|
Hokianga Accord Hui Report
Naumai
Marae
20 - 21 July 2006
Use of Resources
Judah Heihei, Ngapuhi Trust Board member and Bay of Islands kaitiaki
Judah pointed out that some kaitiaki are resentful of the money MFish is spending on the various forums. Many kaitiaki considered the resources that had been promised for developing mataitai and other customary management tools had been diverted away from tangata whenua initiatives. The reality for tangata whenua was that many kaitiaki had missed important meetings purely because they could not afford to attend.
Ngati Rehia had struggled to implement the Marangai Taiamai Management Plan in the Bay of Islands. This was particularly frustrating when they knew it would ultimately benefit everyone, both Maori and non-Maori. Judah, Alan Munro and Aro Rihari had given a full report at the April hui.
History of Recreational Fishing Representation
Scott Macindoe, option4
Why are we dealing with this chaos?
In the year 2000 fishers had the Soundings rights reform process to contend with. The following year recreational fishing representatives were part of the Ministerial Consultative Group (MCG), established after a meeting with the then Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson. The Ministry still did not get the outcome they sought so that process floundered.
A consensus letter signed by the same representatives involved in the MCG was sent to the Minister in December 2002, expressing concern about the lack of momentum to define and protect the public’s right to fish.
A Reference Group was formed and met with MFish officials in January 2003. The national representatives were again confronted with much the same issues. Representatives from the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council, the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and option4 were involved in the discussions throughout the year.
The process culminated in another letter to the Minister in December 2003 explaining reasons why changes to section 21 of the Fisheries Act were rejected and supporting other aspects of the reform package offered by the Ministry.
The groups involved in those processes did their best to inform the public of the events and agreements made. It was important the public was kept informed and supported the outcomes their representatives were seeking. Unfortunately MFish disbanded the group and things went quiet as an election was looming.
Since then MFish had looked to find solutions at a regional level rather than deal with the national representatives. Both MFish and DoC had taken this regional approach as evidenced through the Ministry’s recreational fishing forums, iwi forums and DoC’s latest regional Forum concept for marine protection.
The chaos stems from the regional approach with no resources being offered to the public or tangata whenua to record, publicise or implement any local initiatives. The emphasis seems to be on having Maori talk about spatial issues, non-Maori discussing less relevant fisheries issues while the Ministry of Fisheries concentrates its effort on pushing the Shared Fisheries Policy project through. The objective of that project was to limit non-commercial catch and avoid compensation issues for the Crown.
The potential for the Crown’s liability to pay compensation arose from the over-allocation of commercial quota during the introduction of the Quota Management System (QMS). The Government created too much quota (property rights) for fisheries in 1986. Quota limits for many of the inshore fisheries were set too high, so high in some cases that commercial fishers have not been able to catch the allocation. Important fisheries such as flounder, mullet, john dory and gurnard had been plundered and not had the opportunity to rebuild to healthy levels.
The allocation issue is paramount for both Maori and non-Maori. Until the issue is resolved it is hard to envisage any other processes succeeding. The Crown had already indicated the constraints to the Shared Fisheries process, the outcome had to be fiscally neutral, it could not cost the Government anything, hence the need to avoid compensation issues. The other limitation is that it must not result in any re-litigation of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
Summary of Session
Tangata whenua and non-Maori need to stand together on the Shared Fisheries Policy issue, as the outcome would influence whether their mokopuna would have fish available to feed their whanau. It would be unthinkable to consider a future without access to kaimoana. Hui participants were encouraged to work together on this foremost issue, the allocation of fisheries.
Once again the issue of dealing directly with the Minister of Fisheries, rather than bureaucrats in MFish, was raised. Parekura Horomia, as Associate Minister of Fisheries and Minister of Maori Affairs was another person to speak with. If a complaint to either of these Ministers failed there was always the opportunity to go through the Ombudsman’s Office.
