- Presentation To NZ Recreational Fishing Council AGM
Tena ra koutou katoa.
Greetings and salutations again.
I hope you enjoyed
the session this morning as I have a lot more time this afternoon,
which I want to use positively.
The purpose of this
session is to provide the Maori interpretation, specifically
mine, of management tools provided in legislation and means
in which these tools can assist the non-commercial fishing
Tangata whenua possess
a long-standing tradition of living at one with the environment
and its natural resources.
Tau addresses the NZRFC AGM in Wellington, July 2005.
of Sam Mossman and the NZ Fishing News.)
|This is achieved through intellectual knowledge,
values and principles contained in an ancient cultural framework,
a millennium history and a conservation management record second
to none with all systems considered, whenua te tangata, tangata
te whenua, land is of the people, people are of the land.
It must be remembered
that Maori injuncted the government, questioning their absolute
freedom to sell all commercial fishing interests to overseas companies
without giving due cognisance to article ii of Te Tiriti O Waitangi,
which I assume you are all familiar with having taken history lessons
Anyway article ii states
in part: "the queen of England agrees and consents (to give)
to the chiefs, hapu and all the people of NZ, the full chieftainship
(rangatiratanga) of their lands, villages and all their possessions
(taonga-everything that is held precious)." Maori were successful
in their court action, which set off a chain of events pertaining
to providing for these provisions.
I hold the view that ever
since the Sealords deal of 1992, which shored up the commercial
rights to these taonga, the other side of the equation has, by and
large been neglected, that is - customary rights - or Maori being
able to fish for sustenance, a practice as old as time itself.
As we follow the whakapapa
of the fishing regulations from just prior to the Sealords deal,
we will find that successive governments have been floundering around
trying to find a balance between giving effect to these rights as
well as those of recreational fishers.
What perhaps they didn't
realise by signing the Sealords deal was, that up until 23 September
1992, when Maori went fishing to feed our babies, we were fishing
customarily. Immediately the Government signed off the Sealords
deal, 99.999% of the time Maori now go fishing to feed our babies,
we are categorised as recreational fishers.
From that day forward,
Maori customary fishing, as we knew it, changed forever. Maori fishing
to feed our babies and recreational fishers became one and the same.
From that point, we are now inseparably connected to each other;
it is therefore only logical that we move forward together. One
of the respected Ngapuhi Kuia, Naida Glavish once said, "yes
Maori will move forward, but we will not be doing it on our knees."
Regulation 27 is the stopgap
measure currently in place to allow for the Maori customary principle
(tikanga) of manaakitanga, which I will now address.
I think it is critical
that you have some understanding of what manaakitanga means - as
this is the phenomenon that underpins the Maori drive to continue
providing for its exercise. Without this provision, Maori are absolutely
marginalised when practicing reciprocal relationships and extending
mana enhancement constructs to our manuhiri.
Manaakitanga has many
meanings and I believe the Ngati Raukawa Rangatira, Professor Whatarangi
Winiata, who is also President of the Maori Party, offered one of
the most profound explanations of manaakitanga I have ever read.
Professor Winiata described Manaakitanga in this way: "behavior
that acknowledges the mana of others as having equal or greater
importance than ones own, through the expression of aroha, hospitality,
generosity and mutual respect. Displaying manaakitanga elevated
the status of all, building unity through the humility and the act
of giving" 
Remembering of course what
the German missionary had said nearly 200 years ago, "these natives
are a peculiar people. They don't measure their wealth by what they
own but by what they give away. We must teach them to be mean."
This tikanga hasn't changed. Maori still seek after mana enhancement
by providing the best kai available to their manuhiri. Kai moana
is ranked among the highest mana enhancing mechanisms known to the
Ngapuhi's Professor Manuka
Henare summarises manaakitanga in this way: "manaaki tanga relates
to the finer qualities of people, rather than just to their material
possessions. It is the principle of the quality of caring, kindness,
hospitality and showing respect for others. To exhibit manaakitanga
is to raise ones mana (manaaki) through generosity." 
Professor Cleve Barlow further explains manaakitanga in this way:
" manaaki is derived from the power of the word as in mana-a
ki, and means to express love and hospitality toward people. The
most important attributes for the hosts are to provide an abundance
of food, a place to rest, and to speak nicely to visitors so that
peace prevails during the gathering. If these principles are implemented
a hui will more likely be regarded as a memorable occasion."
In the case
of fisheries, Manaakitanga then is about our ability to feed our
manuhiri with the best possible traditional seafood available. An
argument based on this principle is very difficult to refute. Regarding
Te Tiriti O Waitangi, all Governments are obligated to provide for
this basic requirement of our Tikanga - having altered the status
of kai moana in this country through various pieces of legislation.
