Maori party - press release

Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leader of the Maori Party

Speech To Parliament

Thursday 15 March 2007

In principle, this Bill sounds all very laudable. It is always sensible law-making to start off with the intention to 'clarify the law' and provide 'clearer direction'.

The Bill is motivated by a concern that the existing wording fails to make it sufficiently clear that decision-makers should not delay or avoid taking measures to ensure sustainability, even when the best information available is incomplete or deficient.

The key buzz word is, as in the original 1996 Act, in providing for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.

In focusing on sustainability, emphasis is given towards:

Maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the needs of our future generations; and

Avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.

In and of itself, making sustainability a priority in the way in which we manage ocean resources, is of course commendable.

We cannot put our head in the sand, and ignore the savage impact of the fishing industry on deep sea coral forests while bottom trawling; death and destruction of sea-lions and albatross; and desecration of ocean resources.

In this way, we endorse the views of Greenpeace, that making sustainability the priority; and urging precaution as a principle, is along the right tracks if we are to prevent the ever-declining population collapse of all major commercial fish species.

But, and it's a big but, we, the Maori Party, must always be aware to watch out for fish-hooks- and for the potential for decay and destruction to occur.

And so, Mr Speaker, it got us thinking.

Why would the Government need to intervene to assist the process of making fisheries management decisions?

Would it have anything to do with the shared fisheries plans, which co-incidentally closed off submissions the day before this Bill had its first reading in the House?

Why would a new item appear on the legislative agenda to assist decision-makers in taking measures; even when the best available information is incomplete or otherwise deficient?

The Bill provides even more explicit direction, and even if information is, and I quote, "absent or is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate" that decision-makers should not postpone or fail to take measures.

I don't know about anyone else, but it sounds a bit Mickey Mouse to me.

When else in this House are we asked to endorse a policy process in which we vote for decisions to be made, even when information is "absent or is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate"?

The approval for policy gaps and gaffes to be allowed, becomes even more suspect, when we consider the current context in which Government is looking to trim back commercial fishing quotas in order to make available more fish for recreational fishers.

This proposal has been met with widespread alarm by Maori fishers.

Iwi have identified that the Shared Fisheries plan will conclude with them losing substantial value from their fishing assets. They are united in believing that the proposals undermine the integrity of the 1992 fisheries settlements.

Te Atiawa Trust in fact, released a statement on the 11th February 2007 which stated, and I quote:

"Not one iwi was in favour of this proposal, with some saying that legal action might be necessary".

Mr Speaker, in the heat of such opposition, is it not interesting that a new piece of legislation is suddenly introduced, clearing the way for decisions to be made?

It is not as if the Ministry of Fisheries has a particularly good record in its capacity to be able to relate to, and to consult with Maori.

We have looked at the transcript of an interview with the Fisheries Minister on TV3 on the 9th February, in which the advice of Maori is described as, and I quote the Minister, 'hysterical and ridiculous'.

In fact the Minister went even further, in responding to the comments of Te Ohu Kaimoana Chief Executive Peter Douglas with the following retort, and I quote him:

"Get a life. I mean that's ridiculous. These are private property rights. ..I hear everyone screaming this at me. Do you think I don't understand that?" end of quote

Mr Speaker, it is evident that the Minister and Ministry are under pressure - but does such a crisis situation require drastic action as is proposed in the current Bill?

The Maori Party - like the Maori Caucus of the Labour Party - met with a group of eminent iwi leaders two weeks ago, fuelled by the concerns they have with current fishing policy.

Iwi leaders from Ngapuhi, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Porou, Tainui, Te Arawa waka, Ngati Awa and many others.

Also attending were representatives of other Maori fishing interests including Aotearoa Fisheries Limited, and Te Ohu Kaimoana.

Mr Speaker, it is always a privilege to be in the company of such a prestigious group of leaders as these. These people are our iwi leaders!

They spoke to us of their fears that the Government would increase recreational quotas by reducing commercial quotas.

And so we come to this Bill, with that advice ringing in our ears.

We come, also, to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill, recognising the united concerns of those representatives, in dismissing the criticism of Maori interests as 'hysterical' as not being helpful. A release issued the next day had this to say:

"We're not being hysterical over this issue, we're being historical. The Maori fisheries agreement with the Crown settled historical grievances and [yet] the proposals put forward by the Ministry clearly undermine that agreement".

Mr Speaker, when I raised this matter on Tuesday in the appropriations debate, the Minister of Fisheries was in complete denial.

We have to acknowledge the expertise and institutional experience of Maori fishers, and value the advice they have to offer regarding fisheries management decisions.

Their cautionary comments alert to us any fish-hooks, legislated for, by amendments such as those proposed today.

They alert us to any changes that serve to threaten or endanger Maori fishing rights.

We note, for instance, that in the new Shared Fisheries document, the business and activity of Maori fishing has seen the interpretation of customary fishing reduced to non-commercial rights, to the exclusion of commercial customary rights.

This demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the fact that Maori were from time immemorial, involved in both commercial and non-commercial activities. This new definition is totally in breach of the Deed of Settlement.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we will be opposing this Bill on three counts:

We cannot support the proposal that decisions should be made even though information is "absent or is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate";

2. The Ministry of Fisheries has demonstrated its inability to relate to, and to have meaningful consultation with Maori despite what the Minister claims as consultation. On that basis alone, it would be difficult for us to support this Bill.

and

3. The recent activity associated with the Shared Fisheries proposals has alerted us to the possibility of the fish-hooks which could serve to entrap and ensnare those involved in Maori fishing rights.

It is, as a consequence of these issues, that we will, today, register our opposition to the Fisheries Act (1966) Amendment Bill.