Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment, on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I am very pleased to be doing this. I intend also to move, at the appropriate time, that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. I will include an instruction that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 December 2004.

This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant historical treaty grievances of Ngāti Awa of Eastern Bay of Plenty, who number about 18,000 members. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed with Ngāti Awa in March 2003 for the resolution of all of its historical treaty claims. These claims relate mainly to land confiscation, the compensation process, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the—mainly 19th century—claims in 1994 and 1995, and issued the Ngāti Awa Raupatu Report on 8 October 1999. Its principal findings were that the land confiscation was contrary to the treaty, there was no rebellion to justify confiscation, and confiscation appears to have been beyond the authority of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The Crown acknowledges in the settlement that the confiscation of about 250,000 acres of Ngāti Awa lands—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is pretty serious for the people who are here today.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. There is chatter around the House. If members cannot talk very quietly but need to talk, could they please go out to the lobby.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Crown acknowledges in the settlement that the confiscation of about 250,000 acres of Ngāti Awa lands constituted an injustice, and was therefore a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. An agreed account of the historical events about the Crown’s interactions with Ngāti Awa is set out in the bill’s preamble.

The public can be reassured the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill, and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind. It is not possible to compensate Ngāti Awa fully for all the prejudice and loss it has suffered. Settlements must take account of other developments and the commitments existing in New Zealand society today. I congratulate Ngāti Awa on negotiating on this wider-interests basis. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense, there would be no settlements and therefore no resolution of historical grievances.

I shall give a summary of the settlement redress. Ngāti Awa negotiators have agreed to a settlement package, which includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; financial redress of $42.39 million, including portions of the Rotoehu and Kaingaroa Forests; the vesting of six commercial properties; the vesting of seven cultural redress properties; a statutory acknowledgment of Ngāti Awa’s special association with nine statutory areas; the granting of renewable camping entitlements over four nohoanga sites; and the right of first refusal over an amount of quota for certain shellfish species.

The bill makes it clear this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. Ancillary claims relate to the following: in recognition of the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings with regard to the three ancillary claims, the Crown agreed to settle these alongside the main Ngāti Awa settlement. I intend to include the provisions affecting the three ancillary claims, which have recently been finalised in the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, by means of a Supplementary Order Paper.

I turn to the governance entity to be established through legislation. Last week this House debated the first reading of Ngāti Awa’s private bill—Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. That bill has been purpose-designed by Ngāti Awa to establish an appropriate entity to receive the settlement redress, while retaining key features of its existing entity, including its statutory status. As my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs signalled last week, it is important that these two bills are progressed through the House in a coordinated manner in order to implement the agreements reached.

There are challenges in this settlement process. Discussions around treaty settlement redress options, are sometimes controversial, and challenges to particular settlements are to be expected in the course of negotiations. There are often big issues at stake, and the Crown must carefully balance a range of interests. In Ngāti Awa’s case, challenges were raised by some overlapping claimant groups and by the licensee of the Crown forest land, who were concerned about the protection of their rights. The Crown and Ngāti Awa worked to ensure the issues raised were appropriately addressed. Consequently, the legal challenges brought by these groups were dismissed by the courts. The sound process that the Crown has followed in negotiating these and other claims ensures that treaty settlements will stand the test of time.

I now want to acknowledge the people who have been involved. I want first to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa, who have suffered as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the treaty, and those who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. I want to thank the Ngāti Awa kaumātua, kuia, and negotiators—some of whom are present in the House today—for the constructive and conscientious way in which they have worked. Our goal is to ensure that settlements resolve grievances of the past. This bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Awa into the future. I wish to thank other Ministers and departments involved—in particular, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Conservation, who have supported the process throughout. I also acknowledge the work contributed by former Ministers of the Crown. I also wish to thank the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are being recognised and settled peacefully within the law. I say once again, on behalf of Margaret Wilson, the Minister for whom I am standing in, that I commend this bill to the House.

• Waiata.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I will depart slightly from the strictures of the Standing Orders and offer greetings and best wishes to those of Ngāti Awa who are in the House today for this historic first reading of their settlement bill. I also extend best wishes to Ngāti Awa from my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who is unfortunately not able to be here as she is on her way to China on public business.

The National Party supports the passage of this bill and the passing of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. The first reading of this bill today comes at the end of some 15 years of negotiations, and when the bill has passed its third reading it will end about 140 years during which there has been a feeling of grievance over the injustice of land confiscation and other matters that took place in the century before last. It is appropriate that in this country we do settle these matters and settle them as quickly as we possibly can. Perhaps 15 years seems like a long time, but in the context of the grievance it was a reasonable time, I think, to get a good outcome. It is important also that in reaching these settlements the Crown is certain of the mandate of those who are affected and party to the claim. In this case, that is well and truly satisfied and made all the more clear by the passing of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which was introduced into the House last week. We have a slight concern about the way in which the ancillary claims are being dealt with, but we will participate fully in seeing those sorted out as quickly as possible.

I want to say on this occasion that during this year the party I represent has, at various times, been criticised for its attitude to things Māori and in some cases for its relationship with Māori. I want to make it very clear that we do not see any difficulty in settling historic grievances that were born out of misrepresentation or inappropriate activity subsequent to the passing of the treaty. We do have a deep concern about where this country goes from this point. Over the next 10 years or so, there will be many settlements such as this. At the end of that time, while the understanding of the history will be clear in all our heads, the only thing that we have together is the opportunity to look forward. That is the key point that my political party, under the leadership of Don Brash, has been trying to make and will continue to make. There will be those on the other side of the House who disagree with us. [Interruption] That is OK, as long as it is just an argument that we express in a verbal fashion, I say to Mr Horomia.

I look now at the settlement bill in front of us at the moment, and particularly at Subpart 5 in Part 4, “Subpart 5—Joint management committee for Moutohorā (Whale Island) Wildlife Management Reserve, Ōhope Scenic Reserve, and Tauwhare Pā Scenic Reserve”. The way in which the parties to this bill have decided that a constitution should be put around a joint management committee for those parts of the country is very interesting. I note, as I look further through the bill, that that committee will have all the powers and capacities of what we understand currently to be conservation boards. We note that the obligation to service that board through funding provisions lies directly with the Crown—over and above any settlements in cash terms that are paid.

I cannot help thinking that in New Zealand today we need to look at more of these sorts of arrangements to get over some of the difficulties that we will face as the disastrous seabed and foreshore legislation progresses into law later this year. My party does not agree with that law, and we will not support it because it will create, in our view, too many more instances where there is grievance—and not only for Māori but for many other New Zealanders who have no other country in the world to call their own. I think that goes right to the heart of the issue that seems to be consuming us a little too much at the moment—the relationship between the Crown and Māori.

The first point is that Māori are not one grouping but many, in my understanding. That is fair and that is all right. But what has to be understood is that the Crown is all of us. Each and every one of us who claims to be a citizen in this country is the Crown. We cannot go on year in, year out, year after year allowing ourselves to believe that somehow, in all the obligation that is part and parcel of the treaty, there is an obligation from those who are the Crown to those who are Māori. That will never let us move forward as one country made up of many peoples with many different beliefs and cultural ties. It will keep us as separate people, and that is not a good thing for the future of this country.

I say again that, interestingly, in Subpart 5 of Part 4 there is the genesis of a new way of looking at the best interests of the land, of the sea, of the air, and of everything else that we value in the environment of New Zealand. I am sure that those sorts of thoughts will be something I will get an opportunity to speak about on a future occasion. I simply conclude my remarks this afternoon by congratulating those who have worked for so many years, with considerable good will, to get us to this point today. I also give the commitment that my party will continue to work through the treaty grievance process to see settlement as quickly as possible. I repeat that that is a commitment we can claim because of our past history in that regard, and because of the work done by our predecessors in this party. It is only by achieving these sorts of settlements and by having important parliamentary days like today, when the entire Parliament will cast its vote in favour of this bill, that New Zealand can be certain it has a very bright and vibrant future.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : E tika ake anō i runga i te tū nei ki te mihi ake anō ki a rātou o Ngāti Awa e tae ake anō i konei.Ngā mea pakeke pērā i a koutou e Hirini, e Joe, ngā kuia, ngā koroua merātau kāre i konei, kāre e tae. Kua haere ake anō ki tērā wāhi e mōhio ake anō tātau kei te mau mahara ake anō ngā tupuna.Tēnā tātau.

[It is apt that I acknowledge Ngāti Awa who have arrived here, as I rise.To you the elders, Hirini, Joe, grandmothers, grandfathers, as well as those who are not present, who have passed on and remain in our memories, greetings to us all.]

I rise to greet those people of Ngāti Awa who have arrived here today, and I certainly pay due respect to those people who have passed on in this long journey. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to support this bill.

I stand here today to support the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. This is an important day for Ngāti Awa, and I commend them for their vision and fortitude in getting this far. Along with my colleague Steve Maharey I recognise all those people involved in this lengthy journey, especially, at this stage, the Office of Treaty Settlements; the Minister, Margaret Wilson; and my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mita Ririnui. This party is serious about finalising the settlements and getting on with business.

The deed settles all the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. It sets out an agreed historical background, acknowledged breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Crown apology for those breaches. The historical claims of Ngāti Awa mainly relate to the confiscation of land, the compensation process, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. In the settlement, the Crown has acknowledged that the confiscation of the Ngāti Awa lands constituted an injustice and was therefore a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The settlement also includes financial and commercial redress with a total value of $42,390,000, including portions of the Rotoehu and Kāingaroa Forests. It will enable Ngāti Awa to exercise kaitiakitanga and commercial management opportunities over some of their key places and resources. The settlement redress provides recognition of Ngāti Awa’s traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual association with places and sites.

Statutory acknowledgments that register the special association Ngāti Awa has with an area include acknowledgments over part of the Whakatāne, Rangitaiki, and Tarawera Rivers, Moutohorā Island Wildlife Management Reserve, and part of the Ohiwa Harbour. Deeds of recognition require the Crown to consult Ngāti Awa and have regard for their views about Ngāti Awa’s special association with a particular site. The bill provides for four deeds of recognition, covering the Crown-owned parts of the Whakatāne, Rangitaiki, and Tarawera riverbeds, and Uretara Island. Clauses 21 to 26 of the bill provide for the issues of protocols by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. The bill sets out that the Crown must comply with the protocols agreed between Ngāti Awa and the departments while they are in force. As well, the bill provides for noting of the Department of Conservation’s protocol in the conservation documents that affect Department of Conservation protocol areas. There are official place name changes in this category. The bill changes the name Volkner Rocks to Te Paepae o Aotea; Awāteatua Beach to Te Awa a Te Atua Beach; and Braemar Springs to Te Waiu o Pukemarie.

Areas of special significance to Ngāti Awa are to be returned to iwi. The bill provides for seven important reserves to be vested in the Ngāti Awa governance entity: Kāpūterangi Historic Reserve; Te Paripari Pā Historic Reserve; Otitapu Pā within the Mangaone Scenic Reserve; the former Matahina A4 block; Te Toangapoto within the Western Whakatāne Recreation Reserve; Te Ihukatia, part of the Port Ōhope Recreation Reserve; and Whakapaukorero within Matata Scenic Reserve. The Crown will gift Ngāti Awa $1 million to assist in the redevelopment of the Mātaatua meeting house complex.

As my learned colleague Gerry Brownlee said earlier on, we are all keen to get this finished. I remind that member that we did get it finished, rather than getting mixed up in his garble about whether they are being serious about handing Ngāti Awa a path towards a future that does recognise nationhood. Restoration of access to traditional tools and food gathering areas includes Ngāti Awa’s customary fisheries. Camping licenses, or nohoanga, will be established and located in the Matata Wildlife Reserve and the Port Ōhope Recreation Reserve, for example. This settlement is a great settlement. The deputy leader of the National Party, whom I have not seen for a couple of weeks, has returned to preach and to try to teach us about nationhood. It is important, for any unified way forward,that we do not scratch the racist itch—that we end and finish off, and make sure—

Hon Tony Ryall: Let the guy who did the work speak!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: —that people like Mr Ryall, especially, recognise the Māori people, the tangata whenua, in their areas. He should cough up and ensure that things are done. This is only the beginning. It has been a long journey, and the fact that we are arriving at the end is through the efforts of this Government in making sure that finality has come about. People who continue to preach one nation but say we should all live like other people, really alarm me.

Dr Wayne Mapp: We have always recognised people’s needs.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am really open to living as one people. There are different churches, such as the Catholic Church, the Baptists, the Mormons, and—dare I mention it—Destiny Church. Let us be all of that, but let us make sure—[Interruption] That is right. We are all New Zealanders, so let us start being proactive, whether we are Irish New Zealanders, Scottish Māori, Welsh Māori, Whakatāne Māori, and all of that. We treat them all the same when it suits. We look to members’ support all the way through, in order to finish this quickly, because we are right here now, and the proof will be in the pudding. I say to members that I thank them very much for their support—I thank the whole House. This is serious business. It is about nationhood, but it is also about the place of tangata whenua. In the sense of signing this off, we have done that.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā anō tātau e huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei o ō tātau Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Awa kua tae mai ā-tinana mai nei ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e whakawhitiwhitia ana i roto i tēnei o ō tātau Whare.

Greetings to us all and greetings to Ngāti Awa, who have come not only in body but also in spirit to listen to the speaking and talking that will take place this afternoon. After having listened to the Minister of Māori Affairs talk about certain issues relating to Ngāti Awa, I would like to introduce three phrases: tapatapa whenua, takahi whenua, and ahi kā.

[naming the land, walking the land, and keeping the fires burning]

When our wakas originally came to Aotearoa and landed, the first thing our menfolk did was to walk the land and claim it, by leaving stone markers. They named the different places after historical events, genealogies, and important issues that were meaningful to them. As time went on and they moved to other areas of the country, the phrase ahi kā came into being. It meant that the fires were still burning at home. When the people moved away, that was indicated by them going home and walking over their lands—signifying to the whanaunga and those still at home that they still had their fires burning, and their interests in their land.

The deed of settlement contains acknowledgements by the Crown, and they include acknowledgements regarding the efforts of Ngāti Awa since 1867 to gain compensation, the events relating to the Crown expedition to arrest those involved in the murders of Fulloon and others, the confiscation of Ngāti Awa lands, the inadequacies of the Compensation Court process, the operation and impact of the native land laws, the loss of land under the public works legislation, the suffering and hardships resulting from the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions, and the contribution made by Ngāti Awa to the nation’s defence in New Zealand’s war efforts overseas.

Let us think about the positive contribution that Ngāti Awa has made by bringing this country of New Zealand into closer racial harmony during the Second World War. That was displayed by Ngāti Awa’s participation and sacrifice, along with other New Zealanders, as they took their full share in the front line of battle. The query I have is whether Ngāti Awa has proved to be an asset to this country. If it has, Ngāti Awa asks to be dealt with as such. An asset that is discovered in the crucible of war should have a value in peacetime. The men of the New Zealand Division saw below the dark skins of their Māori comrades. In a passage that should be memorised by every New Zealander, Ngata demanded: “Have the civilians of New Zealand, men and women, fully realised the implications of the joint participation of Māori and Pākehā in this last and greatest demonstration of the highest citizenship?”. We should think about that—the highest citizenship, of Pākehā and Māori, developed in the crucible of war.

I am sure that all that Ngāti Awa has laid claim to has not been, and will not be, missed, but there will probably be dissatisfaction amongst Ngāti Awa themselves. Kei te tika ōku kōrero? Āe,

[Is what I am saying correct? Yes,]

because let me go back to two of the three phrases I mentioned in the beginning—tapatapa whenua, and ahi kā—and ask what it all means. Even with the claim that has been settled now, the hearts of Ngāti Awa are still with the areas that have not been returned to them. Takahi whenua! Why do people think we have tribal boundaries that still exist today?

It is because the people, when they arrived in those times, walked those boundaries and put the stones there, which recognised a deal between tribes. Sometimes a bit of land was taken, but it was given back, because those who did go and take that land could not live on it. They went back to their homes. New Zealanders need to really understand the tikanga and culture of the people who first resided in this land, so that they can understand why their descendants are claiming what they claim. I am sure that Ngāti Awa, as I have said, has not realised its claims, but let me compliment it. New Zealand First salutes Ngāti Awa for what it has achieved in coming to an amicable agreement that will benefit not only Ngāti Awa but the country as a whole.

It could be said—and the idea has been kicked around—that racial tensions have been tested recently.I am sure, however, that the settlement issues that have been before the House, and that will come before the House in future, will lead to the remedy of a more harmonious future. New Zealand First is of the thinking and belief that we need to get these settlements settled in the best way possible, to the satisfaction, or close to the satisfaction, of the claimants and the general citizenship of this country. New Zealand First again, as in the past, asks this House what the principles are of the Treaty of Waitangi. That issue needs to be clarified, and to that end New Zealand First recommends that the bill goes to the select committee.

Before I conclude, I ask this question: what is the difference between kāwanatanga and the Crown? That was an issue in the select committee last Tuesday. If we remember that prior to 1840 our people learnt the English language by reading and studying the Bible, we would know that the word “kāwanatanga” comes from a transliteration of the word “governorship”. When the treaty was translated from the English version into the Māori version, the word “sovereignty” could not be used, so kāwanatanga was used. Otherwise, the chiefs would not have signed the treaty. Rangatiratanga was not used. Today we have these disputes and we have this to-ing and fro-ing. But let us look ahead and work together as a nation that, as I have quoted, was created in the crucible of war, where skin and its colour was never taken into consideration but where men fought to give us our freedom. Nō reira e hoa mā, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : Kia ora koutou katoa! Te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, ngā tungāne, ngā tuākana koutou o Ngāti Awa kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Tēnā hoki koutou me te huhua o ō tātou mate, e kore e taea e tātau te aukatia, haere e ngā mate.Kua whakanaumaihia e ēnā o ō tātau mātua tūpuna.Ē kī ana te kōrero, oti atu te pō, nau mai te ao.Huri noa i tō tātau piringa nei e tū kaha nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa .

[Greetings to you all! Welcome to the visitors from afar, to the elders, chiefs, brothers, and senior peers of Ngāti Awa who have arrived here this afternoon in support.Welcome. Greetings to you in respect of our many deaths, which we are not able to avoid. Farewell the dead. Those of our ancestors who have gone before you are there to welcome you. It is said that when night is done, the world of light replaces it.And so to all of you throughout this building of ours, which stands firmly before us, greetings, greetings, greetings.]

