Sharples Pita: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sharples Pita: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19013. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Well we know only 44 days are left until an election when suddenly everyone wants to consult “the Maori”. Curiously this bill the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) is being debated at the same time the Ministry of Fisheries is consulting tangata whenua about ways of improving the processes for working together on fisheries management—interesting! Some 12 years after the Act was introduced the ministry now deems it appropriate to talk with Maori about ways to implement the requirements of the Act. The Ministry of Fisheries is going around the country between now and 31 October asking Maori what participation looks like. Twelve years later the ministry is asking the people what the Act means when it allows the Minister of Fisheries to approve measures “to better recognise the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu over their non-commercial customary fisheries.” We are not criticising the fact that there is consultation; quite the contrary. Engaging with Maori before making sustainability decisions such as changes to catch limits and amendments to regulations is absolutely fundamental and consistent with the Fisheries Act. But we are concerned about why it has taken until now to willingly involve tangata whenua in fisheries management—and I take this time to commend the Minister of Fisheries the Hon Jim Anderton for taking particular care to ensure that tangata whenua are consulted.  
This bill was always inevitable. The problem identified by the High Court in relation to setting the total allowable catch had to be rectified and there is a particular reason why we have supported the section 13 amendment coming up under urgency. That is of course the fact that this time next week—1 October—signals the start of the new fishing year and so the amendment is needed to establish new catch limits. We acknowledge the pressure that a tight time frame has placed upon the sector with literally the whole process being tied up within the space of 8 weeks. The amendment will enable the Minister of Fisheries to determine the catch limit decisions for fisheries in the quota management system according to established practice and using the best available information. The emphasis on established practice and best available information is of particular interest to the Maori Party. The Fisheries Act requires that the Minister must provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua and additionally have regard for their kaitiakitanga in matters such as changes to catch limits.  
We are pleased that the Minister has initiated a more robust consultative process with Maori fisheries. We are aware however that not all parties are satisfied and that non-commercial fishing representatives both amateur and customary are concerned that the amendment was reached without sufficient input from them. Demands were also made at a recent hui of the Hokianga Accord the mid-north iwi fisheries forum for a more open and democratic process before making such a significant change to the Act. The concerns from the Hokianga Accord the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council option4 and other non-commercial fishing representatives spoke of the vital need to work together to ensure sustainability and to avoid international condemnation of fisheries management in New Zealand.  
In thinking about an international context I want just to mention a recent announcement from the United Nations that has confirmed New Zealand’s rights over seabeds outside the country’s exclusive economic zone. It is a fascinating irony that a Government that was hell-bent on taking the foreshore and seabed off Maori has at the same time been negotiating for 10 years to extend the outer limits of the continental shelf. And it is with even more irony that we learn that the new continental shelf boundary will enable what the Prime Minister describes as “New Zealand” to exercise its rights to resources such as minerals and petroleum. I cannot help contrasting this new-found enthusiasm for rights to petroleum with statements back in 2000 in response to the claims by nga hapu o Nga Ruahine o Taranaki and by Ngati Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa in relation to their interests in the petroleum resource. In that significant finding the tribunal concluded that the claimants had a subsisting Treaty interest in the petroleum resource and that they were accordingly entitled to redress beyond that to which their historical land-loss grievances entitled them. But of course it is history now—that the Government briskly moved to reject the findings and to ignore the conclusion that this was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to quickly rule that oil and gas were public assets.  
As I have found in this place political intelligence is all about connecting the dots pointing out the inconsistencies and addressing the anomalies. It would appear that the fisheries area has more than its fair share of loopholes and fishhooks trapped within the sector. This bill we believe is an honest attempt to untangle one of the more recent issues impacting on quota management stocks and we welcome that. We do not believe that it will create major change for the general approach of the Fisheries Act and we do as I said earlier have the concern that we do not want to delay decisions on catch limits before the start of the new season. We are very aware that the current status for the majority of the 629 fish stocks in the quota management system is such that the information threshold can simply not be met. So we hope that this amendment will enable due process to occur with best practice and robust information to set catch limits without incurring unreasonable cost effort or time across the sector. The warning is there however that effective progress in fisheries management will come only with full frank and informed consultation with all parties.  
I end with a concern that the Hauraki Maori Trust Board’s spokesperson John McEnteer has raised regarding the seabed decision I referred to earlier. His comment was that with the foreshore and seabed legislation the Government grabbed more than $100 million of assets from Maori and in excluding Maori from the new development—the additional 1.7 kilometres of seabeds—it continues to marginalise and ignore the rights of Maori even further. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board suggested back in 2004 that moves to claim the continental shelf should be done in partnership with Maori but the Government refused to do that. What is worse when Mr McEnteer has gone to officials for robust information they have refused to give it claiming the matter is confidential. All that such action does of course is to further erode the confidence of Maori in the Government and ultimately affect the perceptions around the integrity of the consultation process. The fisheries sector is very familiar with the notion of the precautionary principle—that we should not introduce a new initiative unless we are convinced that it is safe for us and for the environment. The Maori Party recommends that this same precautionary approach is considered of value when thinking about consultation on anything relating to fisheries management. We will support this bill at its final readings and we signal our support for the ministry and the Minister to continue to demonstrate their commitment to consultation. Thank you.