Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present a legislative statement on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I move, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

In the spirit of bipartisanship that seems to have broken out on the eve of Easter, I would like to start by congratulating the former chair, Arena Williams, and the previous Māori Affairs Committee members for the bipartisan support and constructive participation taken in considering this bill. I appreciate the time and effort the committee has taken to understand this bill and the complexities of the Māori fisheries framework. I also want to acknowledge all the submitters who took time to express their views on this bill. Finally, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry for Primary Industries officials that contributed to this bill.

The changes in this bill are a result of extensive input from iwi. This conversation began in 2015 with an independent review of the Māori Fisheries Act. Iwi were consulted with from across the country to understand the desirable pathway forward for Māori. Te Ohu Kaimoana then engaged further with iwi in 2016 and 2017 and iwi voted on a suite of resolutions. This bill gives effect to the resolutions iwi voted for.

Broadly, the bill provides for mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, changing Government arrangements of the settlement entities and to make them consistent with each other and standard governance practices, cancellation of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd voting shares, and conversion of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd income shares to ordinary shares—those shares will be allocated to mandated iwi organisations and it will simplify the process for trading within the Māori share pool.

Together, these changes give iwi more control over their fishery assets, improve benefits for all Māori, and improve efficiency. Ten submissions were received on the bill from iwi, the settlement trustee Te Ohu Kaimoana, and individuals. Six submitters presented their views in person. Almost all submitters supported the bill but recommended minor and technical changes. These changes have been taken on board and a total of 21 changes were recommended by officials, that were all accepted by the select committee.

The bill proposes to remove the current electoral college system for appointing and removing directives of Te Ohu Kaimoana. Instead, iwi will directly appoint and remove directors on a one vote per iwi basis. Some submitters expressed concern that the proposed changes would diminish the role of representative Māori organisations, or RMOs. Select committee responded to these concerns and updated the bill to provide RMOs with voting rights. However, the settlement trustees considered that this goes against what iwi voted for through the review of the Act. Given the lack of consensus on this matter, I intend to consult with affected groups before proceeding to the committee of the whole House stage. I have discussed it with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, who agrees with this approach.

I also intend to make minor amendments to the bill to extend the framework policing the annual catch entitlements from five to 10 years. This change, alongside what already is in the bill, will help ensure that Māori fishers are able to access capital to improve their fleets and have greater autonomy over the fisheries asset and business decisions. The bill provides for further review of the Act to take place within seven to 10 years of this bill being enacted if a special resolution is passed by iwi. Some submitters considered they should be undertaken by default. Independent reviews are important to ensure the governance arrangements remain fit for purpose and continue to deliver benefits to Māori. Given their importance, a change has been made to make independent reviews mandatory unless iwi pass a special resolution not to hold a review.

Submitters also commented on the slow time frame for implementing the review recommendations, which were presented to the then Minister in 2017. Submitters recommended including a provision for the bill to ensure future reviews are not this drawn out. On this basis, a change has been made to require the Crown to take all reasonable steps within its authority to introduce a bill to the House within three years of Te Ohu Kaimoana presenting iwi recommendations to the Minister.

The bill also proposes to implement a compulsory levy for Te Ohu Kaimoana that can be triggered in the future if required. Mandated iwi organisations, or MIOs, can request a levy for any reason or Te Ohu Kaimoana can request a levy if they are satisfied it is needed for them to carry out their duties. MIOs would need to approve a levy request by a simple majority vote.

The Regulations Review Committee submitted that a delegated power to set levies is generally considered to be legislative and should, therefore, create secondary legislation. This is so that the safeguards that apply to secondary legislation would apply to the levy. On the committee’s recommendation, the bill has been amended to specify that the resolution to adopt a levy would be secondary legislation for the purpose of the Legislation Act 2019.

