back now and then to ensure that the people are still there. I say to those very people that if they had taken the responsibilities of good leadership on board and taken their people with them, then those issues that they have suddenly become concerned about might not have transpired. Attempting to circumvent the recommendations of the select committee did not help their cause. The time is long overdue for them to stop this scaremongering and to get on with the job their people expect of them. Any talk of further litigation is just mere obstruction to the economic development of their people. This must clearly send a message to present and future leadership of all groups, which will now become mandated iwi organisations under the terms of this bill.

The suggestion that this recommendation will open a Pandora’s box suggests for me that members of the current leadership are still locked into the belief that they know what is best, without understanding the level of feeling of the people they purport to lead. If anything, what they should be doing is giving to their people what is contained in Pandora’s box—that is, hope. It is the hope that they will do right by their people. In so saying, I acknowledge that there is leadership that has proved this. Sadly, I cannot say it for others. If there are those among the leadership I am referring to who are offended by my remarks, then I say that if the cap fits they should wear it, and do something about it.

The publicity given to this recommendation describes it as a compromise on iwi recognition. The select committee had no difficulty in coming to its decision, because it was consistent with the criteria set by Te Ohu Kai Moana. The select committee further contended that it was not right for any contiguous iwi to have the power of veto in that regard. The disquiet expressed by iwi around the country towards the commission, concerning the time and process taken to get where we are today, suggests to me that the future role of this group—including its new identity provided by this bill—in other fisheries matters involving Māori should not be given any further consideration.

This bill establishes a number of new entities, one of which will allow for the distribution of financial assistance. Just as important, it will provide access for those who do not identify with an iwi, thus creating, in my mind, a new iwi—all of which I find hard to accept, but there it is. Of course, the argument proffered by Te Ohu Kai Moana in support of that suggestion is that those people do not know their tribal iwi—and Ngāti Hine does. One can only wonder why it is then that when those same people pass on, they and their families know exactly which marae to return to and where they wish to be buried—thus suggesting to me that they do know their iwi.

For me, another issue that requires attention in order for due consideration to be given, so that there is a clear intent notified, is the question regarding the use for which data is provided in this respect. I refer to the use of the census figures. From the 2001 census data, we are told that there are 107,000 people who identify with belonging to the Ngāpuhi iwi, but I understand that, in spite of this number, there are only 7,000 people on its own register. I would suggest that that number, and the numbers for all other iwi listed on the census form, may well prove to be lacking if respondents were informed that those numbers would be used for determining the fisheries allocation. However, in this aggregation process, those groups recommended by the select committee have the opportunity to draw their population numbers from the 2006 census, if they so wish, and of course it will not advance their position if they do not. Otherwise, they can use the 2001 census figures, upon which the commission model is based.

In order to address what might be an advantage for those groups, consideration ought to be given to utilising the 2006 census iwi population data for all iwi. Why? Because people will know that apart from telling the world how many make up the membership of their tribe, they will be doing so in the knowledge that their choice will be used to determine the extent of their tribe’s allocation under this bill. Personally, I would like to think that other parties in this House would lend their support for a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines.

Again, I would also like to support the sentiments expressed by the honourable member from Te Tai Tokerau in acknowledging those people who were responsible for putting together the original deal and who have since passed on. Nā reira, koutou e ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi, haere, hoki atu. Those who have gone from our sights, go, return to the spirit world. Nā reira, e te Kaikōrero tēnā koe, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So thank you Mr Speaker, and everyone else.]

This bill is such a dog’s breakfast. But before I talk about the bill itself, I first want to thank sincerely my colleagues on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, the submitters who came before us to give their presentations on the bill, the officials, the specialist advisers, and especially the select committee and Parliamentary Counsel Office staff. The select committee had an enormously complex bill that took an awful lot of work, and we had to do this work in what felt, at the time, was a very tight time frame. This put an awful lot of pressure on the staff in particular, and I want to make sure that their efforts and their work do not go unrecognised.

The Greens will vote against the second reading of this bill. The issues we raised in the first reading debate have not been adequately addressed, and we eagerly await the Committee stage to see whether those issues can be remedied. The Greens worked extremely hard in the select committee to press for changes—changes that reflected fairness and were supported by the submitters. Many of those issues fell on deaf ears. That was a very serious concern, because this bill was introduced into Parliament only because iwi wanted some resolution to the process, not because they supported the bill itself. A number of iwi who supported its introduction did so with significant reservations, and it seems that many may have wrongly thought that the select committee would adequately take that into account and provide for their concerns.

