Maori Fisheries Bill

This includes debate on schedules 1 and 7. Members please note that there are six very large subparts.

We see in this part exactly why the National Party has been so concerned about the extraordinary bureaucracy that is to be set up under this bill. The bill puts in place a huge range of hurdles between the owners of the asset and those who will actually fish the asset.

Firstly, we see in this part the establishment of an organisation called Te Ohu Kai Moana. Then we find that Te Ohu Kai Moana has to have one trustee. The one trustee is to be known as Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, a company. So first we are to have Te Ohu Kai Moana, the purpose of which, essentially, is to assist the Government in the distribution of the asset—to make sure it is enduring and everything else. That is a bit of bureaucracy. Then, to handle the work of the bureaucracy, there is the company itself. The company will have a board of directors, a chief executive, and a raft of staff. It will do a range of things that are about meddling in the affairs of various iwi and checking up on their registers. It is the compliance arm of this bill that is established especially for Māori. No other fisheries outfit will have to deal with this sort of stuff, but this company will. Then it has to establish another organisation called Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust. If anyone wonders what that trust will do, it has to establish another group, called Te Wai Māori Trust. So a chain of four organisations is to be set up for various purposes. One of the fascinating things is that when one starts to look through the bill and wonders what on earth those people do, one suddenly finds out that there is another group called Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That group will have its hands indirectly on the assets. Its function is stated in the bill, as well.

One gets a picture of a fishing asset that is given to Māori, who are then told: “Well, hang on. You people aren’t capable of looking after the stuff—let’s face it—so we will set up all these fascinating little organisations along the way to help you do it. And, by the way, this will all be paid for from the profits or dividends from the company, Sealord’s, which will go out there and fish your assets.” So as I understand it, the money will be paid from Sealord’s to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, and the board of directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will get together, and say: “We will advance some money to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd.” Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will say that it has to give money across to Te Pūtea Whakatupu for a period of years so it can engage in research, and it also has to put some money into Te Wai Māori Trust until the figure accumulates to about $20 million before it can start paying out any dividends to the iwi that actually owns the asset. All along, there will be this body over the top, running back to the iwi, and saying: “It’s going well. Your asset is doing a splendid job. We’ve been in it for 10 or 12 years now and you haven’t had a penny, but guess what? All the bureaucracies are strong, and we have lovely offices. We have a raft of people out there in jobs making sure that everything that belongs to you is being looked after well. It is completely useless to you, but we’re looking after it well. And by the way, thank you for forgoing income and paying for this extraordinary bureaucracy.” I just wonder who on earth thought this up. Who thought it up?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The Minister.

The Minister is the man who should stand on his feet now and tell members why so many organisations have to stand between the owners of the asset and the fishers of the asset. In many cases, the owners of the asset will, in other entities, be out fishing anyway. They just will not be able to get the same value out of the asset that they have been given under this bill.

I thank the deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, for pointing out so eloquently to the Committee—and it would normally take much more than 5 minutes—all the layers of bureaucracy wrapped up in this bill. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that would take out at least one layer of bureaucracy between Sealord’s or Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and the Māori beneficiaries on the ground, who are supposed to own the asset, and I ask members to support that. It is simply this. As the member for Ilam pointed out to members, in selecting the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, Māoridom currently has to go through five processes. Firstly, Māori registered with an iwi group have to choose iwi representation. That iwi representation then selects its representatives, who are just a few in number.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.