of the Inaugural Hui
Timata Nga Whakawhanaungatanga
the building of relationships begin"
April – 01 May 2005
Trish Rea, Scott Macindoe and Sonny Tau
A hui to discuss concerns
surrounding the mismanagement of New Zealand's fisheries by the
Ministry and Minister of Fisheries was held over the last weekend
of April 2005. Non-commercial fishing interests held the inaugural
hui at Whitiora Marae, Te Tii in Northland. This hui was significant
as no other group of non-commercial fishing interests had ever attempted
to meet with Maori to explore how we could combine to arrest
the continued over fishing of our shared inshore fisheries.
text in a PDF document (110Kb)................here »
Late in 2004 Sonny Tau,
the chairman of Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi, suggested recreational
fishers had much to learn of things Maori and particularly Ngapuhi
– he asked if we could set up a meeting whereby he and his
colleagues could meet with some of us and present a Ngapuhi perspective
After Christmas we followed
up and it became obvious that a shift of venue to a marae in the
north would allow us to learn first hand how tangata whenua go about
meeting, sharing ideas and getting to know one another. To this
end the hui was arranged with an appropriate theme, " kia
timata nga whanaungatanga" or, " let
the relationship building begin ." In addition to
this theme, much discussion has occurred regards non-commercial
We accepted the invitation of Taiamai ki te Marangai takiwa (a branch
of Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi – TRAION) to a hui at their
Whitiora Marae. This is at Te Tii on the Purerua Peninsula, north
of Kerikeri. Thanks go to Judah Heihei and Ray Kapa for their enthusiasm
and making the marae available. This marae is very beautiful and
the scene of many successful hui for Ngapuhi.
Around 30 recreational
fishing representatives assembled at the waharoa, gateway to the
Te Tii marae on Friday evening. We were welcomed onto the marae
with a formal powhiri, the purpose of which is to help visitors
(manuhiri) feel entirely at home for the duration of the stay, to
make everyone equal and encourage the best possible outcomes from
the deliberations. The powhiri began with the Karanga or
calling of manuhiri (visitors) onto the Marae Atea (area in front
of the Wharenui). We then entered the Marae and immediately went
to the atamira (area where the dead lie in state) and payed our
respects to the Tupuna (ancestors), whose photographs hang on the
After the hariru and hongi
(shaking of hands and rubbing of noses) it was time for the welcoming
speeches. The tangata whenua (home people) spoke first and then
handed the privilege to us, their visitors. The significance of
this part of the hui is not to be underestimated as this set the
wairua (spirit) for the entire hui. It is impossible to begin a
hui with clear intentions to work together, without going through
the entire powhiri process. This might be something we can learn
to introduce to our private and business functions.
The powhiri was followed
by a wonderful kai – we were made to feel very much at home
and most welcome.
Judah Heihei warmly welcomed
all of us to the marae and explained the programme for the next
few days. This was followed by a brief history of Ngati Rehia and
local korero (talk).
Sonny Tau gave an overview
of the history of Ngapuhi, its boundaries (both traditional and
contemporary) and tikanga – practices. This presentation was
an insight into the psyche of Maori, why they act like they do.
Frustration was expressed
at the headline grabbing misconceptions that the media portray regarding
Treaty of Waitangi settlements. It is important to know that in
all the treaty settlements thus far, Maori have only received, in
total treaty of Waitangi claims, $715M which is dwarfed by the BNZ
and Air NZ bailouts which didn't rate a mention in the media except
to announce it to the country.
Ngapuhi accept that this
hui was not about resolving Maori grievances but they wanted us
to understand the background to their grievance so we can forge
a relationship to work towards a common objective – more fish
in the water.
Sonny Tau said that Ngapuhi
were clear as to why they wanted to meet with other non-commercial
fishing interests. They had recently discovered that there were
three categories of fishers created in legislation - commercial
fishers, recreational fishers and customary fishers. To fish
customarily, Maori need a permit. "When we fish to feed
our babies we are categorised as recreational fishers. Therefore
99.99% of the time Ngapuhi go fishing, we are fishing under the
amateur fishing regulations."
