Hokianga Accord Hui Report
Naumai
Marae
20 - 21 July 2006
Review
of Hui Reports
Scott Macindoe, option4
Those who had not read the report from the Whitiora April hui were offered a hard copy. The Accord is maintaining a report distribution list as MFish was paying for its production and copying. MFish had paid for the first two Forum reports but had not paid for the April production. Discussions were continuing with MFish regarding the overdue payment. (MFish has subsequently paid the overdue amount.)
The reports were a good record of the process followed by the Hokianga Accord. There was very good information contained in the reports and people were encouraged to make use of it. They were evidence of the Forum’s principle of “te tika, te pono me te tuwhera”, being righteous, truthful and transparent.
The last hui report was accepted as a true and accurate record of the Whitiora hui held from the 6th to 7th April 2006.
Two weeks after the hui at Te Tii, the ‘short line-out’, Working Group, got together in Auckland to focus their efforts on a multitude of tasks. Correspondence with the Minister and Ministry were top of the list of subjects to cover.
Other topics included:
- Input and participation of tangata whenua into fisheries management processes
- Guardians of the Sea charitable trust
- Forum budget and bank account
- Kahawai Legal Challenge
- Aotea (Great Barrier) marine reserve
- Kaitiakitanga project
- Marine protected areas – Accord view
- Shared Fisheries Policy project
- Pubic awareness
Sonny gave a brief report on his correspondence, on behalf of Ngapuhi, with the Minister of Maori Affairs. Parekura Horomia is also Associate Minister of Fisheries so he has an important role in the future regarding fisheries issues.
A team had been working on the Kaitiakitanga project. Jeff Romeril was appointed project team leader, Judah Heihei, Matu Clendon, Robert Willoughby, Bill Wii, Bruce Galloway, Tepania Kingi and Trish Rea were part of the team. Others were also offered the opportunity to critique and provide feedback on work already completed. Jeff would distribute draft documents to those involved in the project.
The hui was given a brief overview of the hui report using the website as a reminder. Despite Sonny’s pleadings, the pictures online confirmed he did attend the Auckland hui, for both days. Those who had not read the Working Group report could read it online.
Sonny gave a summary of the meeting held in Whangarei on 30th June with Ministry officials. Sonny Tau, Paul Haddon, Judah Heihei (Ngapuhi), Hally Toia (representative Ngati Whatua), Alex Nathan, Stephen Naera (Te Roroa) and various members of Te Uri o Hau attended the meeting with Stan Crothers, Jonathan Peacey and Tame Teniti of MFish. Stan had written a letter to these tribal representatives after the meeting, which presented a different view of the day’s proceedings compared to what these people recall (Appendix One).
Sonny reported that he and Laly Haddon were the only iwi chairs present. The Ministry outlined how they would like to work with iwi in the north to advance their individual needs. In their introduction there was no mention of iwi forums. Those in attendance listened to what the Ministry had to say.
Sonny asked MFish the question. What is the status of the Hokianga Accord as an iwi forum? There was no clear answer forthcoming from Ministry officials, except to say that they are not committed to ongoing forum discussions as they think that forums are only one tool for dealing with fisheries matters. They would reconsider their commitment to forums in general after considering the value that each tool brings to the better management of our fish.
Sonny then reinforced that Ngapuhi would deal with the wider fisheries issues through the Hokianga Accord and had got confirmation from Ngati Whatua that they too desired that approach. This was supported by Hally Toia of Ngati Whatua.
MFish were further told that Ngapuhi would deal with them on an individual basis around Ngapuhi specific issues. Sonny also stressed that MFish must not get their responsibilities to Te Uri O Hau and Te Roroa under their individual agreements, confused with their responsibilities to Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and Ngati Wai under the Maori Fisheries Settlement Act 1992. It seemed that MFish were using the Te Roroa and Te Uri O Hau situations as a wedge between iwi, whanau and hapu of the north.
Alex Nathan on behalf of Te Roroa stated categorically the MFish must deal with them under the protocols set out in their deed of settlement. No more, no less.
Sonny then produced the Naumai Hui agenda, which he gave to Stan Crothers (MFish Deputy CEO) who said that the Ministry would attend that hui. There was no mention of the Hokianga Accord not being an iwi forum or that MFish would renege on paying their portion of the hui costs.
Despite the time constraints, a couple of items of importance were added to the agenda to provide a brief overview of other issues of significance for participants to the Accord.
TOP
![](images/naumai20.jpg) |
MFish
Management Proposals
Trish Rea,
option4
Trish gave a brief
summary of the proposals put forward by the Ministry for the
management of various species. MFish had supplied a summary
in their latest
bulletin supplied to the hui.
Of particular interest
to tangata whenua was the proposal to apply the current South
Island eel (tuna) management regime to the North Island. |
The Ministry were proposing to apply
the commercial maximum size limit of 4kg to the North Island. The
current concern for South Islanders was the lack of abundance of
eel in some of their rivers. This issue had been raised with Tom
Moana as he was part of the iwi customary freshwater Forum. Tangata
whenua were encouraged to participate in this consultation process.
Submissions were due to be sent to MFish by August 25th.
A joint initiative by MFish and the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council has resulted in a second review of the amateur fishing regulations. Proposals for 2006 included the definition of ‘take’ when applied to fish caught and released back into the water.
Of concern was the proposal to introduce a minimum legal size (MLS) for gurnard. This measure would only apply to the recreational sector. The long-term benefits of releasing any small fish was appreciated but would be meaningless in this instance as the measure would not apply to commercial fishers.