We support some of the changes that were made. There is some increased accountability for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, but not enough to satisfy our concerns. We are pleased that there is a decent review process, for example. The bill initially offered a 12-year review period, which was wholly inadequate. The select committee inclusion of audits at 4-yearly intervals will help to make sure that all the newly created entities are doing what they are supposed to do. We acknowledge that there is now some recognition of Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, but these iwi are entitled to specific identification rather than this ridiculous half existence set out in the bill, and I will get to that issue in a moment.

There remain serious structural flaws in the bill. The recommended changes to the review provisions do not go far enough to remedy what is a fundamental conflict of interest in the governance and commercial structures established by the bill. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains constitutional oversight of the mandated iwi organisations and remains unilaterally able to alter the requirements that the mandated iwi organisations must meet for recognition. This gives to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd considerable authority over the mandated iwi organisations, dictating the detailed content of their constitutions. It also means that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd can add hurdles that the mandated iwi organisations must jump over before they can access their fisheries assets. If that were not bad enough, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains the sole voting share over Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is a commercial competitor to the asset-holding companies that will be established by the mandated iwi organisations for the management of their settlement assets. In fact, we only just managed to stop the select committee from agreeing to allow Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to have control over the constitutions of the asset-holding companies themselves, which were set up by the mandated iwi organisations to manage their assets.

The Government wanted Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to have almost complete control over every organisation involved in the management of the settlement assets. This is an absolute abrogation of the principle of rangatiratanga inherent in the deed of settlement. Iwi cannot control Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, because they have only income shares, not voting shares. So Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains an extraordinary power over, in effect, its competitors in a highly vulnerable industry. As it is, there are no structural impediments to prevent Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd from altering the requirements for mandated iwi organisations to ensure that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd gains a competitive advantage. It may never be the case that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is used in that unconscionable way, but none the less, this bill, if passed in its present form, would leave that possibility wide open. It is bad law in this form. It should have been changed in the select committee, but should now be altered in the Committee stage.

Many submitters raised this issue and expressed their concern that the provisions were designed on the arrogant premise that Māori cannot look after their own money. Iwi are entitled to voting shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd as a commercial entity that will retain 50 percent of the settlement assets originally intended to be transferred to them. If the assets are to be retained in a centralised form, iwi are at least entitled to exercise the responsibilities of shareholders, consistent with standard commercial practice. We do not need a centralised bureaucracy holding Māori’s hand again. We have had that for far too long. This settlement is specifically designed to return that control to iwi, but this bill fails to do that and it therefore fails to meet the purpose of the settlement. There remain too many layers between Māori and their own assets.

The Greens have always considered that the criteria requiring acknowledgment from contiguous iwi for the recognition of iwi status to be unreasonable. Requiring such support from contiguous iwi creates a conflict of interest between those iwi on the basis of entitlement, and this has caused unnecessary delay over the recognition of iwi for the purposes of the bill. The select committee attempted, and rightly so, to remedy this problem in two cases: Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine. The select committee considered the Te Ohu Kai Moana criteria for iwi recognition and looked at it in two ways: first, whether the criteria was reasonable and, second, whether it was consistently applied. The committee decided that the criteria was reasonable—although I completely disagree—and it also decided that it was not applied consistently in the case of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine—a position with which I certainly agree. The committee decided that both these iwi meet the criteria, and that, in objecting to their iwi status, the larger iwi into which they are incorporated, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāpuhi respectively, were in effect exercising a veto over their recognition, and that the exercise of that veto was not envisaged by Te Ohu Kai Moana when the criteria were developed. In effect, Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine meet the criteria and should not be prevented from recognition by the exercise of that unjust and unconsidered veto.

The committee agreed that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine should be included in schedule 3 and listed in the notes to schedule 3. The committee agreed that it would clearly identify those two iwi as having the same status as their compatriots. But members will see that that provision is not in the bill, because, at the very last minute, officials told us that the Minister would not accept their specific inclusion in schedule 3 and that, if we included it, the reference would be removed later in the process. Apparently the Minister does not want these two iwi to have such status, even though the select committee agreed that they meet the criteria and are entitled to have it. In effect, the committee was bullied and told that if it did not change its instructions on the bill, the Government would ensure that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine would not be recognised, at all.