As Ngapuhi also hold commercial
quota it has been said that they will be challenged about their
dual interests in commercial as well as recreational fishing. According
to Sonny Tau, his iwi, Ngapuhi beneficiaries have stated categorically
that they want fish on their tables rather than overseas or being
used as crayfish bait for Australian fishers. Ngapuhi also view
the mismanagement of our inshore shared fisheries as a direct threat
to their commercial fishing returns.
Hope and Potential
– Judah Heihei and Scott Macindoe
A good point was raised
that when Maori talk about pakeha in relation to Treaty of Waitangi
issues they are referring to the Crown, not to pakeha in general.
Some Maori have been portrayed in the media as being anti-pakeha,
but for Ngapuhi they are clear, it is the Crown they have issues
Nothing without protest
and no goodwill from the Crown – Maori have felt this for
a very long time. We now find ourselves feeling the same way in
regards to fisheries matters.
Ngapuhi's kingfish submission
gave us hope when they made the statement, " Ngapuhi individuals
and whanau are passionate about recreational fishing both in Northland
and wherever they might live throughout the country".
Ngai Tahu have submitted
with a similar statement as well.
Communication is the key
to success. For too long Maori and recreational fishers have not
consulted with each other, now is a good time to start working together.
An example of a local aquaculture project failing due to objections
from many recreational fishers was used to describe how the process
was flawed. The potential exists to work together to find solutions
that fit with Maori aspirations for economic development and for
recreational fishers to enjoy the benefits.
Judah explained the local
people had invested in a mataitai in their area to counteract the
inability of MFish to stop illegal fishing. The mataitai was gazetted
and an area agreed to by MFish, only to arrive at the conclusion
that they had no real control over their fenced-off area.
Progress has been slow but he was keen to hear what others had to
say in regards to the suitability of a mataitai as a tool for fisheries
management. Northland people are very keen to have tools for management
of their local areas and harbours in particular. They are frustrated
that these tools have never had a chance to be developed and that
MFish changes direction on them, without adequate consultation.
Richard Civil, a Maori
and fifth generation ex-commercial fisherman addressed the hui and
talked about his experience of fishing around the Bay of Islands.
The introduction of the QMS has seen around 95% of the quota that
was held by local fishermen sold to the bigger fishing companies.
In the early 1980s there were 96 permits held around the area. As
far as the locals are aware only two local boats still work the
area. Because most of the fish is exported the locals can only access
fish through the local supermarkets, unless they catch it themselves.
It was our absolute pleasure to provide the hui with koha in the
form of kaimoana. Rick Pollock, owner/skipper of " Pursuit"
couldn't be with us as he had a charter on board but sent us
a black marlin frame complete with belly, two bass frames including
the heads and two whole kingfish and hapuku. It was such a delight
to back the trailer up to the kitchen door and unload this kai for
our dinner. Ray Kapa, Paul Batten, Terry Buckley and the rest of
the team went to work and cut this fish into manageable portions.
The Ngati Rehia locals did a great job smoking the fish for us.
Add to this the raw fish and mussels and we had kai fit for kings.
– John Holdsworth
Before the introduction
of the Quota Management System (QMS) the government was subsidising
fishermen into bigger boats and the outcome was more fishing effort
in a move designed to increase our exports by fishing further out
to sea (but the boats were used to fish inshore). There was open
access to our inshore fisheries that became the target of the ever
increasingly efficient fishing fleet.
The advent of the QMS
brought about the demise of many local fishermen who did not meet
the criteria for getting an allocation of quota under the new regime.
One of the criteria was the fisherman had to prove an income of
around $10,000. Many of Northland's local fishermen lost out due
to these criteria. What was not taken into account was these local
fishermen were "fishing for life", whether it was to supply the
local shops with fish, bartering or feeding the whanau.
Three categories of fishers
were also established at this time, commercial, recreational and
customary Maori. The term recreational fisher was rejected by the
hui as being derogatory and not reflective of what it actually is.
