Maori Fisheries Bill, Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) /Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. E ngā iwi, e ngā karangatanga maha o ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the tribes and the many callings of the four winds, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

This is indeed an historic day. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 will repeal and replace the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 and give effect to the model that has been developed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, in consultation with Māori, for allocating fisheries settlement assets to iwi for the ultimate benefit of all Māori and all New Zealanders. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of many of the original architects and negotiators of the settlement. I also acknowledge those who are no longer with us.

When we look back, we see that the origins of the fisheries settlement are surely entwined with those of the quota management system in the mid-1980s. The quota management system provoked Māori objection to the actions of the Government as unfair in creating and allocating property rights in fishing, and provided the means to address the treaty grievances of Māori over fisheries resources. By allocating rights to existing fishers, the Government was seen to be alienating property. However, this new property right, individual transferable quota, provided a currency with which the Government could address the claims for redress, and by buying the already allocated rights back from existing fishers rather than just taking them, this redress was achieved without creating new inequity. Of course, this was not an initiative without risk, but it was the vision and, indeed, in a political sense, the bravery of the architects and negotiators in seeking to find a resolution to outstanding issues, and to negotiate the 1992 settlement, that brought us to where we are today.

Comments by the Hon Doug Kidd in the second reading debate of the 1992 settlement bill reflect well the tenacious spirit of those who were determined to make the settlement succeed. He challenged the knockers, telling the House: “The only contribution of those doomsayers amounts to saying that because something is difficult there is really no alternative but to do nothing; that to attempt anything is to expose oneself to risk; that the only comfortable existence is an existence in which one does nothing. Those same people are prepared to stand by, for generation after generation—and there have been plenty like them before—and to listen to the grieving of the Maori. They are prepared to explain it away, and to carry on enjoying the fruits that they have managed to garner for themselves. I am not one of those people. … I am proud to be involved, because I think that I have done the right thing.” Mr Kidd also told the House that day: “There are those, of course, who would exploit difference and grievance, because they are a platform and base for a very crude type of popularism. I reject that approach utterly.”

Those messages to politicians seem as valid today as they were on 3 December 1992. I would encourage members on the other side of the House to think on what can be achieved by participating constructively, and working to include, not alienate. It is sad indeed that the National Party of today does not show the principle or the generosity of spirit of its predecessors.

Of course, it has taken many years to reach this point, and though it has not always been easy going, this point has been reached because people have in the end been willing to compromise. In many instances iwi have looked beyond what might simply be best for them, to the greater needs of Māori in general, and that is to be commended.

It is also appropriate that I today pay credit to the successive commissioners and commissions for their management of this resource endowment. They have brought the total value of the assets to approximately $750 million, more than double their original value, while distributing something in the order of $20 million per annum to iwi through the leasing and annual catch entitlement schemes. That is a remarkable record of stewardship.

Let me also thank the many groups and individuals who have worked for so long to bring us to this point. Among them, of course, are the members of the select committee, and ministry and departmental staff, who have meticulously managed the detail of this very complex bill.

The Maori Fisheries Bill delivers to Māori the means to long-term financial confidence. It paves the way for economic growth that will benefit all New Zealanders. The allocation of quota, cash, and income shares will empower iwi to develop their own assets and to contribute even more to the economic and employment growth so important to all of us. The Government welcomes the passage of this bill. It is the final step the Crown must take to complete the implementation of agreements made in the fisheries deed of settlement 1992 signed by the Crown and Māori. It is a singular privilege to have the opportunity, as Minister of Fisheries, to commend it to the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be one debate, but I will put each question separately at the end.

I am very pleased to speak in the third reading debate of these two bills. Can I at the outset acknowledge the presence in the House today of the Hon Koro Wētere and the Hon Doug Kidd, two gentlemen who have had much to do with the settlement of this issue to this point.

It has been a very long road to get to the point where this legislation is before the House today. But it is not the end of the road. I have to say that while the National Party is very keen to see Māori get hold of the assets that were negotiated under a National Government in 1992, and wants Māori to get on with the business of fishing, of making a considerable contribution to the economy of New Zealand, as is happening now with these assets, we also want to see them get the benefit of the assets. We are not convinced that this legislation is going to deliver that in the way that is purported. So it is with some reluctance that we will support the legislation today—reluctance, knowing that it will only be a matter of time before this issue is back before the House again and has to have a considerable amount of attention from Parliament once more.

I will tell members why we think that. It is because the assets that were given to Māori are not, as a result of this bill, going to get to them. Secondly, the inshore fishery will be given directly, but the big-money quota will not get directly to Māori. No matter what their capacity to use it, they will not get it. Iwi groups will be asked to select representatives to choose a board to set up Te Ohu Kai Moana, which will set up the trust to hold those assets. So iwi are at least three steps removed, for a start, from the body that will hold their assets. That body will not actually operate them. That body will simply appoint the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries, which in turn will organise the fishing of that quota. When it comes to the profit flow, much of it will be dependent upon the success in any given year of Sealord’s—an operation that we notice has been in some difficulty for some time. That profit will flow back to Aotearoa Fisheries, then back to Te Ohu Kai Moana, then perhaps, and only perhaps, back to iwi, but not directly to iwi—to an organisation designed to receive that income that iwi are being forced to set up; an organisation to receive intended profits from fishing activity, but an organisation prevented from fishing itself.

We think that, in the case of many iwi groupings around the country, that is an utter nonsense. They are successfully operating fishing companies, and should have been given the opportunity to take their deep-sea assets and work them, as they do with other quota they currently hold. So we think it will simply be a matter of time before many people at the bottom of the pile start to work out that there is really not a lot of change in what is being proposed today, and they will come back to Parliament to ask parliamentarians to sort out the problem. That is one of the irritations we have.

It needs to be said that this measure is a Māori solution to the distribution of assets. The Labour Government, of course, took one look at it and its natural control-freak instincts overtook it and it said: “We love that sort of grip on people’s lives, so we’ll buy it.” But I want people who are listening to understand that when Māori do come back to this House and ask a National Government to sort it out, we will be sorting out a Māori solution that went wrong.

One of the big issues for the future of this country is sorting out the ongoing historical treaty grievances. Our party has made a strong commitment to that. We note that the Government this year was advised to put more resource into the Waitangi Commission to speed the process, but even with the Government’s massive surpluses it decided not to do that. We do not understand that; that is something we will do.

The key to all of that is getting a good mandating process as to who is able to negotiate. I am a little concerned that this bill, in the case of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine, establishes those two groups as new iwi. Māori will shake their heads and say: “No, that’s not happening; they’ve always been like that.” If that is the case, why was the select committee charged with the responsibility of making that decision? Because that is inappropriate; it should be Māori who decide who are iwi and who are not. Further, that is enhanced—and my argument is supported—by the fact that the select committee turned down many other, presumably, hapū groups that wanted to be recognised as iwi. That is not the business of Parliament. One of the things that has to happen is Māori who want treaty settlements to be concluded quickly need to sort out the mandating process.

