Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to have a call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

I note from the select committee report that there were quite a few submissions on clause 4—in particular, to widen the definition of what defines a relevant iwi, and that was to include hapū and whānau in its interpretation. When I read clause 4, it says, “In section 4, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: relevant iwi, in relation to an allocation of assets, means those iwi in a region who, in the trustee’s opinion, are directly affected by the allocation”. I think to say that is a broad definition is a pretty fair statement. That doesn’t really define it at all. All it actually means is it swings completely on the trustee’s opinion. There is no direction to the trustee. It is merely their opinion and yet it was quite clearly an intention from submitters to have a wider definition to allow iwi and hapū. So my question to the Minister is: is the advice that that definition does, in fact, include whānau and hapū in that definition or what does it actually mean, and is the potential here for actually muddying the waters—no pun intended—quite substantially in that this could, in fact, cause more claims to be lodged in the future as a result of the opaqueness of this particular clause? So I really look forward to hearing from the Minister.

The question is that clauses 1 to 8 stand part.

Responding to the member, the bill is as it went to select committee. It came back without amendment because the select committee, having heard all of the submissions, thought that no amendment to it was necessary. The member is correct in the reading of amended section 4, set out in clause 4. As he says, it defines relevant iwi in relation to the allocation of assets being “those iwi in the region who, in the trustee’s opinion, are directly affected by the allocation” and I don’t understand there to be any change in the way in which subgroupings with Māori are being dealt with in respect of their settlement of Māori commercial aquaculture claims in that regard.

The bill is very simple and narrow in that it is trying to create a mechanism where iwi within a region have reached agreement as to what is an appropriate settlement for them, and Te Ohu Kai Moana agree—everyone agrees—but there is an inability to reach unanimity within a region because there may be, for example, an unsettled iwi. There is agreement amongst Māoridom that that circumstance ought not to prevent settled iwi whose entitlement is uncontroversial from receiving it, and so this bill attempts to remedy that problem and doesn’t change those underlying relationships.

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.