The Greens are relieved that the new disaggregation provisions are required in the constitutions of the conglomerate iwi identified in the notes to schedule 3. These provisions enable any of these iwi within that conglomerate to disaggregate without having to negotiate new constitutional amendments that would otherwise require the support of 75 percent of members. To have 75 percent support from the larger iwi is a very big ask, and there is very little incentive for the members of those larger iwi to give it. In our view, each iwi within those conglomerates is independently entitled to settlement assets and should be recognised as such in the bill.

Although there are disaggregation provisions, there remains a restriction on disaggregated iwi in that they will not have an entitlement to vote for the board of Te Kawai Taumata. Instead, they must negotiate to have their view represented by the grouping from which they have disaggregated. There is no justification for that restriction. The Government and Te Ohu Kai Moana recognise that those iwi are individually entitled to assets. They are recognised as iwi in the bill. When asked why the Government would not allow them to have a vote for Te Kawai Taumata, officials said that it was important to have a disincentive to disaggregate. So those iwi that choose to manage those assets themselves in the exercise of their own rangatiratanga are not regarded as sufficiently competent to exercise a vote for the body that will appoint the directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. It is a disgraceful provision that must go. The Greens will put forward a number of amendments to this bill at the Committee stage, and we look forward to a favourable reception from the House.

I join with others from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and acknowledge the earnest and diligent work the select committee did in considering this Maori Fisheries Bill. Dover Samuels made the comment that 12 years of uncertainty is coming to an end and that disputes in the courts are gone. I only wish I could believe that. I certainly do not believe it. In many instances, I believe this bill will exacerbate the situation and make matters even more complex.

I think I am one of the few remaining members of the House who was involved in this issue through the 1980s, following the Muriwhenua decision, and directly involved in discussions at the outset with the late Matiu Rata, Graham Latimer, the late Bob Māhuta, Tīpene O’Regan, Maanu Paul, and others. I recall many late-night discussions in what led to the first Māori fisheries select committee, which I chaired. We spent some 18 months going around the country on that committee.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Yesterday’s man.

Mr Barker was just a union official in those days, and some would say that that is where his mind still is.

That committee did a lot of work that led to the Maori Fisheries Act 1989, which essentially gave Māori 10 percent of quota, to be transferred over 4 years in 2.5 percent per annum tranches. In fact, I was the subsequent Minister of Fisheries who made those transfers of quota to Māori.

We know that the matter was not settled then. We thought it had been, but no, the Act was referred to as an “interim solution”. I will never know why, because in the early days 10 percent was the settlement. That was the deal. Everyone had agreed to sign off on 10 percent and that was the deal, but right at the last stages it was captured by those with an agenda. Those people called it the “interim solution”, and that, of course, led to the National Party’s settlement in 1992, with the Sealord’s deal and with Māori getting 20 percent of quota. So the quota was bumped up to 20 percent.

Be that as it may, that is history. The key thing to bear in mind with reference to this bill is that the 1992 deed of settlement was supposed to be a full and final meeting and acknowledgment of the commercial fishing right sourced in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Indeed, it was the intention to expunge the old section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act 1983, which the customary commercial take was based on. So it was to be a full and final settlement.

The Māori Fisheries Commission was set up back in 1990. I always envisaged that it would probably last about 18 months. Obviously the Crown could not choose how much quota went to which particular iwi. The Crown would never get that right; it would always have been the meat and mustard in the sandwich. The commission was set up, and its task was to make that determination. What happened? We know that we had 12 years of long, costly, painful litigation. Pita Paraone made the point that Māori had been obstructed from getting into the business of fishing. I say not to blame this Parliament. It is quite wrong to blame this Parliament. The resource was there—it had been there for 12 years. The delay was caused by the inherent problems within the iwi and the litigious nature and counterclaims. In a way, it may have taken 12 years, but what is 12 years in the long plan of things, if there is a solution? However, I do not believe we have a solution with this bill.

In many respects, I predict that we are in for a further round of protracted litigations, because of the prescriptive nature of this bill and the way the Crown has brought it here. It is a compromise by definition. The structures lend themselves to ongoing and endless litigation.

I also draw to the House’s attention the fact that the only justification for the settlement is that it is meant to be complying with an article 2 property right obligation. But we have seen that process perverted. We have seen the deed of settlement being perverted by this politicised process.