I said we will support this bill with some reluctance and I have outlined the points on which we are reluctant, but we wish those who will try to make this legislation work all the very best. It is important that 20 percent of the country’s fishing assets are fished well, it is important that the benefit of those assets flows to the whole economy, and it is important that the profits from those ventures flow to those who are the owners of them. They are the people at the bottom of the heap. We will be watching very carefully to make sure that that flow happens.

E tika ake anō ki te mihi ake anō ki a koutou o te kōmihana, i a koutou mai i te motu i tae ake anō ki te rongo ake anō ki te whakaotinga o tēnei pire. I a kōrua anō e Doug me a koe Koro, e mihi kau ana i a kōrua e tae kaha ake anō i konei.

[It is apt that I acknowledge you, the commission, and those from the land who have arrived to listen to the completion of this bill. I especially acknowledge your presence too, Doug and Koro, and your efforts to be here as well.]

I give my greetings to the people from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and other people who have arrived here today, and especially those two old stalwarts of this House, the Hon Koro Wētere and the Hon Doug Kidd.

If that member is the Opposition spokesperson on Māori Affairs, I am certainly mystified at his pontification about what is good for Māori and what is not good for Māori, after the Ōrewa speech and three or four of the questions that were asked in this House today purporting that Māori are being over-fairly given interests. It has been a long journey, as Mr Brownlee well knows, since the treaty was signed in this country. That this process is being brought to finality today with the enactment of this bill, which this Government has pushed along after that long period of time, is certainly something Māori should celebrate.

The Maori Fisheries Bill is the final step in an extensive and very carefully considered process undertaken to transfer, then allocate, assets from the Crown to Māori in settlement of treaty claims to commercial fishing.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It doesn’t do that.

It certainly does that. I would ask about Fonterra. Māori are chastised at times about turning assets into confetti. Fonterra seems to be well established in the fundamentals of commerciality and keeping things together—and it is no different from Zespri.

We started many years ago with the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 and now we will have the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and this Government needs to be commended for bringing that about. Our people have a saying: “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.”, which is translated as: “The old net is cast aside”—and old politicians—“and the new net goes fishing.” Once this legislative process is completed, the casting of the new net will begin. The third reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill, along with Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2), finishes the process that most recently included major recommendations from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. Subsequent changes to the initial legislative proposals make them better reflect what is needed for Māori to be active and long-term participants in the fishing industry.

I extend my sincere appreciation to my pakeke in Parliament, Winston Peters, and his party for supporting us, and to the select committee for the energy and time it has invested in progressing this important legislation. Its work has not been an easy task. I especially thank the chairman, Russell Fairbrother, and also Peter Paraone and Georgina te Heuheu, and especially my hard-working colleagues the Hon Dover Samuels, Mahara Okeroa, and Nanaia Mahuta. They have been beset with challenges, but they have stood strong and they have got to this point. They have read and listened to various submissions from industry players, and have considered advice and submissions from several ministries and interested parties, including Te Ohu Kai Moana, in order to get us here today. That the committee took its task very seriously is demonstrated by the number of significant amendments that it recommended be made by this House.

The new legislation will really help propel Māori forward into the fishing sector. There will be allocation of significant fishery assets to iwi organisations in the form of settlement quota, income shares, and cash. Other fisheries’ assets will be managed centrally on behalf of iwi and, ultimately, all Māori people generally. After the legislation is passed, a new trust called Te Ohu Kai Moana will be established with the accompanying Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. It will be responsible for allocating settlement assets to iwi and for overseeing the operations of the new Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I will make the initial appointment of directors to that body, but then the task will be taken up in an orderly fashion by Te Kāwai Taumata, a group of 11 people appointed by 10 regional groupings of iwi, and one other member appointed by a group of representative Māori organisations.

The way forward is now clear for our people to manage the fisheries’ assets, which the trust will allocate on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries. At that level, clear distinctions will be drawn between the governance and management of the assets, with mandated iwi organisations and asset-holding companies. A new company called Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will administer major assets, including shares in companies received from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. That company will be under legislative instruction to distribute large chunks of the net profits to income shareholders. Two further trusts called Te Putea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Māori Trust will be established to assist with research and education grants and other activities. Te Putea Whakatupu Trust will promote education, training, and research on fishing matters and other activities. Te Wai Māori Trust will advance Māori interest in freshwater fisheries.

We have waited a long time for this day. Many of our kaumātua, kuia, and people who have had an input into this matter are not here today, and I want to remember them as Māori celebrate the beginning of the end of this long journey. People like the Hon Matiu Rata and Sir Robert Māhuta have taken the long journey back over the great ocean of Kiwa. We are still here to carry on their wishes and those of the leaders who settled the treaty-based commercial fishing claims in 1992. That was many years ago. For more than 10 years there has been much discussion and debate, mostly rigorous—often very rigorous—on how to move forward. The paternalism and the patronising of Māori people are something we want to move out of the road. We do not need to be told how to do it. We do not need to be told how to run things. We need to be recognised for the statesmanship that we can certainly imbue in this process.

💬 Rodney Hide: What about the foreshore and seabed?

That member promised that he would behave himself and become that, not the outdated, rabble-rousing—

💬 Rodney Hide: You pushed me beyond the limit.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not pushing anybody beyond the limit.

I salute the efforts of numerous commissioners—people like Sir Tipene O’Regan and Shane Jones, the commissioners who brought the old net into shore. Their journey has been arduous and at times frustrating. Hope and determination to see the job done are certainly why we are here today. I acknowledge the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Hon Doug Graham for their input along the way. Most of all, I pay due respect to my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, for his outstanding work in getting this process done, and to Minister Pete Hodgson before him for his work. I also thank myself, along with Winston Peters, because we have got to here—just in case people forget that.

But let us be as courageous as Māori people are today. Let us, as a great nation, accept this measure, and ensure that we recognise that this legislation is good for Māori, good for this nation, and should be celebrated. Wake up!

There is an old Māori saying that the kūmara never says how sweet it is. When one is reduced to acknowledging and thanking oneself, it brings to mind that old Māori saying: “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.”, which means: “When the old net is full of holes, the new net goes fishing.” When the old net is full of holes—useless and obsolete—that is when the new net goes fishing. That is why New Zealand First is here today, and we will be ready in 2005.

I noticed that the two previous speakers did not want to own up to the facts behind this long-running battle with regard to assets. Between 1984 and 1990 the first State asset sale in this country was the sale to private ownership of the fishing resource of New Zealand. It was the first sale of a state asset and today we are seeing the aftermath of it. But, of course, why would anyone want to own up to that? It is so discredited now in 2004—not just here but worldwide. In 1986 the Labour Government, as its first State asset sale, sold the right to New Zealand’s fishing resource into private ownership. It was inevitable that by 1988 and 1989 the Māori people would be saying: “Yes, but what about us?”. And that is what we are talking about today. In 1989 the Labour Government set up Māori fisheries legislation, but it had one huge defect, which was palpably obvious back then—it is in the Hansard, for anybody who wants to remember the facts; some of us pointed it out back then—and that was that there was no distribution or disbursement policy. We also warned that it would produce the longest-running legal battle that Māoridom would ever have with itself. There is nothing as antiseptic as the saying “I told you so.”—but I did. There is nothing as antiseptic or sterile as the saying “I told you so.”—but we did, and here we are, 15 years later, and we still have only the legislation, and have huge problems to come.

