Sharples Pita: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8061] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tenatatou. 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Atiawa 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 Maori. We have looked at the transcript of an interview on TV3 with the Minister of Fisheries on 9 February in which the advice of Maori 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 Maori Party like the Maori 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 Ngapuhi NgaiTahu Ngati Kahungunu NgatiPorou Tainui Te Arawa waka Ngati Awa and many others. Also attending were representatives of other Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 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 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 Maori. 
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 Maori tribal leaders themselves the Ministry of Fisheries has demonstrated its inability to relate to and have meaningful consultation with Maori—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 Maori 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.