Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Fisheries

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 Māori 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 Māori 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. Māori fishers throughout Aotearoa have united in their anger against any attempt by the Government to expropriate Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori fishing sector has stated that it considers that the Shared Fisheries document will undermine the value of Māori fishing investments and the deed of settlement. Māori 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 Māori Party thinks not. Is it good practice that the reduction in value of the Māori commercial sector will have a direct and an immediate impact on investment decisions made by iwi who have received Māori fishing quota? The Māori 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 Māori if they lose any quota, the same unnamed Labour Māori 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.

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 Māori is just simple nonsense. Who comprises Māori fisheries? Recreational fisheries are very heavily dominated by Māori people. That is No. 1. Customary fisheries are absolutely dominated by Māori people. Commercial fisheries are made up of something like 30 to 40 percent Māori people. So are Māori 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 Māori 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, Māori customary fisheries are being provided for before anyone else, commercial or recreational. How much better than that can it be? For a representative of Māori 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.

Ministry of Education