My challenge to the Māori people on this issue is this: walk down the main street of Tauranga, Rotorua, or Ruatōria and ask Māori there how many of them have got a fish; go down the main street of Kaikohe, Whangarei, Wanganui, New Plymouth, Hāwera, or anywhere around this country where there are Māori, and ask any Māori on the street how many of them actually have got a fish. I know what will the answer be: “Brother, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The deed of 1992 is a very interesting document. It was signed by all manner of people—whether they had tribal or iwi authority, or whatever. Then, there was still no distribution mechanism. We lived in a vacuum where, for a while, the Māori Fisheries Commission thought it could, without any statutory authority, take up the slack in that respect.

So we see in this legislation a trust called the National Urban Māori Authority. That was John Tamihere’s idea. That is called postal box tribalism. If one changes one’s address one changes one’s tribe. What sort of ancestral, historical thing are we talking about? Where in Māoridom’s antecedents could one change one’s address and change one’s tribe? I cannot hear a mutter or a murmur from those people over there now. I cannot hear a syllable or a sound. It is just one mess after another. Where in the world of Māori, since the mythical time of Hawaiki, could one change one’s postal box and change one’s iwi? But there it is in this legislation—one mess after another.

If that happens, I can tell members that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine have far more rights than that. Who would ever doubt who the Ngāti Hine people are? We know that Ngāti Wai came first, after all! Unless someone came from out of space or in a helicopter, the people of the coast had to be there first. It is axiomatic. But we will not stand around arguing about their rights. We know what they are, as Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine know what they are, as well. The sooner we sort that out, the better.

But this debate has a great backdrop in the speech of the “Great Communicator” at Ōrewa. How difficult it was for the members of the National Party to have to admit that, in every respect, they were the architects of this legislation.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Oh! They admit it now. Well, I read Don Brash’s Ōrewa speech and it was clear that someone who is soon to be a pensioner does not remember our history—or, more important, does not remember how culpable his party is in this country’s history when it comes to this issue. How difficult it was for Gerry Brownlee to get up, make a speech, and say that National would support this legislation. What on earth was Don Brash’s speech at Ōrewa about? It was a great speech, I am told, because, even though the year was not up, Toastmasters gave him the prize for being the “Great Communicator” of 2004. This was in June. Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Mark Antony, or Dr Martin Luther King could make any speech they liked now, because the prize has already been given out. I call that another little right-wing jack-up. Of course, the media swallowed it—as they always do—hook, line, and sinker. The media never questioned that it was only June. But, against today’s debate, we have that speech made at Ōrewa. I ask the National Party how it squares its position today with what was said at Ōrewa.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: OK—yield.

I am happy to yield. I seek leave to yield briefly in order for Mr Brownlee to get up and explain how he reconciles his speech today with the Ōrewa speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A yield is confined to a brief comment or question on the subject that the member yielding was speaking on. It is not a means of transferring the call. It is to be terse and to the point.

Well, I so seek leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not need leave; he can yield. It is to be a brief comment and that is all.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that, even though I come from the party of great communicators, 30 seconds is not enough to give the House the explanation Mr Peters wants. I am happy to ask the House to give me 5 minutes to give that explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Let me make it very clear that when Dr Brash stood up at Ōrewa and gave his speech, there were a number of people there listening who were impressed. There were tens of thousands who did not hear it, but who have simply got the flavour of what he was talking about and have applauded it.

Let me tell members why. When he spoke so openly, so clearly, and so freely at Ōrewa, he allowed a debate to begin in this country that is long overdue—not just for those who are non-Māori, but for Māori as well. I said, when I spoke in the House today, that we are not happy about this bill. We will support it, because we will not deny anybody the assets that are theirs. We are not happy about this bill, because it will not see those people in the various provincial towns of this country who have an ownership stake in the 20 percent of quota, whom Mr Peters spoke of, getting anything out of it at all.

We see that as a proliferation of the current arrangements. Te Ohu Kai Moana is nothing more than the Fisheries Commission in drag. Its members are the people who will determine how much money goes back to Māori. So why would we have any conflict between a position that said we should treat everybody in this country fairly and equally—which was the message from Ōrewa—and expressing some disappointment about a bill that will say to people who have an asset that they can own it but they cannot touch it, and that they can have an expectation of getting something out of it only if those members over there choose to give it to them? That is why there is no conflict on the position we take on this bill, I say to Mr Peters, and the message in Ōrewa.

I say one further thing. There was nothing for any Māori in this country to fear or be concerned about in the message that Don Brash gave at Ōrewa. There was, rather, a huge amount of hope and optimism. In that speech, he made a commitment to the preservation of te reo Māori, to a haste in the process for dealing with historic treaty settlements. We have in front of us, right here, an Official Information Act request granted to us, which shows that the Labour Government makes a big noise about settling historic treaty grievances, but when its own Office of Treaty Settlements tells it that the office does not have the resource to do that any quicker than it is doing at the moment, does the Government put some extra money in? Does it show a bit of goodwill—a word its members constantly throw around the House? Does it show any goodwill towards getting that process moving along any more quickly? No, even though the Government is told it will take years and years without more resources, it will simply throw it on the table without providing the resources. There is no conflict between our position on this speech, given the great history the National Party has of dealing in a very upfront way with issues to do with Māori rights, and the message in Dr Brash’s speech.

He was asked how he reconciled the two speeches, and he could not. At Ōrewa, Dr Brash said that Māori are not even a people or a culture, and that they do not deserve special or separate treatment. We know what the Ōrewa speech was about. It was a case of walking out of a saloon, stealing a man’s horse, and trying to ride it out of town. That is very hard to do. A man can steal a horse, but he cannot stay on it. We just heard why. The National Party’s DNA—its fingerprints—is all over the issue in respect of separate treatment for Māori. It is no use Dr Brash coming along here. He cannot find the parliamentary toilets, yet he starts stealing my speeches and my party’s policy and trying to call it his own. The ACT party cannot call it theirs, because Shirley and Prebble signed up—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use members’ full names.

It will not work. Dr Brash was asked whether he believed in Māori Television, and he said he did not know. Does he believe in the Māori seats? No. Will National candidates be standing in the Māori seats? Yes. That is confusion. Does he believe in kōhanga reo? “I’ll wait and see how it’s working out.” It has been going for 25 years.

I will get back to my point. There is, today, an inevitability about this legislation, because of what people did in the past foolishly. I can recall the 1992 legislation, and many Māori can as well. It was always my argument—and New Zealand First’s argument, as we are saying today—that what Māori need are the fundamental things that all humans need: decent housing, decent medicine, decent first-world wages, decent salaries, and great education. They want to be part of the first world, and all this paternalistic nonsense will not uplift Māori, at all. There will be the usual people arguing the teat for all they are worth, but the mass great bulk of Māoridom need better policies than that. My message to them is very simple: hang on, because help is on its way.