I want to conclude by again thanking those who contributed to the development of this bill. It is great to see this important kaupapa progressed to this stage. I look forward to debating the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. That speech started out so well, where he acknowledged the work that has gone in at the select committee stage, with the Māori Affairs Committee coming together to work on a long overdue piece of legislation, because the Associate Minister of Agriculture is right when he says this is a long time coming. In fact, the independent review started in March 2015, and has not been resolved until now. And who are the people that that hurts? That hurts people who need these resources, which are passed on to them through the fisheries settlement, which they are entitled to. It hurts the organisations and the businesses that are trying to get ahead in New Zealand’s agriculture industry and make something of the plentiful natural resources that we have. And so it’s important that this is resolved.

It could be resolved now, but instead, unfortunately, we’ve heard in the speech today that there will probably be an amendment moved at the committee of the whole House stage, which the select committee has not seen and cannot be a part of forming the right kind of legislation, going forward. That is a real shame because I think where we got to in the select committee stage was the right balance between the role of representative Māori organisations (RMOs), the role of iwi organisations within the structure that has been created by the legislation that sits underneath it, and what is pretty heavy duty corporate structuring and took the committee a number of weeks to really grapple with about the implications of changing at the legislative level. So now we’re back to the drawing board, essentially, and I am disappointed by that because I think we had really struck the right policy considerations.

But that doesn’t stop members in the Opposition from supporting it at this stage, because this is much needed. There are powers in here, like clarifying the levy-making powers, which are really overdue and need to be made immediately if the organisations are able to continue in the way that we need them to, to be able to realise the value of not only the original fisheries settlement but a number of other settlements which have occurred in the time since.

This bill also makes a number of changes to the statute which then empower the underlying documents. These are—you know, there’s trust documents. There is also the limited partnership, which manages Aotearoa Fisheries assets within the different iwi structures that have bought into it, which need this empowering legislation to be updated so that it can maintain its business in the way that it has already organised it.

There is this matter that we will be traversing in the committee stage with the Minister, which we weren’t prepared to traverse today because we have only just heard about it in the previous contribution. It is about clauses 37 and 25, which enable representatives from Māori organisations, or RMOs, to vote, appoint, remove, and determine the number of Ko Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. That is really key to what I think the Minister was setting out for us, and so we will need to understand that. I would invite the Minister to work collaboratively with myself and with my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking on how he might arrive at something which is long term, which is something that all sides of the House can live with, to ensure that there is adequate representation around the table.

I welcome his promise that he will be working with stakeholder settlement trusts, when that had, in fact, been done by the Government before introduction at the first reading of this bill. But, nevertheless, more consultation is good consultation in this kind of area, where people’s assets and investments that have already been made are committed. With that, I tentatively commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. I, like my Labour colleague, am a little bit flustered because it’s certainly a change of news and approach that I was going to take with this kauwhau tonight, because we have been on a long journey—we’ve been on a really long journey—and reflecting on the works of our ancestors, our tūpuna, and confirming the Māori fisheries settlement in 1992, then looking to amend and consult, and since 2015, we are now at a standstill again.

In 2015, the consultation on these amendments commenced. And I reflect on the then chair of Te Ohu Kaimoana, Jamie Tuuta, who as Te Ohu Kaimoana chair came to this Government and said, in 2017, “We’re nearly ready to go”—because we had undertaken extensive consultation, extensive consultation, to get to a point where they were ready to submit to this House these amendments. And the Māori Affairs Committee did the work. The Māori Affairs Committee did the work and heard the submissions. Now, as a former CEO of a mandated iwi organisation, I appreciate what the Māori fisheries settlement has done for te Iwi Māori and know the transformation that it’s provided in an asset base that we are able to grow and sustain our people.

So these amendments here, I believed, we believed, at its first reading last year—the Green Party stood in support, seeking for it to go to the select committee and receive further submissions. We supported this amendment because it was an opportunity for us to show support for iwi rangatiratanga. That’s the basis of these changes: to enable iwi to appoint and govern this fisheries asset together, according to their own tikanga. I am frustrated because we’re 32 years on since the settlement in 1992, and we are nearing a space whereby the Government engaged with Te Ohu Kaimoana, and Te Ohu Kaimoana went out to the Mandated Iwi Organisations (MIOs) and the Representative Māori Organisations (RMOs) and consulted on how to give effect to rangatiratanga, how to improve governance arrangements, how to empower Te Ohu Kaimoana, and how they can better work together to achieve the benefit back to our people. And now we are hearing we are being stalled.