Kai moana then, is central to the practice of manaakitanga.
shared these definitions of manaakitanga with you, I now wish to
of the time Ngapuhi fish to feed our babies, we are categorised
as recreational fishers"
It is this vitally important
"recreational non-commercial fishing interest" that
tangata whenua have that is now under real threat. With less fish
in the water, the Maori commercial asset is also seriously threatened
as is all fishing interests both commercial and non-commercial.
When we signed the Treaty
of Waitangi Deed of Settlement in 1992, there clearly existed a
policy of giving preference to non-commercial fishing interests,
although it could be argued that Maori did not know that?
That is how the Quota
Management System was sold to us in 1985 and that is how the Government
of the day expressed its policy. In 1989 when the then Minister
of Fisheries, Colin Moyle stated " The QMS is now in place for
controlling the commercial component of the sustainable catch. Governments
position is clear, where a species of fish is not sufficiently abundant
to support both commercial and non-commercial fishing, preference
will be given to non-commercial fishing"
As far as Ngapuhi are
concerned, that preference remains in place to this day. Consequently,
there has been no legislation enacted to explicitly extinguish this
preference. In fact the 1996 Fisheries Act reinforces this intent
with Section 21, that directs the Minister to "allow for non
commercial fishing interests" when setting or varying commercial
interests. Note, not just setting but also varying.
As I said, I am unsure
whether our negotiators at the time of the Sealords deal actually
understood that this preference existed. My hope is, that they didn't
because if they did, they were conned and we have ended up with
a lemon, if nothing is done to protect both our commercial and non-commercial
Section 8 clearly states
that the fisheries resources must have their potential maintained
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.
It further states that those fisheries resources must be conserved,
used, enhanced or developed to enable PEOPLE to provide
for their social, economic and cultural well-being. Note the word
PEOPLE is used here – and "future generations" of
PEOPLE . He aha te mea nui o tenei Ao, he tangata, he tangata,
he tangata. Our ancestor Meri Ngaroto said this over 200 years ago
Therefore this Act is
about people. My observation is that the fisheries managers are
all about economics and maximum sustainable utilisation. They seem
to have forgotten about their obligations to the social and cultural
well being of us, the PEOPLE . In my view this intention
of the Act has been deliberately misrepresented, the Act is now
being exploited for commercial gain, with very little attention
being given to the human side of the equation.
How much more of this
are we willing to take?
Ministry of Fisheries Treaty Settlement Obligations:
Currently the Ministry's
fisheries settlement obligations are contained in or derived from
- Maori Fisheries Act 1989 & 2004
- 1992 Deed of Settlement
- Commercial and non-commercial customary fishery is legislatively
separated with the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992. However it clearly identified
that Maori non-commercial fishing rights continues to hold Treaty
obligations for the Crown 
- Fisheries Act 1996
- Treaty settlement obligations
- Input and participation provisions in setting sustainability
- Taiapure and customary fishing provisions
- Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999
- Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998
- Temporary closures/Rahui - I will explain a little bit about
this tool, rahui, later.
- Regulation 27 - Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
-We are all familiar with this regulation. Basically this is
permit writing to allow for seafood gathering for significant
occasions and provides the holder with the ability to gather
in excess of daily bag limit constraints. I understand that
this provision, although presently under the amateur fishing
regulations, will be transferred under the new customary regulations
currently being considered.
In a nutshell, Maori customary
fishing must be allowed for, manaaki manuhiri is paramount. The
preference debate must be settled one way or another. Fishing to
legislated bottom line sustainable levels must be stringently adhered
to. Management of our inshore fishery must surely be a shared responsibility
between the Ministry, commercial, non-commercial and customary fishing
interest holders. This means equal resourcing to be able to contribute
positively to the process.
In seeking to formalise
processes to give effect to the Crown's fisheries settlement obligations
to Maori, the Ministry has over the last decade provided a piecemeal
approach in balancing Maori commercial assets at the expense of
Maori non-commercial customary requirements.
In essence the provision
of providing 20% of new species entering the QMS can be seen as
a perfunctory process that enables the Ministry to clearly identify
that it is adhering to its Treaty Settlement obligations.
the Ministry is facing growing concern from Maori as to the potential
impact that entry into the QMS will have on our non-commercial customary
management of the fishery. There have also been instances where
the Ministry has clearly used its commercial Treaty obligation to
offset progressing management provisions to safeguard the non-commercial
customary fishery. 
