Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 94, “Amendments to Preamble, Title, and Parts 1 to 6”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Kia orana, Mr Chair, and it’s a pleasure to take a call and to engage with the Minister on some of these issues—like my colleague Arena Williams. The preamble, which exists in terms of before the committee, is something that is new to, I think, many members in the committee in terms of being available for debate.

But I want to acknowledge, first, that this is, as we know, a bill that has taken a number of years to get here; that many Ministers have had this in front of them, and I congratulate the current Minister on having this landed on his lap and being able to bring it back to the House—albeit post the select committee of the previous Parliament—to progress some of the changes. I do want to very briefly just acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—that was very apparent that it was constructive and supportive as a process.

There is an Amendment Paper in the Minister’s name, and no doubt we will come to them, but at this stage I do want to signal to the Minister that the Labour Party will be providing general support for the amendments that are suggested in his name.

But when I reflect on the second reading debate, there was a lot of commentary on suggestions around clause 37 and clause 25. The two clauses that they relate to: 37 is the nature of representative Māori organisations and effectively the voting capacity. Whereas clause 25, which is in Part 1, relates more specifically to the ability for there to be specific involvement for a representative Māori organisation around votes and decision making that relate to the number of directors on the board; the relativity around the appointment of directors, specific or otherwise; but also they relate to the potential removal of a director or directors.

The National Party differing view sought changes to those two clauses, and so my question to the Minister is: what has changed in his mind where there are no amendments that have been tabled or seem to be willing to be progressed at committee stage in light of that? So that’s the first question I have for the Minister.

The member raises a very good point. What has changed since the point of that select committee proceeding and today? A momentous event called an election.

Point of order. I seek leave to take all provisions as one question.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There’s no objection.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 to 3