We are being stalled, again, at this very late stage, considering the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, who heard the voices of iwi, they heard the voices of the RMOs, and they said, “Yes, we take on board your whakaaro and we provisionally accept what you’re saying, and we’ll amend and give recommendations back to this House.” So I was ready to come in and say, “Tautoko, tautoko mārika, tautoko this amendment to the Māori fisheries bill.” Because, as an uri of the fisheries assets, I look to support the way with which the dollar can come back to our people and empower our people in the way that it can sustain our future generations.

Simon Court: Are you supporting it?

HŪHANA LYNDON: I am absolutely supporting what we were doing today, but now that we are pausing to go out and consult further, I worry about the pause that it will have for te Iwi Māori again.

Simon Court: It’s called democracy.

HŪHANA LYNDON: This is te Iwi Māori’s opportunity to put forward something that was agreed to. They agreed and they came forward after many years of consultation—

Simon Court: You’ve still got to make the law.

HŪHANA LYNDON: If I could get my words out—because I’m getting heckled by my colleague. I’m not even here to debate with my colleagues of the House; I’m here to support te Iwi Māori, because they did the work and they came back through the Māori Affairs Committee, and the Māori Affairs Committee came to this House and gave clear recommendations. We’re here to tautoko that, we are not here to put the handbrake on Māori aspirations and Māori desires to manage the fish asset better.

So this was to improve governance arrangements. This was to empower rangatiratanga and also empower Te Ohu Kai Moana through the levy to do the good work that they do, because of course they’ve grown in the way that they do their mahi. They are key advocates and protectors of the fishery settlement, but they’re also leaders in submitting and providing iwi voice into this House.

And when we think about what we have coming forward into the future, we need to listen to the voice of iwi. Iwi have told us clearly that they support this. Te Ohu Kai Moana is the vehicle to do this. And, you know, I think about some of the challenges, because when you’re out at sea, it’s not always smooth sailing. There are rough seas ahead. While those rough seas have been many years, 2015 through to 2024, and still we can’t tutuki, still we can’t get this through in a timely, te Iwi manner, which is what the chair of Te Ohu Kai Moana of his generation, Jamie Tuuta, said to the Minister of the time, “Get this waka moving. Let’s get this legislation through fast so that we can get on with the business.” But, hang on, taihoa, wait a minute. We’re going to pause again, and we’re going to go out, and we’re going to consult some more, because we know better. Well, moumou. Moumou e hoa mā. Moumou wā. [Waste of time people, waste of time.] I look forward to telling my iwi when I go home to see them next week. No, no, no, no—

Kei te mōhio ēnei hunga o te Whare Pāremata. Kei te mōhio rātou, kāhore te iwi e mōhio ana. Kei tēnei Whare tonu tēnei mana ki te whakahē i wō koutou mahi mō wēnei tau roa. Roa te haere, roa. Nōreira, ae he mahi pōhēhē tēnei o te Kāwanatanga.

[These people of the Parliament House know. They know; the iwi don’t know. This House still has the authority to disagree with your efforts throughout this long year. It’s been very long. And so, yes, this is a misunderstanding by the Government.]

We do support this amendment as it stands and the recommendations that came through the Māori Affairs Committee. I don’t want to belabour the point, because, actually, it’s all changed, and I voice the disappointment that we are not able to move this forward at pace as per the request of our iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana to get the waka moving.

