Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2)

E Te Māngai, tēnā koutou katoa e Te Whare. I want to make it clear at the outset that National supports this bill and in fact, as the MP for the East Coast, I support this bill. I want to compliment Ngāti Porou for their patience for over more than a decade, because they were the only group to sign any sort of agreement under the infamous Foreshore and Seabed Act back in 2004, and they generously renegotiated that under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, and we are now seeing that proceed through the committee here today.

The purpose of the bill, of course, is to recognise the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou, and I absolutely support that. However, they are not the only people to be fishing in the waters off Ngāti Porou land. Some of those other fishers did make their submissions when the Māori Affairs Committee came to Gisborne to hear the submissions on the bill, and they still have concerns about a couple of things still contained in the bill. I did write to Minister Little, who’s in charge of this bill, and I want to pay my respects to him. I understand he’s lost his mother, and having just lost my father recently I know how traumatic that is, and I send him and his family our very best wishes for him at this very difficult time.

But today I want to place the voice of the Tai Rāwhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association before this committee for consideration. As I said, I wrote to the Minister with their concerns, making some suggestions about some minor changes to the bill that would clarify some of the concerns that they have about their commercial fishing quota and their ability to fish in those waters that are now contained within this bill in front of the committee. I’ve turned their concerns into a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), which are in front of the committee—SOPs 237, 238, and 236. I understand that SOP 236 is probably going to be ruled out of order, because Parliament can only tweak Treaty bills; it cannot change them, and SOP 236 changes it. I appreciate the Standing Orders and want to abide by them.

So if I go to SOP 237, the association wrote to me making the suggestion that the select committee had made a change to clause 13 of the bill, which further weakened the protection of the existing fishing rights, particularly when it’s taken in conjunction with the amendments that the select committee made to clause 51, which is in Subpart 5 of Part 2. They say that by including the reference in clause 13 to Subpart 5 of Part 2, the committee has then placed an additional exception to the preservation of fishing rights in section 28 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which was not in the previous iteration of the bill. So, in other words, when the bill went out for public submissions, when they had a look at it, came and made their submissions, the bill they felt at that stage had given them adequate protection. Subsequently, the select committee have made some changes that the association is concerned no longer give them those protections. They say it weakens the protection of commercial fishing rights by adding a new exception to the section 28 preservation, inconsistent with section 28(2) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which provides that commercial fishing rights are only subject to wāhi tapu under section 81.

So, when read together with clause 13(1)(b), they maintain that the protection of existing fishing rights is weakened and the potential for considerable complexity is created for commercial fishers in areas that might have different and much more restrictive regulations. So I have an SOP on the Table that returns the bill to the original that was presented there in Gisborne, that the rock lobster industry, which is a considerable industry in the economics of the Gisborne region, made submissions on. So that’s the first SOP and the first change that I put before the committee on their behalf.

The second SOP, SOP 238, is slightly different, but again it’s about making sure there’s consistency with existing rules, regulations, and laws, and in this case it’s about the process of making fisheries bylaws. Under the bill, commercial fishing can be prohibited and can be restricted by making fisheries bylaws, and no one disagrees with that; that’s the whole point of preserving the mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou. Under the existing regime, in the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998, establishing a mātaitai reserve and making bylaws in a mātaitai reserve, the Minister must approve a mātaitai reserve if he or she is satisfied that it will not prevent persons with a commercial interest in the species taking their quota entitlement or their annual catch entitlement within the quota management area for that species. So, in other words, the Minister, when making that decision, has to ensure that those existing quota rights within that area—in this case, it’s Cray 3—are not prohibited.

The concern that the association have now is that whilst this bill protects their catch and the totality of their catch within the rohe that is covered by this bill, it doesn’t actually protect where they are able to fish when creating a mātaitai reserve. So SOP 238 puts into two clauses—clause 49 and clause 84—a new section that says: “(A) after the Minister satisfies the relevant requirements in the deed of agreement; and (B) only if the Minister is satisfied that it will not prevent persons with a commercial interest in the species taking their quota entitlement or annual catch entitlement within the quota management area for that species;”. So that is putting into this bill the same considerations that were there previously in the kai moana customary fishing regulations.

They are small changes that do not change in any way the totality of what we are doing here with this bill for the hapū of Ngāti Porou, but it is also putting on the table the ability of quite a significant industry that already has quota that they use in some of the areas that could be affected that the original writer of the bill, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, assures us was intended to protect their rights. These SOPs are just making sure, if the committee will agree, that those rights are well protected, so that the two—because they do actually get on really well. They work very closely together—the association and Ngāti Porou fisheries—so they can continue to work in harmony once this bill proceeds through its third reading in the House.

So I repeat again that I do support the bill. I think Ngāti Porou have been exceptionally patient and generous in renegotiating this bill. The terms of it are most acceptable. It will be a first, I think, for the country under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, and Ngāti Porou deserve that, but we just want to make sure that we are not overriding the protection of quite a significant industry in the Tai Rāwhiti area. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Chair, thank you for this opportunity. If I can, I too express our condolences to the Hon Andrew Little and echo the words of the Hon Anne Tolley—and also ours to her and her family, too.

The Māori Affairs Committee reported back the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) to this House on 14 November 2018 and recommended it be passed subject to a few amendments set out in that report. Since then, a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has been proposed which, on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, we’d like to discuss briefly. This SOP is SOP 233. It proposes a number of minor technical corrections to Schedules 2 and 4 of the bill. The corrections relate to geographical coordinates for hapū management areas and structures respectively.

In accordance with the 2008 deed of agreement signed between Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown, it is necessary for the seaward coordinates for hapū management areas to proceed outwards from their landward marks at an angle of 90 degrees to the 12-mile territorial limit. Some of the coordinates presently set out in Schedule 2 of the bill define areas where the resulting lines are not exactly 90 degrees, with the result that the individual hapū management areas narrow slightly as they progress seaward. This SOP amends a select number of coordinates in Schedule 2 of the bill so that they are exactly 90 degrees, or due east.

Schedule 4 sets out the coordinates of a number of structures, including boat ramps, culverts, and launch markers. When the coordinates for these structures were originally surveyed in 2008, the technology at the time was not as accurate as it is today. This SOP takes the opportunity to update the coordinates in Schedule 4 to conform with the World Geodetic System 1984, which is now the internationally recognised system for GPS devices. On behalf of the Minister, I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for its thoroughness in ensuring the accuracy of the legislation passed by this House.

We look forward to hosting Ngāti Porou in the very near future, on Thursday, 23 May, for the third reading of this bill. I commend the bill to the committee of the whole House with the minor technical changes proposed in SOP 233.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 233 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley be agreed to.

The Hon Anne Tolley’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill and as it would be inconsistent with the deed of agreement.

Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.