Maori Fisheries Bill

I find it intriguing that the Labour Government’s Māori members, who had so much to say on the marae about the Maori Fisheries Bill and Māori issues, particularly during the last election, and who had so much to say at the select committee about Māori fisheries issues—particularly the issues relating to the electorates that they were voted in to represent—have had nothing to say during the Committee stage of this bill. Dover Samuels has said nothing on the Maori Fisheries Bill. This bill is going to affect 400,000 Māori in this country, 60,000 of whom Dover Samuels is supposed to represent, yet he has said nothing in this Parliament to represent his people. What do members on this side of the Chamber say? Shame! Shame on Dover Samuels! Shame on his colleagues! Is it any wonder the National Party is looking to disband the Māori seats? Those members are so ineffective in Parliament.

We are talking about Part 6, “Transitional and miscellaneous provisions, repeal, and amendments”, which affects various organisations, among other things, that have worked over the last 12 years in getting this Māori fisheries settlement off the ground. Not least of all, we are looking at the clauses that deal with the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which has now worked for 12 long years, following the 1992 Māori fisheries settlement, to get some sort of consensus up and down New Zealand on that settlement. It is now worth roughly $800 million, which is not that far off a billion, and it is certainly a substantial asset for Māori.

Although I made that criticism about Dover Samuels not speaking up on any part of this bill, I must say that he has worked hard on this issue for at least 12 years in the north, trying to get consensus and bring ideas.

With the passage of this bill, we finally say goodbye to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. One concern we have is that the people involved in that commission have an expectation they will be involved in the next commission, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We think that perhaps they think they have a job for life. The message in this bill is: “No, you haven’t; don’t think you have.” National, if it votes for this bill at the third reading, wants Māori to go forward with these assets. National wants Māori to go fishing instead of spending their time in the courts, to resolve their differences with other tribes, hapū, and whānau throughout this country, and to get on with the job. We are hoping that those involved with the fisheries commission will have little to do in the long term. This bill is a transitional bill. We are dealing with these issues in Part 6, about Te Ohu Kai Moana, its demise, if one likes, its last reporting and the standards required there, issues that it has resolved during that 12-year period, and how it now passes the baton on to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd.

It is interesting that those in charge of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, unlike those involved in Te Ohu Kai Moana, must have commercial experience in the fishing world. That is what Māori asked for. They did not expect, at all, that those involved in the previous fisheries commission would automatically get their jobs back in the new one. Māori want people with commercial expertise to run, manage, and oversee their fisheries assets. National absolutely agrees with them.

There are issues to do with the employees of the fisheries commission—not just with directors on the board but also with employees and their liability in terms of unfinished or incorrect business that occurred while they worked with the fisheries commission. There are clauses that deal with continuity of employment, and certainly we want to see some expertise transferred across. There are clauses dealing with compensation for technical redundancy when the fisheries commission winds down, and issues to do with the Inland Revenue Department and the protection of names.

There are also some clauses that I think are quite important. Clause 164, “Protection of names”, states: “(1) No person may be incorporated or registered under any enactment or in any other manner using any of the following names: (a) Te Ohu Kai Moana; or (b) Te Kawai Taumata; or (c) Te Putea Whakatupu Trust; or (d) Te Wai Maori Trust.” I fully endorse that.

The provisions in Part 6 are aptly named transitional provisions. The problem is that the whole bill is transitional, and the reality is that the Government does not yet seem to recognise that.

Mr Heatley got the issue right when he asked why Labour’s Māori members—members who are on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—are not speaking today on the bill. That issue has been raised because the Government believes in the Māori seats; that is what it says, and it has members in them to prove that fact. So one would think that in the Committee stage, when we are debating Part 6 and are near the final part, those members would take the opportunity to explain why the bill has the character it has, and why it is very much a halfway step. I think even Mr Samuels recognises that. When members are accountable to their people, this Chamber in particular is the place where they should speak and hold forth to their people as to why they do or do not support a bill. That is what this Chamber is for. It is proof of the relevance of their being members of Parliament. Everyone in this Chamber knows how hard it is to get here. One expects members to take calls from time to time, and those members’ failure to do so is an indictment on the Māori seats. Part 6 gives the kind of opportunity that National expected those members to take.

I opened my speech by saying that the bill is transitional. We are talking about transitional measures. They are measures that take the Māori community from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission to a new era. If only that were completely true! We all know—and I know that Mr Samuels recognises this—that it is not true. Just as Part 6 is transitional, so is this entire bill. We will be back in this House to deal with the final allocation.

