Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his answer. What was interesting is in previous contributions, post that momentous event known as the election, there had been comments that had been made by the Minister in the House that related to a willingness to engage with stakeholders around wishing to progress particular changes by way of amendment or not. So my question to the Minister is whether or not that engagement with stakeholders took place or whether those were words that Ministers were able to say but weren’t able to fulfil; if so, what is the nature of the engagement with specific stakeholders that has led to the path of not seeking any change to clauses 25 and 37?

Obviously, my officials did engage, but at the end of the day, judgment has to be exercised. Yes, an engagement did take place with representatives from the representative Māori organisations, but I have zero interest, both as a Māori parliamentarian and as a former chair of this organisation, to see those debates, that level of discord brought from recent Māori history into this Chamber.

Can I turn to the proposed new section 162, which, effectively, provides rules or criteria around mandated iwi organisations in relation to actions related to the ability to sell settlement quota, noting that that would only take place under the new section 162 if the constitutional documents expressly allowed that the sale of the settlement quota was to take place, but also that the transaction would be in line with what was outlined in the specific requirements of the organisations’ constitutional documents.

So my question to the Minister is whether he believes that that goes far enough and whether or not there should have been any time frames associated with those when looking at the specific action of a transfer or sale of settlement quota, but also what was contained in constitutional documents that would be held by the relevant organisation.

The member’s identified quite an important area in this full and final settlement. Upon what basis should iwi be entitled to alienate their full and final quota legacy and upon who should it be made available?

The kaupapa, if I can put it like that, was laid down in the original legislation. What is proposed here is to ensure that it can happen efficiently, but there was an injunction and a desire that we not see the dissolution or the dissipation of this full and final settlement right back to 1992. This bill does nothing to weaken that injunction.

I thank the Minister for his comments in response to that specific question. I think it is very helpful for the committee, so I do thank him for that.

One of the aspects of this piece of legislation—and I’m trying to take your earlier advice, sir, of being interactive with the Minister, so I don’t intend to take a lengthy course, but perhaps a few questions to come—is around the independent nature of a review that might be undertaken. This review was undertaken back in March 2015. It seems to, on face value, and perhaps in practice, have been rather collaborative in terms of the involvement, although it has taken some time. My question for the Minister is on the nature of reviews moving forward. How does he see this piece of legislation as informing whether the regularity of reviews would be questioned or not, where they would fall, and whether it’s an independent nature of the review, and, if so, in what circumstances it would be independent or otherwise?

In the past, there was a South Island member of Parliament who became a Minister. He was a vet—largely incomprehensible, but his name was Dr Pete Hodgson. I understand he’s recently been guiding the development of the Dunedin Hospital, but I’ll leave that story to speak for itself.

Mr Pete—he was a doctor; a vet—Dr Hodgson. Pete Hodgson, after engagement and lobbying from Ngāi Tahu in the form of the late Tahu Potiki settled upon a 12-year period for an operational review of Te Ohu Kaimoana, something that the chairman of that time was deeply opposed to, but the sovereignty of Parliament outstripped the ambitions of Māori organisations, something I hope to see visited upon the Waitangi Tribunal in short order, but that’s another matter.

The reference to the review—yes, it was called operational. It has led to major—well, it has led to significant restructuring. It is my hope that future reviews are infrequent, not costly, and focus on boosting economic resilience and ensuring that the legacy remains intact for the mokopuna.

Mr Chair, thank you. One of the most significant changes that this bill would enact, and what the committee considered very carefully in the detail of it, is how it is appropriate to change the powers to appoint Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. I want to invite the Minister to comment on the current state of the appointment of Te Ohu Kai Moana directors and then, in his view, how this legislation will change the appointment going forward, and to give an assurance to this committee that the independence and capability of the directors will be of a high standard given the law change.

Te Ohu Kai Moana, when it was created, was built around an electoral college, and there was a sense that that diminished the right of iwi to directly participate in the governance direction, the governance nomination, and the governance voting process. That particular innovation was designed to prevent rivalry and to bring some stability to the iwi community lying behind Te Ohu Kai Moana—a wee bit, I presume, like the nominations committee, which I unwisely agreed to in an earlier Government, of the Climate Change Commission. But that’s another matter. So this is an attempt to reflect a better institutional expression of rangatiratanga, where there is direct influence enjoyed by iwi and, as I’m sure they will say, not through the sieve of an electoral college.

Mr Chair, thank you. I take the Minister’s response around the nature of reviews being timely and frequent, cost is a factor, and resilience and economic productivity being increased as well. There is a suggestion with this piece of legislation that when reviews are undertaken, it’s at a time that is between seven and 10 years post enactment of the legislation, as is the case in relation to special resolutions that some organisations that are iwi-mandated may have, as is the case. So I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with that as a time frame, or whether the suggestion of a default period kicking in post-enactment is something that he might be more interested in.

Can I also ask the Minister this: the House has, obviously, arrived at this point after a lot of work over a lot of time, and if there are any future proposed changes to this bill, either in theory or in practice, does he commit to ensuring that that follows a similar process, albeit timely, rather than it appearing in an omnibus bill, or something similar like that, in terms of addressing some of these issues which might arise in the short to medium term without it being just sort of swept in, so to speak.

That’s an uncharacteristically shrewd observation. I think that the point is well made. This was a National settlement, and it should be subject to a collaborative approach by all parties in the House because we all have a vested interest, given the great drama, promise, and compromise that was entered into at the time that this settlement was enacted. So to the extent that I can provide satisfaction to the member, I probably can provide that level of satisfaction for maybe nine to 12 years.

I very much thank the Minister for that level of satisfaction that he has, and also it’s good to hear on this side of the Chamber, as well. But my final question for the Minister is around the commencement—since we’ve taken this all as one—and there is obviously feedback that the two-year time frame post - Royal assent for commencement is ideal in order to give time for the relevant changes and amendments to be made. My final question is whether the Minister believes that that two-year time frame is sufficient, and, if not, why not?

As these exchanges draw to a close, I think the member is demonstrating a growing skill in protracting debates where perhaps there’s no substance. If only the earlier speaker on immigration had showed such shrewdness as he’s got.

Well, that’s an observation for the Chair, I’d point out to the honourable Minister.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 33 and his tabled amendment be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.