I extend our greetings to Koro Wētere, Doug Kidd, and others, who have come here today for the third reading of this legislation. I am presenting this speech on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei, who cannot be here today. The Greens are pleased that the allocation of fisheries assets, a result of the 1992 Sealord’s deal, is at long last being settled. Sadly, however, the Green Party is unable to support the final shape of the legislation. We had hoped for significant changes to it during its consideration at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, but that did not happen. Some of the key issues raised in submissions 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 procedures to review the governance structures of new entities, greater flexibility in the disposal of settlement assets, reductions in delays in the transfer of assets to mandated iwi organisations, and recognition of iwi for the purposes of the legislation.

Some of those concerns were addressed but, unfortunately, little real accountability was added. One of the changes that was intended to address the issue of accountability was the provision that mandated iwi organisations would 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 Kawai Taumata, the electoral college, to enable it to assess better the performance of the directors it appointed. But the problem is that non-binding motions, ultimately, are really worthless. Those assets after all belong to hapū and iwi, yet in the end those groups will have little control.

The Government has been reluctant to interfere with the legislation, on the basis that it concerns a settlement that is primarily for hapū and iwi to work out. But we believe that the Government has failed to recognise that the significant agreement in the community to move forward on the settlement allocation does not amount to significant support for details of this legislation.

The intention was that these issues of concern would be sorted out in the select committee process. Māori believed that the process was democratic and that their views would be listened to and taken into account, but in many cases that has simply not happened. We continue to oppose the paramount role of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. The changes that have been made still do not go far enough to remedy the fundamental conflict of interest in the governance and commercial structures established by the legislation. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will retain the sole voting share over Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is a commercial organisation in competition with fishing entities established by mandated iwi organisations for the management of their settlement assets. We proposed an amendment to ensure that mandated iwi organisations would receive voting shares, but that, unfortunately, was not passed. We strongly believe that iwi are entitled to voting shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—the commercial entity that will retain 50 percent of the settlement assets originally intended to be transferred to the mandated iwi organisations. If the assets are to be retained in a centralised form, iwi should be able, at the very least, and entitled to exercise the responsibilities of shareholders, consistent with standard commercial practice.

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, but that amounts to an 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. As far as accountability, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will still be subject to an operational audit only 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 Government’s arrangements or asset-disposal restrictions would better serve the interests of beneficiaries. At least, that reviewer will be appointed by iwi, who will also be able to set the terms of the review.

Another amendment we proposed was to remove the power of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to retain constitutional oversight of mandated iwi organisations, and to be able, unilaterally, to alter the requirements they must meet. What other organisations are subjected to what amounts to a form of paternalism? The basis for that control is the premise that Māori cannot look after their own money.

The Green Party believes there are too many layers between Māori and the governance of their settlement assets. There also remains a conflict of interest when Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd are set up to compete with iwi groups. There is little benefit in that for iwi who wish to manage their own destiny in the fishing industry. How will they compete against the huge company that is Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd? We are disappointed, too, that a Government amendment was passed last night that will allow a special procedure to allocate and transfer assets to an iwi that cannot complete its coastline claims because one or more neighbouring iwi does not have a mandated iwi organisation. An iwi that does not have a mandated iwi organisation will now have 3 years to establish one. If it does not, then allocations will be able to proceed, and some iwi may end up with nothing.

That amendment is problematic, especially for iwi such as Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, who may face problems disaggregating from the conglomerate, which may hold up the process so that a mandated iwi organisation cannot be established.

That would be a litigation nightmare. We sincerely hope that it will not happen, but the Government’s amendment provides that it might.

Finally, although the Greens disagree with the final form of this bill, we are extremely pleased that progress has been made. The issue may be a full and final settlement, in the Government’s view, but we fear that it is not a full and final settlement for hapū and iwi, who will no doubt struggle with what has been put in place by this Parliament.

I would like to acknowledge my former colleague the Hon Koro Wētere, who was the co-Minister with me in 1990 when we nominated the first members to the Māori Fisheries Commission. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Doug Kidd, who succeeded me as Minister of Fisheries, and was the Minister at the time of the 1992 Sealord’s deal. The ACT party will not be supporting this legislation, and in saying that I stress at the outset that it is not because we do not want to see Māori play a dominant, successful role in fisheries. In fact, the very nature of this bill and its inadequacies are why, on balance, the ACT party has decided that it cannot vote for it. Clearly, we know that it will be passed, and we wish all those who will be its beneficiaries every success in their enterprise. But we do want to record our opposition to it on the basis that it breaches the 1992 deed of settlement, good commercial practice, the basic principles of property rights, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

This issue is all about property rights. People enjoyed fishing rights based on common law, but in the 1980s the Government introduced statutory law that gave clear property rights—first in 1983, and then in 1986—by establishing individual transferable quota under a quota management regime. Those fishing rights became tangible, clear property rights. I do not think anybody in the Government anticipated at the time the simmering concerns of Māoridom, but Māori had not been able to express their frustration at not having received sufficient acknowledgment based on their customary right. It was at the point when there were clear property rights that Māori, firstly through the Muriwhenua decision and then through subsequent Court of Appeal decisions, made it quite clear that the terms of article 2 of the treaty—full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of one’s lands, forests, fisheries, and taonga—certainly implied that Māori had a clear property right interest in fisheries. That interest is what the Crown has been negotiating on, right from the late 1980s through to today—and, I predict, will be negotiating on beyond the present—to try to come to terms with what is a very important issue for New Zealand.

We believe that this bill fails miserably, because it imposes all manner of restrictions on Māori that other people do not have on their property rights. It sets up multi-tiered, convoluted, patronising bureaucracies, and locks Māori into them. I believe that Māori—and Ngāi Tahu is a good example, but there are other examples—are proving they are very good business people. And why should we be surprised at that? There is standard commercial law in this country, so why do this Parliament and this Government need to say that Māori have to have special protections, convoluted bureaucracies, and checks and balances that no other commercial business has to have? When we do that, it comes at a price: it diminishes the value of one’s asset, and it diminishes the opportunity for an enterprise to be, and the probability of an enterprise being, a commercial success. It can foot-trip a business. The very patronising aspects that are done with good intent can actually foot-trip a business at the end of the day.

The other aspect in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi is the pre-emption clause, which is included in the article 2 property right clause. It states that the chiefs and tribes can hold the asset for as long as they so choose, and that they then have the right to sell it. But this bill prevents the sale of the asset, and that diminishes its value. In other words, it establishes a dual quota. There is what one may call general quota, and then there is Māori quota, which is ring-fenced and can be sold only to a limited pool of people. That is being done with good intentions: because Māori may flog it all off. But it is actually their right to do that if they want to, under article 2 of the treaty. I do not believe they will flog it off, but that is their right. It is everybody’s right to make mistakes. However, the other side of that is there may be good reasons for selling the asset. I would just like to run through some of those reasons. Fishing, in a global sense, is a hunter-gatherer operation. We underwent an agricultural revolution, arguably, 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, and changed from hunter-gatherers to farmers. The same process is happening in the world’s fisheries, and aquaculture is the new dimension. It may well be that many stocks and species in various management zones may become almost extinct, commercially, so why should we lock Māori into an asset of diminishing value, when the sensible thing for them to do may be to take the value of the asset, sell it while they still can and while it has its value, and invest in aquaculture—become fish farmers, instead? That opportunity should be provided to Māori, as anyone else who holds quota would have that opportunity.