Other possibilities included:
- Dealing with opposition MP’s
- Asking questions in Parliament
- Publicly exposing MFish and the Minister through national papers
The Forum needed to decide what it wants and then clearly articulate that to whoever is approached, the Minister of Fisheries, Associate Minister or others. Time for talk is over, it was now time for the Accord to be setting out exactly what it wanted from others and not be stonewalled by MFish.
By law, the Minister had to resource Maori, to provide for tangata whenua’s involvement in fisheries management processes. Section 12 of the Fisheries Act was very clear:
| (1) |
“Before doing anything…the Minister shall— |
| b |
Provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having— |
| |
(i) |
A non-commercial interest in the stock concerned; or |
| |
(ii) |
An interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned— |
| |
and have particular regard to Kaitiakitanga. |
Encouragement came from someone new to the Hokianga Accord. Their experience during the day had shown that MFish were really uncomfortable with tangata whenua and non-Maori working together on the same issues. The Accord was urged to maintain its progress, not be diverted by other issues such as funding but keep the momentum going for to achieve the collective goal of -
“More fish in the water”
“Kia maha atu nga ika i roto te wai”
TOP
 |
Relationship
Model Between Iwi and the Crown
Tepania
Kingi, Ngati Whatua
Tepania had attended
several Hokianga Accord hui and given a lot of thought to
why the Hokianga Accord and MFish were not achieving a lot
together.
His conclusion was
the problem lay in the relationship between iwi and the Crown.
|
Tepania gave a PowerPoint
presentation to explain a relationship model that would be suitable
for the Hokianga Accord (Appendix
Three).
Tepania explained the relationship model could be applicable to any iwi. Detail was given about the Ngati Whatua/Crown relationship through the use of Memorandum of Understandings, agreements and contracts of service.
Taitokerau (Northern) iwi were encouraged to reconsider how they were dealing with issues. Each iwi would still exercise their tino rangatiratanga (authority) within their own tribal boundaries. Iwi also had the right to deal with the Government in their own right, as Treaty partners.
There was strength within the Hokianga Accord by having all Taitokerau iwi and non-commercial fishing interests working together to achieve the aims, objectives and interests of all the Accord’s participants.
This was an enlightening session that clarified the origins of the Hokianga Accord and that the Accord was inclusive of every iwi and hapu in Taitokerau. Although iwi, hapu and whanau had evolved over time, the whakapapa remained.
Kahawai Legal Challenge
Jeff Romeril, President, New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council
Jeff was President of the NZBGFC that had over 32,000 members in 60 clubs nationwide. Most of those clubs were based in the north of the country. The NZBGFC had been working closely with option4 for a number of years and was committed to assisting the Hokianga Accord to achieve its goal.
The NZBGFC considered its value to the Accord was in its ability to work with fishing clubs in areas where tangata whenua wanted to implement customary management tools. If the clubs could assist Maori to reach the general public then local management initiatives should be more successful in the future. This outcome was of benefit to everyone, both Maori and non-Maori.
The NZBGFC has been advocating against the bulk fishing of kahawai since the early 1990’s. After the introduction of the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986 the pressure went on the kahawai stocks, as they were not included in the QMS.
Purse seiners were targeting whole schools of fish to build up catch history. Commercial fishers knew that when kahawai were finally introduced into the QMS, quota would be allocated on the basis of whoever caught the most fish would gain the most from the quota allocations.
Little regard was given to the depletion of the kahawai stocks or the complaints of non-commercial fishers that the numbers of kahawai available for shore-based or small boat fishermen was unacceptable.
The Minister’s 2004 decision to introduce kahawai into the QMS and allocate on the basis of catch history floored the recreational fishing representatives. Essentially he had made a decision that ignored the depleted state of the fishery, failed to acknowledge that non-commercial catch of kahawai had been adversely affected by the bulk harvesting methods used and that non-commercial fishers would have to accept reduced access to a depleted fishery.
Several meetings were held with option4 and the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC). An injunction against the decision was considered but discounted for a number of reasons. Eventually the NZBGFC and the NZRFC filed a substantive case with the High Court in August 2005.