Non-commercial is the preferred term and more appropriate now that
we are working towards the same goal. It is also how the Fisheries
Act 1996 describes us - non-commercial fishing interests .
In 1986 there was an upsurge
in fishing rights awareness partly attributable to a court ruling
in favour of a claim by an old Maori man that it was his customary
right to gather shellfish from Motunau Beach (north of Christchurch).
After property rights
for fisheries had been issued in the form of quota the northern
people objected to their fishing rights being taken away. In 1987
a process was started that resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries
Commission agreeing with the Muriwhenua claim that Maori fishing
rights had been extinguished, this was also confirmed by the courts
and it found that Maori actually "owned" 100% of the fisheries.
Negotiations took place between Maori and the Crown with industry
very keen to participate.
There was a pre-settlement
deal with the introduction of the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill
in 1998. The Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement of
1992 established formal recognition of Maori fisheries claims. Until
this settlement Maori had very strong claims to New Zealand's fisheries.
The government was trying
to work out what to do with recreational fishing and formulated
a national policy  and
what we now refer to as Moyle's Promise 
. Subsequent Labour governments have not upheld this policy
and explained this away by saying it was never passed by the Cabinet
so therefore wasn't official policy.
The 1983 Fisheries Act
was replaced in 1996 and entrenched the QMS as our fisheries management
tool forever. The lack of definition of recreational fishing rights
was used as a reason for the 2000 Soundings
document suggesting a proportional share (amongst other things)
regime would be a good way to manage recreational fishing.
The response to the Soundings process was overwhelming.
option4 mobilised and facilitated over 100,000 submissions in favour
of the 4 principles - the public and eventually the Minister, Pete
Hodgson, rejected the Soundings document. option4 recognised
the danger of being fitted into the QMS in a proportional arrangement
that would diminish the rights of non-commercial fishers.
Ngapuhi are welcome to share in the
discussions we have regarding fisheries management and any material
we have we will share with them. We are experienced in attending
fisheries management meetings on behalf of non-commercial recreational
fishers and are willing to share that experience with them. What
we don't want is any surprises, if Ngapuhi consider we are wrong
then they need to tell us. Ideally we want to get to a stage where
we have an agreed position before we proceed in any management arrangements.
There is strength in unity.
Why Ngapuhi should
be concerned - Paul Barnes
After being denied the
chance to discuss fisheries management with Maori through the official
Ministry of Fisheries processes it was a huge leap forward and a
privilege to speak with Ngapuhi on their marae.
Ominous signs for recreational
fishing interests were apparent in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
A meeting was organised with Peter Pearse in the early 1990's. It
was revealed that the objective was to constrain recreational catch.
Pearse's opinion was that the ideal way to do this was to license
recreational fishers. Then the license price would be set to a high
enough level that the only people that would participate would be
those who were willing to pay. This would mean that those who couldn't
afford to pay the license fee, the same people who are most dependent
on fishing for food would be shut out of legally fishing. This was
unacceptable. Pearse then wrote a report for the Ministry of Fisheries
called Building on Progress. 
Around 1993 Wheeler was
promoting much the same logic as Pearse, but more extensive work
was done. Another report was produced and went further than just
discussing licensing and constraining the recreational catch. The
money generated through this process would be used to buy back quota
from commercial fishers as the population grows.
The problem with this
ideology is the declining biomass means there are smaller fish and
less of them to catch and the recreational harvest declines with
the falling biomass. Recreational fishers have fish taken away from
them as the biomass declines, now they were proposing to have recreational
fishers buy those same fish back. This proposal was completely unacceptable
to recreational fishers.
The QMS was "sold" to
non-commercial fishers as a mechanism to control commercial catch.
Commercial fishers were causing the fishery to decline; they were
threatening inshore stocks that were nearly all depleted. In 1986
the statement included in Moyle's Promise of 1989, regarding the
preference that would be given to non-commercial fishers, was made.
This was referring to all non-commercial fishing interests both
Maori customary and recreational.