This settlement arises out of confiscations of land made by the Crown in order to punish Ngāti Awa for alleged rebellions in the 1860s. The alleged rebellions arose out of the participation by some Ngāti Awa hapū in the Tai Rāwhiti force that was intending to go to the Waikato to assist the iwi there, as well as out of the retribution for the killing of four people in 1865. When the Crown executed arrest warrants in response to those killings, the Crown’s force destroyed considerable property and laid waste to many pā within the rohe of Ngāti Awa, causing massive damage to the hapū. Over 30 men were arrested under those warrants. All of them were imprisoned, and two were executed. Ngāti Awa, for generations, has carried the stigma of “tangata hara” as a result.

When the Waitangi Tribunal heard the case in the late 1990s, it was clearly of the view that the confiscation of the lands of Ngāti Awa was contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that there was no rebellion to justify the confiscations, and that the confiscations as effected were outside the law. About 245,000 acres of land were confiscated in 1866, and eventually about 77,000 acres were returned, but the land was returned to individuals—contrary to tikanga Māori. Of course, those lands became more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and land alienation because they were held in private title, and not by the collective from whom the land was stolen.

Ngāti Awa entered into the direct negotiations process in a formal way around 1996, I understand. Prior to that, Ngāti Awa had been involved in a variety of negotiations with various Governments since the 1980s. It had built up considerable experience and background, which should have provided a strong basis for a relatively smooth settlement process, one would think. But despite that long experience and the clear position of the tribunal, this settlement has been unnecessarily delayed, which has caused enormous and unjustified stress to be put on Ngāti Awa. The delay was specifically caused by the Crown’s refusal to accept the governance structure that Ngāti Awa considered best met its needs and which, with minor alterations, could have met the Crown’s requirements. But instead of working constructively with Ngāti Awa, the Crown took a policy position from which it refused to move, which has caused a very costly delay.

The settlement process has been described as one of “pauperising” an iwi—of draining critical resources over long periods, as a means of undermining an iwi and strengthening the Government’s negotiating position. One example is the Crown’s approach to funding the direct negotiations process, which is under considerable criticism. Thankfully, Ngāti Awa was able to receive some support for the negotiations from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust because its settlement includes some forestry land, but that does not relieve the Crown of its obligation to provide assistance to iwi to negotiate with the Crown on an equal footing. The Crown expects iwi to maintain a negotiation over a long period of time, but remains stingy with its resources. The lack of resourcing has received some criticism that it is in part a Crown policy to run iwi into the ground, and that perhaps by doing that, an iwi will fight a little less than it would otherwise, and the Crown will be victorious in the iwi’s defeat. The Greens certainly agree with the concern that it is grossly unjust and unfair that iwi must get into debt in order to seek redress for past wrongful Crown actions. A fair and just process, firstly, would have been designed by the treaty partners and, second, requires equally resourced and informed parties, ideally negotiating on a level playing field, with full disclosure of information at the outset of proceedings.

The Greens continue to be highly critical of a settlement process where the iwi, who are the aggrieved party, have no authority or control over that process. We understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly negotiated if they are to be fair, but in the settlement process that is simply not the case. The Government sets its own policy and positions and remains inflexible, with a “take it or leave it” approach that is not fair negotiation but a managed bullying. We understand that there was little negotiation with the Crown over the amount of financial compensation, for example, that was eventually provided in the settlement. Ngāti Awa presented its views and the Crown came back with its quantum, but unsurprisingly, the Crown provided very little in the way of justification for the amount of compensation it offered. Again, it was a “take it or leave it” approach, not a negotiation.

Ngāti Awa did find more flexibility in negotiating cultural redress, and has as part of its settlement a number of statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, protocols, place-name changes, and transferred sites, to name just some of that redress. However, the cultural redress package, and its protocols and advisory committees, is a poor substitute for recognition of the treaty relationship. For example, providing for Ngāti Awa to express its views to the Ministry for the Environment, but not to the Minister, on the application of Treaty of Waitangi and Resource Management Act issues gives very little practical effect to te tiriti, and is in fact, in our view, a watering-down of it. Another example is clause 21 of the bill, which gives the Minister the authority to amend or cancel protocols after consulting and having regard to the views of Ngāti Awa. But again, Ngāti Awa does not have any control or decision making over that process, and there is little there for it. The principles of fairness and justice that supposedly guide the settlement process are not actually a true reflection of the process. It is a political one, in which the Crown sets the framework and Māori are continually expected to compromise.

In my second reading speech on the Ngāti Ruanui settlement some time ago, I referred to a description of the Crown’s process as one of the duress of poverty, whereby the needs of hapū are such that every opportunity must be taken to build resources in order to undo the deprivation and harm caused by over a century of legislative violence committed against Māori, even where those resources fall massively short of what was wrongfully taken. After witnessing the signing of the deed of settlement for the Ngāti Awa claim, it became clear that the Crown, the Ministers, and the officials will never understand at what a cost that was to the rangatira who have fought for so long to obtain recognition of the crimes, restitution for the theft, and a simple but genuine apology. Surely, no one can fail to see the irony of the Government making its heartfelt apology for its past wrongful confiscations against Ngāti Awa, while—as I stand here in the House now—a select committee is hearing strenuous and articulate objections to a further wrongful confiscation of land within the rohe of Ngāti Awa.

What is an apology worth? The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngāti Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy, and we congratulate Ngāti Awa on pursuing some restitution through that demanding and unjust process. Despite our serious misgivings about the underlying nature of the settlement process and the long and difficult path that is involved, we understand that the people of Ngāti Awa are confident that for them, this settlement provides a measure of rangatiratanga. That is why the Greens will support the referral of this bill to the select committee.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I rise with some mixed feelings to speak on this bill. I am not the Māori affairs spokesperson for our party, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, for I am one of the few whom I would call—and, indeed, whom my Māori colleagues call—tangata whenua. I am a man of the land, I speak with passion about the land, and I understand the feeling deep within Ngāti Awa today at the redressing, in some respect, of the stealing of land from the Ngāti Awa people many years ago by the Crown. I do not stand here today to talk about my grievance, which will occur, and is occurring, to 350 people from the South Island, where I come from; that is not a matter to be addressed today. I mention it only so that the people listening to this debate can understand that I speak with courage and conviction on this issue of land. I understand what is happening, and what has happened, to Ngāti Awa in the past.

I note the waiata in clause 8(8)(c) of the bill:

Here I live as an orphan

An orphan upon the land,

An orphan among the people.

At night I weep helplessly,

For where is hospitality to be given?

They are rather beautiful words. Those of us who have put down our roots in this land, only to have the land taken by the Crown for another purpose, understand those words—but that, as I said, is a matter for another day.

As I said earlier, it is with some mixed feelings that I speak, because the ACT party will not support the passage of this bill, and I hope the House will give me the opportunity to explain why that should be. It has been mentioned before, and I will read from clause 8(7) of the bill, that “The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngati Awa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” I do not know how many times members from this side of the House have asked the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Māori Affairs to stand in this House and tell us what those principles are, so that we can debate them accurately. What are those principles? They have never been given. Nobody in this country has been told by the Prime Minister or by the Labour Government exactly what the principles are that have not been addressed. So ACT cannot, in any conscience, support legislation that does not define exactly what is meant by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is a policy of the ACT party that it is appropriate for a bill before the House to go to a select committee for further consideration and determination, and to sort out idiosyncrasies or aspects that may not be appropriate. This bill is a done deal. What is the point of sending a bill to a select committee when the deal has already been done? There will be no changes to this bill; it is fixed, so why send it? That is the charade that Parliament indulges in. The Government says that it will send this bill to a select committee, but that it does not care if somebody points out that Ngāti Awa are entitled to extra than what has been negotiated at this time—it will not happen. It could well be that during the select committee process we find problems that have occurred and sort those matters out, with the result that Ngāti Awa are better off under this settlement. But that will not happen, it cannot happen, because the deal has been done, and that is totally inappropriate.

There are a number of issues I would like to address, but in the limited time I have I will address only one other. It is in the schedules, which, quite frankly, I find bizarre. I read from schedule 4: “All elements of the natural environment possess a life force and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngati Awa …” to the harbour. That is animist belief. As I said earlier, I speak with passion about, and believe I have a spiritual attachment to, the land. I understand what is meant by “mauri”, but spirituality comes from the individual. It does not come from a rock, a piece of water, a landfall, or some statue. That is animist belief. If this House will indulge in such forms of animist belief, why do we not write into statute the beliefs of the Anglican church? Why do we not write in the beliefs of Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, and anybody else? If we are going to introduce this spiritual belief into statute, why not introduce everything else? Why is it appropriate to write into statute only the spiritual belief of Māori? Why not the spiritual belief of every other person in this country? Of course, we should remind ourselves from time to time that this House is secular; it does not write into statute the spiritual beliefs of any particular party or any particular individual, and long may that continue. But that particular aspect is written into this Ngāti Awa settlement, and the ACT party says that is wrong.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why it is written in, I would say it is part of the ongoing settlement with Māori; they can have another bite of the cherry, because this is not a full and final settlement. Any Māori can go to a resource management hearing and point out the requirement in the Resource Management Act that regional councils take into account the spiritual beliefs of Māori. Ngāi Tahu, for example, did just that at the resource management hearing on the Clutha River, and said that they had lost their spirituality, their special relationship with the river. That cost the electricity consumers of this country $1.5 million. So it appears that under the Resource Management Act, with special reference to Māori, spirituality can be bought for $1.5 million. That is outrageous. It is impossible to buy the spiritual beliefs of an individual, yet they can be traded under the Resource Management Act—in that particular instance, for $1.5 million.

Hon Parekura Horomia: What a lot of nonsense!

GERRARD ECKHOFF: The Minister of Māori Affairs, who is not even sponsoring this bill, says that is nonsense. I ask Mr Parekura Horomia why he is not even sponsoring this bill. Why is his colleague Mr Maharey sponsoring the bill? A number of aspects of this bill are inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate that past grievances are addressed and settled, and ACT applauds that. But I cannot stand in this House and say I applaud the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when I do not even accurately know—nor does anybody in the House—what those principles are. Mr Peters from New Zealand First has stood in this House and constantly challenged the Government to tell us what those principles are, and the Government has not come out with them. It will be very interesting to see what New Zealand First will do about this bill.

JUDY TURNER (United Future) : May I take the House’s indulgence to greet Ngāti Awa and to say what an honour it is to have them with us today.

The Guide to Treaty of Waitangi Claims and Direct Negotiations with the Crown publication is appropriately titled Healing the Past, Building a Future. As with any settlement of this kind, we need to be mindful that this is not a payout, a catch-up, or even compensation in the truest sense. We can never compensate the generations of Ngāti Awa who lived without the collective resources to provide the kind of future they wanted for their children and mokopuna. The apology from the Crown for breaching its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi is an essential starting point. It is an apology for the confiscation of land, for inappropriate compensation mechanisms, and for legislative initiatives that undermined traditional tribal structures and left Ngāti Awa virtually landless.

It is important that an account of the historical background has been agreed upon by both Ngāti Awa and the Crown, and is included in the deed of settlement, and that a written apology is to be included in attached material. It is important because we need to be very clear, both now and in the future, about what underpinned this settlement. We also need to be very clear that this settlement is not about Ngāti Awa jumping on some treaty gravy train—as some would refer to it—in some opportunistic way, but is, in fact, the final outcome of a process started by Ngāti Awa in 1867, when they proactively sought redress for the wrongs inflicted on iwi by the Crown.

So what is the historical context? In June 1840 certain Ngāti Awa chiefs signed the treaty in Whakatāne. Twenty-four years later, some of the Ngāti Awa hapū attempted to provide support for the Tai Rāwhiti group that was offering assistance to the Waikato Māori who were embroiled in disputes with the Crown. In July the following year, as part of the ongoing conflict, a Crown official by the name of Fulloon and three others were killed in Whakatāne, and a month later, in August, a large Crown-led force arrived to arrest those responsible. Much property was destroyed, and some people were killed. A month later, in September, the Crown proclaimed peace and pardoned those who had opposed the Crown, with the exception of those who had killed Fulloon. In October, after the peace proclamation, a Crown-led force laid siege to pā at Matatā, Whakatāne, and Te Teko, arresting 30 men for the deaths in Whakatāne. There were two separate trials, followed by prison sentences and two executions. Three months later, Governor Grey declared the Bay of Plenty tribes to have been in rebellion, and confiscated 448,000 acres of land, 245,000 of which were Ngāti Awa rohe. The huge loss of resources, plus the stigma of being tangata hara, or rebels, is what we now seek to address, understanding that Ngāti Awa have been seeking this redress since 1867, the year after the confiscation.

I also endorse the comments made by my colleague Murray Smith during the first reading of Te Runga o Ngati Awa Bill last week. Mr Smith, when commenting on the substantial progress that this bill represents, said: “The historical treaty grievance process is weighted against Māori. Indeed, some could say it is unfair and unjust. But in the settlements that have been enacted, Māori have accepted with graciousness the reality that it is impossible for the Crown to fully compensate for the losses they have suffered.” I too want to pay tribute to Ngāti Awa for their willingness to reach a place of resolution, to accept an apology, and to accept compensation that is substantially less than they deserve. On behalf of United Future, I wish them well as they take on the resources agreed upon and chart a brighter future for all their members. I congratulate them on negotiating a governance structure that best reflects their interests, and I congratulate the Minister on facilitating this with a private bill. Based on what I have observed to date at a local level, I am sure that Ngāti Awa will chart a course that results in economic and social well-being for all of their members. I congratulate them, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) : Otirā, tēnā koe kai te Kaihautū o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā kōtou o Ngāti Awa, kōutou i haere tawhiti mai, mai i te hau kāinga, mai i Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi, mai i Te Mānuka Tuatahi, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou. Tēnā kōtou te āhuatanga o te kaupapa kei runga kei te tēpu i tēnei wā. Nā kōutou i kawe mai rā i te nuku o te whenua, kia whakamanahia i roto i te ture, e tutuki ai, e oti ai ngā taimahatanga o te ao tawhito i waenganui i a kōtou. Nō reira, nā kōtou hoki te kaupapa o te rā nō reira, nau mai, hara mai.

Kai te Kaihautū, kaua e pāpōuri mai, ko te hiahia tonu au ki te tū, ki te kōrero ki roto i te reo rangatira ki taku iwi ki a Ngāti Awa. Kua kōrerohia ngā kōrero i roto i te Whare nei.Ko wētahi kua kauhautia ētahi kōrero ki a koutou, ko wētahi kua tohutohungia hoki ō rātou kōrero ki a kōtou te āhua nei ka tau mai kōtou ehara he rangatira, engari he tamariki tonu.Nō reira, koia nā hoki au e whakahē atu ki a rātau nā rātau ēnei kōrero i whakaputa. Ā, ko tēnei mea te utu mō te wairuatanga he kōrero kūware noa iho tēnā.Nō reira, kaua kōtou e pāpōuri mai ki tēnei kōrero, koia nei ngā tino mate o tēnei Whare.Nō reira, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou.

[Greetings indeed to you, the Speaker of this House. And greetings to you of Ngāti Awa, who have travelled some distance from the home winds of Whakatāne in the Bay of Plenty. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Acknowledgments to you in respect to the bill that is on the Table. You brought it here from across the land to have it passed into law, and, in so doing, fulfil and complete the burdens of the past that were among you. And because this bill today is yours as well, I bid you welcome, welcome.

Please bear with me Mr Speaker, but I really want to take the call and address my people of Ngāti Awa in Māori. Statements have been made in this House, some of which have been directed at you in a manner that treat you as though you were still children, and not chiefs. That is why I objected to those who expressed themselves in this manner. And in regard to this matter about paying for spirituality, that kind of talk is pure ignorance. So do not be disappointed by this type of talk: it is a real problem in this House. So greetings to you all. ]

The history of the Ngāti Awa claim is well documented and well understood by the members of this House. I find myself short of words even to attempt to repeat much of what has already been said here today. But I do congratulate Ngāti Awa, my people, who have come a long way today, but also a long way in time, to bring to an end the tragic history of all of us as Ngāti Awa that occurred through the actions of the Crown.

I sat here sadly and listened to some people preach to Ngāti Awa, and I heard other members patronise Ngāti Awa. I heard another member even call Ngāti Awa a sell-out. Those words were unfortunate, given that this is a very positive day for Ngāti Awa. The wairua of Ngāti Awa does not have a price tag on it, but Ngāti Awa say to those who want to speak to them to make sure to bring their money to the table—and there is nothing wrong with that. Hoi anō rā, koia nei ngā kōrero ki a tātau.

[Indeed, that is what I wanted to say tous.]

I congratulate the negotiators of the Ngāti Awa settlement. This is a first step of many steps that Ngāti Awa will take into the future. Our young people are watching today, witnessing what Ngāti Awa kaumātua and kuia are doing for the benefit of their futures. I have to say that my seven children will be beneficiaries of what they do today. No reira, I have not much more to say except to say to Ngāti Awa: he kōrero tēnei ki a kōtou.Ko ahau tenei tā koutou mokopuna, māngai kōrero i roto i te Whare nei e tū whakaiti atu ana nei i a mua i a kōtou.Nō reira tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou katoa.

[And to you Ngāti Awa, as your grandchild and representative in this House, I stand before you in total humility. Greetings to you and to all of us.]

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : I welcome to Parliament the people of Ngāti Awa, and I acknowledge Professor Mead, and Hōhepa Mason from the trust board—who I thought would have been in Whakatāne today campaigning in the regional council elections. I suspect that John Hohāpata has probably knocked on several hundred doors this afternoon, so I am sure Mr Mason will be returning with some speed today. I also want to acknowledge the women of Ngāti Awa—the first in this country to prove that women can do anything.

In speaking today on this bill I observe that it has taken a very long time for this settlement to come before Parliament. I also acknowledge that it is important that these negotiations eventually proceeded with some pace, because it is vitally important that these things can be achieved without all the money going to the lawyers. There is a huge amount of money being spent in the central North Island as I speak. I know that the people of that area are concerned about the huge amount of money being tied up in that process. But it is important that this matter proceed with speed, because the people in the Eastern Bay of Plenty need the money—especially under this Labour Government—to advance and prosper.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a number of matters: firstly, there is a drafting error in the bill, which Ministers will need to fix; and, secondly, I want to note some of the ways that the Government is handling overlapping claims. Recently I pulled out of my files a couple of maps to do with the claims that have been settled in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. I have here a map that relates to the Ngāti Awa settlement that indicates the area of interest of Ngāti Awa, and I have a second map that shows the area of interest of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and one fits inside the other.

Mita Ririnui: What is your point?