Essentially, the Government is pretending that the offshore allocation will forever and a day be owned by Aotearoa Fisheries through its various intermediaries. That is not sustainable. Ultimately, the iwi will want to get hold of that quota directly. Simply to have a review after 10 years does not meet the measure of a suitable transition. That is our major concern on this side of the Chamber. It is why we have said that Mr Heatley, as the Minister of Fisheries, will in a few years provide the final bill that deals with the final allocation. Unfortunately—

💬 Phil Heatley: Next year!

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—it will be later than next year—this bill does not meet the test. The provisions in Part 6 are transitional, and, frankly, it is not worth our analysing them in detail. We should be looking at the broader picture, because the bill itself is transitional. There will come a time when we have to revisit this whole thing. So long as Parliament keeps passing legislation to deal with other people’s assets, Parliament maintains the final responsibility to do the allocation. Would it not be a great thing if we could say to the Māori people of New Zealand that Parliament is getting off their back, and that it will no longer pass legislation dealing with their assets? Would it not be a marvellous thing to say that the end of paternalism has been reached? Unfortunately, with the passage of this bill we will not be able to say that, and that is a failure of this legislation.

In speaking to Part 6, I raise the point that there are a lot of miscellaneous provisions in this part. There are references again to the Māori Land Court and to the ability to apply for determinations through it. I suggest that that will be used extensively. I wonder how matters are going to be resolved, if they have to be resolved taking into account tikanga Māori and, of course, different tribal groups. The dispute resolution provisions in Part 6 are what I am talking about in terms of the Māori Land Court. If these matters are to be considered in light of tikanga Māori, which has special meaning for each of the different groups that will be applying for a determination, the litigation will be constant and ongoing, because how can one iwi contest the tikanga of another and come to a workable solution? The Māori Land Court will have its work cut out in trying to come to a determination. [Interruption] This is applicable to Part 6, as clause 140 relates to the resolution of disputes, and I am talking about people bringing disputes to the Māori Land Court.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are dealing with clauses 146 to 166.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are on Part 6, are we not?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are on Part 6.

This is all about dispute resolution, is it not?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is about transitional arrangements and also dissolving the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.

So it does refer to dispute resolution, does it not? These matters I am raising pertain to Part 6, and they are also in Part 7, as well. They actually cross a few parts of this bill, Mr Chair. So shall I carry on?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Carry on.

Now that we all know what is in this part, I will continue. I am focusing specifically on dispute resolution, and as I said earlier we have had concerns about, and court resolutions around, challenges to boundary settlements. That is why I am saying that there will be further disputes that end up going to the Māori Land Court. Is the court going to be properly resourced to handle those disputes? Those disputes will be lengthy and ongoing because it will be so difficult to make decisions, and iwi will be insistent on their positions with regard to what they consider to be their boundaries in accordance with their tikanga. I suggest to members that there will be substantial issues around that. I am quite sure that Hauraki, if not the other groups identified in this bill—Te Arawa, Ngāpuhi, and Ngāti Kahungunu—will contest their boundary areas or the areas that are defined.

In recent times, as this bill has been debated in the House, we have made a couple of amendments to the iwi groups that are recognised within it. That reinforces the contention that there will be ongoing disputes that will be taken to the Māori Land Court. I put it to members that it will be very difficult for the court to come to a determination on them. That is something we can look forward to. I would go further and suggest that this matter will take some years and be ongoing.

Those are some of the matters that have already been raised in the Committee by other people. I am sure that an iwi group like Hauraki will be putting a lot of time and effort into trying to further what it considers to be its rights in the context of this bill, and it will take the opportunity to have those matters raised yet again in the dispute resolution process, in spite of the fact that it has been turned down by the court.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the previous member’s difficulties with the bill; that just shows how complicated it is.

I turn the attention of the Committee to Part 6, which we are actually debating, and to schedule 8. I have not heard any member refer to this, but there is an interesting point that members might like to look at. On page 279 we find that the Income Tax Act 2004—in other words, this year’s Income Tax Act—is being amended. That is almost a record, is it not? That Income Tax Act was passed this year, and this bill is already amending it. Members might care to recall that that Income Tax Bill was the biggest bill this House has ever passed.

When we look at the particular section of the Act to find out what is actually happening, we see that we are giving these new fishing companies the same tax status as Māori authorities. Why would anyone want to do that? I remind members that we have a race-based tax system in New Zealand. If ordinary New Zealanders—and when I say ordinary I mean non-Māori and, in fact, Māori, if they are not in a Māori authority—want to be a fishing company, they pay the company rate of tax, which is 33c in the dollar. These fishing companies are going to pay only 19.5c in the dollar. [Interruption] It is in the schedule—members should have a look at it. It has slipped through. I would like to see the Minister of Fisheries get up and explain why that should be. These companies are large companies. They are not small companies. These fishing companies have multimillion-dollar assets. In fact, Māori now control, I understand, over half the fishing assets of New Zealand. I put this to the Committee: how can a fishing company owned by non-Māori hope to compete?