Bearing this in mind the
Ministry were dealing in bad faith. The public gave their agreement
to the QMS on the understanding that the promised preference would
be applied, that if there weren't enough fish the people of this
country would have a priority to fish for food over commercial's
right to export fish. Or in the case of kahawai, take fish from
our tables and export it for crayfish bait in Australia. This cannot
be right or fair.
Doug Kidd introduced a
new Fisheries Act in 1996 and he assured recreational fishing representatives
that non-commercial interests would be protected in the new Act.
document produced in 2000 was the same ideology as discussed in
1991 and 1993. No mention of the promises made in 1986, the National
Policy of 1989 or Moyle's Promise. The document basically promised
non-commercial fishers the leftovers of the QMS. It promised tradeable
quota that could be bought or sold.
A meeting of recreational fishing
people was held in August 2000 and it was agreed that Soundings
had to be stopped. Not only that, but an alternative needed
to be offered so that people knew what recreational fishers wanted.
A set of principles was required to guide people and assist their
understanding of the basis of what option4 stood for.
- No licensing of recreational fishers
This idea had already
been rejected in 1991 and 1993. At a public meeting called to discuss
the Soundings document an MFish representative was asked
what the primary objective of the process was. The response - it
was to cap the recreational catch and constrain recreational fishers
to that capped level. And to avoid compensation issues for the Crown.
process was not for the benefit of non-commercial fishers, it was
a device designed to allow the Crown to escape from all the costs
associated with the previous mismanagement of our fisheries.
They also wanted us to
share the cost of managing our inshore fisheries. The Ministry considered
the inshore fisheries needed this management, as there were too
many competing interests. The commercial industry were the cause
of the decline of our inshore fisheries, it should be their responsibility
to rebuild them. If there was only non-commercial fishing effort
applied in our inshore fisheries most of our stocks wouldn't need
large-scale fisheries management, it was the commercial extraction
that required the management.
The Ministry were asking
us to subsidise the fishing industry again. They had already been
paid compensation of around $70 million for quota, then they received
much of that quota back from the Quota Appeals Authority, now we
were being asked to pay to manage ourselves and buy quota off them.
The Ministry were asked
if were we (recreational fishers) eating too much fish? Or was it
that they wanted us to buy our fish from the industry? No answer
If we accepted a license
regime it would be used against us. The money would be taken and
applied to cover management costs that we had not been the cause
of. The reason we need management of our fisheries is that the Ministry
and industry are determined to maximise their quota and to extract
the last possible fish from the water.
A license would be used
against the poorer people of this country to keep them from legally
accessing our fisheries. Those that did pay would be paying to buy
back the fish that had been taken from us in the first instance.
This all adds up to the
whakapapa on why we should never agree to licensing for recreational
- Planning Right
The ability to devise
plans to ensure future generations enjoy the same or better quality
of rights while preventing fish conserved for recreational use
being given to the commercial sector.
have been led to believe that if they conserve fish it will do good
things for the fishery. But if we look at kingfish that were introduced
into the QMS in 2003, years ago non-commercial fishers could take
30 in a day. It was agreed that was excessive and was subsequently
reduced to 10 per day then three per day.
The fishery was still
considered to be in trouble so many people including the NZBGFC
decided they would fish to a one-metre minimum size limit (MLS).
MFish introduced a 65cm (MLS), which has subsequently increased
to 75cm. Non-commercial catches were massively reduced by these
impositions but it was an attempt to conserve the kingfish fishery.
While all this was going
on we heard stories of commercial fishers taking two tonne of kingfish
a night off certain reefs, even in the Bay of Islands.
When kingfish were being
considered for introduction into the QMS option4 submitted that
non-commercial fishers wanted what we catch now plus what we have
conserved over many years to rebuild the stock. The Ministry response
was that they considered commercial fishers also conserved kingfish
so they would discount all the conservation efforts and just allocate
on current catch levels.