Without a recognised planning right to conserve fish and not have them allocated to the commercial sector, the proposal to introduce an MLS for gurnard, blue cod and trumpeter would merely deny people the ability to take home a fish to feed their whanau. Ministry deadline for submissions on this proposal was September 8th.
Bruce Galloway re-emphasised the statutory obligations the Ministry had to tangata whenua. Section 12 of the Fisheries Act had been discussed the previous evening (refer page 39 of report). There is an ongoing statutory obligation that, before the Minister does anything, he has to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua into sustainability measures. This was more than just ‘consult’. Iwi and hapu were encouraged to follow through to ensure that the Minister’s statutory obligation to them was being carried out, particularly with the Minister’s obligation to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga.
Akaroa Marine Reserve Debate
Trish Rea, option4
option4 had supported Ngai Tahu and several runanga in their opposition to a marine reserve in the Akaroa Harbour. Trish used a PowerPoint presentation to deliver the key messages from the Akaroa marine protection process.
Although Akaroa was part of the Christchurch region, the principles involved in the process demanded a substantial response from people in other parts of the country. Opposition was based on legal grounds. There was legislation that supported kaitiakitanga and tangata whenua’s right to exercise guardianship, in preference to a marine reserve.
A submission was compiled and sent to the Department of Conservation in June, in support of tangata whenua and their desire for a taiapure. option4 also supported tangata whenua, recreational and commercial fishers in their effort to successfully establish an alternative site as a marine reserve, the Pohatu marine reserve. Both the Pohatu marine reserve and Akaroa Harbour Taiapure had the support of the majority of the community. Active management of their harbour was preferable over the lock-it–up mentality associated with a no-take forever marine reserve.
It was unfortunate that two groups driven by principles of conservation were opposed in this circumstance. DoC is obliged to act on any valid marine reserve application that is filed with them. The Department does not seem to give equal regard to their Treaty obligations to tangata whenua and the principles of kaitiakitanga.
Alan Fleming, a ranger with DoC Northland, and Vince Kerr both made valuable contributions to the ensuing discussions. It was noted that customary management and marine reserves are not necessarily on a ‘collision’ course. The problems were associated with the marine reserve process. They committed to providing feedback from the hui to the Department on these discussions. Vince confirmed he would be making a submission to DoC’s head office “about the importance of including mataitai and other traditional methods within the Marine Protected Areas policy. Nothing frightens me more than the exclusion of those tools from the discussion, at the top level. Our departments don’t always get it right but our job is to get in there and try and make the changes where they need to be.”
DoC was also encouraged to discuss the mismatch of resourcing with head office. The Department had access to a seemingly endless supply of taxpayer funds whereas tangata whenua and local communities were struggling to fund themselves. DoC had spent millions on reserve applications and the science to support those applications. Conversely, there was very little, if anything, being spent on research to support traditional management tools such as mataitai and taiapure.
Consideration also needed to be given to the supporters of marine reserves. Land developers realise the value of having property in the vicinity of a marine reserve and could conceivably support reserve applicants to increase the value of their investment. It was unclear if this applied to the Akaroa application, although Trish acknowledged that from discussions with the locals, she was of the view that there is very little development around that part of the coastline.
Under current legislation the Marine Reserves Act provided for the setting apart of ‘unique areas in the national interest for scientific study’ [8]. This is a very narrow charter. The use of kaitiakitanga to increase abundance and protect areas was viewed as a holistic approach for tangata whenua, local coastal communities, the fisheries and the marine environment.
TOP
Current Politics
Following this presentation (and others) the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill currently before Parliament was discussed, and is seen as a serious threat to tangata whenua and the practice of kaitiakitanga.
Any removal of references to the principles of the Treaty would remove the Crown’s obligation to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga in fisheries management and marine protection issues.
This is a serious issue to be addressed by both Maori and non-Maori.
Hokianga
Accord Work Plan
The priority was
to have The Guardians of the Sea Charitable Trust operational
as soon as possible.
Also high on the
agenda was the need to thoroughly examine a working relationship
with MFish, similar to what Tepania Kingi had presented the
previous evening (Appendix
Three).
Bearing in mind
the Crown Maori Relationship
Instrument referred to in previous correspondence with the
Ministry. |
|
The Accord needs to agree on a strategy for dealing with MFish in the future.
Of more immediate concern was the Accord’s response to the last two letters from MFish regarding the Forum’s status. The first was Stan Crothers’ perspective of the meeting held in Whangarei at the end of June (Appendix One).
As of Friday, Sonny had not received the second letter but was aware of its existence (Appendix Two).
The Shared Fisheries Policy was an issue that needed to be discussed. On the one hand MFish were advising they would be consulting with iwi forums when the policy is released, and on the other hand they were adamant the Hokianga Accord was not an iwi Forum.
Clarification was required as to their strategy to consult with northern Maori as the public consultation document was due out in mid-August.
Judah and Ngati Rehia needed the support of the Hokianga Accord to progress the implementation of the Marangai Taiamai Management Plan. Judah, Aro Rihari and Alan Munro had given details of the plan at the April hui.
The Bay of Islands kaitiaki were encouraged to keep the Forum advised of progress and ask for assistance if required.
Sonny mentioned that his repeated calls for another person to take over the leadership role of the Forum remained unanswered. He had numerous commitments and was keen to have someone assume the leadership mantle. Sonny would still be available to the Accord as he acknowledged that 80% of Ngapuhi’s assets were tied up in fisheries. No one offered himself or herself as a replacement during this discussion but talks would be ongoing to find a replacement.
[8]
Marine Reserves Act 1971 |
TOP
|