It is for those reasons that the ACT party feels rather strongly about the bill, and I certainly feel strongly about it. I chaired the first select committee over a period of about 2 years, and I was the Minister who transferred the first quota to the Māori Fisheries Commission. But I have to say that this process has been horribly politicised. The point is that it was to be a property right settlement, whereas what it has become is a social welfare cheque, and that is not what it should be. The Crown may well have responsibilities with regard to the social needs of Māori in health and welfare, but it should not confuse that with a property right. That is what this bill does. It is meant to be a property right settlement, but the provisions that, I think, John Tamihere and others have brought to this bill as a compromise—it is stated to be a compromise, but it is actually a politicisation of the issue—breach the intent of the deed of settlement.

I predict that this legislation will provide an avenue for this matter to be relitigated in future years. There is a recipe for ongoing disputes in this legislation, although we hope this is the end of it. We hope that 12 or 13 years after the Sealord’s deal a compromise has been achieved, but I see in this legislation the seeds of ongoing disputes within Māoridom. That in itself could be very divisive. We members of Parliament are already receiving letters from various hapū, stating that they want to disassociate from their iwi and that they do not acknowledge them. Possibly that will go down to the whānau level. That is the reality. With tangible assets, resources, and values of this nature, why should we be surprised at that? This bill creates a climate whereby those problems are likely to become exacerbated.

ACT will not support this bill. I listened to the speech made by Gerry Brownlee from the National Party. I agree with most of the points he made, but I could not agree with his conclusion. Why on earth would one support this bill on the basis of one’s own analysis? It is not robust legislation, and that is a shame. We have to make the point that we are currently working through the foreshore and seabed legislation and the aquaculture legislation. All those issues are intertwined and interrelated, with common threads between all of them. I think we could well see the unfortunate elements in this fisheries bill compounded by what I think is a totally wrong approach on the foreshore and seabed, whereby due process is being abandoned. The Government of the day has panicked and introduced legislation that cuts across due process and, in an indirect way, will exacerbate some of the problems that stem from this legislation.

It is with a sense of gratitude that I rise on behalf of United Future with the privilege of speaking at the third reading of this legislation, which hopefully will be the end of the legislative resolution of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement negotiated in 1992. As a member of this House who is in his first term, I begin by paying my respects to those honourable members in this House and in previous Parliaments who acted with integrity, good faith, and courage in the initial negotiation and ongoing development of that settlement. I acknowledge the presence here today of Mr Wētere and Mr Kidd. I also pay tribute to Māori leaders who, with good will, accepted the terms of settlement on behalf of all Māori, in the interests of the welfare and development of Māori. I know that some of those leaders of considerable mana have since passed from the world, but they are no doubt here with us in spirit today. I acknowledge the hard work done by the members, both past and present, of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, Te Ohu Kai Moana. I know they will welcome this day, which sees the passing of this legislation.

This legislation is different from the Māori Fisheries Bill that was referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on 4 December 2003. Despite having been cautioned not to make too many changes to that bill, the committee did, in my opinion, make a number of improvements in response to submitters’ concerns, while still respecting the delicate balance achieved by Te Ohu Kai Moana’s negotiations with iwi and hapū across the country. It is important also to acknowledge the excellent work and support given to the committee by the support staff, the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the independent adviser who served the committee so well. Personally, the working relationship that developed in the select committee is a positive memory that I will retain for some time. The Committee of the whole House passed further changes to the legislation, which were recommended by the Minister, and that has resulted in the final version of the legislation to be passed here today. Despite all the debate, criticism, and proposed amendments during the last phase of the passage of this legislation, it is notable that it will be passed by an overwhelming majority of the members of this House. It is encouraging that such significant legislation of benefit to all New Zealanders is being passed at the end of such a long parliamentary process.

It is our earnest hope that this legislation will facilitate further growth in the economic development of Māori with iwi and hapū tribal affiliations, and also of urban Māori, as well. Māori economic development and prosperity is good for all New Zealanders. The strengthening and restoring of the Māori economic base will enhance the Māori entrepreneurial opportunities that are already evident in the New Zealand economy. Pākehā and other ethnic communities should welcome every aspect of that success and growth.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has to date been given two bills to deal with: the Maori Fisheries Bill, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I would at this point like to make a few comments about the contrast between the goodwill that is being developed by the passing of this legislation and the situation we are faced with as a committee as we hear, day in and day out, the disappointment, anger, and frustration that is expressed by Māori and others over the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This legislation has not been without controversy. Certainly, there was considerable concern when the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act was passed in the early 1990s. Despite that, this legislation is welcomed by the majority of people, and it makes a positive contribution to the resolution of past issues. Yet in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill it is hard to recognise that it is the same Labour-led Government, which has a laudable record of listening to Māori and addressing Māori issues, that is in danger of demonstrating it seems to have forgotten all it has learnt about listening. The National Party also seems to be shying away from constructive engagement on such important issues.

The legislation we are passing today is the combination of work carried out in good faith by both previous Labour and National Governments. It was started by Labour in 1989, was carried on by National in 1992, and is now being concluded by the Labour Government in 2004. United Future is pleased to have been able to play some small, constructive role in the completion of this legislative process. It demonstrates some of the best attributes of how the members of an incoming Government, irrespective of the political party it is comprised of, can lay aside the mantle of having been the Queen’s Opposition—and therefore of challenging, disagreeing with, and criticising many of the previous Government’s actions and policy—and, on assuming the reigns of power, can carry on the good work that was done by their predecessors, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

This bill deals with the distribution of assets to Māori, based upon the recognition of a property right in fish. Surely a consensus can be found that will recognise similar rights in the marine environment of the foreshore and seabed, where those fish live. This legislation is part of the answer. However, at this stage at least, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, rather than being part of the answer, is in danger of contributing towards—and is heading towards—becoming a serious part of the problem, in my opinion. Hardly any of the submitters I heard were fully in support of that bill, whether they were Māori or Pākehā. Submitter after submitter has appealed to the Government to slow down the passage of that bill, and to allow more consultation to occur.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will come to this legislation.

I am, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is not. He is straying.

The Government needs to accept that the journey is often as important as the destination. Therefore, I call on the Government to accept United Future’s offer of at least taking one step in the right direction, by responding to the appeals of submitters, as has been the case with regard to this legislation. The select committee should be given an extension of time, to enable it to make an interim report—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. He must not refer again to that bill and the proposals for it. He is to talk on the third reading of this legislation only, or his speech will be terminated.

I believe it is time for us to have a cup of tea. We must acknowledge all the truth about our history as a nation, but not forget that that is one of the many high points that demonstrate the ability and willingness of New Zealanders to resolve seemingly irreconcilable relationship challenges. The passage of this legislation is an example of that. I am sure that Te Ohu Kai Moana’s directors and staff would have many stories to tell about the process that has been gone through. This legislation is the end of 12 to 15 years of work, and it is the beginning of another 12 years of work, as well. Although many people have lamented the length of time that has passed, the money spent on litigation, and the hours of discussion and hui, none of it is wasted if we really believe that the journey can be as important as the destination.

