Speech: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill - Dr Pita Sharples

Well, you know there’s only 44 days left till an election when suddenly everyone wants to consult ‘the Maori’.
This Bill, Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill, curiously, is being debated at the same time as the Ministry of Fisheries is consulting tangata whenua about ways of improving the processes for working together on fisheries management.

Interesting…some twelve years after the Act was introduced, the Ministry now deems it appropriate to talk with Maori about ways to implement the requirements of the Act.
MFish is going around the country between now and 31 October, asking Maori “what does participation look like?”
Twelve years later the Ministry asks the people, what does it mean in the Act to ‘better recognise the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu over their non-commercial customary fisheries’.
We’re not criticising the fact that there is consultation – quite the contrary.
Engaging with Maori before making sustainability decisions such as changes to catch limits and amendments to regulations, is absolutely fundamental AND consistent with the Fisheries Act.
What we’re concerned about is why has it taken until now to willingly involve tangata whenua in fisheries management?
And I do want to take the time to commend this Minister of Fisheries, the Hon Jim Anderton, for making particular care to ensure that tangata whenua are consulted.
This Bill was always inevitable.
The problem identified by the High Court in relation to setting the Total Allowable Catch had to be rectified.
And there is a particular reason why we have supported the section 13 amendment coming up under urgency.
That is of course the fact that this time next week, 1 October, signals the start of the new fishing year and so the amendment is needed to establish new catch limits.
We acknowledge the pressure that a tight timeframe has placed upon the sector with literally the whole process being tied up with the space of eight weeks.
The amendment to enable the Minister of Fisheries to determine catch limit decisions for fisheries in the Quota Management System, according to established practice, using the best available information.
The emphasis on established practice and ‘best available information’ is of particular interest to the Maori Party.
The Fisheries Act requires that the Minister must provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua, and additionally to have regard for their kaitiakitanga in matters such as changes to catch limits.
And so we are pleased that the Minister has initiated a more robust consultative process with Maori fisheries.
We are aware, however, that not all parties are satisfied, and that non-commercial fishing representatives, both amateur and customary, are concerned that the amendment was reached without sufficient input from them.
Demands were also made at a recent hui of the Hokianga Accord, the mid north iwi fisheries forum, for a more open and democratic process before making such a significant change to the Act.
The concerns from the Hokianga Accord, the NZ Big Game Fishing Council, Option4 and other non-commercial fishing representatives spoke of the vital need to work together, to ensure sustainability, and to avoid international condemnation of fisheries management in New Zealand.
And in thinking about international context, I want to just mention the recent announcement from the United Nations that has confirmed New Zealand’s rights over seabeds outside of the country’s exclusive economic zone.
It’s a fascinating irony that a Government which was hellbent on taking the foreshore and seabed off Maori, has at the same time been negotiating for ten years to extend the outer limits of the continental shelf.
And it is with even more irony that we learn the new continental shelf boundary will enable what the Prime Minister describes as “New Zealand” to exercise its rights to resources such as minerals and petroleum.
And I can’t help contrasting this new found enthusiasm for rights to petroleum with statements back in 2000 in response to the claims by Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine o Taranaki and Ngati Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa in relation to their interests in petroleum resource.
In that significant finding, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants had a subsisting Treaty interest in the petroleum resource and that they are accordingly entitled to redress beyond that to which their historical land loss grievances entitled them.
But of course, as is history now, the Government briskly moved to reject the findings, to ignore the conclusion that this was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to quickly rule that oil and gas are public assets.
As I have found in this place, political intelligence is all about connecting the dots, pointing out the inconsistencies, addressing the anomalies.
It would appear, that the fisheries area has more than its fair share of loopholes and fishhooks trapped within the sector.
This Bill, we believe, is an honest attempt to untangle one of the more recent issues impacting on the quota management stocks and we welcome that.
We do not believe it will create major change for the general approach of the Fisheries Act.
And we do, as I said earlier, have the concern that we don’t want to delay decisions on catch limits before the start of the season.
We are very aware that the current status for the majority of the 629 fishstocks in the quota management system is such that the information threshold can simply not be met.
And so, we hope that this amendment will enable due process to occur, with best practice and robust information, to set catch limits without incurring unreasonable cost, unreasonable effort or time across the sector.
The warning is there however, that effective progress in fisheries management will only come with full, frank and informed consultation in all parties.
And I would end just with the concern that Hauraki Maori Trust Board spokesperson, John McEnteer has raised, regarding the seabed decision that I referred to earlier.
His comment was that with the foreshore and seabed legislation the Government grabbed more than 100 million dollars of assets from Maori, and in excluding Maori from the new development, the additional 1.7 kilometres of seabeds, continues to marginalise and ignore the rights of Maori even further.

The Hauraki Trust Board had suggested back in 2004 that moves to claim the continental shelf should be done in partnership with Maori but the Government refused to do this. What’s worse, when Mr McEnteer has gone to the officials for ‘robust information’ they have refused, claiming the matter is confidential.
All that such action does, of course, is to further erode the confidence of Maori in the Government, and ultimately to affect the perceptions around the integrity of the consultation process.
The Fisheries sector is very familiar with the notion of the precautionary principle – that we shouldn’t introduce a new initiative unless we are convinced that it is safe for us and the environment.
The Maori Party recommends this same precautionary approach is considered of value when thinking about consultation on anything relating to fisheries management.
We will support this Bill at its final readings, and we signal our support for the Ministry and the Minister to continue to demonstrate their commitment to consultation.