In particular, I refer to the provision for urban Māori. The whole property right was based on hapū and iwi. That was where the property right resided, but because of some prominent people who got involved in the latter stages of the 1990s, it was turned into a social welfare settlement. They said that we had to provide for Māori in urban areas. That is nothing more than a social welfare obligation, not a right under article 2 of the treaty. Although one may feel that it is worthwhile, it does good things, and all Māori will benefit, one undermines the basic property right justification by so doing. I think that perversion of the 1992 deed of settlement is a very serious aspect, indeed.

There are many aspects that I do not like about this legislation. It is very prescriptive, complex, and cumbersome. We want Māori to get engaged in fishing—and Māori are engaged in fishing. Over 50 percent of the individual transferable quota or annual catch entitlement is held by Māori interests. So to that extent it has been successful. However, incredibly and unnecessarily complex and convoluted commercial structures are now being prescribed. They are not commercial structures, actually; they are sort of bureaucratic, governmental-type systems. No one setting up a company would impose those sorts of restrictions and constraints on a business if he or she wanted it to be successful, but that is what this Government has chosen to do. It is a very burdensome, complicated, and convoluted set of prescribed constraints. The other aspect is that all those constraints diminish the value of the quota—the asset—and lessen the likelihood of those commercial entities being successful. Goodness knows, we want them to be successful. That is why I am deeply concerned about the way this has been structured.

The other aspect is the somewhat paternalistic attitude in this legislation. The property right belongs to the hapū and to the iwi. It should be theirs to use and benefit from, as they see fit. The fact that the Government has prescribed that it is not transferable other than into the internal pool diminishes the value of that asset. Having had that treaty obligation fulfilled, iwi and hapū should be free to use the asset as they see fit. It is not for this Parliament to prescribe to them how they can operate it or, indeed, whether they can sell it or to whom they can sell it. That is an unnecessary intrusion and restriction on their property right.

I note that Ngāi Tahu made that point to the select committee. It felt very strongly about that. Of course, Ngāi Tahu is a good example of a very successful rūnanga. It has taken its fisheries asset—its treaty resource—and made a very good commercial fist of it, thus far. But Ngāi Tahu recognises the unnecessary constraints, prohibitions, and prescribed restrictions that this legislation imposes on it. It made the point that all that does is diminish the value of the asset and reduce the probability of its continued success, and it opposes that.

The ACT party certainly is opposed to these administrative structures. We are also of the view that the inadequacies I have just outlined will have an adverse impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry to the extent that iwi interests do control over 50 percent of the quota, which is probably a billion dollars worth of quota assets. Those sorts of governmentally imposed restrictions will impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry. So the ACT party will be opposing this legislation. Like the member for Te Tai Tokerau, I would like to say that this is an end to it, that the litigation has ended, and we can now move on, but I seriously predict that this is just the start of another round of litigation.

I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the second reading of the Māori Fisheries Bill. I want, first of all, like other members before me, to make some comments about the constructive way in which the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee worked together throughout this process, and achieved, I believe, some excellent results in the amendments that were made to the bill, in response to the submitters we listened to. I believe that the bill we delivered back to this House is a better bill because of the way in which the committee members worked together, and dropped their party ideology on many occasions to get to the nub of the issues presented to us.

I want to express my thanks to the officials, and to our adviser who worked very hard on our behalf and provided us with very good support. I also express my thanks to the many submitters who came to the committee from all over the country to present their views to us.

At the introduction of the bill, the committee was cautioned by many not to change anything. It was not long, though, after hearing submitters, that it became clear some changes were indeed required. At this point, I acknowledge the contribution of Te Ohu Kai Moana and the many years of hard work, discussion, consultation, and negotiation that they engaged in. I can understand how nervous they might have felt at passing their baby—the baby they had created—on to the select committee, for the committee potentially to mess with. While I understand their concerns, I do not believe that it excuses some of their comments throughout our process.

We accepted fairly early on in the hearing of the submissions that some changes would improve the bill, and were absolutely necessary. It is good that Te Ohu Kai Moana had to pass the bill on to the committee for an objective analysis of it so that we could—by distancing ourselves from the long process they had been engaged in—come up with constructive suggestions for amendments.

