Anderton Jim: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7909] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I was very saddened to hear that speech by Pita Sharples. The Ministry of Fisheries had significant consultation with iwi up and down the country—from one end to the other. What does that mean? It means consultation. How can that member who usually talks sense in this Chamber say there was no consultation when I know there was considerable and significant consultation? Consultation of course does not always mean that one agrees with everything that is done in the consultation process but it does mean that one is consulted. 
The idea that the shared fisheries does not deal with issues that are of importance to Maori is just simple nonsense. Who comprises Maori fisheries? Recreational fisheries are very heavily dominated by Maori people. That is No. 1. Customary fisheries are absolutely dominated by Maori people. Commercial fisheries are made up of something like 30 to 40 percent Maori people. So are Maori people involved in all of these shared fisheries issues? Of course they are. 
What does the  
Shared Fisheries 
 paper state? It states that the Fisheries Act 1996 does not provide clear guidance on how the obligations under the fisheries deed of settlement need to be effected in the provision made for customary fishing when allocating the total allowable catch. So the proposal in the  
Shared Fisheries 
 document—and many Maori people who have spoken to the Committee on this clearly have not read my submission and I wonder whether the member has read it—states that allocation rules should recognise that actual customary take authorised under the customary fishing regulations or regulation 27 or 27A of the Fishing (Amateur Fishing) Regulations is to be provided for before allocation to the amateur and commercial sectors in order to align the Fisheries Act with the obligations created by the fisheries settlement. 
How much better than that can it get? In other words Maori customary fisheries are being provided for before anyone else commercial or recreational. How much better than that can it be? For a representative of Maori to get up in this Chamber and say that it is just a big takeover when that is in the document and will be put into the legislation where it is not clear now makes what the member said an absolute nonsense. 
Then we come to the issue of compensation. In terms of Government proposals to change allocations or access any significant cost that would be imposed on the commercial sector could be assessed and the need for redress considered. That is in the document. It goes on to state that there will be provision for a specific process for consideration of redress to the commercial sector. I have made it clear that on my watch as Minister of Fisheries there will be no confiscation of private property rights and no compensatory transfer of allocation. I have said that. 
Let me just say that in terms of commercial fishing the quota system is sacrosanct. It is the best system to sustain our fisheries that we have and no Government—certainly not this Government—will interfere with that. No Government will interfere with the deed of settlement so basically we have a situation whereby we are trying to deal with allocations across the shared fisheries—the iconic species of the inshore fisheries of New Zealand. 
And guess what I am told on one hand that it is all sweetness and light! The member Pita Sharples just said that the Recreational Fishing Council the Big Game Fishing Council the Seafood Industry Council and all the rest are in total agreement. Get a life! I have a document from the Recreational Fishing Council that states that it went to a meeting where it was completely misrepresented by the commercial fisheries and Te Ohu Kai Moana. I know that. I have two documents one of which says even worse things about that meeting—it says that it was conned and misrepresented. 
At the same time as Pita Sharples speaks in the debate and I reply the recreational fisheries are suing the Government for giving too much kahawai to the commercial fisheries. And guess what? On the other hand the commercial fisheries are suing the Government for giving too much kahawai to the recreational fisheries. And these are the guys who say that it is all hunky-dory and that they get on well with each other. Give us a break! They are employing lawyers. The recreational guys are paying lawyers the commercial guys are paying lawyers and we are paying Crown Law a fortune—and what for? It is so that we can deal with what we are told are non-issues. So why are they all in court arguing about them and spending all this money? I rest my case. 
Report noted.