Hon TONY RYALL: My point is where is the explanation of what is going on there. [Interruption] Well, I am asking the member who, apparently, negotiated all this stuff. The Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the people of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, have a settlement of $10.5 million cash, and the people of Ngāti Awa have $42 million cash. It seems one lot has a much better deal than the other. I was brought up in Kawerau. I went to school with a number of the Adlam children. I have to say that when we were at school, I am sure we were always told that Kawerau was part of the area of Ngāti Awa. I am positive of that. Now we find there is a settlement for Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, which is interesting, and I am sure there will be some discussions in the select committee to explain how one area of interest fits into the other area of interest, but the first area of interest gets a lot more. We look forward to the member who, apparently, negotiated all of this explaining to Parliament how that will be dealt with—

Mita Ririnui: What are the key principles of negotiations? To get as much as one can, when one can.

Hon TONY RYALL: And whose side was the Minister on?

Mita Ririnui: Both sides.

Hon TONY RYALL: That sounds like him, does it not—always on both sides of the argument. It is vitally important that this settlement proceed with pace. I think the Government will have to explain how it is dealing with these overlapping claims, because one is a lot more generous than the other. I will be interested to hear about the history of Tūwharetoa and why it is so distinct from Ngāti Awa, because, no doubt, that will take ages to explain.

I draw to the attention of the House that there is a new area in the Eastern Bay of Plenty called the Ōhope Holiday Beach Park. We are actually providing that there be some Ōhope Holiday Beach Park land. There is no such thing as the Ōhope Holiday Beach Park. There is an Ōhope Beach Holiday Park, but there is not an Ōhope Holiday Beach Park, which is written in this bill. So the Minister negotiated the deal but he did not check the spelling; what does Mita Ririnui do with himself all day? I am sure the select committee will pick up on that.

I think it is right that the Government has moved to negotiate this deal in the way that it is proceeding, to get some action on it. I acknowledge those who have negotiated, and the tremendous amount of work and effort they have done. I look forward to the Government explaining why the group that fits inside this other group is being acknowledged much more generously than the other.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs) : E te Kaihautū, te whakaruruhau ki a mātau, Jonathan, tēnā rā koe. E ngā tuāhine, tuākana i roto i te Whare Pāremata, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Nō reira e te rangatira mō ngā hapū o Ngāti Awa, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihimihi a Mita rāua ko Parekura, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihimihi, ā, he tipuna rātau. Nō reira koutou mā, tēnā koutou kia ora huihui mai anō rā tātau katoa.

[Greetings to you Mr Speaker, the one who shelters us, Jonathan, greetings. A huge greeting to you sister and brother colleagues in the House, to the chief of the sub-tribes of Ngāti Awa, and to everyone else. I endorse the tributes made by Mita and Parekura. They have done a fine job too and I support their efforts. And so greetings to all of you and to all of us who have gathered here.]

I acknowledge my two colleagues Parekura Horomia and Mita Ririnui for the contribution they have made to the debate today. It has been on song, on point, and representative of this Government’s position in its negotiation process with Ngāti Awa.

I want to comment on a number of observations and points made by members opposite. I regret to say that I do not have the same level of dignity and humility of some of my comrades in the Māori caucus—but, notwithstanding that, we make a reasonable team. I reject absolutely the divide and rule tactics of the member for Bay of Plenty, who has just resumed his seat. He always makes a very pithy and pious contribution to this House. He is consistent in doing that. I regret that; he should stop taking evil and ugly pills.

In the event that certain people do not vote for the members of the Māori caucus of the Labour Party, we could end up with an ACT - National Party Government. We heard the ACT member who has just resumed his seat say that we are animists. I have to look that up in the dictionary because I do not really understand it, but, whatever it means, we as Māori people honour the integrity of our mountains and rivers, honour the integrity of our ancestors. These are great things. I am also a Catholic—a failed one—and the reality is that we also honour our saints and some of the great people in history who have made a contribution to the continuity of that faith. All of a sudden, a member from ACT stands up and says he does not understand this mumbo-jumbo and this sort of spirituality. He farms the high country in the South Island, and he will bang his desk in this House over that debate and say: “I’m culturally and spiritually entwined with my land that we have farmed for generations.”, but when it comes to a Māori debate he will reject that argument. That sort of nonsense needs to be challenged because we get it here day in and day out. Any person who has the audacity and temerity to come to this House and suggest that New Zealand will make millions of dollars by farming kiwis and selling them to KFC has really got something wrong with him. That is what that member did.

In terms of the contribution made by the Green Party member, we could wail in difficulty and victimhood, which that member always makes a contribution on. I regret that, because no one has a monopoly on hurt, hate, hunger, and the rip-offs that have occurred and that this process is looking to alleviate. Ngāti Awa will know, just as a number of our other hapū and iwi know, that we have all been scarred. But members of the leadership of Ngāti Awa have made a determined determination—that is, they have documented their hurt and understood their difficulty, and now they will provide some clear opportunities for their people. The only thing that I agree with the member for Bay of Plenty on is the huge range of opportunities that this Government has made available. This settlement is coming at a wonderful time, and Ngāti Awa can actually make some marvellous contributions to the Bay of Plenty.

I also acknowledge Ngāti Awa for setting the precedent on the eastern seaboard of this country. Here is another point that Mr Ryall should get his mind round if he can—that is, the easy settlements were done by Douglas Montrose Graham. The hard ones are where the real Māoris live. Seventy percent of Māoris live north of Taupō, and those settlements will be difficult because that is where the numbers are, that is where the population of the Māori nation is. It is about the Bay of Plenty and places heading north. We will settle, and will set good precedents in place. As I said, I regret that I do not have the dignity or the humility of the Minister of Māori Affairs, but I will not stand for the tripe, cant, and nonsense that have been spoken in some of the contributions to this debate.

I conclude by once again bringing the debate back to the real people. I congratulate Ngāti Awa on their effort and work, and I commend them for bringing this bill to the House. I commend the select committee for the way in which it will respond to it and bring Ngāti Awa closure. Kia ora.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa. I appreciate that it has taken a long time to get to this day. I also note that the heads of agreement was first signed on 21 December 1998, so for the previous member to make some sort of outlandish claim that it takes Labour to do the tough ones—well, if only that were true is all I can say. All that Labour has done is the ones that National started. Labour has yet to do any significant or substantial settlement that it itself initiated. This Government simply does not have the wit or will to do the tough settlements. That is why it keeps saying it will take until 2020 at the earliest to complete the process.

Let us go back into our history—the history of the settlements, specifically. It started early in the 1990s. That is now nearly 15 years ago. It started with the settlements with Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. The Minister knows full well that they were not easy. National was asking them, particularly Tainui, to make a huge leap of faith to settle with the Crown. They were the first, and that was tough. Everyone knows and acknowledges that fact. Frankly, I would like to think that the current Government knows the reality of it. I would like to see a good deal less political rhetoric from that side, and some acknowledgement that this whole process has a high level of bipartisanship about it.

The reality is that this settlement fits with the historic precedents set in the last 15 years. That is why National supports this settlement. It actually fits within the very specific commitments that Dr Brash made in the Ōrewa speech. We do recognise our history, and we will settle the historic grievances. We go much further, of course, than the current Government; we want to put some energy and real commitment into it and to settle the grievances within a 5-year period. The Government keeps saying that is unrealistic. But to have them take the period from 1990 to 2010 is to have them take a whole 20 years, and 20 years is, effectively, one generation. We say that for this generation of politicians, going back to the 1990s—and Mr Ryall was elected, in fact, in 1990—through to 2010, it is our historic task to complete them. It is for the benefit not just of the claimants—and it is hugely for their benefit to get the settlements—but also of the nation at large.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, what nonsense.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister might interject “what nonsense”, but, in reality, if he thought about it he would understand, in fact, the importance of bringing people forward through the process so that they move out of the grievance mode into the settlement mode—a concept referred to by this Government from time to time. Surely one generation is enough time to do that.

I say also, to the ACT party, that it cannot keep coming to this Parliament, settlement after settlement, and saying it wants to settle all these historic grievances in a 10-year-period—and it even has a bill, which has been drawn in the members’ ballot, to settle within that time frame, and National will support that bill. The only thing about that, and I say this deliberately to the ACT members, is that it actually requires them to vote for a settlement—at least once, for heaven’s sake. Because unless they do that they will not get progress. It is true that not every detail of every settlement will meet the requirements or needs of particular parties. We understand that on this side of the House. I know for a fact that Labour had significant misgivings over the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu settlements. From time to time parties actually have to rise above that sort of thing and vote for the big picture. I do not direct that at the Labour Government; I direct that statement specifically at ACT. From time to time one has to look at the big picture and ask whether a settlement meets the general perspective of the principles—and I want to talk about the principles.

National is terribly clear that we support the idea that this nation is founded on the principle that we are all equal before the law, that we all have equal rights of participation in our Government. Provided that the settlements broadly meet that test, then they should be supported. The schedules that the member for ACT referred to are essentially recitations. They are not this Parliament endorsing people’s beliefs; they are simply recitations about connections. That surely is understandable. I want to put on record that we do support the settlements. There may come a time, and I say this to the Government specifically and clearly, when it puts a settlement before this House that does not meet the test of equality before the law, and that does not meet the test of equal participation in Government. When that issue occurs—should it occur—we will clearly signal that, and vote against it.

But this bill is not one of those. We do support this bill going to the select committee, because we understand that it is part of an important, historic process that this country is going through.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries), on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations : I move, That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during an evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 December 2004.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I follow on from the debate last week, when Larry Baldock from the United Future party put before us his amendment to clause 58 to omit kahawai from the quota management system from 1 October this year. Currently it is gazetted to enter that system then. National believes that kahawai should go into the quota management system eventually, and in fact we would like to see it go in as soon as possible. The quota management system would be the best way to manage that fishery; there is no doubt about that. However, we have always said that that is dependent on the Minister’s allocation of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch. I must say that we were quite surprised by the Minister’s call on the total allowable commercial catch, and by his restriction on recreational fishers up and down the country, who see the kahawai fishery as their main target species.

Why were we surprised by that? We were surprised because the Labour Party’s election policy on recreational fishing states—and Tony Ryall will be surprised to hear this, because it affects the Bay of Plenty area where there are kahawai fishers, and other members will be interested in this, as well. Labour stated that it recognised the value of recreational fishing to New Zealand’s tourism industry, and that a kahawai or trout caught by an overseas visitor and cooked or smoked by that visitor’s host may be worth 10 times more to the economy than one caught commercially and sold in the market. [Interruption] Absolutely! The Labour Party and the Minister admitted that the recreational fishing of kahawai may be worth 10 times more to the economy than the commercial fishing process would be. Yet that Minister has seen fit to give an allocation to commercial fishers that will completely undermine that fishery for recreational fishers. The National Opposition certainly supports kahawai going into the quota management system, but definitely not under those conditions, in terms of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch.

Kahawai is a very, very small potato for commercial fishers. It used to be used for bait. I know that it is sent to Australia and put in cat food cans. Yet for recreational fishers, kahawai is a No. 1 sports fish. The Minister should have taken that into account when he gave his economic analysis, and he should have also taken Labour Party policy into account, which states that Labour sees the recreational fishing of kahawai as being 10 times more valuable than the commercial fishing of that species. He should have taken that into account when he did his analysis. If this amendment is passed now it would be a good thing for the Minister, because if it is not passed he will find himself in court. Recreational fishing groups are funded, they are ready, and they have the ammunition to take the Minister to court. The Minister will have to go through a long drawn-out process, which he will lose, and we will be back to square one, whereby he will have to go through the allocation process again. By that time many, many months will have passed. It will be well past the 1 October 2004 date, and we will have to start at the beginning point again, anyway.

I say the Minister should encourage his Green Party lackeys to vote for Larry Baldock’s amendment. He should vote for it himself, and he should sharpen his pencil and start again. He should make sure that the allocation that is made to the recreational fishers of kahawai truly reflects their interest and history in the fishery, their passion for the fishery, and the economic value to New Zealand of their involvement in that fishery. I tell members and people who live in Hawke’s Bay, and those who fish from Napier and other cities and towns off the coast of Hawke’s Bay and off the coast down to Wellington, that commercial fishers will now be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers. Commercial fishers in Auckland, off the Coromandel coast, and off the Northland coast will be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : First, I rise to acknowledge Phil Heatley’s speech before me and his clear explanation of the situation. I clarify, too, on behalf of United Future that Supplementary Order Paper 247, which I have put forward in my name, will not in any way take kahawai out of the quota management system permanently. It is simply to provide a pause in order to get our facts straight and set the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels appropriately. More important, it provides a pause in order for the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to begin negotiations with the commercial sector on how to deal with the problem that has occurred by allowing purse seine fishing methods to be used to target kahawai. That is really the problem. There is no way to solve that problem unless we enter into negotiation with, and possibly compensate, the commercial fishers for the rights that may be taken away from them, or for the rights that they expect to have. The problem will not be resolved by putting kahawai into the quota management system under the current levels, because there will always be an opportunity for the purse-seiners to catch their quota before recreational fishers have had an opportunity or a fair go to exercise their right to catch kahawai.

In answer to some questions today in the House, the Minister gave the excuse that there would be no controls on the commercial sector if my Supplementary Order Paper was passed in the Committee today. I find that incredibly hard to accept, or even to believe, because controls have been exercised over the commercial sector prior to kahawai going into the quota management system. There are ways to set catch limits prior to quotas being issued, and the Minister would need to exercise those controls, albeit voluntarily, as he may have intimated in his answers today. But nevertheless, there is a way forward if we can put a stop to the total allowable commercial catch level going in as is recommended by the Minister’s Gazette notice.

However, that problem is not the only issue for recreational fishers. They have always said they have no objections to kahawai going into the quota management system. They know there are fishers who catch kahawai as a by-catch, and who do not target it. The recreational fishing interests are not selfish. They have always acknowledged that when that occurs and kahawai are caught as a by-catch, it is entirely appropriate that fishers can take them home, smoke them, and provide them on the roadside for New Zealanders to enjoy. That is something the recreational fishers can live with. They do not want to see a situation where commercial fishers are faced with deemed value penalties because they are not able to get sufficient quota for that by-catch, and therefore start to dump the kahawai at sea, which is a no-win situation for everybody. The concern of the recreational fishers is that not only do the total allowable commercial catch limits the Minister has put in place by his Gazette notice allow for purse seining to continue but they restrict the amount of by-catch quota that regular fishers will be able to get. In the kahawai 1 area, over the last 5 years about 500 tonnes of kahawai have been caught as by-catch. Under the levels allocated by the Minister now, fishers will be able to get only about 300 tonnes of quota to cover that by-catch. If the Minister intends to reduce the total allowable commercial catch even further next year in order to restrain purse seine fishing, it will have the effect of further restricting the regular fishers who need that by-catch in order to cover what they catch incidentally as they go fishing. We do not believe that solution will be satisfactory.

The second issue I raised today in the House is that there is a requirement in the Minister’s advice, and his published statement, for there to be a 15 percent reduction in the recreational catch. That is absurd. In order to achieve a 15 percent reduction in the actual figures, there would need to be a reduction in the bag limit from 20 down to four kahawai. I do not understand how the Minister can expect recreational fishers in New Zealand to accept that their bag limit is to be cut from 20 to four, while they watch the purse seiners continue to catch exactly the same amount of fish they have been catching, on average, in the last 5 years. I do not see how he can ever expect the average New Zealander to accept that as a reasonable and just solution to the problem.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : I move, That the question be now put.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : It would be very nice to be able to support this amendment and curry favour with the recreational fishing lobby. We know that Outdoor Recreation NZ has thrown its weight behind United Future and is expecting results from them. We have seen Mr Baldock come to the first hurdle and fall, and he will fall. He says there is no principle attached to this, and that it does not really matter if we take some quota away from one entity and give it to another. He thinks that that is perfectly acceptable. If Mr Baldock has learnt anything in the House, he surely must have learnt that the fishing industry is hugely litigious. That would happen at the first sign of the Minister overstepping his boundaries and taking from one and giving to another. Goodness knows we have just gone through the scampi inquiry over the past year or so, on issues different but having some similarities in respect of inappropriate allocations.

Mr Baldock was saying that purse-seine fishers go out there and grab their 3,000 tonnes, and they are destroying the fishery. But United Future does not seem to grasp the point that fishers can take only 3,000 tonnes, whether by the purse-seine method, circling a huge school of fish and taking out 3,000 tonnes in one fell swoop, shall we say, or over 10 or 20 attempts. It does not matter. The purse-seine fishers can do it one fish at a time, if they wish. They are allowed only 3,000 tonnes. Finish! End of story! That is it! I cannot understand why United Future does not seem to grasp that very simple point.

I know that the recreational fishing lobby says those fishers are sending up spotter planes, and grabbing all the fish out of the sea. But they are taking only the entitlement they are allowed under law. They are not taking any more or any less than that. So what does Mr Baldock not understand about that? It is quite simple.

I am sure most members agree that clearly the fishery has to be managed, and clearly the quota management system is far and away the best system. But things can go wrong when politicians climb into this debate and favour one section over another. This whole matter of kahawai—the “people’s fish” as it is called—could be solved relatively quickly. All the Government would have to do is approach the purse-seine fishers and buy their 3,000 tonnes from them and give it to the recreational people, if they so wish. But that is a matter for the Government. I cannot do it, Mr Baldock cannot do it, and the Opposition cannot do it. But the Minister can, if he so chooses.

That is a bit of a challenge to the Minister. If he really wants to ensure that kahawai remains the fish of the people, then he will buy the allocation from those commercial purse-seine fishers, if that is what is troubling him so very much. It is quite a simple concept, a freely negotiated concept. He can do it if he chooses. That is the nub of the issue.

