Sharples Pita: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7908] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am pleased to be able to speak on the financial review of the Ministry of Fisheries which is known in fishing circles as the “ 
Titanic 
 review”. That ministry is the same ministry that is responsible for introducing a range of strategies to tinker with allocation which an unnamed member from Labour’s Maori caucus said yesterday was akin to “moving around the deckchairs on the  
Titanic 
.” 
The 2005-06 financial review of the Ministry of Fisheries describes the ministry’s role as being to manage the process for gaining access to or for allocating fisheries and to ensure that those who use those resources comply with the legislation. The Primary Production Committee noted that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General had given four ratings of “good” and one of “satisfactory” to the agency’s financial and service performance. So how can it be that a member of the Government’s own Maori caucus is so dissatisfied with the performance of the Ministry of Fisheries that his thoughts turned to the most catastrophic maritime disaster of all time? The issue is all about fish. Maori fishers throughout Aotearoa have united in their anger against any attempt by the Government to expropriate Maori property that has been recognised through the deeds of settlement. 
The financial review glosses over the gigantic collision ahead on the horizon between the shared fisheries consultation and the massive disquiet of commercial recreational and customary fishers. The understatement of all understatements is made in the financial review’s comment: “The ministry recognises that the value these different groups derive from our fisheries resources cannot always be measured in monetary terms.” When one is looking at the value derived from the fisheries resources one can see that a pretty good place to start is with the value of the Treaty of Waitangi. A full and final settlement was made in good faith between the Crown and Maori in the 1992 deed of settlement. The courts have specified that valuing the Treaty would require that both sides act in good faith and honourably towards each other and that the Crown actively protect Maori rights and interests make informed decisions and avoid providing impediments and the creation of new grievances. That sounds pretty good to me. The Primary Production Committee also indicated that it was looking forward with interest to the results of the shared fisheries process. That was until the massive crash into “Jimmy the iceberg” occurred. 
The Maori fishing sector has stated that it considers that the  
Shared Fisheries 
 document will undermine the value of Maori fishing investments and the deed of settlement. Maori fishers have been stunned that the Ministry of Fisheries has not entered into specific consultation on the shared fisheries proposals with iwi or even with Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Is that what the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General describes as being satisfactory? The Maori Party thinks not. Is it good practice that the reduction in value of the Maori commercial sector will have a direct and an immediate impact on investment decisions made by iwi who have received Maori fishing quota? The Maori Party thinks not. And how exactly does the Government intend to maintain good faith with its Treaty partner when despite a Government promise to compensate Maori if they lose any quota the same unnamed Labour Maori MP says that in fact there is no agenda to compensate them at all? 
A mere 12 days ago iwi representatives Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd along with the presidents of the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and Option4 met to discuss the shared fisheries proposal. All of the groups agreed that the discussion process on the shared fisheries proposal was woefully inadequate that the document published by the Ministry of Fisheries was divisive and that the ministry’s submission form was disgraceful. Is this situation a state of crisis a policy  
Titanic 
 a mutiny awaiting or a Government that is being shipwrecked by its own members? Will it be another case of a man being overboard? I guess we can find our answers washed up in the flotsam and jetsam on the foreshore.