'MMP can work for Maori' says Maori Party over Fisheries Bill delay

Dr Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia; Co-leaders, Maori Party

Wednesday 23 May 2007

The action of the Parliament’s Primary Production Committee in requesting a three month extension of the date by which the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill was considered, was praised today by the Maori Party.

The Primary Production Committee was due to report back on the Bill by 4 June 2007, but the Committee, chaired by National MP David Carter, asked for an extension because of concerns over the lack of consultation.

“It is of course of great concern that the actions of the Minister, the Government, including Labour’s Maori MPs, have been too little, too late in failing to listen to the concerns of Maori” said Dr Sharples.

“On the 15th March, in speaking at the first reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, I warned of the fish-hooks inherent in this legislation” said Dr Sharples. “Whilst we support sustainability, our decision to oppose the Bill originally, was based on the likely impact on the 1992 Deed of Settlement agreed to with Maori; and the lack of consultation by the Ministry – a failing which has now been exposed by the Select Committee”.

“I explicitly asked the House, why we were being “asked to endorse a policy process in which we vote for decisions to be made even when information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate?” said Dr Sharples.

“Over two months ago, in that speech I raised the concerns of iwi and Maori fishing groups about the failure of the Ministry of Fisheries to consult with Maori, highlighted the fact that the Minister had described the advice of Māori as “hysterical and ridiculous” and spoke of the concerns of Maori that had been presented both to the Maori Party and Labour’s Maori Caucus in early March 2007”.

“The question we have to ask, is why did it take so long for Labour Maori to listen?” asked Tariana Turia, Co-leader of the Maori Party.

“Why did it take until last evening to hold an 'urgent' Claytons meeting with the Fisheries Minister when the decision to defer the reporting date of the Bill had already been made yesterday afternoon?”

“Too late then, after the decision has been made, based on the advice of the Select Committee, to suddenly announce their concerns!” exclaimed Mrs Turia. “Too late then, to say, as Mr Jones has now, that they are “caught in the middle”. The Maori fishing sector wants leadership and responsibility – not wavering indecision and fence-sitters”.

“The Maori Party commends the hard-won efforts of the Maori fishing sector who have persevered in their presentation of the facts, despite the aggressive response of the Minister” said Mrs Turia.

“We acknowledge the impact of the call from Te Ohu Kaimoana, through Ngahiwi Tomoana, who last week (14 May) urged the Government to withdraw the Fisheries Amendment Bill, stating,

“The Ministry is providing its Minister with bad advice and wrong information to the detriment of Maori and the New Zealand fishing industry. The Fisheries Amendment Bill must be withdrawn because it is not needed to ensure sustainability.”

“It is tremendously disappointing that the Minister chose to respond to this advice by alleging “tall fishing tales and defensiveness” (statement of 22 May 2007); going further in a speech of that same day to make an accusation that the “outrageous analysis” was a result of “your lawyers have tangled you up in inconsistencies and confusion” said Mrs Turia.

“We are pleased there are some cool heads on the Primary Production Committee who have responded to the consistent call from the Maori fishing industry that the proposals stand to threaten the existing balance between utilisation and sustainability in the current legislation” said Mrs Turia.

“We have consistently raised the view in our statements and speeches in the House that Maori are concerned that the value of the Maori Fisheries Settlement will be severely undermined” said Mrs Turia.

“The statements by Robin Hapi, Chief executive of Aotearoa Fisheries, in backing the Seafood Industry Council's submission that the present legislation was sufficient, any changes would result in uncertainty, and would change the rules under which Maori agreed to the fisheries settlement, are serious concerns which must be given weight in this debate” said Mrs Turia.

“We have also pointed out the bitter disappointment of the sector about the failure of the Ministry and Minister of Fisheries and the Government to consider the need for appropriate consultation with the affected parties”.

“If there is one final message I would make, it would be that we politicians, should consider our use of language more carefully” said Mrs Turia.