I am told there is no sustainability issue around kahawai. I know that recreational fishers say that kahawai are nowhere as big as they used to be, but that is the same whether it is deer or any other recreational resource. The same applies to trout in the streams. The days of getting the big ones are almost long gone, because of fishing pressures. That is nothing new. But in this important recreational fishery we cannot have the situation whereby the Government steps in and creates new grievances amongst various fishers, be they commercial or recreational. The rights of Māori fishers are recognised, because they get 20 percent of everything that goes into the quota management system. The rights of the commercial guys are recognised, but the real problem is that recreational fishers are not.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very serious issue. It is a very important resource, and I think you should allow some members to make a speech about it. [Interruption] It may not concern those Government members down in Auckland, but up there and around the coast and the Bay of Plenty, and all the way to Kaitaia it is a big, big issue. I think you are premature in allowing people who do not take part in the debate, who clearly do not want to be part of the debate, and have clearly never read the bill and clearly are under marching orders, to rise here and say nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever, and just move that the debate be shut down. You have to admit that that is a bit premature, particularly when one party has not had a chance to say anything on this Supplementary Order Paper, whatsoever.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. He is a senior member of the House, and I recognise the points he made. There have already been four closure motions, and 18 speakers. I had heard what I considered to be sufficient debate on the issue, and the proportionality was in keeping with the Parliament’s overall membership.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being cast. It can be seen as intimidation, and could ultimately amount to a breach of privilege. I am cautioning members on my left.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I think you have not gone nearly far enough. When I sit in this Parliament and hear a member of Parliament behind me making the cackling sounds of a hen, not once but frequently, I wonder about one of two things: firstly, whether he is compos mentis—[Interruption]. There has to be a range of explanations. Secondly, he is sitting upon a pitchfork and refuses to move himself, or thirdly he is a silly, juvenile incompetent and has no place in this Chamber. In that sense he should be removed for the rest of the day.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member, but that is not a point of order.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is correct there was a noise from this side during the casting of the vote, but I draw your attention to the fact that there was also one most inappropriately made from the Government side, only a few words earlier. I think that if you are going to warn members on this side, you should be warning members opposite.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. The warning goes to all members in the Chamber—both sides.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I rise in opposition to this part as I did to the earlier parts of this bill on behalf of the National Party. There are a range of reasons why I do so, but I will start with the process of what has happened in this Parliament today and last week as we debated the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). First of all, there was a Supplementary Order Paper introduced into Parliament that was 17 pages long. Today we find further amendments to that in another Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister, which has just been passed. We have to ask the question—and it would be really informative if the Minister would take a call and tell us why this is so—how it is that once a bill has been overwhelmingly rejected by the select committee and has come to Parliament with a major Supplementary Order Paper to which there are further amendments, it can go through the parliamentary process and end up in the situation where it is being debated today in the House. That issue is one of the reasons National is not supporting this bill.

Part 2 of this bill brings mussel spat into the quota management system. That is an interesting issue in itself, and I would be very interested in the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, taking a call on this. I simply want to know how a quota can be established for mussel spat. The experts who advised the select committee said that some years there is plenty of spat and it is all over the place, and other years it is very scarce. So how is it that the Minister and his officials have decided that it will be scientifically credible or fair—given that there has been a huge amount of unfairness in the whole process so far—to introduce mussel spat into some kind of credible quota management system?

The National Party supports the concept of a quota management system and has always said so from the word go. But there must be some basis by which this process is brought in. Part 2 introduces mussel spat and green-lipped mussels into the quota management system. If anyone doubts me on that, I suggest he or she looks at the appropriate part. The Minister certainly does not doubt me. He is keeping his head down on this issue because he knows exactly what I am talking about, exactly what advice he must have been given by the fisheries out there, that he is wrong. He knows that the process he is continuing with will be unfair and will bring about an outcome that is not desirable either from a fisheries point of view or a sustainable management point of view.

It would be very, very interesting and enlightening to this Commmittee if the Minister could take a call and explain to me why what I have stated is wrong, because I think it is absolutely correct. Furthermore, it brings the green-lipped mussels into the whole quota management system process. Here is an interesting point. A member from the Opposition’s side of the House earlier made the interesting comment that those who are in aquaculture are excluded from this process. I am not absolutely sure whether that is what is stated in the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper, which is written in a way that ensures it will never be read or understood. So why is it that this Minister has never taken a call in this House to say that what I am suggesting may not be, or is not, so? The reality is that he cannot. He has had legal opinion on it, he says, but we have no evidence of that.

Hon David Benson-Pope: The member is confused.

SHANE ARDERN: The Minister should take a call. I am not confused at all. It is very clear in the bill and he should have a look to see what it says. It is his bill and he should know what is in it. Of course, if he needs a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper to amend it, who knows what is going on in this debate? We are supportive of the notion of introducing fish into the quota management system, but we need this issue to be cleared up and so do those out there who are involved in this industry.

This is a substantial industry. It is worth over a billion dollars in export earnings for this country. Why is it that we have this convoluted and very, very poorly managed political process, with so much ambiguity around a range of questions, and nobody within the Government, including the Minister himself, is willing to take a call to clear up some of these questions that are yet to be answered? The Minister should answer the questions.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I am delighted to rise in order to answer the three questions that Mr Ardern posed. In the first case, in terms of the select committee, he asked how we got to where we are. I remind Mr Ardern that the Primary Production Committee was chaired by a National Party member—one of his colleagues—as he will be aware, and that the Government does not have a majority on that committee. If Mr Ardern had been a member of that select committee he would know how the Labour members voted. So it is no surprise that the committee did not support the direction of the bill.

In answer to Mr Ardern’s second question, the reason for the extensive Supplementary Order Paper was nothing other than to meet the concerns expressed by the select committee in order to reach appropriate compromises to make progress on the issue—for which the bleating member feigns support.

In terms of mussel introduction to the quota management system, the member will be aware of the progress that has been made towards the removal of the moratorium on aquaculture development. With that happening at the end of the year, most rational people agree that it is entirely essential that there is a good management regime in place for the most important source of spat.

Shane Ardern: How are you going to do it?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would encourage Mr Ardern to actually listen to the arguments so he can inform himself and not continue to embarrass himself and his party with his ignorance.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : The problem with this bill is that it has some very, very serious mistakes in it, and that is one of them. The problem with the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, is that having just arrived in the job a few months ago, he has very quickly become a prisoner of his staff. Whatever they say, despite the fact that they were subject to two major inquiries—one by the State Services Commission and one by a select committee of Parliament itself—he has to agree with it. One of the most ridiculous things in this bill, and one of the most ridiculous things I have heard, is the argument now being made by the Minister. He says: “We must put the quota management system in control of spat, because the moratorium is coming off.” That is what he said—that the moratorium is coming off; therefore, mussel spat must be controlled under the quota management system.

The first thing members should ask themselves is whether, when we started the mussel farms in the late 1970s and the 1980s, there was a quota management system controlling spat. No, there was not. Is the only place in the world where one finds spat Ninety Mile Beach or up north near Kaitāia? Of course it is not. So why on earth are we giving nine people the enormous monopoly and privilege from now until perpetuity, it would seem, to have a giant influence on the future of an industry that has now been going for more than two decades? If the industry did not need it then, why is it needed now? Where is the scientific evidence underscoring the Minister’s belief, and the belief of his ministry, that it should be—

Brian Connell: There is none.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course there is none. Even his own colleagues on the select committee recognise that. Such is the clobbering machine of the “no conscience but ours”—the collective conscience. There is one rule—Helen’s rule. Government members are lions back in the electorate but lambs down in the caucus. Such is the persuasion and the coercion of the Government at the moment that no matter what makes sense, it can be abandoned with the greatest of ease for something that is directed from on high.

Now, I do not know where the influence is in the matter, and why the Government should be arguing this. But I come from a place called Whananaki. Whananaki has acres of spat—all over the beach and all over the pipis. In fact, so much spat is probably killing the pipis. The reality is that the uniqueness of the resource complained of by the ministry simply is not true. I want to know why the Minister would ignore his select committee, which is helping him as it is meant to do, and ignore his colleagues while going along with his officials, who have not made out any scientific case whatsoever.

Shane Ardern: He’s a doormat to the officials.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is worse than that. The trouble with the fishing industry is that for far too long, Minister after Minister has given it the most apathetic concern or interest of all their portfolios. Almost from the start, that has been the case. They have regarded it as an ancillary matter in respect of their operations. They do not understand that a country like Norway—a very wealthy country, whose per capita income is about 2½ times ours—receives 70 percent of its wealth from fishing and marine farming. That is the potential of this country, as well.

Mark Peck: What about Newfoundland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is probably about 90 percent.

Mark Peck: What about Newfoundland?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What about Newfoundland, apart from Newfoundland dogs, which can swim under the water—the only dog in the world that can.

Mark Peck: They used to have a fishing industry, which no longer exists.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I appreciate that, but the member cannot tell me that there is such a scarcity of spat around New Zealand’s coasts that we have to control it under the quota management system. It is a nonsense. It does not make sense. Anyone who has spent some time on New Zealand beaches knows what I am saying. Of course there is variable supply, depending on the season and the year. Obviously that is the case. But why on earth, before one knows what one is talking about and without the scientific evidence to make a judgment, would one nevertheless make that judgment? In short, the ministry has panicked the Minister into doing a most alarming thing and acting against the instincts and beliefs of his informed colleagues, who spent months studying the matter, purely to conform, as a good Minister, to his ministry.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : Part 2, as previous speakers have alluded, is all about mussel spat. One of the most interesting aspects of sitting on the Primary Production Committee, which I did with my colleagues, was asking the ministry officials why mussel spat should come into the quota management system. Everybody knows that the ACT party is totally in favour of the quota management system. Well, we found out that the ministry has no idea where mussel spat comes from, that it has no idea about the volumes of spat, and that it has no idea about the breeding cycles of the stuff.

I asked what the concern was. The concern was about the eight or nine people who have a permit rushing down the beach in their vehicles once the spat is running. The ministry was concerned about the impact on the sand—on the environment. That came directly from Ken Smith of the Minister of Conservation’s office. The Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand put in a submission to the ministry stating it was very concerned about that. Pardon me, but do buses not roar down Ninety Mile Beach? Do motorbikes and four-wheel drives of all shapes, sizes, and descriptions not do that? Yet we had ministry officials concerned about a handful of people—eight people—jumping into a vehicle when the spat is running and popping out to get whatever spat they can. That was the rationale I picked up for the bringing of mussel spat into the quota management system.

I share some of the concern expressed by Mr Peters a moment or two ago about handing over the allocation of spat to a very, very small number of people—eight entities, if one likes. I flag that as the mussel spat industry burgeons, such a situation could potentially enable the capture of the industry and price-jack it. It could well end up with some sort of cartel amongst the eight individuals who have an exclusive right to that public resource—nobody else is allowed to go out there and capture it—deciding to jack up the price.

Or it could be that the mussel companies will make an offer that the catchers of mussel spat cannot refuse. Those companies would then get exclusive use of the mussel spat and could, potentially, jack up the price to all new entrants into the mussel industry. So there are some very real concerns that I have around the availability of mussel spat and around what might happen in the future.

As I said earlier, when it comes to the issue of the sustainability of a species, there is no doubt whatsoever that the quota management system is the appropriate mechanism and vehicle to manage it with. But because of eight people rushing down Ninety Mile Beach, the ministry thought that, no, it had to bring muscle spat into the quota management system. There is one more reason: according to the deed of settlement, 20 percent of any fish stock brought into the quota management system will go to Māori. That, I think, has to be the main reason. So those with existing permits will lose 20 percent, which will go to something called the Māori Fisheries Commission, and that commission will decide on what will happen to it. I am opposed to that, as, I am sure, are most members of the Opposition. This is a very small industry, and there is absolutely no need for that. According to the ministry, there are no concerns around the issue of sustainability, which, according to everybody these days, is the huge issue.

So if there are no concerns surrounding the viability and continuance of the mussel spat doing its thing, where is the problem? Why bring it in? I would like the Minister to address the question about the impact on the environment and the effect that has on mussel spat. I wonder whether the Minister might take a call—just a brief one.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I must say that members on this side of the Chamber are disappointed that the Minister has taken only one call on this issue, considering that the bill, comprising 38 pages including the schedules, was won on the first reading and then lost in the Primary Production Committee, after which a Supplementary Order Paper half the length of the substantive bill—in order words, there is a 50 percent increase in the number of provisions—was presented by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister. We would like the Minister to take a call, particularly on the mussel spat issue.

I have been tracking the mussel spat issue for about 12 months now. It was first brought to my attention because of marine farmers, concerns that the ministry was going to include in the quota management system mussel spat caught on marine farming structures. That is where a marine farmer is farming mussels, with spat produced by the mussels on the farm caught and collected on the structures, because they are obviously nearby—and where the ministry takes into account the spat collected there. Well, common sense prevailed and we are delighted to see that spat caught on structures will not be included, which is the only good news about this part.

We understand from the Fisheries Act that there are two reasons for putting a fishery into the quota management system. The first reason is to do with sustainability—to ensure that a fishery, whether the species is a crustacean, a fin fish, or a shellfish, is managed sustainably for generation upon generation—or any threat to that. The second reason a fishery would be put into the quota management system is to do with utilisation—that is to say, that New Zealand incorporated gets the best out of the fishery as it is utilised, whether by market or recreational concerns. However, we were told by ministry officials that there is no sustainability issue with mussel spat. It swirls around the ocean, and what washes up on the beach but is not collected, dies. Sure, sometimes the tide comes in, collects it, and washes it back out to sea but, substantially, it is washed up on the beach and dies. If it is not collected, therefore, it dies and cannot be used.

We asked the officials about the amount of mussel spat that is washed up or that swirls around the ocean each year. As the ACT member said, they had no idea where the spat came from, no idea where it went, and no idea where it was tracked around the country. In other words, they had no idea of the general tracking of mussel spat. But they did say that the only sustainability issues they could see were those caused by environmental conditions—warm seasons and cold seasons, warm currents and cold currents, or anything like that caused by the environment. In other words, fishing for mussel spat has no impact on sustainability, so why should it go into the quota management system for that reason.

Then there is the utilisation issue. We too are concerned about the idea that there would be eight or nine people who would have control of the quota in future years. But it is worse than that, because not only are there just eight or nine people but those eight or nine people belong to three main families. There are Anthony and Diane Wedding and Patrick Hugh Wedding; Robert Denison and Kirk Denison, who are numbers four and five; and there is another family as well, a number of whose members will get quota for spat. So the number of individuals who will control this resource is low and some of them belong to the same family. That is OK on the face of it, but with mussel spat, because there is no sustainability issue and because there appears to be no utilisation issue, we are concerned that the quota will be restricted to a few people who have a common interest and common link.

We will be voting against this part, because it is our view that mussel spat should not be brought into the quota management system, and certainly not so soon. I know that the Mussel Industry Council agrees, and that it will back us on that.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : Like my colleagues, I would also like to speak on clause 64, which deals with mussel spat. But before I do so, I think we need to have some contextual statements. There is a certain amount of disquiet about the way this bill has been managed through the House and the select committee. In order to understand that, we need to reflect on the fact that we have had a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper come into the Committee. Today further Supplementary Order Papers have been put forward, yet at this stage the Minister has got to his feet and taken only one call on an issue that deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I do not want to overplay that, but the issue around this fishery and mussel spat is of such significance that in time there will be an industry that is a billion-dollar – plus earner. That industry deserves to have confidence in the Minister who is running this portfolio. The confusion that has arisen out of the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper and the steadfast refusal of the Minister, other than on one occasion, to get to his feet and answer reasonable questions are disturbing.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 2.

BRIAN CONNELL: Thank you for your direction. I want now to turn my attention to the question of mussel spat. It was raised in the select committee, and I understand that the Green members were very concerned about it—I mean, these are people who kiss green-lipped mussels, for goodness’ sake! When the bill went to the Primary Production Committee the Minister had the full support of all the parties, but when it came out from the committee that goodwill had been lost. We have to ask the question: what needs to be done to lose the goodwill of the Green Party?

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

BRIAN CONNELL: Before the dinner break I was telling the Committee that there is a crisis of confidence in this Minister, and nowhere is it more evident than in his determination—in fact, it is not his determination; it is his officials’ determination—to put mussel spat into the quota management system.

Simon Power: What is mussel spat?

BRIAN CONNELL: Mussel spat gets washed up on to the shores of our local beaches. The problem is that it gets washed out again when the tide comes in. So what we do not know is whether we are counting it once, twice, or the number of times the tide brings it back in. The question that I need the Minister to stand up and take a call on is how he establishes a quota system for mussel spat. In fact, I note that the Minister will not stand up and take a call, so maybe he could answer this question: what does he need to do to establish a fair quota system? What science has he—or the Minister’s officials—relied on to say that this is how he has established a mussel spat quota? [Interruption] Oh, the Minister has done that. I notice that the Minister still will not stand up and answer that question, but I will put this to him: science that cannot prove a fact is bad science.

Can it be that the real reason mussel spat is going into the quota management system is that it is a sop to Māori with regard to the foreshore and seabed issue? Is that the real reason? I suspect that it probably is, because there is no scientific basis at all for mussel spat to go into the quota management system. That is the only reason I can think of for this Minister to allow it to happen. I suspect that is the real reason. I do not want to be unkind to the Minister.

Simon Power: Why not?

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, to be fair to him, if he were a fish we would throw him back, in respect of his management of this ministry, and, at this stage, he is struggling. But one would expect that he could rely on his officials.

Shane Ardern: He’s floundering.

BRIAN CONNELL: He is floundering. He can rely on his officials to give him his advice, but the problem is that he is held captive by them, because he cannot, or does not, seem to have the capacity to stand up and take a call and explain his position.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify that, with regard to the debate on the schedules. I am sorry, but I did not catch your advice to the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is no debate on the schedules at this stage as a result of the new Standing Orders that came into effect recently; the schedules are debated during the debate on the parts of the bill.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : It is somewhat of a disappointment to me to have to speak on the title debate, knowing that this bill will be passed. The National Party said from the outset that there were three major reasons why we opposed this bill. That has now become four major reasons.

The first reason is that we saw the absurdity of applying the quota management system to tuna fisheries, and to the fisheries of other highly migratory species that were outside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, on the high seas, and inside the Chinese, Fijian, and Madagascan—and everyone else’s—exclusive economic zones. It is absolutely absurd to try to manage fisheries in other countries’ economic zones. Members will recall that I mentioned the Ministry of Fisheries publication called The Bite. It states: “One country can’t sit out on its own pretending to manage a stock that only spends a small portion of its life in its fisheries waters.” National opposes that part of the bill, and we also oppose the absurdity of Māori receiving 20 percent of quota that is caught in another country’s fishing zone on the other side of the Pacific or the world. That is absurd to us.

The second reason concerns the issue of mussel spat. Mussel spat has no sustainability issue whatsoever, but for some reason the Labour Party sees the need to put it into the quota management system. If mussel spat washes up on the beach, it dies, so we may as well utilise it for our aquaculture industry, which just wants to grow. National opposes the bill for putting mussel spat into the quota management system.

The third reason concerns schedule 4C, whereby this Minister is looking to ride roughshod over property rights and put a whole lot of species into the quota management system by catch history—which is fine by us—and put in a whole lot of other species also, not by catch history at all but by straight tendering. There has been an expectation that species would be put into the quota management system only with a catch history allocation. That has been the property right expectation. This bill rides roughshod across that, after no consultation at all with the Seafood Industry Council, Te Ohu Kai Moana, or anyone else in the industry.

The fourth and worst reason is that this Minister sees fit to put kahawai in the quota management system, so that the catch of recreational fishers will be cut back severely and so that commercial fishers, who do not consider that particular species to be of any value at all except for bait and cat food, will reap an extended property right. Having kahawai in the quota management system is fine by National, but not with those total allowable catches and total allowable commercial catches. We would like to see kahawai go into the quota management system, but certainly not under those conditions.

