Turia Tariana: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Turia Tariana: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17526] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. The Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu made a comment that I believe to be of great relevance to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). He said: “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.” It is a comment well worth digesting in the context of this new amendment to the Fisheries Act 1996 and it is particularly relevant when we think back to the furore that broke out the last time the Government sought to amend the Fisheries Act. At that time the amendment was to section 10. 
The Fisheries Act 1996 allows for a wide range of decisions based on sustainability and utilisation to be made at the Minister’s discretion. Yet 18 months ago the Minister of Fisheries suddenly determined that an amendment to the Act was required to address the possibility of uncertainty and ambiguity. To add heat to the frying pan it was decided that consultation with those most affected was unnecessary. 
It was not long before the sector erupted. Iwi leaders described the decision to amend section 10 as power-grabbing and expressed their concern that they had been treated with the utmost contempt by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council chief executive Owen Symanns represented the view of many when he stated: “Suggestions that the law is ambiguous are rubbish—it is very very clear.” The point made was heard loud and clear: the Minister and the ministry had overdone it and there was no confusion there. 
And so on 15 March 2007 the Maori Party made our stand just as clear.  
Hansard 
 records that stand: 115 votes in support and four opposed. We were proud to have those four votes registered knowing that they represented the views of the fishing sector and that they held the line so to speak that no change was needed because the current Act already required decision makers to act in a precautionary manner. It is a line that incidentally successive courts have reinforced in two cases on kahawai and orange roughy and a line that reminds us all we must act in such a way as to always ensure sustainability and allow only the level of utilisation that will achieve that. And so in November 2007 the Primary Production Committee discharged the bill without making any recommendations. This history provides a vital foundation towards understanding the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The second time round the Government seeks to amend section 13 and with the prospect of an election literally nothing but weeks away the process for section 13 is entirely different from that used for section 10. The Minister seeks to make the necessary decisions on a total allowable catch and to have the authority to solicit additional research in order to be able to provide the specific information that the courts set out. It is a specific and technical response to the amendments that arose out of the High Court judgment of Justice Miller in  
Antons Trawling Co. Ltd v Minister of Fisheries 
 on orange roughy. Similar to the Government-speak that was promulgated 18 months ago the Minister suggests that the amendment is necessary to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries resources for all fishers. This time round we are able to say with confidence that restrictions on fishing take need to be applied fairly and equitably across all groups of fishers with Maori involved in such decision-making. 
The Maori Party is pleased and relieved to announce that for the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) there has been a more robust consultative process with Maori fisheries in its development. Te Ohu Kaimoana and seafood industry representatives through the Seafood Industry Council have been involved in discussions with the Ministry of Fisheries and are satisfied that the proposed amendment restores the status quo. That the Minister has learnt the immense value of consultation with the industry is appreciated and we commend the positive response that has been taken in this new bill. Whether this complete turn-round has been a consequence of adverse publicity generated by Maori fisheries over this breach of their rights or whether it has been because of the all-important votes in opposition registered by the Maori Party last year is unknown. 
What we do know however is that we have it on very good authority that the seafood industry has struck a bargain that not only will it sign off on the wording of the amendment and the process but also it will do so if the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs support this amendment. This is a very significant development in the course of Maori democratic participation. The capacity of the industry to have such a profound influence on the passage of the bill is a great credit to the strength of that collective voice. We note too its recognition that the Maori Party is the only party on the  
Hansard 
 record to have voted against the original section 10 proposal. We are interested too in the industry’s encouragement of Labour Maori members to continue to hold the line. 
We in the Maori Party congratulate Te Ohu Kaimoana the seafood industry and the Seafood Industry Council on the very impressive part they have played both in pushing section 10 off the agenda and in negotiating for amendments that neither add to nor subtract from current decision-making obligations. The ultimate proof of the success of their strategy was revealed just 2 weeks ago when the Minister sought an order of the day to withdraw the section 10 amendment. And so today we acknowledge that whakapapa we commend the strategic negotiations that have taken place and we welcome the opportunity to support the section 13 amendment.