So non-commercial fishers
had accepted cuts to achieve a rebuild, the biomass had continued
to decline despite these efforts and MFish allocated non-commercial
fishers an allowance at the lowest possible level. By discounting
all previous conservation efforts they have made it worthless for
non-commercial fishers to conserve fish. This is not the outcome
we want for fisheries management in New Zealand.
Without a planning right
we can't manage ourselves, we cannot conserve fish for future generations
and we cannot plan for the future. We do not want to be conserving
fish and then have those fish allocated as quota to prop up unsustainable
commercial quotas in our fisheries. We have lost the ability to
influence or improve the state of our fisheries. We have to get
this ability back, without it we are lost, more so for our future
- Priority Right
A priority right over
commercial fishers for free access to a reasonable daily bag limit
to be written into legislation.
As a principle it sounds
offensive and is frightening to commercial fishers but what we want
is what we were promised – the preference referred to in Moyle's
The current situation
is the fishing industry has priority in every fishery we share.
We are supposed to run our fisheries at a level where we can get
the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). All our important inshore shared
fisheries are being run at a level below this point. There are less
fish in the water than what the legislation demands. The MSY target
means around 20% of the original fish stock should be left in the
water to breed and grow. In 1986 the SNA8 (west coast North Island)
fishery had fallen to an estimated 3% of its original size. This
fishery had been massively overfished with the pair trawlers being
a large part of that. People have been waiting since 1998 
for that fishery to rebuild. The SNA8 fishery is currently
around 10% of its original size; half the fish in the water that
the Fisheries Act 1996 determines is the minimum. The Act says fisheries
will be managed at or above MSY.
The SNA8 situation benefits
the commercial sector because there is only half as many fish as
there should be. It is twice as hard as it should be for Maori customary
or recreational fishers to catch a snapper in SNA8.
The Fisheries Act 1996
says the Minister has to "allow for" our interests, at the moment
he is not allowing for our interests in the SNA8 fishery. The commercial
sector has been given priority in SNA8 and also in regards to our
For kahawai, the recreational
sector has been given a huge allowance but we have no chance of
catching it. The Ministry continue to pretend that this is a good
thing to do. They haven't allowed for us to catch it, the allowance
It is impossible for us
to double or treble our effort, we can only fish when we do. We
can only catch what we catch. They are imposing a proportional system
on us as suggested by Wheeler, Pearse and Soundings without
consultation, by deceit and stealing our fish from us.
This is why we need a
priority right. More fish in the water will be beneficial for all
Benefits of more fish in
Easier for non-commercial
fishers to catch a fish.
for commercial fishers.
the fish will be bigger.
MSY is only one fishing
management strategy and probably the most dangerous. A safer option
is Maximum Economic Yield (MEY). Instead of running fisheries down
to 20% of its original size we set the minimum stock size at a higher
level so there are more fish available to be caught.
The current situation
is by the time we realise there is a problem with a fishery it is
well below the 20% level. The science follows the decline of the
fishery by about five years, which means no management action is
taken until years after the 20% minimum has been surpassed. The
only way of achieving a priority right in important shared fisheries
is to run the biomass above Bmsy.
We need to be running
fisheries at a higher level, safer stock sizes and rebuilding fisheries.
To achieve this there will be a cost. This could be in the form
of a TACC reduction, or until the non-commercial sector unite and
refuse to take any reduction in bag limits until the fishery is
above MSY. If this scenario was allowed to occur in SNA8 our catches
would double and people would have more incentive to look after
the rebuilt fishery. Only then can we truly conserve fish, but this
action would need to be in conjunction with a Planning Right.
- Area Right
The ability to exclude
commercial methods that deplete recreationally important areas.