We have been surprised throughout the whole debate on this bill by New Zealand First’s approach to the scampi inquiry. Members will remember that the scampi sections of this bill were lifted out and put into the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). New Zealand First’s wavering over that whole scampi issue raised eyebrows, but over the kahawai issue the situation was worse. New Zealand First abstained over the kahawai issue. But it is not the New Zealand First Party; it is the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—“If I am in trouble, I will abstain.” That is New Zealand First’s answer now to being in trouble. It will do an Ashraf Choudhary—it will not go one way or the other. It will not offend commercial fishers and it will not offend recreational fishers. New Zealand First members knocked on Ashraf Choudhary’s door and asked: “What will we do? What would you do in this situation?”, and Mr Choudhary told Winston Peters to abstain. That is the answer—abstain. That is what Winston Peters and New Zealand First—now the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—decided to do over the kahawai issue.

National is voting against this bill because of the tuna issue and the absurdity of introducing tuna fisheries into the quota management system when the fisheries are in other countries’ zones, and because of the mussel spat issue and the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system when there is no sustainability issue. We are voting against this bill because it rides roughshod over property rights when it comes to the future entry of many species into the quota management system and, of course, because the legislation is a vote against kahawai fishers.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to back up the very sound contribution that has been made to this debate by National’s fisheries spokesperson, Phil Heatley. He has done the job of highlighting the arrogance and foolishness of the Minister of Fisheries, who has been quite happy to interject in this debate, but, despite having had to table the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper 246—

Brian Connell: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Seventeen pages. Despite that, the Minister has not been prepared to contribute to the debate. As we see over on the Government side of the Chamber, all Ministers get a bit arrogant after 6 years. That Minister has become incredibly arrogant after just 6 months in the role. I know of no Minister who has made as many botch-ups in such a short period as David Benson-Pope. I particularly want to highlight what the Labour Party said to the electorate on the issue of kahawai. Labour stated to recreational fishers in its 1999 to 2002 election policy that kahawai is 10 times more valuable to them than it would be to commercial fishers. David Benson-Pope has ripped up the Labour Party manifesto and sold out the recreational fishers.

Then there is the New Zealand First effort. I loved what Phil Heatley said about New Zealand First’s abstention on this issue. New Zealand First has become the “Ashraf Choudhary party”. How often I have gone to recreational fishing conferences where Winston Peters has stood up as the champion of recreational fishers. He is a lion before recreational fishers and a lamb when it comes to Parliament. Winston Peters cannot even work out which way he will vote on an issue as significant as this. That is truly remarkable, although I think most members of the Committee know that New Zealand First blew any credibility it had on fisheries issues with the scam that occurred over scampi. It is a great difficulty that this Government—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The other day the member was called to order on this issue, and he has raised it again. I challenge him to take himself out of Parliament and say what he believes is the truth—

Hon Ken Shirley: That’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:I say to the member that it is a point of order while I am raising it, OK? I am entitled to be heard in silence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that points of order are to be heard in silence, and, in recognition of someone being given a point of order, it is known that it is not to be controversial.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:The member has been called to order before, and he should not have to be called to order again. Just in case he has to be, Mr Chairperson, I think you should either tell him to say that outside Parliament or throw him outside, because if he cannot keep to the Standing Orders—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:There he is again. I have not finished my point of order yet. He will not listen in silence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please come to the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:I am entitled to make my point of order in silence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will allow the member to do that, provided he is terse and to the point, and is not controversial.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:The point of order is terse and to the point. The inference the member has made is an inference that finds five parties now in front of a court for defamation proceedings. He has been ruled out on a number of times when he has made some inferences, yet he seeks to repeat that one. All I am saying is that he should be invited by you to do one of two things: either to leave this Chamber until the debate is over, or to go outside this Chamber and repeat it. He can put his money where his big mouth is.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will allow the member to respond.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order is effectively that he is saying the matter is sub judice because there are defamation proceedings, so no member may comment. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a defamation action brought by Mr Selwyn Cushing, associated with the wine-box affair, in which Winston Peters argued very strenuously that that did not in any way limit his capacity to debate those issues before Parliament. Exactly the same principle applies in this matter. I did not make any reference to the defamation proceedings, and Mr Peters’ point is not a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. The issue that is being discussed by both members has nothing to do with this bill. I ask the member now to return to the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What is your ruling on this point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The issues that were raised by both members are not within the scope of the bill. I ask the member to come to order and debate the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The New Zealand First Party has absolutely no credibility on this bill or on fisheries matters, given the fiasco that we have seen from Winston Peters over scampi, and now his party is abstaining from voting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What action was that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Peters ran into Parliament and made all sorts of allegations about the scampi industry. Six months later he did a complete U-turn, and he has never explained to this Parliament what that—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member come to the bill, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am simply responding to the interjection from the member. The New Zealand First Party chose to abstain from voting. I just find it extraordinary that the New Zealand First Party does not know where it stands. It has done an “Ashraf Choudhary” on an important fisheries issue. It sold out on the most important recreational species, and has joined the Labour Party in ratting on recreational fishers. I simply say that is not good enough.

The kahawai species means far more to New Zealand, and has far more value, as a recreational than as a commercial species. Labour has gone back on its word that it gave to recreational fishers. It has short-changed New Zealand in terms of the proper management of that species, which would provide for the overall interest in it, and the New Zealand First Party has sold out on recreational fishers when it had the opportunity to show some backing for that important recreational fish.

I also strongly endorse the concerns that were expressed by Phil Heatley about the shambolic way that this fisheries legislation has advanced. This should be labelled the “Fisheries (David Benson-Pope Stuff-up) Bill (No 3)”, because if we look at David Benson-Pope’s brief holding of the recreational fishing portfolio, we see that the way he has managed the portfolio is an absolute mess. The ideas that one can apply the quota management system outside the economic zone and that Māori should somehow be given an entitlement to quota outside that zone are a nonsense. A Minister who was on top of his or her portfolio would not have advanced a bill of this sort. We should not have seen a bill be rejected by the Primary Production Committee. The Government lost the numbers there; it has made a hash of this law. We should in fact title this bill far more appropriately, in order to reflect the mess that it is. National simply says that the quota management system cannot apply outside the economic zone.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : Is it not typical of the National Party that it would attack someone when he is not here—not when he is here, but when he is not here. Let me tell members about Mr Heatley at the recreational fishing conference at Onerahi, up north recently. He got up—[Interruption]—no, it is in the bill. He said at the meeting that kahawai should be in the quota management system. That is what he said. He also said something else. He said to all these fishermen: “If you’ve got any problems, see me.”—like he was going to be the next Minister. Do not make me laugh! He will never be a Minister of anything. We do not have boys becoming Ministers. As for the attack from Nick Smith, well, he is a resounding success of course, in that he does not understand the law. He does not understand, for example, that the commitment made by the United Future party is not part of the law, and cannot now be anything other than a usurping of rights already given. And they are rights given by his leader over there, Mr Dunne, and the National Party over here.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. That is not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it is true. Of course it is true. Who wrote the 1996 Act? Who was in power in 1996? Nick Smith cannot even remember yesterday. That is why, of course, he was done over when he went to court. He made a fool of himself. He tried to sell himself as a paragon of virtue, when it comes to free speech.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He would not know what free speech was, and he showed it when he was beaten in court. Then he pleaded: “Would everybody come to my aid?”. Well, have I ever done that? I have had more court cases than he has had hot dinners, but I have never had the lack of fortitude to plead to poor Joe Bloggs to help me out. As for the Selwyn Cushing case, which he did raise, I ask who won in the High Court. Well, I did.

Hon Ken Shirley: Who is about to lose?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The guy over there, called Ken Shirley, who cannot even afford a lawyer.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a point of order on the floor and I was just about to indicate to the member that he should speak to the bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: [Interruption] I find it somewhat extraordinary that only 5 minutes ago Mr Peters was saying that I could not talk about such matters because they were outside the Standing Orders, and now he is including them in his speech. I just ask for a little bit of consistency from the member for Tauranga.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is no point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The difference between my case and Mr Nick Smith’s case is, my case has barely started, and I will win. His is over, and he lost. Therefore it is no longer sub judice.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have all had our fun. I am asking the member to come to the bill, please.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell the Committee that taking on the National Party is like taking candy from a baby. The reality is they cannot make these attacks. I tell members what the trouble was, and I will give the answer in respect of this bill. Some of us can recall the background to this bill back in 1992, with the Sealord’s deal and the arrangement with Māori. Every member of the National Party supported that bill, but one. They have tied up every other Minister of Fisheries ever since, and they have the effrontery and arrogance and absolute stupidity to take on the one National member who said: “I will not sign out that bill.”

Brian Connell: Who was that person?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That was me. Winston Peters, member for Tauranga. That was me. If members look at the Hansard they will see it there. I want to ask the young member from Ashburton whether he feels ashamed to have around him people who cannot remember yesterday, whose DNA, blood, and culpability are written all over the legislation, yet they have the audacity to come along here and, of all things, attack the one and only innocent party.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : There are many aspects of this bill that the ACT party does not support, but we do support kahawai going into the quota management system. That has been a long time coming. We believe in the quota management system. It is a property right, and the ACT party believes in clear property rights.

Indeed, the problem with the management of this species and other non-quota species has been the fact that they are not in the quota management system. It is an administrative allocation that inevitably is a politicised process, and all the arguments and problems that we have seen with scampi and other species that have not been on the quota system are manifest in that. That is why we say the sooner we can get allocation on to a clear property-right basis the better, so we support that part of the bill.

I cannot understand the National Party position or Mr Baldock’s amendment. The real nonsense of their thinking is shown by the fact that if we did not put kahawai into the quota, then the commercial sector would be unrestrained. It could virtually take as much as it liked by whatever technique it preferred, and the impact of that on the recreational fishery would be infinite. We believe that recreational fishers’ property rights have not been adequately provided for; certainly under the Fisheries Act there is a very clear property right for the commercial take under the quota management system. We have in our legislation very clear property rights for customary take—Māori fishing—but the recreational fishers have not been adequately provided for. But that is a separate issue to that of whether kahawai should come into the quota management system, and we say that it should.

What we hear from “Mr Baldrick” just reflects his new coalition grouping—those who have joined with that party and sort of captured them. We always find that new groups in politics reflect the views of the last person they spoke to, and I think that that is the case with United Future members. They got a heavy lobby, and they succumbed to it. Someone told them that something would be a good idea, so they rushed down to Parliament as champions of that good idea, but it was not a good idea at all.

Brian Connell: What about mussel spat?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: We will come to mussel spat, but before I do I must say that I cannot understand the position of the New Zealand First Party. It came to Parliament—and abstained. What a waste of space! We are elected representatives here and we are meant to hold views. To actually come to Parliament to fill a seat and sit here like some sort of maturing cheese, and then abstain—I mean, if one does not have views or opinions—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. It is a clear Standing Order that members may not refer to a prior debate. The particular thing that New Zealand First wishes members to be very clear about is that we are opposed to this bill, in total. So how can that member get away with the effrontery of that nonsense he is spilling out now? Members should look at the Hansard record when voting is completed.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Speaking to the point of order, I should not have to draw this to your attention, but it is the second time tonight that you have indulged a non – point of order from the right honourable abstaining gentleman, and you have not mentioned a thing. You were very quick to call the Hon Nick Smith to heel when he briefly transgressed, but it seems you have been inconsistent. I do call for consistency.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I do have to hear points of order. That is part of the rules of the House. However, frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are out of order. Such tactics lead to disorder, and are unacceptable to the progress of business through the House. Members should consider Speaker’s ruling 19/8, a ruling from Speaker Steward in 1891.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I want to support what my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley said, because although I understand there is an unwritten convention in respect of seniority in the House—and I certainly acknowledge that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has that—you are required to rule when points of order are out of order, and all we ask on this side—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet.

Simon Power: I have not finished yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. Too many points of order are being raised after the Chair has dealt with the issue—and this issue has been dealt with.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. By your interruption of a point of order being raised by the chief Opposition whip, we have just seen exactly the situation of the point of order I raised with you before. You totally indulged the Rt Hon Winston Peters on about three occasions, and never brought him to heel. The chief Opposition whip raised a very valid point just now and you interrupted him, and then would not let him continue because you said that you were on your feet. Why do you not get on your feet when other people make non – points of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated! I had to give the member the opportunity to respond. I had indicated to the Committee that frivolous interjections designed to break up speeches were out of order. They lead to disorder, and the member knows that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The point is not your ruling; the point is that you are applying two standards for frivolous points of order. You shut down and jumped on Mr Power—and I was sitting here very quietly, as I do—yet you indulged at length the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Now, it might be that Mr Peters intimidates you more than Mr Power, or some such thing, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is out of order.

Rodney Hide: May I finish my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member had better come to the point of order, because I have already ruled on it and Mr Peters has been reprimanded.

Rodney Hide: I appreciate that. I ask that on your ruling of what is a frivolous and a not-frivolous point of order, could we please have consistency right across the board?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member and say to him that I am not intimated in any way by any member in the Committee.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The issue of the extra-boundary migratory species is the real nonsense of this bill. While ACT may well support kahawai coming into the quota management system, it cannot support the lunacy that this Government has brought to the legislation by suggesting that populations of fish up in Micronesia, in the North Pacific, off Madagascar, or wherever, somehow should be bound by New Zealand fisheries law, which right from its commencement was always confined to management within our exclusive economic zone. That suggestion really invites ridicule—and I think that plenty of that has been associated with this bill. The reason why the Government was so eager to do that was its anxiousness to give 20 percent of that quota to Māori, and it could only do so by bringing those fish into this system. There seems to be no other explanation. Why would one possibly do it? The Minister in the chair, Mr Benson-Pope, has certainly been unable to give a satisfactory explanation for that.

The other aspect in this bill is the scampi issue. That has, perhaps, had the most sordid history of any species coming into the quota. We have had all sorts of—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Scampi is not in the bill.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Scampi is in the schedule, Mr Chairman. We would certainly like to see scampi in the quota management system. It has had a very sordid history thus far.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I want to make it quite plain to listeners that I heard you interject that scampi was not in the bill, yet I have read quite explicitly in Part 3: “Introduction of scampi into quota management system, …”. I think you owe the member an apology—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 3 is not being debated. It is being held over to form the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), so it is not in the part we are debating at the present time.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I will take a short call to address the title of the bill. Given the amount of discussion around the subject of kahawai, perhaps the title should be changed to “Kahawai Fisheries Bill”, because kahawai has certainly become a focal point of our debate this evening. Some members suggested that kahawai was not covered in this bill, at all. It certainly is now, and that fact will be remembered for a long time. Another appropriate title could be “End Of Recreational Fishing Interests In Kahawai Bill”. Given the defeat of my Supplementary Order Paper, which was a last-ditch attempt to roll back the total allowable commercial catch levels set by the Minister, I know that recreational fishing people all over this country will be very, very upset and disturbed. We will see court action against the Minister and the ministry to try to overturn those decisions.

The Hon Ken Shirley said that ACT had opposed the Supplementary Order Paper because it was about property rights. Well, there are also property rights for recreational fishermen in this country, and their rights have been ignored by the parties that voted against that Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. Section 21(2) of the principal Act clearly tells the Minister that he must first take account of recreational and customary interests and then allocate commercial interests, but in this regard commercial interests have been allocated first and foremost. Unfortunately, that will be the situation.

Much has been said about the Onerahi recreational fishing council annual general meeting. I was present at that meeting, when the Hon Winston Peters made a “seagull” appearance. By that I mean he sort of flew in, squawked all around the place, dropped on everybody, and then left very suddenly, after taking exception to someone else being given an opportunity to speak. I am sure that recreational fishing people throughout New Zealand will remember for a very long time that New Zealand First dropped on them, in terms of its abstention on the vote on that Supplementary Order Paper.

The Primary Production Committee made many amendments to this amendment bill sorting out difficulties that have arisen from decisions made in the past by the Ministry of Fisheries. That is why it was important for us to try to resolve the difficulty regarding kahawai. I spent a great deal of time, at the invitation of the Minister, trying to work through some of the issues the select committee had raised during the long and arduous process. It is rather unfortunate that United Future has to oppose this legislation, even though we negotiated to make a great number of beneficial changes to it. Unfortunately, that is the way the situation must be.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : I move, That the question be now put.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : Once again, I rise to speak against the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). There are a number of reasons for that, and I will start with one. The first reason I can think of, which must be mentioned here, is that there has never been a Minister of Fisheries in the history of New Zealand, I think, who has floundered as much as this Minister. In this debate on the title, this Minister should be renamed the “Yes Minister”. If ever there was an example of the television satire called Yes, Minister, it has to be the example right here. I am not sure, though, who we should call Sir Humphrey—whether it should be the Minister or his officials—but clearly someone in this administration needs to take responsibility for what has happened.

Let us have a look at what has happened since the beginning of this process. First of all the bill was introduced to the Primary Production Committee. The select committee rejected it, sent it back to Parliament, and said that the bill was not suitable and would not represent the wishes of that major industry—that $1 billion – plus export industry—so the Minister should sort it out. The Minister then looked at it and said that he would fix it by introducing a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. But that was not enough. He then introduced a further Supplementary Order Paper to amend the original Supplementary Order Paper, or a clause in the bill.

Brian Connell: To be sure, to be sure.

SHANE ARDERN: Absolutely! That is for sure—and certainly he was not sure at any stage during that process, that is for sure.

Brian Connell: Unsure.

SHANE ARDERN: The most unsure Minister who has ever been in this Parliament! So then what happened? The Minister, because of severe questioning—I guess that is the way to describe it—and certainly under pressure from Opposition members in the House, decided that he would stand up once and try to explain the mess he had got himself—

Hon Member: Once?

SHANE ARDERN: We managed to provoke him to get up once, when he challenged Opposition members to substantiate their arguments. Well, he said that he had answers to the questions that had been asked, but not one question was answered—not one. So I put the questions to the Minister again. I said that the Minister should get on his feet and explain to us what kind of science or evidence—any kind of science or evidence—was brought before him, his officials, members of the select committee, or any others in the parliamentary process, that said he could introduce mussel spat into the quota management system in a sustainable way, or in any kind of sensible way at all. What science or what evidence was presented that suggested that could be done?

Further, what evidence did the Minister have—

Brian Connell: Talk to him slowly.

SHANE ARDERN: Absolutely; I am going very slowly through these questions. What evidence did the Minister have that green-lipped mussels, which are, of course, going to be farmed substantially once the moratorium is lifted—which is about to happen—will be at risk, and therefore will have to be in the quota management system? What evidence does the Minister have for that?