Stuart Ryan and Hesketh Henry Lawyers had been very supportive over the past two years, with generous rates being applied, as they also see the “public interest” in the case being heard. A QC, Lyn Stevens was also engaged to review the case and offered his services at a very generous rate. In his opinion the case was very well prepared, and agreed it had “public interest” value.
Jeff, Naida, Scott, Steve Naera and several others attended the 2005 and 2006 Ngapuhitanga Festival in Kaikohe. People at the events were very supportive once they understood what the case was about. Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi had shown its support for the Legal Challenge and Sonny had provided a very powerful affidavit in support of the Statement of Claim.
In December 2005 the High Court established a timetable of events specifying when evidence was required to be filed. The affidavits from the commercial interests involved in the case arrived two months late. Evidence from MFish and Minister of Fisheries did not arrive on time, this forced the adjournment of the June hearing date to November 6th.
Lyn Stevens has subsequently been appointed as a High Court judge so a new QC has been sought. Lyn recommended other QC’s and Alan Galbraith had recently agreed to represent non-commercial interests in court. The generosity of both Alan and Lyn Stevens must be acknowledged as the KLC team had, and would, continue to enjoy the services of a QC at heavily discounted rates. The Kahawai Legal Challenge team were grateful for the very generous contributions of all the legal counsel involved in the case.
Maori customary fishing had been raised in the commercial fishers affidavits as an issue for the court. No decision had been made yet as to whether the issue needs to be addressed.
TOP
The three main points for the court were:
- Clarification of how section 21 (of the Fisheries Act 1996) in regards to non-commercial fishing interests works;
- The correct process for setting the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) within each Quota Management Area in the absence of good information;
- Whether due consideration was given to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act when the Minister made his kahawai decision.
While the case is about kahawai, the outcome is expected to have a far-reaching effect on all future fisheries management decisions.
Multi-lingual
Fisheries Website
Mark Berghan,
Ngapuhi and A2Z Translate
Mark is a very keen
rock fisherman. He noticed that many of the people fishing
in the same areas he was had very poor English, could not
identify fish, did not understand the fisheries regulations
and some were simply not aware the regulations existed.
Mark had approached
Trish Rea to discuss how A2Z Translate and option4 could work
together to address these issues. |
|
www.fish4nz.co.nz is a joint initiative by option4 and the Hokianga Accord that seeks to increase public awareness. It was also an opportunity to spread the message to a wider community, about what the Hokianga Accord and option4 were doing to improve the future of fisheries for all New Zealanders.
The educational message has being delivered in seven different languages, including English. The other languages are Chinese, Maori, Samoan, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese. Depending on demand, another two languages could be added to the site.
Effort had gone into providing information on how to stay safe while fishing, how to identify fish and a very simple explanation of the recreational fisheries management framework. Links to the MFish regulations had been provided as the task of translating the rules into multiple languages for many different regions proved to be too complex, even for the experts.
A glossary of common fisheries terms and explanations in the target languages has been provided. Unique to this site is a glossary of common Maori terms with explanations in the other six target languages.
An online fish identification system had been developed which is targeted at people who may not know the correct names of fish. This function is available in all the target languages, has a simple yes/no format and currently covers 23 species.
A press conference had been scheduled for August 15th in Auckland, to advertise the site. It was hoped as people became more familiar with the fisheries issues they would get more involved. There is a keen interest in fishing within the ethnic communities and this was an attempt to reach and educate a wider audience.
There is a separate section online that describes customary management tools, where they can be used and how they are applied. All explanations are aimed at informing people who have little or no understanding of the current management regime.
In response to a question, it was acknowledged that there was no section explaining why Maori had a special relationship with the Crown and have rights that other New Zealanders don’t have. The challenge was put to the Hokianga Accord to write a simple message that would be translated and loaded online.
Another suggestion was put to Mark and Trish, to make an approach to the educational department with MFish to discuss how they would support this initiative as it obviously has value for the Ministry.
This was a positive end to the day’s hui. Due to the intensity of the day’s sessions and the late hour the ‘passing of tokotoko’ story telling session was cancelled and would be resurrected at the next hui.
TOP |
