5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Minister of Fisheries
What strategies, if any, has he put in place to ensure that whānau, hapū, and iwi will be involved in a respectful and meaningful way in any working-group developing joint policy proposals on shared fisheries?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) Link to this
The Government consulted extensively on proposals for shared fisheries during 2006 and up to February this year, including provision for the input and participation of tangata whenua through the Ministry of Fisheries’ iwi forum network. The resulting input was carefully considered in the preparation of subsequent policy proposals. I am taking steps to advance some of those proposals, particularly those to improve information on amateur catch, and to facilitate better representation of amateur fishing interests in management processes. Progress in other areas such as allocation has been deferred, to provide an opportunity for a cooperative initiative among Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Seafood Industry Council, and the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council to develop shared fisheries proposals. If Cabinet is of a mind to proceed with any of those proposals, then further discussions with tangata whenua and other stakeholders will occur before any final decisions are made.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Why is the Minister continuing to ignore in excess of 18 Māori fishing organisations—including Te Ohu Kai Moana—that represent iwi interests that have been critical of his proposals, including the amendments to section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996, which they say would not address the issue of the balance between utilisation and sustainability of fish stocks?
In regard to section 10, which is about the precautionary principle and the utilisation principle, I am staggered that a Māori party could continually contest the importance of the precautionary principle to the sustainability of fisheries. It seems to even those with the meanest of minds that if we do not have any fish left in the sea, it is impossible for the deed of settlement or fisheries in general to have any value. So the precautionary principle is one of the most important principles that this Parliament could uphold.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I asked about the Minister’s view on the fact that in excess of 18 organisations have been critical of his proposals. Although I appreciate the information he gave, I do not really believe that he answered the question. Could you, Madam Speaker, ask him to have a look at it again?
Madam SPEAKERI think the Minister did address the question, but if he wishes to repeat it or add anything further, I invite him to do so.
I pointed out that a very significant consultation process had gone on with Māori iwi and hapū around the country, as part of the shared fisheries proposals development, and that Te Ohu Kai Moana was currently involved in further development of the shared fisheries proposals.
Dave HereoraWhat steps has the Government taken to fulfil its obligations to Māori, under the 1992 deed of settlement, in respect of participation in fisheries management?
The Government takes very seriously indeed its responsibility to Māori to ensure their effective involvement in fisheries management. This year the Minister of Fisheries has budgeted $5.9 million for the deed of settlement implementation programme—up from $5.5 million last year and $2.9 million in the previous year. When this Government came into office in 1999, very little time, money, or effort was being invested in implementing the deed of settlement. I think it is fair to say that the previous National-led Government woefully neglected its responsibilities to Māori. Today the Government’s deed of settlement implementation programme involves 24 Ministry of Fisheries staff, who are focused on liaison with tangata whenua through a range of hui and iwi forums. This year there has been a total of 62 hui, including 40 meetings with 14 different iwi forums. On any given day that the member would like to name, the Government is working alongside tangata whenua on better managing our inshore fisheries.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that although involving whānau, hapū, and iwi in policy discussions in a respectful and meaningful way is important, the primary goal of his ministry is ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks; if so, why has he cut quotas while allowing foreign vessels to fish New Zealand waters, to the detriment of both Māori and non-Māori in New Zealand?
I point out that the major charterers of overseas fishing vessels are Māori owners of fish quota, who charter those vessels to catch the quota that Māori themselves own. If they were not doing that, there would be no viable way of catching that fish for Māori. I invite the member to discuss that issue with Māori fishers, if he has any doubt about it.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
How can iwi have faith in the Minister’s plans to deal with their involvement in the fishing industry, when there appears to be nationwide rejection by iwi of his proposed section 10 amendments?
No one who understands the fishing industry, the customary fisheries, and the recreational fisheries—in this country or in any other—can be in any doubt of this fact: the wild fisheries are under threat. They are desperately in need of protection. New Zealand has one of the best sustainable fishing management frameworks of any country anywhere in the world. We sustain those fisheries better than just about any other country I know of, and that is acknowledged worldwide. Therefore, those who want to see that continue should actually be supporting the precautionary principle, which is internationally acceptable and required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is of some concern to me that there are members in this House who, in order to advance some narrow sector interests, prefer to ignore the precautionary principle and ignore its importance in respect of the sustainability of New Zealand fisheries.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Once again, I thought I had asked a fairly clear question, which was about the relationship between the plans enunciated by the Minister and the rejection by iwi Māori organisations of those plans. I am not talking about sustainability, although I understand that is part of it. Could you, Madam Speaker, ask the Minister to please address the question. I am happy to read it out again so that he gets the gist of it.
As the member knows, no member can require a particular answer to a question. I think the Minister, at some length, has been addressing the questions.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
How does the Minister intend, then, to find a better balance between the implementation of customary fishing mechanisms and the commercial imperatives of iwi fishing organisations?
The shared fisheries proposals, which we have been consulting on widely and on which there is further engagement through Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Seafood Industry Council, and the Recreational Fishing Council, are the mechanism by which the Government is doing this. In case anyone has not noticed, it is very difficult to get anyone involved in fisheries to agree with just about anyone else involved in fisheries, and that is one of the reasons why there are so many former Ministers of Fisheries around the Cabinet table.