We are not opposed to the quota management system. We think it is very good. In fact, I congratulate those who submitted to the select committee and substantially backed up their arguments with science—unlike this Government or this Minister. So we are in favour of the quota management system, but what science does the Minister have to say that mussel spat can be introduced into that system, and introduced in any kind of sensible way?

I agree that some of this stuff is difficult, but this is the most important question: where, in any of the evidence that was submitted to anybody, was there a degree of fairness introduced into the notion that seven or eight—or, somebody said, up to nine—individuals will be most able to acquire that quota management for mussel spat? Where is the evidence that that will be fair, either to them or to anybody else? Where is the evidence for that? There is absolutely none. The Minister needs to take a call to explain that to the fisheries industry.

Further, when will this Minister explain to the fishing industry how it is that he will administer a quota management system for the migratory species of fish that can be caught off the coast of Brazil? How will he do that?

Phil Heatley: Has he asked the Brazilians?

SHANE ARDERN: I wonder whether he has asked the Brazilians, or any other peoples—the Fijians or the Niueans. The Prime Minister travels around the world; perhaps she is out there at the moment. I am pleased to see that she has recently included New Zealand back on her international flight plan—[Interruption] Some would say it is a bit of a nuisance, but I am pleased that it is a fact.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just because the Standing Orders have changed the sequence in respect of the title, it does not mean, obviously, that the Standing Orders have changed. New Zealand First members are still entitled, as members of Parliament, to four calls on the title clause. What have we had? One call. Now, with respect, we have been involved with the Primary Production Committee for a long, long time, and in this case back to 1986 if we talk about the quota management system. I think that one call is totally unfair, especially on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I understand where the member is coming from, and I accept his contribution. All I can do, because I have already put the motion, is to tell the member that he can seek the leave of the Committee. I do not have any problem if the member seeks the leave of the Committee for one more call.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave for one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) : Yes, because everybody else will want one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No they will not. I want just one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The senior Government whip is mistaken. I seek leave, on behalf of one more member—namely, myself—to have one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave for one more speech, and that is from the member concerned from New Zealand First. In keeping with proportionality that is not unacceptable, but it is not my call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is your call. You have taken a closure motion when a party, having had only one call on the title, sought a second call. That is extraordinary. It is your call and I think, with respect, that you should look at the past record. I cannot remember any political party—and after all our party is No 3 in this House in numbers—getting only one call on the title for such an important issue. It cannot be that 5 minutes is good enough for this bill, when it comes to an issue that covers the whole ambit of the legislation, before we come out of Committee and go to the third reading. I ask you to think again.

The senior Government whip said that if I got the call, they would all want one. It was clear to her that they did not all want one. Even when a concession was made by the whole of the Opposition to that member, she would not concede that it was unfair. I think, putting it back to you, that you should make it very clear you may have made the call prematurely, and that New Zealand First should have one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I know that he is a longstanding member in the House and I appreciate the comments he has made. The reality is though that I have accepted the call, and under Speakers’ rulings I have to abide by that. The question is that the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled.

DAIL JONES: It is a separate issue altogether. I think the point of order is very clear. We all knew what was happening. We all knew that Mrs Pettis was going to stand up to put the motion. Before you started to put the question Mr Peters was on his feet to raise a point of order. I think that it was your responsibility to deal with the point of order before you put the question, otherwise it creates a certain impression for some members of this House. I believe that that is your obligation, and perhaps the Speaker might cast a view on it, as well. Surely, your obligation in this House is to listen to what is happening in the Committee. If a member raises a point of order you must deal with that first, otherwise a question of partisanship may crop up.

Clearly, that is what happened in this case. Mr Peters was well and truly on his feet. I suspect that other members of this Committee were on their feet as well. I kept my eye on Mr Peters, knowing his experience—knowing that he knew what was going on and would take the appropriate action. Mr Chairperson, I am afraid that you have fallen by the wayside on this one.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I point out to the member Standing Order 138, which states: “If the Speaker accepts a closure motion, a question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate.” That is where we are now. I have accepted a closure motion and that stands, and I have made the ruling. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 58/3.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Whilst I do not wish to contest your ruling under Standing Order 138, I invite you to peruse Standing Order 137(3), which states: “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if, in the Speaker’s opinion, it is reasonable to do so.” You have already indicated to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that you thought his request to seek leave for a second contribution to this debate was reasonable. In fact, I believe the exact phrase was “not an unreasonable request by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.” That being the case, I invite you to rule under Standing Order 137(3) that as you have already indicated that a not unreasonable request was made by Mr Peters, you will allow his request for a further contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Again, I thank Simon Power for his contribution on this issue. Of course, under Standing Order 137(3) the Speaker may accept a closure motion if, in the Speaker’s opinion, it is reasonable to do so. At the time I was of the opinion that it was reasonable to do so. I took the closure motion. There was a lot of noise. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens in this Chamber, but I have now taken the closure motion, and there the matter rests.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am seeking leave one more time. I say to Government members that if their answer is “No”, this party will remember that and do something about it in the next months.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use threats.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not a threat. If we are to have no cooperation or any concession at all from Government members, then the consequences for them are very certain—make no bones about it. I am asking you to put leave one more time for me to give one speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will put it to the Committee again. Is there any objection to the Rt Hon Winston Peters having one further call? There is.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. I point out to members on my right that Speaker’s ruling 61/2 states that there is to be no comment at all during votes. There is to be silence, and that goes for everybody in this Chamber. It is not the first time that that has happened this evening.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is the exact point I was making—that we have two standards operating in this Chamber with you in the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I do not accept that, Mr Hide.

RODNEY HIDE: Are you going to listen to my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will not accept that there are two standards of rulings in this Committee. You are challenging—

RODNEY HIDE: Are you going to listen to my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is challenging the Chair.

RODNEY HIDE: Are you going to listen to my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will listen to the point of order, but it had better be in keeping with Standing Orders.

RODNEY HIDE: A strict rule in the Committee is that there is no calling out during a vote. You pointed that out to the chief Government whip who was calling out in a voice that could only be described as “megaphonic”, right across the House. You told her to keep quiet. She completely ignored you and carried on. You asked her again to be quiet, and she called out again. If that member were any Opposition MP, I would expect him or her to be thrown out. I expect the Government whip to be setting the standard, but in taking a vote, Mr Chairperson, for you to offer no sanction when the Government whip called out three times—you told her twice in a few seconds not to do so and you were completely ignored—leaves this side of the House with only one conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I say again to the senior Government whip that she should consider herself reprimanded, and I would appreciate it if she apologised to the House.

Jill Pettis: I do most sincerely apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to make sure that New Zealand First cast its vote the right way by asking this question: if we voted at all points against this bill thus far, does that mean we voted for kahawai to be part of the schedules? Could the Minister tell me, so that we can make sure? If we voted against the bill at all points and on every vote, does that mean that we voted for kahawai to be added to the schedules?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am assured by the Minister that the answer is “No”, but the point is not relevant now.

• Bill reported with amendment.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to the model for allocating fisheries settlement assets. These assets were transferred by the Crown in accordance with the 1989 and 1992 fisheries settlements, and have to date been held and managed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and its predecessor, the Māori Fisheries Commission.

Broadly, this bill provides for the establishment of a series of new entities, and for the distribution of settlement assets among iwi and the new entities. The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission will disappear and be replaced by a trust, Te Ohu Kai Moana, and its trustee, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. All settlement quota will be allocated to iwi represented by mandated iwi organisations. Settlement assets comprising companies and company shares will be consolidated into a single holding company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, whose income shares will be held by iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Two new trusts will be created: Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust will fund Māori education, training, and research; Te Wai Māori Trust will fund initiatives to promote the interests of Māori in freshwater fisheries. The bill sets out the criteria and preconditions for the assets to be allocated to iwi in a manner that is ultimately for the benefit of all Māori, and therefore of all New Zealanders.

I thank the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for their work on this bill. They heard evidence in Rotorua, Gisborne, Christchurch, Whangarei, and Wellington. They have carefully considered submitters’ views—often widely divergent views. In addition, they have clearly been conscious of the need not to undermine the allocation model developed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. In an extended process, the commission established the model’s basic framework and criteria to meet the requirements of the deed of settlement and direction from the courts.

Key issues raised in submissions to the select committee included: the need for greater accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi; greater accountability of mandated iwi organisations to their iwi members; changes in the timing and procedure to review the governance structures of new entities; greater flexibility in the disposal of settlement assets; the reduction of delay in the transfer of assets to mandated iwi organisations; and, finally, recognition of iwi for the purposes of the bill.

The committee has by majority recommended a number of amendments to address these issues. To improve the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi, it is recommended that mandated iwi organisations be able to table non-binding motions at general meetings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, and that all reporting documents should go to Te Kāwai Taumata, the electoral college, to enable it to assess better the performance of the directors it has appointed. The committee has also recommended that the constitutions of all the new entities require greater detail in reporting to their beneficiaries.

To improve the accountability of mandated iwi organisations to their iwi members, the committee has recommended changes requiring adequate notification of meetings and the provision for members to have the option of voting by postal ballot. These changes ensure that members are able to be informed of and participate in decisions to ratify or change the constitutional documents, elect office holders, or dispose of any settlement assets. In addition, the committee has recommended that mandated iwi organisations cannot be recognised by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd until they have a minimum number of iwi members on a register, and that the minimum number of registered members should be increased in the case of larger iwi. The changes should address the concerns of many groups, by making sure that a mandated iwi organisation acts for the benefit of all members of that iwi.

The committee has also recommended substantial changes to the review provisions, which are aimed at providing more timely reviews and ensuring that the governance review procedures are independent. To that end, amendments are recommended to provide for an operation audit every 4 years, to determine how well directors are carrying out their duties and functions. In the 11th year an independent review will be conducted to determine whether any changes in the governance arrangements or asset disposal restrictions would better serve the interests of the beneficiaries. A committee of representatives appointed by iwi will set the terms of the review and appoint the reviewer.

Changes have also been recommended to the processes for sale of settlement quota. These changes will allow mandated iwi organisations to maximise the price they can receive from the sale of a bundle of assets that include settlement quota, while maintaining the restriction that settlement assets can be sold only to iwi or members of Te Ohu Kai Moana group, including Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. To reduce delays in the transfer of settlement assets to iwi, the committee has recommended changes to provide for interim coastline agreements. Where there are disputes about coastal boundaries interim coastline agreements can be entered into, in relation to the areas that are not under dispute. Assets about which there is no dispute may be transferred to the relevant mandated iwi organisations.

Finally, the committee has recommended changes to allow the iwi of the Hauraki and Te Arawa confederations to establish separate mandated iwi organisations, and to provide for Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine to withdraw from the mandated iwi organisations of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu. The withdrawal process requires the parties to negotiate an agreement on how the allocated settlement assets will be distributed. Upon withdrawal, the iwi will have the right to manage separately their share of the settlement assets. In the case of Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, the committee noted that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission had not completed its evaluation of iwi status. The committee reviewed the evidence provided against the commission’s iwi-recognition criteria, and concluded that provision should be included in the bill to enable Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine to establish mandated iwi organisations and to manage their settlement assets, if they chose, separately from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu.

The Government supports the amendments recommended by the majority of the select committee. The Government also intends to move a number of technical amendments at the Committee stage.

Passing the Maori Fisheries Bill is the final step that the Crown must take to complete the implementation of the agreements in the fisheries deed of settlement. The ongoing obligations to transfer 20 percent of new quota to Māori, to provide for tangata whenua input and participation, and to develop regulations to provide for customary fishing, are in place under the Fisheries Act 1996. Now we just need to enact the Maori Fisheries Bill to enable allocation of the assets transferred by the Crown in settlement of Māori claims to commercial fishing. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : The National Party, with reservations, supported this bill going to the select committee, because we saw that after 12 years of debate amongst Māori over the 1992 settlement assets, and with some sort of general agreement that the situation had to be moved forward within Māoridom up and down the country, this legislation provided an opportunity to do that very thing. It moves the settlement process forward so that there is an allocation and some sort of finality to what has been a controversial issue—that is, the allocation of Māori fisheries assets amongst iwi, hapū, and whānau throughout this country, to the benefit of all Māori.

We had those reservations because we found—certainly when we spoke to Māori groups throughout the country, and to others involved in the commercial fishing industry—that the bill was both particularly patronising, and tending to hold back Māori unnecessarily when they were dealing with their own assets. So we took something of an interest, especially in the details of the bill, to see that that patronising approach was addressed.

We had some degree of success and I would like to go through some of the successes that the National Party had in working with others on the committee, such as Dover Samuels—a very useful member—Nanaia Mahuta, and other members. However, I say first to this House and to those interested in the bill that National will certainly be introducing amendments during the Committee stage, to address other patronising features in this bill and the 20 percent of it that we believe the Government has got all wrong—the 20 percent that relates to the ability of successful iwi groups to take their assets and do what they want with them. Another amendment will look at making sure there is less of the bureaucracy that would otherwise hold back iwi groups.

The first issue of six that we addressed in the select committee—quite successfully, I believe—is the issue of recognising iwi organisations that are currently up and running. Some iwi, and Ngāi Tahu and Tainui certainly spring to mind as clear examples, have been recognised in other Crown settlements and have had structures in place to deal with settlements. Yet in the original bill they still had to jump through patronising and bureaucratic hoops to get recognition. The changes that we introduced are amendments to clause 14(2) so that such iwi organisations, thankfully, can be given automatic recognition as long as they are formally structured and accountable to their members, have an already established asset-holding company, and have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty settlement purposes. Clearly, Ngāi Tahu fits the bill there and Tainui does also—or at least comes very close. I congratulate other members of the committee on achieving that success.

The second issue was about the potential for disputed coastline agreements to hold up allocations. When the bill was introduced by this Labour Government, assets could not be transferred to iwi unless coastline boundary issues were resolved. That meant that if there was a dispute over a few kilometres of coastline, the allocation over the entire coastline would be held up, which is absolutely absurd. If there was general agreement about 95 percent of the coastline allocation, it should have been allowed to go ahead, and the other 5 percent to be resolved and moved forward. The changes that we introduced in the select committee now incentivise agreement, by allowing the assets relating to the undisputed coastline to be transferred and allocated to appropriate iwi, while assets relating to the coastline in dispute can be set aside pending some sort of resolution. We were glad about that success.

The third issue brought to us was about the restriction on selling or swapping quota. It was unbelievable that the Labour Party saw it useful to limit the realisation of the value of fishing operations through the sale of capital items, quota, or shares within only iwi groups or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. There was a rule set there, and a right of first refusal process that required an iwi to sell each quota species separately rather than as a bundle of quota. We got the clear message from Māori that they preferred to see the assets transferred only within Māoridom—iwi to iwi, or iwi to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—for the benefit of future generations. However, it was foolish to have a rule stating that bundles of quota could not be sold amongst iwi groups. As well, though the restrictions on the sale of shares and quota has a potential to affect their value, there is an understanding, supported by most iwi, of the accepted consequence that Māori through the generations must benefit from the settlement. That was a fundamental principle in the allocation model, but we have brought in amendments to Part 4 that will ensure an iwi can maximise the price it receives through asset sales, which can now be offered by individual or collective stock—it is up to them.

A fourth issue raised with us was the conflict of interest incurred when Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd competed with iwi groups. As the bill was introduced they were able to compete against iwi fishing companies, and to grow by accumulating assets and quota. There is no significant change in this bill in front of us, and the National Party will be bringing amendments to address that issue. We are concerned about it and we will be putting that to this House.

The fifth issue, which the Minister touched on, was that some iwi were not recognised in their own right. Two iwi in particular, Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, were not recognised in the allocation because, among other things, in order to have iwi status they had to be traditionally acknowledged by adjacent iwi. Other iwi wanted individual recognition as well, because they lacked confidence that their current overarching iwi organisations would deliver benefits to them. Amendments, though, will recognise Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine if their members so choose. That is because in both cases a lack of recognition by their single adjacent iwi amounted to an unreasonable veto in the face of other evidence presented. We are delighted that those changes have been incorporated into the bill.

Lastly, we were presented with issue six, which concerned the accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi groups. The National Party remains concerned about that particular issue. We find it quite interesting that in the bill this Labour Government presented, its whipping-boy, so to speak—Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd—had very little to make it accountable to iwi, to hapū, and to Māori. But in the bill the Government poured bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, accountability upon accountability, and paperwork upon paperwork to iwi groups receiving that allocation. The Labour Government stated in the bill to iwi groups that they had to be accountable, to fill in the paperwork, and to have a bureaucracy that is pretty endless—but Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd did not have to. We want to turn that around. The National Party believes that we can have a much less patronising approach to accountability structures. We will also seek to close the distance in the relationship between individual Māori, whānau, hapū, and iwi, and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd over assets.

So National supports the second reading of the bill, but we signal to the Labour Party that we will produce amendments at the Committee stage. In the interests of Māori and of all New Zealanders, and particularly of those in the fishing industry, we reserve our right to vote as we best see fit on the bill’s third and final reading. We commend its second reading to the House.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) : Te mea tuatahi māku, he mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare i tēnei pō.

[The first thing to do is to extend a greeting to you the Speaker of the House tonight.]

Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi. Translated, that is to say: “The old net is cast aside, and the new one goes fishing.”

Te mea tuatahi māku, he mihi atu ki te komihana o Te Ohu Kai Moana me ngā kaiwhakahaere katoa nā rātau nei tēnei kaupapa i whakahoki mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Kei te mihi hoki ki a rātou mā kua huri atu ki muri i te ārai.Kei te maumahara atu ki tērā o wā tātou rangatira a Matiu Rata.Koia tētahi o ngā kaipoipoi o tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō.Ko rātau kua moe, kua puāwai, kua puta ngā hua o ā rātou kaupapa whakaaro, moemoeā. Ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi hoki nā rātau tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō te tārewatanga mō te 12 tau, kua puāwai ō rātau moemoeā i roto i tēnei pire i tēnei pō.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[The first thing to do is to extend a greeting to the commission of Te Ohu Kai Moana and to all those who played a leading role in getting this bill back into Parliament. Acknowledgments are also extended to those who have crossed the divide, namely one of our chiefs, Matiu Rata. He was one of the ones who played a leading role from the outset. While they have passed away their vision and dream have come to bear.To the families, sub tribes and people who have worked on during the 12-year period of suspension, their dreams have blossomed tonight with this bill.]