In closing, on behalf of New Zealand First I not only convey our support for this legislation but also express our support to those who will take up the responsibilities outlined within it, as well. To the kaumātua and rangatira o ngā iwi o Aotearoa who have been elected or will be elected to Te Kāwai Taumata, with the responsibility to appoint the members of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, who will carry much of the burden for the next phase of the journey, to those who will become directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, to the many kaumātua and rangatira who will be given the responsibilities of trust in the mandated iwi organisations, and to other leaders who will assume responsibilities, I say: whakapainga e koutou te ingoa o te Atua. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawa nui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[You must praise the name of God, and be strong, brave, and stout of heart. So, greetings to you and to all of you.]

E te Kaihautū, te kaiwhakaruruhau i a mātou Jonathan, tēnā rā koe. E ngā rangatira, mātua, Koro rāua ko Doug, ā, tēnā rā kōrua, tēnā rā kōrua, tēnā rā kōrua. Nō reira, e ngā rau rangatira rongonui o te kōmihana, e ngā iwi huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ā, kei te tautoko, kei te whakamiha ki a rātou ngā tīpuna. E te rangatira a Pari, e rātou mā ngā tīpuna, haere, haere, haere ki a koutou.

[And, greetings indeed to you Mr Speaker, Jonathan, the one who shelters us. To you two chiefs and father figures, Koro and Doug, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you two. And so to the well-known chiefs of the commission, as well as the people gathered about, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all. I endorse and acknowledge the ancestors who have departed, especially Pari. Depart the ancestors, farewell, travel on.]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand to bring the saga of this legislation to closure. It had its genesis at the time of the settlement. It had its genesis in this House, where Māori rights with regard to the fishing assets were always protected. We bring closure to the issue today in relation to legislation that, in large part, went through a long, tortuous process—a litigatory process. We have arrived. As one of the combatants in part of the process, it is great to stand up in this House and to know that we have brought inclusion and closure, so that our people out on the street can now start to participate more fully and fulsomely in a wonderful asset. The only regrettable thing about that is the time line it will take before the rubber starts to hit the road out in our communities. The acid test is now on Māori leadership, full stop.

I want to acknowledge a number of the leaders who have brought this legislation to conclusion, and without picking anyone out separately or individually, I do acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Matiu Rata, who was one of the forefathers in the Labour Party and one of its statesmen. I acknowledge also, as I already have, the Hon Koro Wētere. I acknowledge the work of National Party members when the National Party actually stood for nationhood building. The members concerned were the Hon Doug Kidd, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, and the Rt Hon Douglas Montrose Graham. But those days are gone, and I regret that the National Party does not have statesmen of their ilk any more.

I now want to turn and acknowledge others, as I should—I want my kids to read this. The reality is that I have stepped on many toes, and a number of the chiefs and a number of the tribes who may well be here in the gallery or listening to the radio broadcast of this debate would acknowledge that. But at least they should give me some Brownie points for being consistent. I want to say of the great chief Sir Robert Māhuta that it was a joy and a pleasure for me as a younger Māori merely to have had the opportunity to watch him operate. It is regrettable that he is no longer here to see this legislation come to closure. He was a chief who was always light years ahead of his people. He was always putting things into place for them, in terms of expectations. The fact that they could not see that then but know it now is regrettable. So I want to acknowledge the superb work and effort that Sir Robert put in. I am pleased that his daughter will take the opportunity to stand up in the debate as part of this closure.

I also want to acknowledge Sir Graham Latimer. Now, I have said some naughty things about Sir Graham, but, as our other speakers have said, as the young net goes fishing certain things like that do occur. That is just how things work. But I want to acknowledge here today the work of Sir Graham and Auntie Emily—an auntie of mine from the Whakatōhea people. They championed these issues whilst we were always sitting on the fence and throwing all sorts of naughty things at them.

Finally, I want to acknowledge Sir Tīpene O’Regan. Although at times I have thought that he has been ill considered and that I probably would have taken a different approach from his, I think that chief will go down in history as one of the greatest chiefs that Māoridom has produced in the last 50 years, regardless of the tribe. So although I am from Ngāti Porou, Whakatōhea, and Hauraki whānui, I want to salute that Ngāi Tahu chief who, through force of personality, significant intellect, and the like, has placed Ngāi Tahu on the map for all time. I just wanted to acknowledge those people in that particular way.

I want to move on now to address three things in the legislation very quickly. The Hon Winston Peters often gets it wrong when he tries to address matters Māori. For instance, he challenged myself and Parekura Horomia over hiding under the dress of a woman, or under the apron strings of a woman. Little does he know it, but Ngāti Porou men actually rejoice in that—we rejoice in it. We are born out of Ruataupare and Materoa—the great chieftainesses. Our tribe is born out of great chieftainesses. We rejoice in being under the skirts of women, and so I say all power to the arm of the Prime Minister. That just carries on a great tradition.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: And he married our cousin.

That is right. I now want to turn to three things, because in the third reading debate it is important that they are nailed, and definitely nailed. In the Committee stage, I addressed two items. The first was clause 65 of the Maori Fisheries Bill, “Purpose of Te Putea Whakatupu Trust”. That trust is merely set up to ensure that all the obligations of the settlement arrive at the doorstep of all Māori, and so it is a bridge. It is a bridging trust that acknowledges exactly where we are, in terms of our development and evolution. The clause has been amended so that the purpose, which is the heart and the soul of the trust, is indeed very wide in terms of the promotion of education, training, and research. It can also have an application in relation to fisheries. The final clause that I will talk to concerns the appointment of the directors of that trust. It is quite clear that consultation can be had with only one defined group of Māori over the directorship, and that is urban Māori.

The final thing I will say is on the issue of the disaggregation model. It is up to Ngāpuhi, to Kahungunu, to Hauraki whānui, and to Te Arawa Kotahitanga to honour and respect the constituent iwi that make them up. No one would disaggregate if he or she was treated with some honour and respect. The law is there to allow us to take our mana away from a new corporate entity, in the event that it does not honour and respect the iwi. Rongomaiwahine, Ngāti Hine, the 12 iwi of the Hauraki, and the eight iwi of Te Arawa will have the right to walk in their own mana, but, let us get this right: it would be better if their interests were served under one umbrella.

I acknowledge all the work of the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee in bringing this matter to a conclusion, and I thank them very much. This is a great day for Māori. We will hit the street, and we will be positive. We will understand our promise and fulfil our potential—and I say we should not vote for the Māori Party.

The National Party wants Māori to go fishing. We want them to fish their assets, their quota, on their boats, for their people. We do not want Māori forced into the courts. We do not want Māori in constant debate with the Crown. Like Māori themselves, we just want them to go fishing. That is why the National Party supports this bill. After 13 long years, and a century for many, we just want Māori to go fishing. However, we know that this is a transitional bill, and that is what we will publicly call it. Māori will be back for changes, and we say rightly so. We expect them to be. We will not be surprised when they appeal, simply because this Government has refused some freedoms where there is limited control for Māori over their own assets—not anybody else’s assets; not the Government’s to decide what they do with them, but their own assets.

