| Submission
on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill
option4
July
30, 2004
Fisheries
and Other Sea-Related Legislation Select Committee
| A printable version of this submission
is available here » » |
 |
| |
(152 Kb) |
option4
|
PO
Box 37 951 |
Parnell
|
AUCKLAND
|
contact@option4.co.nz
|
This document is the
submission from option4.co.nz on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill currently
being considered by the Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation
Select Committee. Copies (25) of this submission have been forwarded
to the Committee as requested.
Our representative(s) wish
to appear before the Select Committee and speak in support of this
submission. Details will be forwarded to the secretariat.
We request the Fisheries
and Other Sea-Related Legislation Select Committee conduct hearings
in Auckland so the public of Auckland has an opportunity to attend
the hearings on this most important matter.
option4
option4 was formed in the
year 2000 by a concerned group of recreational fishers, in response
to MFish's invitation to participate in the process of redefining
the nature and extent of the rights of the public to gather seafood
in New Zealand.
Support
option4 is an NGO which promotes
the interests of non-commercial fishers in New Zealand in conjunction
with the NZ Big Game Fishing Council, NZ Recreational Fishing Council,
NZ Angling and Casting and the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations
of NZ.
Submission
option4 strongly objects
to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill as proposed and asks that it be
withdrawn on the following grounds (but not limited to):
- The common law right that all New Zealanders enjoy for non-commercial
fishing will be extinguished. The commercial and customary rights
that are defined in the Fisheries Act 1996 are explicitly referred
to in the Bill as proposed and are not to be affected. However,
this Select Committee should be well aware of the ongoing work
to develop understanding and clarity on the non-commercial fishing
rights in this country.
We understand tangata whenua enjoy a Customary fishing right that
allows them to provide kaimoana for the purposes of their marae,
for customary purposes, and that this right is a first priority
on the fisheries, subject only to the constraints of sustainability
and tikanga. However, when simply fishing for food for their families
and friends tangata whenua enjoy the same rights to take a reasonable
daily bag limit as the rest of the citizens of New Zealand, as
well as visitors. The courts have consistently rejected
the defence of customary fishing when tangata whenua are caught
taking more than they are allowed to take under the Amateur Fishing
Regulation regime.
Is there a clear understanding and agreement on tangata whenua's
part that when simply fishing for food they are equal in every
respect to the rest of those who fish, including tourists and
visitors?
Do they understand that their existing rights may well be jeopardised
by this Bill as proposed? Or do tangata whenua believe that their
Customary fishing rights will be their protector for the purposes
of fishing for food for their whanau and friends?
- The Bill proposes to weaken the public's right of access and
navigation to the foreshore and seabed.
The consequences of the Bill,
whether intentional or not, have the potential to severely limit
the non-commercial fisher's access to harvest seafood. The
Bill proposes to disadvantage tangata whenua by the removal of the
common law right and any imposition on the public to access a reasonable
daily bag limit to feed their families is objectionable.
We will not accept our right
to fish for food being extinguished and contend that this Bill contravenes
our existing common law and human rights. The Maastricht Guidelines
on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clearly states,
"It is now undisputed that all human rights are indivisible,
interdependent, interrelated and of equal importance for human dignity.
Therefore, states are as responsible for violations of economic,
social and cultural rights as they are for violations of civil and
political rights." [1]
Recommendations
option4 strongly recommends
the Bill, as written, be withdrawn.
The issues of access, navigation
and the common law right to fish are existing rights we hold and
the public deserves more time and consideration be given to these
fundamental issues. At the very least, likely scenario-based case
studies need to be developed and be the subject of wide ranging
discussion so that any legislation being contemplated proceeds with
a reasonable degree of certainty as to its intended outcome.
We will not accept any lesser
rights than those we currently hold.
We note that the only political
party that has been elected with a clear position on the Foreshore
and Seabed Bill is the Maori Party. Where and what is the mandate
of this present Government to proceed with ANY legislation?
We recommend the Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Select
Committee conduct hearings in Auckland so the public of Auckland
has an opportunity to attend the hearings.
[1]
Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Maastricht, 22-26 January 1997.
|