The Māori Fisheries Bill is in its final step in its final and well-considered process, which has been undertaken to transfer and allocate assets from the Crown to Māori in settlement of treaty claims for commercial fishing. Once this legislative process is completed, the casting of the new net will begin. Twelve years of uncertainty for our people is coming to its finality and to an end. Māori are looking forward to the transfer of 20 percent of new species, also, to the quota management system, and I am highly thankful that the Opposition, as the Government of Jim Bolger, many years ago, saw fit to recommend that the highly migratory species be transferred to Māori. I thank him for that, and I also thank members of the National Party for supporting it. I hope, when that happens, that they remember the wisdom of their elder, Jim Bolger, in recommending that 20 percent of those species be transferred over to Māori.

The second reading of the bill follows on the recommendations of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. The committee has made valuable recommendations in response to key issues in submissions from the general public and from Māori. Those recommendations have been given preliminary consideration by the Government, and we intend to move further amendments at the Committee stage in order to better respond to those recommendations. I extend my sincere appreciation to my colleagues and to the members of the select committee, specifically my colleagues Phil Heatley, the member for Whangarei, Georgina Te Heuheu, Pita Paraone from New Zealand First, my colleague from United Future, and other colleagues, who certainly made a very substantive contribution to the formulation of the bill.

They reminded us time and time again that Te Ohu Kai Moana said that this is not the bill of the politicians but of Te Ohu Kai Moana and the Māori people, who, over years, have made a contribution to its formulation. However, without the challenges, the select committee sat down and listened to the submissions from the Ministry of Fisheries, Te Puni Kōkiri, and other officials, advisers, and interested parties, including Te Ohu Kai Moana, which enabled us to be able to put this bill together, and we are here today to move its second reading.

In a little bit more detail, I wish to touch on some key amendments that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, Mr Benson-Pope, referred to. To improve efficiency and effectiveness, the committee recommends establishing a fast-track process for iwi treaty settlement entities to acquire the status of a mandated iwi organisation and, therefore, be eligible to receive assets from Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Some existing iwi structures probably already fulfil the requirements identified in the bill as being needed for the recognition of a mandated iwi organisation. Sensibly, the committee recommends that a pre-existing iwi structure should be recognised as a mandated iwi organisation if it fulfils certain criteria, which include a listing in schedule 3; formal structure and accountability to members; establishment of an asset-holding company; acceptance by the Crown as having a mandate for treaty purposes; settlement of historical claims, such settlement completed through to legislation; and the use of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. The provisions will help ensure that iwi who have completed the settlement of their historic treaty claims and meet the requirements of the new legislation do not have to start the mandating and other establishment processes all over again.

The committee recommended that recognised iwi organisations also receive increased responsibilities. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will be able to recognise iwi organisations for various purposes, such as participating in the process for sale of catchment entitlement, although recognised iwi organisations cannot bind iwi into agreements to receive or use settlement assets on behalf of iwi. The accountability requirements of mandated iwi organisations to iwi members have been strengthened, such as requiring each mandated iwi organisation to make its iwi registry available for inspection by registered members of the iwi. These accountability requirements balance the practicalities of asset-management with the trustee role of mandated iwi organisations and the right of the ultimate beneficiaries of the assets, the Māori people generally.

It is important that the people on the ground—the fisherman who was displaced simply because of the introduction of the quota management system many years ago—be given a system that is accountable to our people at the grass roots. Being a past fisherman, I say that many of our Māori fishing villages and Māori fishermen were displaced many years ago, and their hopes and dreams have been around the introduction of this legislation so that their whānau and their hapū can go back out fishing. I am talking from a customary perspective. I am not talking about giant corporations like Sealord’s, but about the close relationship that Māori people have with their fishery and the traditional ways. This will give them the opportunity not to secure the pūtea and quota for themselves but to be able to allocate and distribute those assets to the people who really own them—the people there living by the sea who have been involved in commercial fishing for generations.

Provisions to allow for Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine to withdraw from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahungunu respectively have been the subject of recent media attention. However, the select committee’s recommendations allow for a careful and considered withdrawal by Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, if those groups wish to withdraw from the mandated iwi organisations of the larger groups. The time frame provided for such a decision has been set at 5 years from the date the mandated iwi organisation for the wider group comes into being. Finally, I tell members that the select committee recognises that the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has duties as the trustee and voting shareholder for Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, to ensure statutory compliance and to ensure that Te Ohu Kai Moana’s purpose is upheld. The committee recommends that adequate funding for the trustees in the commission is preserved, and that Te Ohu Kai Moana may hold quota but not undertake fishing. All interests of the trustees, other than capital and funding prescriptions, will be transferred to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That meets objections raised in a number of iwi submissions. Finally, I would like to wish Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd well, and I wish all those groups responsible for receiving the allocation—the pūtea—and assets well, because I believe that the majority of our people out there wish to get on with the business. They want to go out fishing, and they want to be able to contribute to their communities. This is an opportunity for our people to be positive in terms of the fisheries and the aspirations they have had over many years of waiting for the final allocation—so that our days of having disputes in court are gone. Our people now have the assets, they have the ability, and they also have the opportunity to be able to go out fishing.

Nō reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa ngā mema o tō mātou komiti, te kaiwhakahaere o te komiti whakatau i tēnei kaupapa, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou.Kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou.

[And so I congratulate all you members of our committee who played a part in this bill, and the chairman as well. Greetings to us all again and to everyone else.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ko te tikanga kia tīmata mai aku kōrero i roto i tō tātau reo rangatira nā te mea, tuatahi, he kaupapa tēnei e pā ana ki a ngāi tātau te iwi Māori, tuarua, nā te mahinga hī ika, ā, tuatoru, nā te iwi whānui o Aotearoa.

It is correct that I preface my speech in our Māori language, because this is a matter that concerns the Māori people in the first instance, secondly it concerns the fishing industry, and thirdly, the people of New Zealand. I stand as a member of New Zealand First, the only non-aligned political party in this House, to signal our support for the intent of this bill in its second reading. I should also mention, as I did from the first day I sat on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that dealt with this bill, my vested interest—an interest that must be shared by other Māori members of this House, because the findings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held: “… the benefits of the settlement to be allocated to iwi, meaning the traditional tribes, for the ultimate benefit of all Māori.”

I recall in December last year the words of the Minister of Māori Affairs when introducing this bill to the House: “Its passage will begin a new era of Māori participation in the fishing industry, enabling the beneficiaries of the 1992 fisheries settlement to receive the assets and use them for the economic and social benefit of Māori.” Of course, we all know that Māori are already a major participant in the fishing industry, and I now have a clear understanding of why the Minister no longer has a responsibility for the passage of this bill.

The bill has its genesis in the deal that is commonly known as the Sealord’s deal—a deal signed some 12 years ago. Those who signed agreed to forego any further fisheries claims, which included their customary fishing rights. So we can see that Māori have been waiting a long time to see the benefits of that deal, and may I say that some have waited longer than others. I am mindful of the American, Will Rogers, who said that the ageing process could certainly be slowed down if it had to work its way through Congress. Although that might be a possibility, it certainly has not applied to Māori. In fact, many have passed on while waiting for this bill to come to fruition.

Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Māori Fisheries Commission, was subsequently established and charged with providing a model for the allocation of a resource conservatively valued at $700 million. This bill is based on the model the commission presented, following dialogue between itself and iwi. Although not fully supported by iwi, the model received a limited sign-off for its presentation to the Government. Why? It was clearly a sign of their frustration in having to wait so long for the matter to be resolved and, therefore, to allow iwi to get on with the business of fishing.

Notwithstanding the difficulty of the task of the process, and in particular the duration, all of that attracted much criticism towards Te Ohu Kai Moana. My observation, and in particular hearing the utterances emanating from one or two of the principals of Te Ohu Kai Moana over recent weeks, has given me a better understanding of why iwi have been critical of the commission. The model outlined a number of features concerning the ongoing governance of that iwi resource. Plans to recognise some groups, outside of those recommended by Te Ohu Kai Moana, will not delay the distribution of the settlement, as those who clearly oppose these recommendations would have us believe.

I say to those people, who consider themselves leaders of their people, that they should—if they are indeed leading their people—take a look back now and then to ensure that the people are still there. I say to those very people that if they had taken the responsibilities of good leadership on board and taken their people with them, then those issues that they have suddenly become concerned about might not have transpired. Attempting to circumvent the recommendations of the select committee did not help their cause. The time is long overdue for them to stop this scaremongering and to get on with the job their people expect of them. Any talk of further litigation is just mere obstruction to the economic development of their people. This must clearly send a message to present and future leadership of all groups, which will now become mandated iwi organisations under the terms of this bill.

The suggestion that this recommendation will open a Pandora’s box suggests for me that members of the current leadership are still locked into the belief that they know what is best, without understanding the level of feeling of the people they purport to lead. If anything, what they should be doing is giving to their people what is contained in Pandora’s box—that is, hope. It is the hope that they will do right by their people. In so saying, I acknowledge that there is leadership that has proved this. Sadly, I cannot say it for others. If there are those among the leadership I am referring to who are offended by my remarks, then I say that if the cap fits they should wear it, and do something about it.

The publicity given to this recommendation describes it as a compromise on iwi recognition. The select committee had no difficulty in coming to its decision, because it was consistent with the criteria set by Te Ohu Kai Moana. The select committee further contended that it was not right for any contiguous iwi to have the power of veto in that regard. The disquiet expressed by iwi around the country towards the commission, concerning the time and process taken to get where we are today, suggests to me that the future role of this group—including its new identity provided by this bill—in other fisheries matters involving Māori should not be given any further consideration.

This bill establishes a number of new entities, one of which will allow for the distribution of financial assistance. Just as important, it will provide access for those who do not identify with an iwi, thus creating, in my mind, a new iwi—all of which I find hard to accept, but there it is. Of course, the argument proffered by Te Ohu Kai Moana in support of that suggestion is that those people do not know their tribal iwi—and Ngāti Hine does. One can only wonder why it is then that when those same people pass on, they and their families know exactly which marae to return to and where they wish to be buried—thus suggesting to me that they do know their iwi.

For me, another issue that requires attention in order for due consideration to be given, so that there is a clear intent notified, is the question regarding the use for which data is provided in this respect. I refer to the use of the census figures. From the 2001 census data, we are told that there are 107,000 people who identify with belonging to the Ngāpuhi iwi, but I understand that, in spite of this number, there are only 7,000 people on its own register. I would suggest that that number, and the numbers for all other iwi listed on the census form, may well prove to be lacking if respondents were informed that those numbers would be used for determining the fisheries allocation. However, in this aggregation process, those groups recommended by the select committee have the opportunity to draw their population numbers from the 2006 census, if they so wish, and of course it will not advance their position if they do not. Otherwise, they can use the 2001 census figures, upon which the commission model is based.

In order to address what might be an advantage for those groups, consideration ought to be given to utilising the 2006 census iwi population data for all iwi. Why? Because people will know that apart from telling the world how many make up the membership of their tribe, they will be doing so in the knowledge that their choice will be used to determine the extent of their tribe’s allocation under this bill. Personally, I would like to think that other parties in this House would lend their support for a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines.

Again, I would also like to support the sentiments expressed by the honourable member from Te Tai Tokerau in acknowledging those people who were responsible for putting together the original deal and who have since passed on. Nā reira, koutou e ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi, haere, hoki atu. Those who have gone from our sights, go, return to the spirit world. Nā reira, e te Kaikōrero tēnā koe, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So thank you Mr Speaker, and everyone else.]

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : This bill is such a dog’s breakfast. But before I talk about the bill itself, I first want to thank sincerely my colleagues on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, the submitters who came before us to give their presentations on the bill, the officials, the specialist advisers, and especially the select committee and Parliamentary Counsel Office staff. The select committee had an enormously complex bill that took an awful lot of work, and we had to do this work in what felt, at the time, was a very tight time frame. This put an awful lot of pressure on the staff in particular, and I want to make sure that their efforts and their work do not go unrecognised.

The Greens will vote against the second reading of this bill. The issues we raised in the first reading debate have not been adequately addressed, and we eagerly await the Committee stage to see whether those issues can be remedied. The Greens worked extremely hard in the select committee to press for changes—changes that reflected fairness and were supported by the submitters. Many of those issues fell on deaf ears. That was a very serious concern, because this bill was introduced into Parliament only because iwi wanted some resolution to the process, not because they supported the bill itself. A number of iwi who supported its introduction did so with significant reservations, and it seems that many may have wrongly thought that the select committee would adequately take that into account and provide for their concerns.

We support some of the changes that were made. There is some increased accountability for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, but not enough to satisfy our concerns. We are pleased that there is a decent review process, for example. The bill initially offered a 12-year review period, which was wholly inadequate. The select committee inclusion of audits at 4-yearly intervals will help to make sure that all the newly created entities are doing what they are supposed to do. We acknowledge that there is now some recognition of Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, but these iwi are entitled to specific identification rather than this ridiculous half existence set out in the bill, and I will get to that issue in a moment.

There remain serious structural flaws in the bill. The recommended changes to the review provisions do not go far enough to remedy what is a fundamental conflict of interest in the governance and commercial structures established by the bill. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains constitutional oversight of the mandated iwi organisations and remains unilaterally able to alter the requirements that the mandated iwi organisations must meet for recognition. This gives to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd considerable authority over the mandated iwi organisations, dictating the detailed content of their constitutions. It also means that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd can add hurdles that the mandated iwi organisations must jump over before they can access their fisheries assets. If that were not bad enough, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains the sole voting share over Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is a commercial competitor to the asset-holding companies that will be established by the mandated iwi organisations for the management of their settlement assets. In fact, we only just managed to stop the select committee from agreeing to allow Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to have control over the constitutions of the asset-holding companies themselves, which were set up by the mandated iwi organisations to manage their assets.

The Government wanted Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to have almost complete control over every organisation involved in the management of the settlement assets. This is an absolute abrogation of the principle of rangatiratanga inherent in the deed of settlement. Iwi cannot control Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, because they have only income shares, not voting shares. So Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd retains an extraordinary power over, in effect, its competitors in a highly vulnerable industry. As it is, there are no structural impediments to prevent Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd from altering the requirements for mandated iwi organisations to ensure that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd gains a competitive advantage. It may never be the case that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is used in that unconscionable way, but none the less, this bill, if passed in its present form, would leave that possibility wide open. It is bad law in this form. It should have been changed in the select committee, but should now be altered in the Committee stage.

Many submitters raised this issue and expressed their concern that the provisions were designed on the arrogant premise that Māori cannot look after their own money. Iwi are entitled to voting shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd as a commercial entity that will retain 50 percent of the settlement assets originally intended to be transferred to them. If the assets are to be retained in a centralised form, iwi are at least entitled to exercise the responsibilities of shareholders, consistent with standard commercial practice. We do not need a centralised bureaucracy holding Māori’s hand again. We have had that for far too long. This settlement is specifically designed to return that control to iwi, but this bill fails to do that and it therefore fails to meet the purpose of the settlement. There remain too many layers between Māori and their own assets.

The Greens have always considered that the criteria requiring acknowledgment from contiguous iwi for the recognition of iwi status to be unreasonable. Requiring such support from contiguous iwi creates a conflict of interest between those iwi on the basis of entitlement, and this has caused unnecessary delay over the recognition of iwi for the purposes of the bill. The select committee attempted, and rightly so, to remedy this problem in two cases: Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine. The select committee considered the Te Ohu Kai Moana criteria for iwi recognition and looked at it in two ways: first, whether the criteria was reasonable and, second, whether it was consistently applied. The committee decided that the criteria was reasonable—although I completely disagree—and it also decided that it was not applied consistently in the case of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine—a position with which I certainly agree. The committee decided that both these iwi meet the criteria, and that, in objecting to their iwi status, the larger iwi into which they are incorporated, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāpuhi respectively, were in effect exercising a veto over their recognition, and that the exercise of that veto was not envisaged by Te Ohu Kai Moana when the criteria were developed. In effect, Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine meet the criteria and should not be prevented from recognition by the exercise of that unjust and unconsidered veto.

The committee agreed that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine should be included in schedule 3 and listed in the notes to schedule 3. The committee agreed that it would clearly identify those two iwi as having the same status as their compatriots. But members will see that that provision is not in the bill, because, at the very last minute, officials told us that the Minister would not accept their specific inclusion in schedule 3 and that, if we included it, the reference would be removed later in the process. Apparently the Minister does not want these two iwi to have such status, even though the select committee agreed that they meet the criteria and are entitled to have it. In effect, the committee was bullied and told that if it did not change its instructions on the bill, the Government would ensure that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine would not be recognised, at all.

The Greens are relieved that the new disaggregation provisions are required in the constitutions of the conglomerate iwi identified in the notes to schedule 3. These provisions enable any of these iwi within that conglomerate to disaggregate without having to negotiate new constitutional amendments that would otherwise require the support of 75 percent of members. To have 75 percent support from the larger iwi is a very big ask, and there is very little incentive for the members of those larger iwi to give it. In our view, each iwi within those conglomerates is independently entitled to settlement assets and should be recognised as such in the bill.

Although there are disaggregation provisions, there remains a restriction on disaggregated iwi in that they will not have an entitlement to vote for the board of Te Kawai Taumata. Instead, they must negotiate to have their view represented by the grouping from which they have disaggregated. There is no justification for that restriction. The Government and Te Ohu Kai Moana recognise that those iwi are individually entitled to assets. They are recognised as iwi in the bill. When asked why the Government would not allow them to have a vote for Te Kawai Taumata, officials said that it was important to have a disincentive to disaggregate. So those iwi that choose to manage those assets themselves in the exercise of their own rangatiratanga are not regarded as sufficiently competent to exercise a vote for the body that will appoint the directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. It is a disgraceful provision that must go. The Greens will put forward a number of amendments to this bill at the Committee stage, and we look forward to a favourable reception from the House.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I join with others from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and acknowledge the earnest and diligent work the select committee did in considering this Maori Fisheries Bill. Dover Samuels made the comment that 12 years of uncertainty is coming to an end and that disputes in the courts are gone. I only wish I could believe that. I certainly do not believe it. In many instances, I believe this bill will exacerbate the situation and make matters even more complex.

I think I am one of the few remaining members of the House who was involved in this issue through the 1980s, following the Muriwhenua decision, and directly involved in discussions at the outset with the late Matiu Rata, Graham Latimer, the late Bob Māhuta, Tīpene O’Regan, Maanu Paul, and others. I recall many late-night discussions in what led to the first Māori fisheries select committee, which I chaired. We spent some 18 months going around the country on that committee.

Hon Rick Barker: Yesterday’s man.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Mr Barker was just a union official in those days, and some would say that that is where his mind still is.

That committee did a lot of work that led to the Maori Fisheries Act 1989, which essentially gave Māori 10 percent of quota, to be transferred over 4 years in 2.5 percent per annum tranches. In fact, I was the subsequent Minister of Fisheries who made those transfers of quota to Māori.