Not being able to exclude commercial fishing from within a gazetted
Mataitai area for one.
To From Here?
The outcome of the recent
hui of non-commercial fishing interests at Whitiora Marae, Te Tii,
which many here attended was very clear, we want – "more
fish in the water" – not more fish in the kete, not
smaller size limits, not bigger nets – no, simply put, we
all agreed that our non-commercial fishing interest that shall be
allowed for is "more fish in the water".
The contemporary concept
of a taiapure was introduced through the Maori Fisheries Act 1989
at a time when the Crown was seeking to progress the establishment
of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ's) via the Quota Management
System (QMS). In effect the taiapure provisions can be seen as a
halfway or interim measure that sought to placate Maori by providing
some form of customary fisheries management whilst recognising the
rangatiratanga of iwi or hapu and the rights secured under Article
II of Te Tiriti. As a halfway measure the recognition of management
is given effect after the following lengthy process:
- Minister of Fisheries consults with the Minister of Maori Affairs
to ascertain whether he/she agrees in principle with the proposal.
- Public submission period; and
- Maori Land Court Tribunal to listen to objections and submissions.
On completion of the inquiry
the tribunal provides a report and recommendations to the Minister
of Fisheries, who in turn consults with the Minister of Maori Affairs
prior to either accepting or declining the recommendations made.
Should a proposed taiapure be approved then its management resides
with the Minister of Fisheries, after consulting the Minister of
Maori Affairs, who appoints a management committee from nominations
of people who appear to be representative of the local Maori community.
A lot of red tape for minimum impact.
The provisions and outcomes
of a taiapure have been described as a half-way measure given that
on the one hand they seek to recognise rangatiratanga and the Article
ii rights of Maori by identifying traditional fishing grounds that
are of special significance to the local iwi and hapu. Whilst
on the other hand that recognition of rangatiratanga, as an overarching
management principle, is given to the local community whose composition
is determined by the Crown. So in effect any body corporate, public
nomination and/or submitters to a taiapure could effectively determine
the rangatiratanga and Article ii rights of tangata whenua within
a traditional fishing ground of special significance.
Hence it could be argued
that the inability of tangata whenua to provide for their rangatiratanga
could be identified as a specific issue, as part of a number of
factors, that is reflected by the fact that none of the seven gazetted
taiapure  have yet provided
a management plan to the Minister of Fisheries, let alone regulations
to manage aspects of resource management and fishing (including
commercial fishing) within those areas.
Can Taiapure and Mataitai Assist
the Non-Commercial Sector?
- Taiapure are an interim, bureaucratic nightmare for tangata
whenua which vests management with the community rather than with
- Mataitai should be the preferred option, but there are internal
and external issues
- Internal = internal boundary disputes, lack of capacity
and lack of understanding of wider fisheries management.
- External = issues with MFish doing their job and public
They incorporate tools
that can provide for better management, however tangata whenua need
to be leading this waka, not relegated to second place by other
sectors of the community.
Whether you accept it
or not, the truth is Maori hold the key to alternative, effective
marine protection. The sooner the NZRFC, the public, the Department
of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries accept this the sooner
we can get on with the program of protecting our marine environment
for the benefit of our mokopuna.
- Maori are required to have gazetted tangata kai tiaki (TKT)
and rohe moana before an application can be made to MFish, so
there are all the issues surrounding how MFish is dealing with
its responsibilities and obligations of moving tangata whenua
away from reg 27 and over to the customary fishing regulations.
- Mataitai are management tools that are exclusive to tangata
whenua. The public, commercial and recreational fishers become
apprehensive because they feel they could be excluded from these
areas, thereby potentially impacting on their commercial and recreational
fishery – the issue then becomes one of access.
- However, there are no provisions in current legislation to support
this anxiety. This is perhaps one avenue where all can work collaboratively
to exclude commercial fishing within a given inshore fishery area?
Ngapuhi are of course willing to share this possibility with other
categories of non-commercial interest holders, but the choice
lodges with you.
- MFish is not proactive enough in educating the public, commercial
and recreational fishers on the positives of what mataitai could
offer (ie) the ability to manage via bylaws and/or regulations.
As an example bylaws could be drafted with MFish to propose a
minimum size and bag limit for cockles/pipi 
etc. There could also be regulations made to provide for
commercial fishing within mataitai, however it is a long and drawn
out bureaucratic process.
How I see it is that although
limited in its ability to assist both recreational and customary
fishing interests, the only tool available to us as a combined inshore
fisheries management tool is the Mataitai. The first step in setting
these in place, resides exclusively with Maori who must first of
all identify their rohe moana and kai tiaki that must then be registered
with MFish. Kai Tiaki roles are not necessarily exclusive to Maori.