In fact, the Minister did introduce a bill—and we are not going to stand back from this; we will state it—that was, in part, quite condescending and patronising. For instance, we were intrigued to see a low level of accountability for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi in one aspect, yet iwi—mandated iwi organisations within the bill—had a huge amount of accountability that they had to fulfil to their members and to Government institutions like the Inland Revenue Department and the like. A huge amount of accountability is entailed for them, such as, audits, reporting back, going back to their members, having to get votes, and so on.

The question that Georgina te Heuheu and I asked at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was: “How is it that mainstream organisations, businesses, and companies do not have to meet these stringent requirements of accountability, but we are going to make Māori organisations in the fishing industry jump through all these hoops?”. We say that it cuts both ways. Don Brash has been talking about the fact that there has not been a level playing field whereby in some instances in health and education Māori might be receiving more attention than others. It cuts both ways. Why should Māori, under this bill, have to jump through more hoops and be more accountable than mainstream organisations? Does the Government not trust Māori to organise their own assets and their own affairs?

The bill remains condescending and patronising in other aspects. The National Party put forward some amendments that were glossed over by the Government. We asked that Māori should have more say in the directorship of New Zealand’s largest fishing company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. We asked that some of the layers—there are about five layers of governance between Māori on the ground and the directors of the company—be taken out. We suggested a way of doing that, but it was rejected. We also presented amendments to enable proven Māori organisations to withdraw all of their assets, including deep-sea quota, to put into use as they saw best. With the current arrangement Māori are able to directly control only half their quota, and we see that as a tad patronising.

Iwi did have some victories, though, with this bill. In the bill as introduced, some iwi like Ngāi Tahu and Tainui were not recognised but had to jump through all sorts of recognition hoops. Even though they had had a Crown settlement, had been through the courts, and had structures in place to deal with settlements, they had to prove their mana again. Iwi came to the select committee and said that that was absurd, and the committee, which I am proud to have been part of, made sure that there was a significant amendment so that if such iwi organisations want, they could be given automatic recognition. That was a win. If they are formally structured and accountable to their members, if they have established an asset-holding company, and if they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement purposes, they should be given recognition, and I applaud that change.

There were also issues around coastline agreements that were likely to hold up the allocation, whereby if there was a dispute over a part of a coastline, the allocation for the whole coastline would be held up in the courts. A change was made there. Now if a small area of coastline is under dispute, that is held and it goes through a process, but the rest of the allocation can go forward, and that is sensible and we were glad to support it.

We did have the issue of the restriction of sale and swap of quota, because there are limitations on realising the value of fishing operations because of the requirement for iwi to sell capital items, quota, or shares only to iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We said to Māori that their asset and their quota will be devalued if they can sell only within Māoridom. But they told us, time and time again, that although the restriction on the sale of shares and quota has the potential to affect their asset’s value, it was an accepted consequence of the settlement. They understand that but they want their generation, the generations after them, and again generations to follow, to get the benefit. They support this aspect of the bill.

National supports this transitional legislation, because we want to see Māori go fishing. But we know that it is transitional legislation, because Māori will need changes to it. These issues will come up because they eventually will want full control of their asset, and that is something they should certainly have. National, though, supports this bill.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki ngā kaumātua e noho mai rā, e Koro, e Doug Kidd, e Graham. Kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa mō tēnei rā tino nui rawa atu mō te iwi Māori.

I am just acknowledging our three kaumātua, Doug Graham, Koro Wētere, and Doug Kidd. I also want to acknowledge members of the commission and another kaumātua, Sir Tipene O’Regan. I think it is appropriate that these kaumātua, these gentlemen, are acknowledged in terms of the history and the origins of this legislation. It is quite interesting for me to stand here and listen to some of the contributions that have been made by my colleagues across on the other side of the floor. I think when we listen to the contribution made by the Hon Parekura Horomia and the response he got from the other side, it shows us exactly the reason why this issue has been on the boil for over 12 years.

I have listened to my whanaunga Winston Peters—and I acknowledge his whanaungatanga in terms of Ngāti Wai—talk about the new net going fishing, and how the old one has a lot of holes in it. I am going to tell the House that I am a bit of a fisherman from way back, and I certainly know about holes in nets. I think when it comes to the time when there are so many holes, it is time not only to patch up the holes or to buy a new net but perhaps for my whanaunga to buy himself a longline. Certainly some of the contributions he has made have been very enlightening to the House with regard to his whakapapa with the National Party; it is very interesting in terms of the origins of the legislation.

It is a big day for Māoridom. What I would like to advocate for our people is that this Government is delivering for Māori. It has been a long and tortuous pathway for us to get here. I can see the National Party over there frothing at the mouth and squinting and saying: “We have heard about this before.”, but the reality is that today we are here at the end of line and we are delivering the goods. Our people will go out fishing. Not only will we challenge this industry; we own over 50 percent of it from the corporate model. We will get it. We will start cooking, and not with hangi stones but with gas. We are going to start cooking with gas. We have a corporate model here, and I look forward to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd at the end of the day coming out with a big bottom line and saying that Māoridom has made a big profit. We support that.

On the other side, there is a process to deliver the goods to our iwi through the mandated iwi organisation provisions in this legislation—that is, to deliver to mandated iwi organisations that will ultimately deliver what belongs to the people at the grass roots. That gives me great encouragement, and this House should be proud of it. It is the only time in the history of this nation that legislation like this has been supported by this House, whereby the mechanisms actually deliver to the grass roots of our whānau and our hapū. Since their disenfranchisement in the late 1980s many of our people have been waiting, pēnei i te kāwau nei i runga i te kōhatu—like a shag on the rock. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you have seen a shag on the rock but, usually, that bird is waiting for a fish to jump—e tatari ana kia peke te takeke; waiting for the piper to jump. I say to this House that the waiting is now over. The piper has jumped, and the kāwau has flown.

I want to commend, to congratulate, and to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues on the select committee, and specifically our chairperson Russell Fairbrother. He has been a good chairman and put up with a lot of argy-bargy. I do not want to say that in Māori, because somebody might ask me to interpret what I really mean. Russell Fairbrother has been a very fair chairman. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley knows more about this bill than his colleague Gerry Brownlee. I invite Gerry Brownlee to go on to one of the waka one day, go out fishing, and understand what fishing is all about. I will have to raise the Titanic, and I am sorry about that, but we do not have a waka big enough for the deputy leader of the Opposition.

This is a big day for Māoridom. I am glad to be here this evening to share this day with our kaumātua colleagues, the commission, and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. I hope that at the end of this session we will all be invited to a bit of a celebration, where members of this House can taste the cuisine of the Māori quota—crayfish and its delicacies. Nō reira me mutu āku kōrero.

[So, I must end my remarks here.]

I would even invite Ken Shirley. I know that the generosity of our people will invite him, even though he wants to sell everything. That is the reason why he does not support this legislation.

Nā reira, tū atu ana ki konei ki tēnei o ngā whare ki te mihi whānui atu ki a koutou katoa. Whakarongo mai te iwi Māori, ko tēnei te rā whakahirahira, whakanui puta noa i tō tātou motu. Huri ana, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou.

[And so I stand here to acknowledge you all broadly. I want you the Māori people to take heed. This is a significant and important day for us throughout our country. So greetings and greetings to you throughout, and greetings indeed to all of us. Thank you all.]