In schedule 8, which we are now debating, Māori fishing companies are being granted a 19.5c tax rate. Where was that in the fishing settlement? Where did the Government say: “Oh, by the way, we are not only going to give you all these fishing assets but we will give you a nice new tax rate of just 19.5c in the dollar.”? I have to say I am not actually opposed to a tax rate of 19.5 in the dollar; I just want it for everyone else! A 19.5c tax rate is actually ACT’s policy. If it were up to us, no one would pay more than 19.5c. I would like to hear from the Minister that this provision is a first step towards the instituting of ACT’s policy—but I suspect that it is not.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: It’s in the right direction.

The member says it is in the right direction. I suggest that some of the Māori members—who are actually, according to the polls, about to lose their seats—ought to get up and explain to their constituents that they—[Interruption] I can do the maths for the member, who seems to be complaining—I must have struck a nerve. He ought to be pointing out that what this Government is doing is introducing a new tax rate. And what is the basis of it? It appears to be race. There is no other reason.

I would like to hear from the Minister whether I am right. Are these new fishing companies that are being set up going to pay only 19.5c in the dollar, and if that is so, why? What is the equitable reason? Why should Māori pay 19.5c in the dollar and non-Māori pay 33c? Surely some member opposite would like to get up and explain it. If those members think it is a good thing, they should take credit for it. Surely we can hear about it.

This provision is buried in the bill, on almost the last page. There is no explanatory note. One actually has to go to page 1098 of the biggest statute ever passed in New Zealand to work out that this Government is slipping though a change in the tax regime so that Māori pay 19.5c and non-Māori pay 33c. I call that apartheid. I call that a tax based on race. I call it unfair. I call it unjustified. If the Government thinks it is justified, then why does a Government member not get up, proudly take credit for it, and explain to us why Māori should pay only 19.5c in the dollar?

I support the Hon Richard Prebble in his call for the Minister—

💬 Sandra Goudie: I have already asked the Minister.

Of course, the Hon Richard Prebble is supporting the call from my learned colleague Sandra Goudie that the public would really want the Minister of Fisheries to take a call to clarify that position. I was reading a newsletter put out by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission that seemed to support the point raised by my National Party colleague Sandra Goudie and the Hon Richard Prebble. It said, in effect, that the Inland Revenue Department believes that these entities will be paying a tax rate of 19.5 percent.

I think the Minister should take a call to explain to the commercial sector as a whole the reason for this preferential treatment being dealt to this big business. We are not talking about small business; we are talking about big business. The Labour Government likes to claim that this Maori Fisheries Bill, in effect, champions the ability of the Māori community to compete in an entrepreneurial way and be treated the same as any other commercial entity. The Minister should take a call to explain seriously this taxation position. I certainly believe that very unfair, generalised statements have been made, and they are reflected in these transitional provisions as well as in the rest of this Maori Fisheries Bill. It is as if the Māori community and Māori organisations cannot front up and compete on an equal footing with any other organisation. In effect, the sentiment of this bill is, to a certain extent, patronising and an insult to the Māori community. I am always very proud, coming from Canterbury, of what Ngāi Tahu has been able to demonstrate in managing the settlement process in a very commercial and competitive manner. It is now one of the largest employers in Christchurch. This bill should really aim to reflect that position. I am still waiting for the Minister to get up and answer that point.

I want to raise another issue relating to the transitional provisions in Part 6—more to the point, what has not been included in the transitional provisions. I had a discussion with the incoming Minister of Fisheries, the honourable Phil Heatley—next year he will be the Minister of Fisheries—and he says that he will address what is not being included in these transitional provisions. For example, these transitional provisions should cover the fact that the Māori Land Court will be handed the additional responsibility of settling disputes, but no resource allocation is being made to the Māori Land Court. That is hardly fair and will not make sure that any dispute gets a speedy resolution. I want the Minister to take a call to assure us that the Māori Land Court will be appropriately funded so that any disputes arising from this legislation are dealt with expediently. That is another matter I invite the Minister to take a call on.

The other question I would like the Minister to answer is why he will not propose an amendment to the transitional procedures that provides a sunset clause in terms of the provision that restricts these entities from selling their quota etc. on a commercial basis.

I move, That the question be now put.