“The analysis put forward by the Maori fishing sector should be heard and carefully considered – calling their leaders, ‘those who thought they were being clever by trying to torpedo the Shared Fisheries project’; “Agitators who whipped up anxiety”; “being myopic”; “robbing the bank”; “risk the public odium” is not likely to open the path to effective and meaningful consultation”.

“Perhaps the Minister could reflect on the use of concepts, such as ‘the shark circling the boat’ and consider whose interests are being served by such an approach”.

--

Background Information: First Reading Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill; 15 March 2007

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou. In principle, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill sounds all very laudable. It is always sensible lawmaking to start off with the intention to clarify the law and to provide clearer direction. The bill is motivated by a concern that the existing wording of the Act 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 buzzwords relate, as in the original 1996 Act, to 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 towards 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 commendable. We endorse the view of Greenpeace that making sustainability the priority and urging precaution as a principle is a move along the right track if we are to prevent the collapse of the ever-declining population of all major commercial fish species. But—and it is a big but—we in the Māori Party must always be aware of and watch out for fish-hooks and the potential for decay and destruction to occur. So we ask why the Government would need to intervene to assist the process of making fisheries management decisions. Would it have anything to do with the shared fisheries plans, on which, coincidentally, submissions closed 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 to take measures even when the best available information is incomplete or otherwise deficient?

The bill provides even more explicit direction that even if information is “absent or is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate”, decision makers should not postpone or fail to take measures. I do not know what members think, 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, 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 the 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 Māori fishers. Iwi have identified that the shared fisheries plan will conclude with their losing substantial value from their fishing assets. They are united in believing that the proposals undermine the integrity of the 1992 fisheries settlement. Te Ātiawa Trust released a statement on 11 February 2007, which stated: “Not one iwi was in favour of this proposal, with some saying that legal action might be necessary.”

In the heat of such opposition, is it not interesting that new legislation is suddenly introduced, thus clearing the way for decisions to be made? It is not as though the Ministry of Fisheries has a particularly good record in terms of its capacity to relate to and consult with Māori. We have looked at the transcript of an interview on TV3 with the Minister of Fisheries on 9 February, in which the advice of Māori is described as “hysterical and ridiculous”. In fact, the Minister went even further, by responding to the comments of the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee chief executive, Peter Douglas, with the following retort: “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?”.

It is evident that the Minister and the ministry are under pressure, but does such a crisis situation require such drastic action as is proposed in the current bill? The Māori Party, like the Māori caucus of the Labour Party, met with a group of eminent iwi leaders last week, who were fuelled by the concerns they had about the current fishing policy. There were iwi leaders from Ngāpuhi, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Awa, and many others. Also attending were representatives of other Māori fishing interests, including Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. It is always a privilege to be in the company of such a prestigious group of leaders. These people are our iwi leaders. They spoke to us of their fear that the Government would increase recreational quotas by reducing commercial quotas. 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, who dismiss the criticism of Māori interests as being hysterical and not 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.” When I raised the 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 Māori fishers and value the advice they have to offer regarding fisheries management decisions. Their cautionary comments alert us to any fish-hooks legislated for by amendments such as those proposed today. They alert us to any changes that serve to threaten or endanger Māori fishing rights. We note, for instance, that in the new Shared Fisheries document the business and activity of Māori 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 Māori, since time immemorial, have been involved in both commercial and non-commercial activities. This new definition of customary fishing is totally in breach of the official deed of settlement to Māori.

We will be opposing this bill on three counts. Firstly, we cannot support the proposal that decisions should be made even though information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. Secondly, according to the Māori tribal leaders themselves the Ministry of Fisheries has demonstrated its inability to relate to, and have meaningful consultation with, Māori—despite the Minister’s claims about consultation. On that basis alone, it would be difficult for us to support this bill. Thirdly, the recent activity associated with the shared fisheries proposals has alerted us to the possibility of the fish-hooks that could serve to entrap and ensnare those involved in Māori fishing rights. It is as a consequence of these issues that we will today register our opposition to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. Thank you.

ENDS

© Scoop Media