Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. Members, we start with the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

For purposes of clarification, this bill reflects a desire of the owners of the Māori fisheries endowment to make amendments to the parent legislation. It’s traceable back to legislation that was passed in this House in the Helen Clark Government, based on a settlement that originally was entered into by the Jim Bolger Government in 1992. Several years ago, a lawyer by the name of Tim Castle was hired for the princely sum of $600,000 to undertake a review of the operations of Te Ohu Kai Moana. That was then subject to a variety of negotiations and consultations and meetings within te ao Māori.

So I want to draw the attention of the committee that a Supplementary Order Paper—otherwise known, I’m told now, as an Amendment Paper—lies on the Table. It will have the effect of improving the commerciality of how quota is used to meet the interests of the Māori fishing companies who desire a longer period of time to use less quota, to boost jobs and give greater certainty. The effect of the bill will be to give a greater sense of autonomy back to the many iwi and their level of influence over the central governance body, otherwise known as Te Ohu Kai Moana.

I’m advised and I faithfully pray that this is accurate, that it will improve efficiency. That all lies in the future. There are several areas where consultation was entered into, and that pertains to the role of representative Māori organisations. Sadly, it reprises a historic debate that caused a great deal of disharmony in the 1990s between the various traditional iwi and more modern aggregations of Māori society, otherwise known as urban Māori groups. There’s no consensus on this matter, so I have proceeded on the assumption that we will be relying upon the report that came back from the select committee. Although I have to say to people who may be concerned about that that Māori urban authorities, otherwise known as representative Māori organisations, have always been a part of the infrastructure of this piece of legislation.

The Amendment Paper, I repeat again, is a positive addition, improving the prospects of iwi and their companies using quota, without triggering any constitutional provisions that might cause people to doubt as to whether or not it’s a lease or an alienation. Naturally, I do acknowledge the work that the select committee did. Although this is a technical range of amendments, it does build on a historic settlement, 1992, entered into between Māoridom, led by Sir Graham Latimer, Sir Bob Mahuta, the Hon Matiu Rata, and Sir Tipene O’Regan—only one of those four totara trees is still with us—and Doug Graham, Doug Kidd, and Mr Bolger.

So I reiterate that the changes incorporated in the Amendment Paper are of a relatively modest commercial nature, but the bill does build on a report that was tabled and completed several years ago. The bill has been through the select committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you to Minister Jones, who has provided some clarity around his intentions for this committee stage, keeping us on our toes—we were wondering whether he would come to the House tonight with some more amendments. But as the chair of the previous Māori Affairs Committee, I’m happy to hear that it is his intention to proceed with the bill as it is now.

My only question about the preamble is that, you know, members of this House who have been here for as long as I have—I’m in my second term—will not have engaged in the committee stage, but the preamble is the first part of the debate. I want to ask the Minister whether that is because this legislation was drafted around the time—2015, I believe—when the independent review was conducted. And perhaps the Minister could comment on why it has taken this long for the legislation to reach the House, given that the independent review was conducted in 2015?

During the period of time 2017, 2020, this bill did not enjoy a level of urgency or priority. It, obviously, fell to the recently departed Government that it should be expedited. I have inherited that role and I am moving it forward.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to the preamble be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question is that the preamble as amended stand part.

Preamble as amended agreed to.

Part 1 Amendments to Preamble, Title, and Parts 1 to 6