In closing—because I’m not going to waste my 10 minutes on this now—I need to regather my thoughts and talk to my people about how to consider what’s just happened. A Ngāti Awa whakataukī to close: ahatia ka pukepuke te moana, ka whakawhiti ai a Ngāti Wai. And that talks about even though when the waters get challenging and the rough seas come, Ngāti Wai will persevere. On behalf of people of the moana, I express my deep worry that we’re going to put a handbrake on this really important piece of legislation that te Iwi Māori—

Simon Court: Take it to select committee and have it out there.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —and our iwi mandated authorities—which you won’t know about. You won’t know about te Iwi Māori; you don’t know the work that our tūpuna put in.

Simon Court: Oh, I do, I do. I’ve sat on committees for three years.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, you don’t. No, you don’t.

Simon Court: Yes, I do. Yes, I do.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no, no, no. He kaimahi ahau ki roto i taku iwi [I am a worker within my iwi], and I will not—I will not—put up with that type of heckling. Nō reira e te Whare, tēnei ahau ka noho i tēnei wā. Kia ora. [And so, to the House, I will take my seat at this time. Thank you.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. We have heard that the Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill post its first reading. There was almost universal agreement by that committee for those permanent members. The bill, they said, should proceed based on submitted feedback. There were, however, a few areas where clauses were pointed out as areas of concern. Some of the committee members noted clauses 37 and 25, which they said both raised alarm, and there were suggested amendments to those—made by, obviously, the committee members.

As it stands, the bill amends the Māori Fisheries Act 2004. The bill, by its virtue, would be implemented in full and final as a settlement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for all related Māori settlement commercial fishing rights. The Act sets out a governance framework to administer and manage settlement assets on behalf of and for the benefits to iwi Māori. As part of the 2004 Act, several entities were set up for this task, not over-litigating, but Te Ohu Kai Moana Trust, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. This was a corporate trustee company, by the way, where iwi are the stakeholders. Te Wai Māori Trustee Ltd., in its enhanced Māori interest, was also part of the freshwater interests.

The original Act in 2004 had required that there be a genuine review of this process, and it was to be undertaken independently by March 2025. This review, upon its commencement and finalisation, recommended major changes, which this bill now seeks to address. Changes were suggested with both governance and administration arrangements. Te Ohu Kai Moana consulted with iwi on the review of the findings, and this amendment bill seeks to implement those changes.

The changes include changes to the entities and governance arrangements, to encourage mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, and simplify the process of trading and settlement quota assets.

As part of the select committee process, concerns were raised in relation to certain parts of the legislation that I’ve previously mentioned, namely clause 37 of the bill, which would change certain parts of section 44(2) of the original Act. Concerns were raised by some submitters about those proposed changes and how they would change the overall effect and representation of the legislation to represent the interests of Māori organisations. The committee made note of amending clause 37 and also making consequential changes to clause 25 to ensure that representative Māori organisations, most importantly, retain their role of appointing the Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. I believe these changes better reflect the concerns of submitters by determining when a vote was required or determining the number of Te Ohu Kai Moana directors.

Other changes included changes to clause 42 of the original bill, inserting new sections—sections 54A and 54H—relating to levy-making. Clarifications were also made in relation to clause 48 and 49 in relation to shares of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. This amendment changed the structure of how income shares would be converted into ordinary shares.

Some other changes also included changes to the statutory review time frames so that they could occur within five years unless other time frames were suggested. This would be on the back of a 75 percent agreed resolution by way of a vote.

I did note the National Party had a differing view earlier on and objected to some of the suggested changes by virtue of clauses 37 and 25. They noted that the Act’s purpose was to “implement agreements in the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 1992 as [was] negotiated when National was in Government”; also, to “provide for the development of the collective and individual interest of Iwi in fisheries, fishing and [fishing]-related activities”. The National Party noted there was no specific reference to the original Act or in the bill as introduced to the seven RMOs “having a right to hold settlement assets [for which] the basis of the settlement of commercial fishing claims which led to the relevant legislation.” in its formation.