While we were often reminded of the polycentric nature of the bill, I believe that it was possible to achieve some important improvements to the legislation, yet not upset the delicate balance that had been achieved in the negotiated agreement among Māori, which had taken some time. One of the areas that most tested this polycentric phobia was the appeals by Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, and others, who were seeking to be given iwi status for the purposes of allocation under this bill. In being able to decide this complex issue, the select committee had, first of all, to inquire into the criteria that the commission had used to determine iwi status. We had to determine whether those criteria were reasonable, and then we had to determine whether they had been applied consistently to all those who had sought iwi status.

The criteria were that they had shared descent from an ancestor, they had hapū, they had marae, they belonged historically to Te Kiwa, and that they had an existence that was traditionally acknowledged by iwi. We agreed that only Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine met those first four criteria. There was some concern about the fifth criterion—having been traditionally recognised by iwi. The committee was unanimous, I believe, that it could not accept that the fifth criterion—recognition by other iwi—was to be a power of veto by another iwi, especially for the iwi that would potentially lose most from the recognition of that appealing iwi. It is with real pleasure that we have been able, at least in part, to recognise Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, perhaps not to their full satisfaction but at least to enable them to move forward within the settlement allocation of this bill to achieve their own iwi recognition. The committee was 100 percent committed to that, and United Future remains 100 percent committed to that also.

Concerns were raised by submitters about the lack of accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, and it seemed very clear to us that waiting 12 years for any review process to occur was unacceptable. Too much could occur over that long stretch of time, and the negative aspects of wrong decisions being made, and being unchecked within those 12 years, would be too devastating for the asset base that was being entrusted to them.

We discussed issues such as a shareholder council as an option, perhaps, for how an input or oversight could be given, but ultimately settled upon an audit review process after 4 years, and again after 8 years. Then the major review would be brought forward 1 year to an 11-year time frame. I believe that it was the right approach that the committee arrived at.

A concern expressed by submitters about the over-accountability of the mandated iwi organisations was discussed at great length. Issues about their smacking of paternalism were often raised, but I believe that one submitter summed it up very well by saying that those measures were necessary, because the assets entrusted to those organisations were not theirs alone but were held in trust for future generations, as well. I particularly did not want to commit to something that was paternalistic—we have had enough of that throughout our history—but there needed to be a recognition, as was made clear by the Privy Council ruling, that those assets are not just for this generation of Māori who are receiving them but they are an intergenerational settlement, and the quota particularly is something that will continue to generate income for future generations—provided it is held by that iwi. So it was right that the Committee did not reduce the accountability, but in fact in some instances we increased it. Because it was to be intergenerational in nature we wanted to make sure that the mandated iwi organisations would notify all the members of their respective iwi about general meetings and that they would be given the opportunity to participate in any decision making that was going on—initially, of course, at the ratification of the constitutional documents that are required. However, it was also important that it be required for all general meetings so that everyone would be kept well informed. We also recommended that the percentage of the iwi notional population be increased to 20 percent, which would further strengthen that provision.

These changes will give greater protection against the alienation of settlement quota for future generations while still ultimately leaving the decision about the sale of quota with each iwi. The issue concerning offshore islands also came before us. We discovered that there was only one island that met the criteria set out by the commission for inclusion that it had not included—Motiti Island in the Bay of Plenty. I am particularly pleased that the committee was unanimous in including that island for the purposes of coastal allocation.

We also made some modest changes to the dispute process to address concerns about coastline disputes holding up the entire asset allocation in response to some submitters’ concerns. They have probably not gone as far as some requested, but I believe we made some significant progress in that regard. The dispute resolution process is still available to ultimately sort out disputes where they cannot be reconciled. They will end up in the Māori Land Court.

In conclusion, I wish to express United Future’s hope that the passage of this bill will advance the aspirations of iwi and hapū throughout the country that have waited a long time for redress in this regard. Not all have been involved in the litigation process; many have waited patiently for things to be resolved on their behalf so that assets can be transferred to them. We hope it will lead to them being able to build a prosperous future for their children and grandchildren.

I rise in support of the bill. I do so, having been appointed chair of the committee that considered the bill, with great humility. I felt humility for two reasons—firstly, that I was a Pākehā privileged to sit on this committee considering a matter so important to Māori, and, secondly, that I was a Pākehā coming into this at the very end of 12 years hard work by Te Ohu Kai Moana, which had put in a tremendous amount of work, as reflected in the bill that was delivered to the committee to consider. The committee received a good bill. It made changes that have been addressed by preceding speakers tonight, and we believe that that has improved the bill. The bill returned to the House is a very good bill.