The size of the management
areas that MFish apply to our fisheries is unworkable. The Kaipara
mullet and flatfish situation is an example of how it doesn't work
for local people. The Fisheries Management Area (FMA) for grey mullet
(GMU1) and flounder (FLA1) runs from north of Taranaki right around
the north and down close to East Cape. The boats used to target
these species are quite small and very mobile. If the fish are running
in the Kaipara the fleet have been known to descend on the area,
fish it really hard until there is not enough fish left to make
it worthwhile staying. After the fleet moves on the locals are left
with a depleted fishery. Flounder can regenerate very quickly, but
just as the fishery is rebuilding the mobile fleet return and repeat
Some locals started taking
offence and were very overt in their protest that in some cases
resorted to violence. The Minister decided that a management group
would be the answer. The group formulated a very sensible plan that
took into account the large nature of the harbour. They wanted to
set a TACC to constrain what was taken commercially out of the harbour.
Ministry declined to agree to the plan as they could envisage compensation
issues and the area was too big.
So what the Ministry have
basically indicated is that area rights that are too big will not
be considered. Finfish management on a smaller scale wouldn't work;
it has to be a large area. Unless area rights are very large or
species specific and commercial quotas (TACC's) are set according
to agreed limits then they won't work. To have a taiapure or mataitai
where everyone including Maori and recreational interests, are working
together on agreed outcomes would be a wonderful outcome.
The best part would be
the government's reaction to being confronted with a unanimous proposal
and being asked to sign it off. They are likely to run a mile.
An area right for sedentary
species such as shellfish, on a small scale may work better. But
it would be different for finfish.
We need tools to be able
to manage on a local level. We need to be able to acknowledge and
shut down areas where shellfish are depleted and keep them shut
until they rebuild.
These principles are what
option4 stand for. These have all been overridden in regards to
kahawai and the reason why we are going to court. The kahawai decision
has not been made in any non-commercial interests and many small-scale
commercial fishers' interests.
Ngapuhi need something like these
principles to guide them if you want your mokopuna to enjoy kaimoana.
Evidence of Priority
In any fisheries management
advice paper there is plenty of discussion of the effects of any
management changes on the commercial sector. When it comes to non-commercial
interests there is very little discussion. The reason for this is
compensation issues. The Crown can be sued by industry if MFish
don't consider all the adverse effects on the commercial rights
holders. We do not have any right of recourse. We can take them
to court and challenge any decision but we don't have an opportunity
to sue them for money.
We need the Kahawai Legal
Challenge so the courts can determine what our interests are in
fisheries. Then the Minister may get some guidance on what he has
to "allow for" when making management decisions.
It is unreasonable for
the Minister to set an allowance for non-commercial interests without
allowing us the ability to go and catch that allowance.
The less divided we are
in a non-commercial sense the more likely we are to succeed.
To have more fish in the
water is the ultimate goal. To achieve this we have to catch less
fish. If compensation is required to pay the commercial sector to
achieve that goal then so be it.
The term "recreational"
is designed to keep Maori and pakeha fishers apart. The term implies
pakeha are out there playing with our food. The TOKM comment regarding
pakeha and charter operators providing entertainment is not true.
We are in the same waka,
Maori and pakeha. Most of the time Maori are fishing recreationally,
according to the definition of the law.
A lively question and answer session
followed Paul's presentation.
- Hesketh Henry Lawyers
Prior to the advent of
the Resource Management Act (RMA) coming into force in 1991 the
Tauranga local council had a rule in its District Plan that could
prohibit commercial fishing in the Tauranga harbour. This was available
under the old Town and Country Planning Act, the rule known as the
Maritime Planning Scheme. With the advent of the RMA local councils
lost their ability to control local fishing rights. Under current
fisheries legislation there is an absence of locals being able to
have a say unless it's through using the customary legislation provisions.
The Kahawai Legal Challenge
is based on a judicial review of the Minister's decisions regarding
kahawai. It will be seeking to look into:
- Section 21 of the Fisheries Act 1996. A relatively simple argument.
- The TAC and the process to determine how many fish are left
in the sea. A more complex issue.
- The allocation of kahawai based on catch history, affording
a priority to commercial catch history.
The proceedings are currently
in draft stage and hope to be finalised over the next month.
A decision still needs
to be made regarding a review of the case before it is lodged in
the High Court. We want to lodge the proceedings with the High Court
as soon as possible. The Minister is obliged to make a fresh decision
in advance of the new fishing year on 1 October 2005.