However, I note that the ACT Party, as we sit here today, we agree with the ascension of this bill through its natural process. We support it in its second reading so that the bill can go to the committee stage and the House can determine, by way of democratic process, whether it should proceed as it’s currently presented. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

It’s not lost on me, and, I hope, anyone here, that as we consider this bill, we’re considering it having just put through the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act, an Act and a free-trade agreement that brings great benefit for fisheries and, in particular, for Māori fisheries. In fact, we heard during the select committee process for that Act from a number of organisations, and I’ll quote one of them, who said, “Speaking on behalf of Māori, we own half the fisheries”. It’s a huge industry—a free-trade agreement that, in effect, benefited Māori proportionately more than others. They were very proud of that, and not just the savings in millions but the growth that that industry could expect.

It’s important that alongside that, we make these changes to ensure good governance, because we know that through good governance comes better outputs—comes better outcomes. That’s how we grow this industry and, indeed, how we provide a stronger economy. A strong economy is at the heart of what will drive—not just to improve the lives and livelihoods at a financial level but if we want to provide the quality infrastructure we need in this country, if we want good healthcare, if we want good education, then we need a strong economy. Our fisheries in New Zealand, more than many other countries around the world, are a key part of that, and that’s why it’s important that this House would consider a matter like this—a bill like this.

These amendments and changes in the bill are about giving iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fishery assets, intended that it will improve benefits to all Māori and contribute to reduced costs and improved efficiency. As I’ve said, in light of the really exciting, I think, future that our fisheries have in New Zealand, it’s important that it’s done well, not just so that it’s good in the short term but so that it’s sustainable in the long term and will be a key driver of our nation’s economy—our productive economy if you will—in a way, for years to come.

The changes in this bill give effect to the recommendations, as we know, from Te Ohu Kaimoana, which conducted the review of many settlement entities. For example, Te Ohu Kaimoana, we know, was established to advance the interests of Māori in fishing and fisheries-related activities to return valuable fisheries assets and funds from settlements to iwi organisations. The trust is managed by a corporate trustee, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, which is central to administering, protecting, and enhancing fisheries settlements to ensure that funds are delivered to iwi and, ultimately, to all Māori.

There is a strong and exciting future, as I’ve said, for this, so it’s important that we do this well. Good governance is at the core of what this bill is wanting and trying to achieve so that we have a clear vision and purpose and strategy and culture that considers tikanga, kawa, and values that take into account the aspirations of whānau, hapū, and iwi across New Zealand.

The Ministry of Māori Development is clear that in Māori organisations, the objectives of governance will take into account the way in which Māori relate to assets and what they are used for. In some instances, although the organisation operates commercially, commercial objectives can be balanced with the need to safeguard assets for future organisations, and that is, I feel, really important. Tikanga principles can also be put into practice in the board of a Māori organisation, alongside governance principles. It’s not one or the other, but it’s bringing in a balance of those—tikanga, kawa, and values that meet the aspirations of iwi, hapū, whānau—often giving direction to the way that that board will work.

Ultimately, this is about protecting and enhancing our ability to earn good export income, and particularly for those—well, obviously, in this case, it’s for Māori. But, as we heard, it’s 50 percent of fisheries in New Zealand.

So with that, I want to finish with one final comment. The export income that this earns and that we have heard about is so important to Māori but, indeed, to all in New Zealand. You know, we all benefit from these organisations doing well, from them growing, and core governance principles must be at the heart of what we’re doing. If we do this well, everyone is going to go well. I think about the people in my electorate, the great electorate of Ōtaki—you know, on the Coast there, there are hundreds of years of history of people relying on fisheries. I look at the electorates represented, all the regional electorates—which, admittedly, have National Party MPs. But there are electorates around the country—

Hon Scott Simpson: OK—enough.

TIM COSTLEY: —that benefit—thank you, sir—from this, and it will be great to see our Māori fishing industries thrive and to see them growing, with good governance and a strong future. So with that, can I just finish by wishing everyone here, and you, sir, a happy Easter, and can I commend this bill to the House.

Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. May I wish all members the best this Easter break. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 April 2024.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.