There is one matter I must take issue with tonight—that is, the speech made by the ACT member Ken Shirley, who described this structure as paternalistic and over-complicated. It is a pity that that member was not present when a New Zealand senior partner of an international accounting and audit firm advised the committee that the structure—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should know that it is a breach of the Standing Orders to refer to a member’s absence either in the House or from a select committee. I ask you to draw that to his attention.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I am sure that that has drawn the matter to Mr Fairbrother’s attention.

I note that the evidence of a New Zealand senior partner for an international accounting and audit firm who described the structure in the bill as being not unusual in the commercial field was not challenged by any member of the committee and was, therefore, accepted in its totality. It is somewhat surprising after an expert has given such clear evidence in support of the structure and the transparency changes that the committee made, that someone in his absence should now rise to challenge it. I think that that describes the weight we should put on that criticism. The committee received 72 submissions—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether you are awake, but the member just repeated the offence that he committed earlier, which I drew to your attention.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I take offence at the way the member said that. Please sit down. I am aware of what he said.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee received 72 submissions on this bill. Fourteen generally supported the bill while also seeking particular changes. Sixteen specifically sought recognition as additional iwi, further groups sought other changes, and 14 opposed the bill. Of those 16 seeking to be recognised as iwi, the committee investigated the basis on which Te Ohu Kai Moana made its decision, and taking the approach that we thought would withstand any legal scrutiny, or any scrutiny in the court, we decided that the hapū of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine met the five requirements established by Te Ohu Kai Moana to determine that an iwi should be included as a mandated iwi organisation. Those two hapū or iwi were included in the schedule so that they may, at some later date, disengage from the iwi grouping they are at present listed with and be an iwi in their own right. The other 14 did not meet the test, and therefore we made no such amendment.

The committee worked very well, I should say. The committee had three practising lawyers, including a fourth non-voting member. It had six Māori and three people expert in fisheries matters, and it brought to the consideration all this accumulated experience. I thank very much the deputy chair of the committee, Georgina te Heuheu, who worked constructively with me and with the committee right throughout. Our consideration and deliberations were much assisted by her willingness to assist us to produce a bill that met the two constraints under which we worked. Those constraints were that the benefits—

💬 Phil Heatley: Hoy!

And “Hoy” over there should be included as well. Phil Heatley, of course, was an admirable back-up to Georgina te Heuheu. He sat in great awe as he learnt about tikanga Māori. We spent much time educating him in the finer aspects of the Māori culture, and he brought to us the wisdom he has in the world of fishing. The committee, assisted by Nanaia Mahuta, Dover Samuels, and Mahara Okeroa, considered these matters in the detail, as one would expect.

It is a bill that has increased the transparency for all Māori. It is a bill that has increased the accountability without adding to the bureaucracy. It is a bill that meets the two constraints imposed upon us: first, that the settlement should be for the benefit of all Māori, and secondly, that the distribution model should follow the traditional iwi lines. That was the injunction we received from the Privy Council. The preamble of the bill was amended to include the Privy Council citation so that any future court being asked to consider the provisions of this bill would be aware of the background that provided the constraints that the model contained in the bill reflects.

I take great pride in bringing this bill back to the House for its consideration, and I ask that the House do debate the bill in the spirit in which the committee did, which was in a constructive, cooperative manner. It was one where each party worked to ensure that the bill was improved. The contribution of each member was duly noted, and the report reflects the genuine desire of most on that committee to produce a bill that this country could stand proud of. I recommend this bill to the House.

I can appreciate that this bill does bear the labours of Solomon. The allocation formula will, in fact, never satisfy everyone. National recognises that any possible solution would have winners and losers. It is, in a sense, the inevitability of the compromises contained within the bill. I just want to, very briefly, deal with those big-picture items. The inshore fisheries go to iwi, based on their coastline. They go directly to iwi to be controlled by the iwi themselves, and that has, I guess, pretty universal consent. The offshore fisheries are, however, a much more complex picture.