Tēnā koutou katoa. I am very pleased to follow my colleague the Hon Dover Samuels, and I agree with him that this is a great day for Māori, but it is also a good day for this House, as well. I do not think we should ever forget that these things come to pass because, ultimately, some people in this Parliament see the rightness of doing these sorts of things. We do not have to pat ourselves on the back, but we need to remind New Zealanders that in making these things come to pass on their behalf, we set ourselves apart in the world for dealing in a very open and honest way with issues that are quite difficult, and we have seen some of the difficulty occur in recent times.

I want to acknowledge the leadership that concluded the fisheries settlement of 1992, because it is that settlement that is the basis of the legislation before us today. Obviously, I cannot name all of the leaders who were involved, but there are, first of all, two who have passed on whom I want to name—Sir Robert Māhuta and the Hon Matiu Rata. I understand that, along with Sir Tīpene O’Regan, they were the leading negotiators on the Māori side.

On the political side, I think we are probably all quite chuffed to see in the House this afternoon the Hon Koro Wētere, the Hon Doug Kidd, and the Hon Doug Graham. They are sitting there like the trifecta. I suppose they have reason to feel a little bit pleased, as well. I understand that politics were not an issue at the time that they were negotiating the fisheries settlement with Māori, and I kind of think that it might have been quite good to be around at that time because these days politics is the only issue is it not? I want to acknowledge those gentlemen.

Clearly, political leadership on both sides of the House made sure that that Māori fisheries settlement was concluded, and it is political leadership today that makes sure that this legislation is passed through into law.

During the Committee stage National was certainly unhappy with the legislation as it stands, but there is a good reason that we support it. My colleagues have already referred to that, and I referred to those things in my first reading speech. It is in relation to a recognition that was there in 1992. It was an issue of settling the past and re-uniting Māori with their property right in the fish. However, this asset represents a huge economic go-forward plank for Māori, and if it does that for Māori, then it does it for the country as a whole.

One of the things we can give some credit to Te Ohu Kai Moana for is the way it has managed the assets in the meantime. We have now reached the stage where Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, Sealord’s, is a major player in the sector. It is recognised nationally and internationally. Now that the assets are to be allocated in part to their rightful owners, Māori, and the other part to a conglomerate sitting at the top in the form of a big company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, then we can only hope that the economic potential that was recognised in 1992 will, indeed, be realised once this framework that the legislation sets out is put into place.

But I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing major disappointment that after 11 years or so of a forum finding a way to allocate these significant assets, we have a framework here that National believes is overly bureaucratic; it is convoluted to some degree, more so than is necessary, it separates the true owners, Māori, from their asset by about six layers, and my colleague Phil Heatley referred to the fact that as introduced the legislation created a huge number of hoops for Māori people to jump through, without a corresponding accountability lying in either Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd or Te Ohu kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Work in the select committee has improved that, but to my mind the bill is essentially still a disappointment.

Yes, the commission has obviously worked hard, and so have Māori. Sure, there has been a lot of litigation in 11 years. The stakes are high, but after all of that, we still come to a framework that probably resembles a framework that one would expect a Labour Party policy team to put together, rather than Māori.

As I say, the assets must go out. I am certain that that is why, in the end, Māori were willing to make the compromise they did, because they knew that those assets must go to them. It is just a pity that a significant proportion of the assets will still be tied up with this sort of central controlling body. My colleagues are right in the sense that this will probably come back to us, because Māori will want to be set free. It is a little bit of a cage that they have been put into here. It is like they have been treated as though they are witless. Clearly, they are not. There is a huge booming Māori economy out there that should suggest to the Labour Government that the kind of framework that holds Māori back to this degree is not appropriate. In any event, it is a good day in the sense that there is the potential for the creation of economic wealth and economic prosperity, and that is why we support the bill.

Ā, e kore e mutu ngā mihi ki a rātou mā kua huri ki tua o te ārai, heke iho mai ki a tātou e huihui mai nei i tēnei rangi, ā, tēnā tātou katou.

[The acknowledgments to those who have passed on and indeed to us gathered here today will never end, so greetings to us all.]

I rise to speak to the third reading and the passing of the Maori Fisheries Bill. This legislation puts to rest over 10 years of dispute and consultation amongst iwi and Māori. It is probably the most significant legislation to be passed into law in the last 100 years, and it heralds a new way forward. Not all Māori will be happy with the outcome, but then, not all Māori supported the settlement. None the less, all Māori should benefit from the business and activity of fishing that this legislation will effect.

A moment of history was reached in 1992, but most certainly events leading to that point should be a poignant memory for all New Zealanders who saw the beginning of a real desire to just get on with it. Much of the debate today is academic. The fisheries settlement was about real people, real fish, real benefits going back to iwi, and going forward.

I acknowledge here today the Hon Koro Wētere, the Hon Doug Kidd, and the Hon Doug Graham. They have many stories to tell tonight, and I am sure we will hear a lot of them. I also acknowledge the original negotiators, some of whom have been mentioned. Those who are here today include Sir Tipene O’Regan and Sir Graham Latimer. I also acknowledge those who not here today—significantly, the late Hon Matiu Rata and the late Robert Māhuta, my father. Their efforts have not been in vain, and their vision is, as it was when it was achieved, timeless: to see a strong economic platform for Māori advancement and development.

One of the more contentious issues in the legislation was the provision for the disaggregation of iwi and their quota. That matter was raised by submitters, and, after a great deal of consideration, the committee agreed to such measures. However, it should be noted that it will be a challenge in an already fractious political environment for Māori and iwi organisations to retain, and maintain, collective fisheries interests in larger groupings. I anticipate that much effort will go into retaining collective interests, and accountability standards will certainly go up to meet the needs of tribal members, and that is how it should be. The select committee process, in particular, was a genuine attempt to work through the issues of iwi recognition, accountability of corporate entities and mandated iwi organisations back to tribal members, and intergenerational retention of property rights, all of which are contained within the legislation.

Particular thanks should go to the Ministry of Fisheries’ advisers, led by Terry Lynch, to the clerk of the committee, to Parliamentary Counsel Office, to Briar Gordon, whose work was invaluable, and to our independent adviser, Tim Castle, who helped the committee get its head around the issues presented in the legislation. There was constructive debate across, and along, the table about some of the real contentious issues, but the desire really just to see Māori get on with it and do things for themselves, was genuine. I particularly acknowledge members of the Opposition, because, without their constructive input and support, we would not have reached a number of the conclusions that we came to—namely, Phil Heatley, Georgina te Heuheu, and Pita Paraone. The genuine attempt to get to something just to kick it off could not have been achieved without that type of support. I also acknowledge Larry Baldock.

I am sure that the ebb and flow of the tide will present many challenges to Te Ohu Kai Moana in its new revamped form, its fisheries companies, and the iwi fisheries companies. And so we have it—a waka ready to be launched so the new net can go fishing. In time, I look forward to when the safety ropes can be taken off.

He iti anō tāku mō tēnei kaupapa kei mua i a tātou i tēnei wā, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[This is just my little contribution towards the bill before us today, so greetings to all of us.]

Maori Fisheries Bill read a third time.