The consultation process
then begins where I see huge opportunity for input by recreational
fishers, including the wider community. Once this is complete there
is a management plan that would need to be devised which I see as
a combined effort with the entire recreational fishing fraternity
and the wider interested parties within a community promoting the
Once the management plan
is agreed to, it must then be registered against the Mataitai area.
There is the possibility that commercial fishing may be excluded
from certain Mataitai areas if there is enough pressure from contributing
sectors of the community.
The possibilities for
constraint and bylaw making within gazetted Mataitai areas are unlimited.
I do not see any other mechanism within legislation that allows
anything like this to be considered.
It then goes without saying
that Maori customary fisheries management tools and the recreational
fishing fraternity are inextricably connected and if we don't collectively
maximise the opportunities under this legislation, we will continue
to be polarise without end. This is our only opportunity to have
some degree of control over the management of our inshore fishery.
My challenge to you then
is to get alongside Maori and begin to have real discussions. I
suggest this be done on a Marae where the atmosphere is relaxed
and everyone is given a chance to express their views without fear
or ridicule. If you are unsure of where to begin, give me a call
and I will ensure you are connected up with your local iwi.
Perhaps the last area
I want to touch on is this:
of Ngapuhi Non-Commercial Fishing Interests
I note with real concern
the written comments made by this NZ Recreational Fishing Council
in various submissions written by your leadership which state as
part of your stakeholder grouping: "We also maintain a close
contact with many of the tribes affiliated to Te Tai Tokerau in
I have checked with the
chairpersons of all the other eight iwi back home to find that not
one of them have been in discussions or associated with any person
from this NZ Recreational Fishing Council regarding non-commercial
fishing interests in the last five years.
Your mandate to write
this sort of comment into official documents is non-existent. So
you see it is absolutely crucial that you begin developing real
relationships with us so we can move forward together. As I said
before, Ngapuhi wants to move forward, but we will not be doing
so on our knees.
Therefore I put you on
notice today that the NZ Recreational Fishing Council does not speak
on behalf of the Ngapuhi nation regarding non-commercial fishing
interests until such time as there has been real consultation and
relationship development between the groups and Ngapuhi choosing
to be a member of your council. My good mate Bill Ross told me today
that "perception is reality."
Te Ohu Kai Moana are no
different, they have been promoting views regarding non-commercial
fishing interests, on behalf of Maori that we only read about in
magazines or newspapers. Commission spokesperson, Tania Mc
Pherson, made one such comment in an article in the Tangaroa
magazine of October 2004 and I quote : "historically,
kahawai has been a recreational fish as either bait or sport." She
went on, "It has been very difficult to determine
how much fish is caught for consumption and how much is caught for
Ngapuhi do not view kahawai
in that light at all. We treasure the kahawai as an integral part
of our ability to manaaki our manuhiri. I am unsure whether non-Maori
recreational fishers have ever thought of kahawai as a recreational
I want to tell you today
that those views belong to Te Ohu Kai Moana and in no way represents
the view of Ngapuhi. I am personally unaware of any iwi that have
relinquished their mana korero to TOKM on customary and non-commercial
In saying that, TOKM are
doing a wonderful job for us in our commercial fishing interests.
Allocation of our commercial assets is moving closer by the minute,
a few more adjustments to our organisations and they will be home.
If Ngapuhi are to become
part of this NZRFC - which we should, as should all iwi, hey bro's,
you need to get your shit together. I have read some real nasty
paperwork doing the rounds on e-mail and I see this council as a
dysfunctional family at the moment. I am reminded of what David
O McKay said, "no other success can compensate for failure in
the home." Let's get this home in order, if not-we don't want
a bar of it.
We have much to do together.
Welcome to the world of the Maori. I hope we can be of assistance
to each other.
Zealand Herald article 31 May 2005. Interview with Ruth Berry
- reporter Maori issues
| Standards and Foundations
of Maori Society, pg: 26
| Tikanga Whakaaro;
| Refer to earlier
speech notes of morning session- "First things first - a Maori
world - view.
| Ministry of Fisheries
(2004). Setting of Sustainability and Other Management Controls
for Stocks to be introduced into the QMS on 1 October 2004.
Initial Position Paper. Pg: 9.
| See Review of Regulation
27 – Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986.
| East Otago, Whakapuaka
(Delaware Bay), Palliser Bay, Porangahau, Maketu, Kawhia Aotea
and Waikare Inlet.
| As it currently
stands there are not any minimum size requirements for the majority
of our shellfish.