The parties to the proceedings
are the Minister of Fisheries and the Chief Executive of MFish.
Two fishing companies have also expressed an interest, Sanford Ltd
and one other. It is likely there will be commercial fishers participating
in the proceedings.
Neither recreational nor
Maori customary non-commercial fishing interests are defined in
the Fisheries Act 1996. One of the objectives of the court case
will be to get a determination on what those interests are. The
Minister has set a tonnage in an effort to "allow for" our interests.
Non-commercial interests do not have any ability to control catching
The best outcome would
be a determination that results in more fish in the sea.
The Maori concept of fisheries
is how do we look after this for tomorrow's kai. It's about making
the pie (fish biomass) bigger. Fisheries management is based on
figures that are guesswork. The hui needs to empower Maori not just
consult and move on.
We need to consider replenishing
the stocks, not just arguing about who has the last fish.
Labs need to be set up
to grow spat that can be released into the wild to enhance wild
Water quality issues need
to be addressed in conjunction with fisheries management.
Emma encouraged the hui
to work together and asked us to submit in response to the Resource
Management Act review.
The term "recreational" fishing is
insulting, getting kai for the table is not fun (although it can
be), it's feeding the mokos. MFish should change that word to another.
– Lecturer, Ngapuhi
Sidney has chosen a contemporary
waiata to teach us. Waiata connects everyone together and the tupuna
(ancestors) with the people. The Maori worldview includes the spiritual
world and the physical world.
Sidney demonstrated two
different instruments used for waiata and for calling people together
or alerting people to war.
Waiata is used to pass
sacred and ancient knowledge from one person to another, one generation
to another. There are appropriate waiata for different occasions.
Karakia can be incantations or waiata. Waiata sung after a speech
should be related to what has just been discussed and it is important
that the person starting the waiata knows it from start to finish.
If you don't know your waiata, don't sing it - it is inappropriate
for people to act like a fish, mouth moving but no words.
Sidney taught us the following waiata,
a contemporary waiata that can be sung on any occasion.
e te atua
us o Lord
taonga o te tangata
of a man is
te Aroha e
Aroha te Taonga nui rawa
the greatest gift of all
Role of Maori
session taking us all deep into the realms, phenomena and realities
of being Maori.
Maori individuals are
part of a collective, part of a whanau. Whanau are communities,
not just the family unit. Hapu is the extended whanau and iwi is
the tribe. All of these are connected by the whakapapa, the genealogy.
The tupuna is the ancestry connecting all of these elements together.
Ngapuhi's great ancestor is Rahiri.
There are 80 registered
tribes in the country. Every tribe measure their tribal boundaries
Ngati Whatua has 17 hapu
within their tribe and 34 marae within those hapu. Ngapuhi have
Maori view themselves
as having a physical being, a spiritual being and a psychological
being. Everyone stems from a creator, people choose to refer to
that creator in different terms, and for Maori it is Io. The reason
the Maori welcome includes Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai is acknowledgement
of all three beings.
Kaitiaki is not just guardianship,
for a pipi bed, it also encompasses the interest of the pipi bed.
Mauri is the essence, the life force
of something, whether it is the sea, a rock or anything we come
– the new threat to our sea
Dr Floor Anthoni
– Director, Seafriends
Greed, apathy and ignorance
are threats to the health of our ocean.
Floor has been diving
for 40 years and has noticed the degradation. In 1987 he started
to take a particular interest in what was happening in the marine
environment and do something about it. His question is why are we
losing so much so fast?
The website www.seafriends.org.nz
has much of Floor's information about degradation and marine
Floor has major concerns
about the siltation of our coastline, examples of degradation were
shown of Parengarenga Harbour, Whangaroa, Poor Knights, Goat Island,
Great Barrier Island, Cape Brett and Mayor Island.
Degradation is more of
a threat to the sea than fishing. It is very important to leave
fish in the sea to reproduce and also provide food for other species.
