Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Te Iwi Māori have extensive interests and rights throughout the motu in terms of holding financial and commercial stakes in the fishing industry—nigh on 40 percent of annual catch entitlement for fish stocks in our quota management system. The bill, which we address in the context of the third reading this evening, is a small contribution to a magnificent suite of options that I have the privilege of bringing to improve fisheries management in New Zealand. Much more will follow. However, tonight this bill assigns to Māoridom a greater autonomy over their fisheries assets. It’s designed to boost productivity and efficiency.

It needs to be said that this bill reflects considerable input from iwi, traceable back, as I’ve said in an earlier contribution to the House, to the Tim Castle report of 2014-15, which itself was traceable back to the passage of legislation 12 years earlier. That was designed to enable the fisheries commission to undertake an operational review. After a number of years having passed, the product of that review is this particular piece of legislation.

It enables the mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Limited (AFL). It changes governance arrangements of the settlement entities to make them consistent with each other in standard governance practices. It cancels voting shares in AFL and converts those income shares to ordinary shares which will be allocated to mandated iwi organisations, and it simplifies the process for trading within the Māori pool quota and other such interests.

Naturally, we must acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and those who have contributed to the development of the bill: mandated iwi organisations, recognised iwi organisations, and representative Māori organisations, who took their time to make contributions to the bill. The latter category of Māori organisation caused some whitewater. However, it needs to be noted, from the very beginning of the Māori fisheries journey, representative Māori organisations, colloquially known as urban Māori organisations, have been a part of the infrastructure. That will continue as a consequence of this bill.

I also want to recognise the trustee of the fisheries settlement for driving this kaupapa. In another life, I was not a supporter, but circumstances change and roles have to be fulfilled.

On the matter of changing the electoral college, which was created as an intermediate step enabling the 60- or 70-odd iwi to appoint and remove directors, this now moves to a direct level of responsibility between the various iwi and the peak body—you could say it shortens the distance. Some submitters expressed concern that the changes would diminish the role of representative Māori organisations. That concern has been addressed without fatally wounding the importance of iwi organisations in the future governance of this important organisation.

There may or may not be future reviews of the Act. As the bill introduced provides for such a thing to take place, some submitters were concerned that such reviews could be undertaken by default. But when those reviews do take place, it’s important that independent reviewers are involved and that the ability to continue with such activity is legally mandated. However, such a level of review will now only take place when iwi pass a special resolution not to hold a review.

On the basis of the change to require the Crown to take all reasonable steps within its authority to introduce the bill, I am happy to share with the House that we are at the final stages. On the matter of issues related and changes in the committee of the whole House, I draw our attention to increase the time frame by which Māori iwi organisations can lease their annual quota entitlement. Historically it’s been five years. It has been changed, and that is to enable Māori iwi organisations to achieve the full potential over a different period of time in terms of the utilisation of such rights.

I think it’s important—given that we’ve had a historic day with the Whakatōhea settlement and we have addressed one of the more modest settlements in Hauraki—to acknowledge that there’s still much more to be done in the area of Māori fisheries. Although Māori are key contributors to the fishery, no single stakeholder’s interests are beyond the importance of the sustainability of the actual resource. There is a host of opportunities for the various iwi to engage with the civil service to ensure that the perspectives and priorities that different iwi have—whether it’s Ngāi Tahu, concerned about the change in the temperature of the water, the migration of the delicacy of the Tai Tokerau otherwise known as tāmure or snapper now down around—perish the thought!—Greymouth. This reminds us that the changes being made today place a duty on Te Ohu Kai Moana to be a fair, legitimate, and tenacious advocate for Māori, because, whether we like it or not, this resource is facing huge challenges, challenges driven through climate change, challenges driven through technology, but, most importantly, challenges to the very social licence that underpins fisheries. Sadly, a host of those challenges, from time to time, are driven by falsehoods and misinformation, but the responsibility to correct that now lies with the peak bodies, of whom this Te Ohu Kai Moana entity is one.

If iwi want to enjoy greater control over the affairs related to their investments in fisheries, they need to be proactive. They need a strong organisation that they feel they have control and authority over. But change and improvement will not come in the absence of quality information, constant vigilance, and ongoing advocacy. That is the challenge in a post-settlement environment for iwi organisations and their stewardship in terms of our natural resources. I am confident that this bill is a significant step towards enabling iwi to enjoy rangatiratanga in that context and increase the productivity of that full and final settlement, which was entered into in 1992 in the days of Jim Bolger. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will adjourn, and resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.