In essence, they go into a global trust, and I am using that term in a very broad way. The only control that individual iwi have in that situation is through an electoral college. It is several steps removed. There are intermediaries between iwi on the one hand and fishers on the other. There is not just one intermediary, but several intermediaries. On top of that the allocation of the shareholding in that global trust—in fact, a company—is based, essentially, on population. There are two different models. The first part, inshore fisheries, is allocated on coastline. The second part, offshore fisheries, is allocated on population. As members of the committee, members of the House, and certainly the Māori population, well know, that of itself has been very controversial. Some iwi want the whole allocation, inshore and offshore, to be based entirely on coastline. Certainly, for a party whose principles are on the basis of property rights, there is an inherent attraction in that model. Others—notably northern iwi—want the allocation to be based entirely on population. In fact, one outlandish submission suggested that the population formula should be based on the population as it existed in 1840, which would be rather hard to reconstruct, I suspect. Nevertheless, that submission was made.

Of course, the bill represents the compromise. National understands why the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission had to make that compromise. It was the only way to bridge the diverse and, indeed, disparate interests between the different iwi viewpoints. That is not our fundamental difficulty with the bill. Our difficulty is not on the issue of allocation in global terms. Our concern lies in the excessively paternalistic system that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission developed in how the offshore quota is to be managed and controlled.

It is not as if the approach it has adopted has an effective sunset clause in it. Certainly, it has a review provision, but only that. In fact, that is largely done by the commission or Te Ohu Kai Moana itself. One has to ask whether that is the best way forward for the future. Is there a better way whereby iwi could have greater control of their offshore quota, even though it is allocated on a population formula and not on a coastline formula?

The argument of the commission is that Aotearoa Fisheries, which, effectively, is the holder of the offshore quota, has to be kept intact. The reason it has to be kept intact is that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—and it is not stated directly in the bill, and that has been one of the problems of the bill; it is far too obscure—owns the shares in Sealord’s. Sealord’s does the fishing. In effect, we are legislating to protect Sealord’s. That is what this approach does. It became clear through the hearings that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is contained in the statute, does not actually own any quota. Another entity—a trust—that is not even referred to in the legislation, actually holds the quota, and then through a complicated series of contractual arrangements, apparently then leases that to Sealord’s. That is the problem.

The problem with this, as I have already indicated, is that the system the Government has accepted protects Sealord’s. It protects it against any substantial changes of ownership, management, and control. National has very serious questions about that aspect. We believe that within the overall allocation formula, developed by Te Ohu Kai Moana, there should be some possibility, at least, for iwi to be able to get direct control of their offshore quota, just as they control their inshore quota. The argument that is put up by the Maori Fisheries Commission is that if we alter that system, we disturb the intergenerational effects of the allocation model. That cannot possibly be true, because after all, that argument has not been run in relation to the inshore quota. So National will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that will give iwi, in specified circumstances, the ability to get direct control of the quota. We will be asking, and perhaps challenging, the Government as to why it would not accept that.

We do not believe that that should be just an open situation where every iwi, straight off, would have that ability. We do understand there has to be some kind of management system in place and some ability for a transition of it effectively. So our Supplementary Order Paper will provide that iwi, with sufficient financial and management capability, to be measured on historical performance to date, should be able to take their quota directly. In reality not many would qualify, but inevitably some would qualify. It is likely, and the Government knows this full well, that Ngāi Tahu might be such a beneficiary.

Who on earth could possibly argue that Ngāi Tahu does not have the capability to manage their own fishing assets? It would be fatuous to argue to the contrary. Everyone in the House actually knows the truth of this. Ngāi Tahu could do it. They surely have just as much of an interest in retaining the intergenerational aspect, as Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That, I believe, is not the issue. When we strip away the commission’s argument, it comes down to commercial protection for Sealord’s. As I said, I recognise that there need to be transitional provisions, so that we do not destroy the value of the company overnight; but, at the same time, it should not have the right to last forever. There has to be ability for iwi to get direct control under a principled approach.

National will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper, and we want other parties in this Parliament to look seriously at whether we can get a pathway that will enable iwi with capability to get direct control of their assets. Why would we totally stop that? I was going to say “restrict”, but it is worse than that. The Government’s current formula actually totally stops it. I say that that simply goes too far. There must be an ability to get a pathway out of that. I am strongly of the view that, although the effort by the commission was a good effort, more could be done. National will be doing precisely that.

In reading the very detailed commentary on the bill, I acknowledge that a significant number of changes have been made through the select committee process. Coupled with the amendments made in the committee process, the National Party has determined that it will support this legislation.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.