Stopping fishing only addresses the top layer of the marine food
chain and does nothing to mitigate the ill effects from degradation.
Marine reserves are the wrong medicine .
Everyone can do his or
her bit to improve the health of the sea, even if it is being aware
of what we do on the land.
Kahawai is a sick stock and should
be treated as such. MFish are regarding it as a healthy stock but
it should not be commercialised. Only commercial by-catch should
be allowed for but large-scale exploitation is not good for kahawai.
All participants enjoyed
the opportunity to offer what they had gained from the hui.
We need more of this – all over
New Zealand. There has to be a way we can all paddle the same waka.
The public servants have been tyrants. The officials need to be
taken to task. Thank you for the humour and passion – I feel
empowered. We need to retain both of our two voices. Let the relationship
building begin. Regular meetings are needed. The kids have been
fantastic. We need to get focused on how we market the messages
– the layman struggles to understand. Need sound bites –
one sentence. More fish in the water for more food on the table.
Need Ngapuhi to offer lead to other iwi. Government will struggle
with people from such diverse backgrounds working so closely together.
This is bigger than fisheries. Makes me proud to be a kiwi. We understand
our focus much better now – challenge is to bring two focuses
together. Never thought I would see myself in the same room as option4
agreeing with the principles. I am here for a selfish reason –
for my kids to enjoy what I have enjoyed. Good to see some pakeha
aggressive in learning something from us. Objective of protecting
the environment is important. We all know MFish are mismanaging
the fisheries – they have their minds closed. There is no
goodwill from the Crown – nothing without protest. It's all
made up of political mumbo jumbo – very little common sense.
The system rewards the plunderers. Need local control – mataitai
sounds magic to me – experience and common sense that we desperately
need. This has been about much more than fishing. More fish in the
water – keen as. I am excited to rediscover the Maori world
view. Don't like to see talk fests that fizzle out and give birth
to a mouse. Keen to get involved and help design a local management
plan. I have a sense of responsibility. I had not realised there
was so much pain out there about our fisheries being felt by pakeha.
Government keep moving the goal posts. I can take these tools home
and we can start talking. A lot of the management troubles we bring
upon ourselves – need more people attending ministry meetings
– your mere presence makes a difference – sometimes
changes their decisions. A real eye opener for me from deep south.
Side by side in the same boat going in the same direction. Looks
like lots more work – looking forward to getting stuck in.
Need lots of two pronged attacks and flanking attacks.
Another beaut breakfast
and then the farewell. For many this was a highlight. The concluding
speeches, the heartfelt appreciation and sense of accomplishment
was oh so tangible. Speech and waiata, speech and waiata –
none wanted it to end – we gave "Te Aroha" our all –
pretty good we were too. Many a tear was shed.
Thank you Ngapuhi –
this weekend was one we will never forget.
This hui was an overwhelming
success and is a good starting point for non-commercial fishers
to work out the process how to achieve our common goal -
maha nga ika ki te moana"
in the sea
National policy for marine recreational fisheries. Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries . June 1989
Government's 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 This
position reflects Government's resolve to ensure all New Zealanders
can enjoy and benefit from our fisheries. Colin Moyle. Minister
of Fisheries June 1989
Building on Progress. Fisheries Policy Development in New Zealand
by Peter H Pearse July 1991
The decision letter from Luxton in 1998 regarding the SNA8
includes the following –
" As part of my decision
to set a 10 year rebuild timeframe, I have decided to set the TAC
for SNA8 at 2060 tonnes, set an allowance for non-commercial recreational
interests of 360 tonnes, set an allowance for customary Maori interests
of 50 tonnes, retain the existing TACC at 1500 tonnes and to allow
150 tonnes for other removals at 10% of the TACC. In determining
these allowances and the ten year rebuild timeframe, I note the
forward projections indicate that at current removals the rebuild
to Bmsy will be achieved in 2007-08 with a 61% probability. There
are therefore some risks that the rebuild will not be achieved and
it will be necessary to monitor the SNA8 stock to determine that
the projected stock increase is occurring".