We know that the matter was not settled then. We thought it had been, but no, the Act was referred to as an “interim solution”. I will never know why, because in the early days 10 percent was the settlement. That was the deal. Everyone had agreed to sign off on 10 percent and that was the deal, but right at the last stages it was captured by those with an agenda. Those people called it the “interim solution”, and that, of course, led to the National Party’s settlement in 1992, with the Sealord’s deal and with Māori getting 20 percent of quota. So the quota was bumped up to 20 percent.

Be that as it may, that is history. The key thing to bear in mind with reference to this bill is that the 1992 deed of settlement was supposed to be a full and final meeting and acknowledgment of the commercial fishing right sourced in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Indeed, it was the intention to expunge the old section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act 1983, which the customary commercial take was based on. So it was to be a full and final settlement.

The Māori Fisheries Commission was set up back in 1990. I always envisaged that it would probably last about 18 months. Obviously the Crown could not choose how much quota went to which particular iwi. The Crown would never get that right; it would always have been the meat and mustard in the sandwich. The commission was set up, and its task was to make that determination. What happened? We know that we had 12 years of long, costly, painful litigation. Pita Paraone made the point that Māori had been obstructed from getting into the business of fishing. I say not to blame this Parliament. It is quite wrong to blame this Parliament. The resource was there—it had been there for 12 years. The delay was caused by the inherent problems within the iwi and the litigious nature and counterclaims. In a way, it may have taken 12 years, but what is 12 years in the long plan of things, if there is a solution? However, I do not believe we have a solution with this bill.

In many respects, I predict that we are in for a further round of protracted litigations, because of the prescriptive nature of this bill and the way the Crown has brought it here. It is a compromise by definition. The structures lend themselves to ongoing and endless litigation.

I also draw to the House’s attention the fact that the only justification for the settlement is that it is meant to be complying with an article 2 property right obligation. But we have seen that process perverted. We have seen the deed of settlement being perverted by this politicised process.

In particular, I refer to the provision for urban Māori. The whole property right was based on hapū and iwi. That was where the property right resided, but because of some prominent people who got involved in the latter stages of the 1990s, it was turned into a social welfare settlement. They said that we had to provide for Māori in urban areas. That is nothing more than a social welfare obligation, not a right under article 2 of the treaty. Although one may feel that it is worthwhile, it does good things, and all Māori will benefit, one undermines the basic property right justification by so doing. I think that perversion of the 1992 deed of settlement is a very serious aspect, indeed.

There are many aspects that I do not like about this legislation. It is very prescriptive, complex, and cumbersome. We want Māori to get engaged in fishing—and Māori are engaged in fishing. Over 50 percent of the individual transferable quota or annual catch entitlement is held by Māori interests. So to that extent it has been successful. However, incredibly and unnecessarily complex and convoluted commercial structures are now being prescribed. They are not commercial structures, actually; they are sort of bureaucratic, governmental-type systems. No one setting up a company would impose those sorts of restrictions and constraints on a business if he or she wanted it to be successful, but that is what this Government has chosen to do. It is a very burdensome, complicated, and convoluted set of prescribed constraints. The other aspect is that all those constraints diminish the value of the quota—the asset—and lessen the likelihood of those commercial entities being successful. Goodness knows, we want them to be successful. That is why I am deeply concerned about the way this has been structured.

The other aspect is the somewhat paternalistic attitude in this legislation. The property right belongs to the hapū and to the iwi. It should be theirs to use and benefit from, as they see fit. The fact that the Government has prescribed that it is not transferable other than into the internal pool diminishes the value of that asset. Having had that treaty obligation fulfilled, iwi and hapū should be free to use the asset as they see fit. It is not for this Parliament to prescribe to them how they can operate it or, indeed, whether they can sell it or to whom they can sell it. That is an unnecessary intrusion and restriction on their property right.

I note that Ngāi Tahu made that point to the select committee. It felt very strongly about that. Of course, Ngāi Tahu is a good example of a very successful rūnanga. It has taken its fisheries asset—its treaty resource—and made a very good commercial fist of it, thus far. But Ngāi Tahu recognises the unnecessary constraints, prohibitions, and prescribed restrictions that this legislation imposes on it. It made the point that all that does is diminish the value of the asset and reduce the probability of its continued success, and it opposes that.

The ACT party certainly is opposed to these administrative structures. We are also of the view that the inadequacies I have just outlined will have an adverse impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry to the extent that iwi interests do control over 50 percent of the quota, which is probably a billion dollars worth of quota assets. Those sorts of governmentally imposed restrictions will impact on the entire New Zealand fishing industry. So the ACT party will be opposing this legislation. Like the member for Te Tai Tokerau, I would like to say that this is an end to it, that the litigation has ended, and we can now move on, but I seriously predict that this is just the start of another round of litigation.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the second reading of the Māori Fisheries Bill. I want, first of all, like other members before me, to make some comments about the constructive way in which the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee worked together throughout this process, and achieved, I believe, some excellent results in the amendments that were made to the bill, in response to the submitters we listened to. I believe that the bill we delivered back to this House is a better bill because of the way in which the committee members worked together, and dropped their party ideology on many occasions to get to the nub of the issues presented to us.

I want to express my thanks to the officials, and to our adviser who worked very hard on our behalf and provided us with very good support. I also express my thanks to the many submitters who came to the committee from all over the country to present their views to us.

At the introduction of the bill, the committee was cautioned by many not to change anything. It was not long, though, after hearing submitters, that it became clear some changes were indeed required. At this point, I acknowledge the contribution of Te Ohu Kai Moana and the many years of hard work, discussion, consultation, and negotiation that they engaged in. I can understand how nervous they might have felt at passing their baby—the baby they had created—on to the select committee, for the committee potentially to mess with. While I understand their concerns, I do not believe that it excuses some of their comments throughout our process.

We accepted fairly early on in the hearing of the submissions that some changes would improve the bill, and were absolutely necessary. It is good that Te Ohu Kai Moana had to pass the bill on to the committee for an objective analysis of it so that we could—by distancing ourselves from the long process they had been engaged in—come up with constructive suggestions for amendments.

While we were often reminded of the polycentric nature of the bill, I believe that it was possible to achieve some important improvements to the legislation, yet not upset the delicate balance that had been achieved in the negotiated agreement among Māori, which had taken some time. One of the areas that most tested this polycentric phobia was the appeals by Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, and others, who were seeking to be given iwi status for the purposes of allocation under this bill. In being able to decide this complex issue, the select committee had, first of all, to inquire into the criteria that the commission had used to determine iwi status. We had to determine whether those criteria were reasonable, and then we had to determine whether they had been applied consistently to all those who had sought iwi status.

The criteria were that they had shared descent from an ancestor, they had hapū, they had marae, they belonged historically to Te Kiwa, and that they had an existence that was traditionally acknowledged by iwi. We agreed that only Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine met those first four criteria. There was some concern about the fifth criterion—having been traditionally recognised by iwi. The committee was unanimous, I believe, that it could not accept that the fifth criterion—recognition by other iwi—was to be a power of veto by another iwi, especially for the iwi that would potentially lose most from the recognition of that appealing iwi. It is with real pleasure that we have been able, at least in part, to recognise Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, perhaps not to their full satisfaction but at least to enable them to move forward within the settlement allocation of this bill to achieve their own iwi recognition. The committee was 100 percent committed to that, and United Future remains 100 percent committed to that also.

Concerns were raised by submitters about the lack of accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, and it seemed very clear to us that waiting 12 years for any review process to occur was unacceptable. Too much could occur over that long stretch of time, and the negative aspects of wrong decisions being made, and being unchecked within those 12 years, would be too devastating for the asset base that was being entrusted to them.

We discussed issues such as a shareholder council as an option, perhaps, for how an input or oversight could be given, but ultimately settled upon an audit review process after 4 years, and again after 8 years. Then the major review would be brought forward 1 year to an 11-year time frame. I believe that it was the right approach that the committee arrived at.

A concern expressed by submitters about the over-accountability of the mandated iwi organisations was discussed at great length. Issues about their smacking of paternalism were often raised, but I believe that one submitter summed it up very well by saying that those measures were necessary, because the assets entrusted to those organisations were not theirs alone but were held in trust for future generations, as well. I particularly did not want to commit to something that was paternalistic—we have had enough of that throughout our history—but there needed to be a recognition, as was made clear by the Privy Council ruling, that those assets are not just for this generation of Māori who are receiving them but they are an intergenerational settlement, and the quota particularly is something that will continue to generate income for future generations—provided it is held by that iwi. So it was right that the Committee did not reduce the accountability, but in fact in some instances we increased it. Because it was to be intergenerational in nature we wanted to make sure that the mandated iwi organisations would notify all the members of their respective iwi about general meetings and that they would be given the opportunity to participate in any decision making that was going on—initially, of course, at the ratification of the constitutional documents that are required. However, it was also important that it be required for all general meetings so that everyone would be kept well informed. We also recommended that the percentage of the iwi notional population be increased to 20 percent, which would further strengthen that provision.

These changes will give greater protection against the alienation of settlement quota for future generations while still ultimately leaving the decision about the sale of quota with each iwi. The issue concerning offshore islands also came before us. We discovered that there was only one island that met the criteria set out by the commission for inclusion that it had not included—Motiti Island in the Bay of Plenty. I am particularly pleased that the committee was unanimous in including that island for the purposes of coastal allocation.

We also made some modest changes to the dispute process to address concerns about coastline disputes holding up the entire asset allocation in response to some submitters’ concerns. They have probably not gone as far as some requested, but I believe we made some significant progress in that regard. The dispute resolution process is still available to ultimately sort out disputes where they cannot be reconciled. They will end up in the Māori Land Court.

In conclusion, I wish to express United Future’s hope that the passage of this bill will advance the aspirations of iwi and hapū throughout the country that have waited a long time for redress in this regard. Not all have been involved in the litigation process; many have waited patiently for things to be resolved on their behalf so that assets can be transferred to them. We hope it will lead to them being able to build a prosperous future for their children and grandchildren.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) : I rise in support of the bill. I do so, having been appointed chair of the committee that considered the bill, with great humility. I felt humility for two reasons—firstly, that I was a Pākehā privileged to sit on this committee considering a matter so important to Māori, and, secondly, that I was a Pākehā coming into this at the very end of 12 years hard work by Te Ohu Kai Moana, which had put in a tremendous amount of work, as reflected in the bill that was delivered to the committee to consider. The committee received a good bill. It made changes that have been addressed by preceding speakers tonight, and we believe that that has improved the bill. The bill returned to the House is a very good bill.

There is one matter I must take issue with tonight—that is, the speech made by the ACT member Ken Shirley, who described this structure as paternalistic and over-complicated. It is a pity that that member was not present when a New Zealand senior partner of an international accounting and audit firm advised the committee that the structure—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should know that it is a breach of the Standing Orders to refer to a member’s absence either in the House or from a select committee. I ask you to draw that to his attention.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I am sure that that has drawn the matter to Mr Fairbrother’s attention.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I note that the evidence of a New Zealand senior partner for an international accounting and audit firm who described the structure in the bill as being not unusual in the commercial field was not challenged by any member of the committee and was, therefore, accepted in its totality. It is somewhat surprising after an expert has given such clear evidence in support of the structure and the transparency changes that the committee made, that someone in his absence should now rise to challenge it. I think that that describes the weight we should put on that criticism. The committee received 72 submissions—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether you are awake, but the member just repeated the offence that he committed earlier, which I drew to your attention.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I take offence at the way the member said that. Please sit down. I am aware of what he said.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee received 72 submissions on this bill. Fourteen generally supported the bill while also seeking particular changes. Sixteen specifically sought recognition as additional iwi, further groups sought other changes, and 14 opposed the bill. Of those 16 seeking to be recognised as iwi, the committee investigated the basis on which Te Ohu Kai Moana made its decision, and taking the approach that we thought would withstand any legal scrutiny, or any scrutiny in the court, we decided that the hapū of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine met the five requirements established by Te Ohu Kai Moana to determine that an iwi should be included as a mandated iwi organisation. Those two hapū or iwi were included in the schedule so that they may, at some later date, disengage from the iwi grouping they are at present listed with and be an iwi in their own right. The other 14 did not meet the test, and therefore we made no such amendment.

The committee worked very well, I should say. The committee had three practising lawyers, including a fourth non-voting member. It had six Māori and three people expert in fisheries matters, and it brought to the consideration all this accumulated experience. I thank very much the deputy chair of the committee, Georgina te Heuheu, who worked constructively with me and with the committee right throughout. Our consideration and deliberations were much assisted by her willingness to assist us to produce a bill that met the two constraints under which we worked. Those constraints were that the benefits—

Phil Heatley: Hoy!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: And “Hoy” over there should be included as well. Phil Heatley, of course, was an admirable back-up to Georgina te Heuheu. He sat in great awe as he learnt about tikanga Māori. We spent much time educating him in the finer aspects of the Māori culture, and he brought to us the wisdom he has in the world of fishing. The committee, assisted by Nanaia Mahuta, Dover Samuels, and Mahara Okeroa, considered these matters in the detail, as one would expect.

It is a bill that has increased the transparency for all Māori. It is a bill that has increased the accountability without adding to the bureaucracy. It is a bill that meets the two constraints imposed upon us: first, that the settlement should be for the benefit of all Māori, and secondly, that the distribution model should follow the traditional iwi lines. That was the injunction we received from the Privy Council. The preamble of the bill was amended to include the Privy Council citation so that any future court being asked to consider the provisions of this bill would be aware of the background that provided the constraints that the model contained in the bill reflects.

I take great pride in bringing this bill back to the House for its consideration, and I ask that the House do debate the bill in the spirit in which the committee did, which was in a constructive, cooperative manner. It was one where each party worked to ensure that the bill was improved. The contribution of each member was duly noted, and the report reflects the genuine desire of most on that committee to produce a bill that this country could stand proud of. I recommend this bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I can appreciate that this bill does bear the labours of Solomon. The allocation formula will, in fact, never satisfy everyone. National recognises that any possible solution would have winners and losers. It is, in a sense, the inevitability of the compromises contained within the bill. I just want to, very briefly, deal with those big-picture items. The inshore fisheries go to iwi, based on their coastline. They go directly to iwi to be controlled by the iwi themselves, and that has, I guess, pretty universal consent. The offshore fisheries are, however, a much more complex picture.

In essence, they go into a global trust, and I am using that term in a very broad way. The only control that individual iwi have in that situation is through an electoral college. It is several steps removed. There are intermediaries between iwi on the one hand and fishers on the other. There is not just one intermediary, but several intermediaries. On top of that the allocation of the shareholding in that global trust—in fact, a company—is based, essentially, on population. There are two different models. The first part, inshore fisheries, is allocated on coastline. The second part, offshore fisheries, is allocated on population. As members of the committee, members of the House, and certainly the Māori population, well know, that of itself has been very controversial. Some iwi want the whole allocation, inshore and offshore, to be based entirely on coastline. Certainly, for a party whose principles are on the basis of property rights, there is an inherent attraction in that model. Others—notably northern iwi—want the allocation to be based entirely on population. In fact, one outlandish submission suggested that the population formula should be based on the population as it existed in 1840, which would be rather hard to reconstruct, I suspect. Nevertheless, that submission was made.

Of course, the bill represents the compromise. National understands why the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission had to make that compromise. It was the only way to bridge the diverse and, indeed, disparate interests between the different iwi viewpoints. That is not our fundamental difficulty with the bill. Our difficulty is not on the issue of allocation in global terms. Our concern lies in the excessively paternalistic system that the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission developed in how the offshore quota is to be managed and controlled.

It is not as if the approach it has adopted has an effective sunset clause in it. Certainly, it has a review provision, but only that. In fact, that is largely done by the commission or Te Ohu Kai Moana itself. One has to ask whether that is the best way forward for the future. Is there a better way whereby iwi could have greater control of their offshore quota, even though it is allocated on a population formula and not on a coastline formula?

The argument of the commission is that Aotearoa Fisheries, which, effectively, is the holder of the offshore quota, has to be kept intact. The reason it has to be kept intact is that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—and it is not stated directly in the bill, and that has been one of the problems of the bill; it is far too obscure—owns the shares in Sealord’s. Sealord’s does the fishing. In effect, we are legislating to protect Sealord’s. That is what this approach does. It became clear through the hearings that Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is contained in the statute, does not actually own any quota. Another entity—a trust—that is not even referred to in the legislation, actually holds the quota, and then through a complicated series of contractual arrangements, apparently then leases that to Sealord’s. That is the problem.

The problem with this, as I have already indicated, is that the system the Government has accepted protects Sealord’s. It protects it against any substantial changes of ownership, management, and control. National has very serious questions about that aspect. We believe that within the overall allocation formula, developed by Te Ohu Kai Moana, there should be some possibility, at least, for iwi to be able to get direct control of their offshore quota, just as they control their inshore quota. The argument that is put up by the Maori Fisheries Commission is that if we alter that system, we disturb the intergenerational effects of the allocation model. That cannot possibly be true, because after all, that argument has not been run in relation to the inshore quota. So National will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that will give iwi, in specified circumstances, the ability to get direct control of the quota. We will be asking, and perhaps challenging, the Government as to why it would not accept that.

We do not believe that that should be just an open situation where every iwi, straight off, would have that ability. We do understand there has to be some kind of management system in place and some ability for a transition of it effectively. So our Supplementary Order Paper will provide that iwi, with sufficient financial and management capability, to be measured on historical performance to date, should be able to take their quota directly. In reality not many would qualify, but inevitably some would qualify. It is likely, and the Government knows this full well, that Ngāi Tahu might be such a beneficiary.

Who on earth could possibly argue that Ngāi Tahu does not have the capability to manage their own fishing assets? It would be fatuous to argue to the contrary. Everyone in the House actually knows the truth of this. Ngāi Tahu could do it. They surely have just as much of an interest in retaining the intergenerational aspect, as Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That, I believe, is not the issue. When we strip away the commission’s argument, it comes down to commercial protection for Sealord’s. As I said, I recognise that there need to be transitional provisions, so that we do not destroy the value of the company overnight; but, at the same time, it should not have the right to last forever. There has to be ability for iwi to get direct control under a principled approach.

National will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper, and we want other parties in this Parliament to look seriously at whether we can get a pathway that will enable iwi with capability to get direct control of their assets. Why would we totally stop that? I was going to say “restrict”, but it is worse than that. The Government’s current formula actually totally stops it. I say that that simply goes too far. There must be an ability to get a pathway out of that. I am strongly of the view that, although the effort by the commission was a good effort, more could be done. National will be doing precisely that.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : In reading the very detailed commentary on the bill, I acknowledge that a significant number of changes have been made through the select committee process. Coupled with the amendments made in the committee process, the National Party has determined that it will support this legislation.

• Debate interrupted.