Fact or fiction – Ministerial speech to Maori Fisheries Conference
The Minister of Fisheries, Hon Jim Anderton, recently addressed Te Matau a Maui Maori Fisheries Conference in Napier organised by the Treaty Tribes Coalition. Mr Anderton expressed some extremely strong views about the New Zealand commercial fishing industry – and the Maori commercial fishing industry in particular.
Intentionally or not, the Minister's speech has not had the reaction he thought he would get, especially since the Minister in a later interview, also accused Maori commercial fishers of “plundering” the fisheries resource.
Ngapuhi chair Sonny Tau said that being accused of plunder was “a terrible insult” and that he believed the Fisheries Minister was trying to drive a wedge between Maori fishers, recreational, customary and commercial fisheries. Former Fisheries Commissioner and chair of Ngati Whatua Naida Glavish thought the Minister was “arrogant”.
At the Conference itself, delegates discussed the Minister's speech and made a number of pertinent comments that are printed below.
Minister's speech: “Our seafood exports are worth over $3 million a day to New Zealand. The industry is seven times bigger today than it was 20 years ago.”
“No matter how you measure the industry, it is not seven times bigger today than it was in 1987. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth,” said one conference delegate. For example, in 1992 the New Zealand fishing industry was worth $1.217 billion. In the year 2000, it was worth $1.451 billion and in 2007 worth only $1.253 billion in nominal terms.
Nominally, the fishing industry has remained static – but in reality it has been going backwards. If the industry grew at the rate of inflation, let's say an outside 3 percent since 2000, it would be worth $1.784 billion – $500 million more. Even in nominal terms, New Zealand seafood exports have declined by $200 million since Mr Anderton was voted into Government.
“Perhaps the Minister was confused when he said the growth of the fishing industry was seven times bigger and got mixed it up with the 86 percent growth in staff at the Ministry of Fisheries,” said another delegate in reference to the fact that full-time staff at MFish was 234 a decade ago to the current 437 full-time equivalents today.
Minister: “So I have a hard message about our fisheries today. And I am saying I want [Maori] to take ownership for meeting the challenges of sustainability.”
wi who have received quota from the Maori Commercial Fisheries Settlement each year participate (through representation provided by Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Limited, as well as through other commercial stakeholder organisations, such as the Seafood Industry Council and the Deepwater Group) in Ministry-led processes to determine the sustainability of fishstocks.
“Maori know only too well that they own any sustainability problems. No-one is saying that Maori do not want to take responsibility for sustainability and management.”
Minister: “I believe there is evidence that some of our fish stocks are in danger of collapse. But I can't prove it.”
If there is evidence, it is not relevant what the Minister might “believe”. The Minister tried to make a quota decision over Orange Roughy (ORH1) on what he “believed” to be the nature of the fishery. A TAC-setting decision begins by identifying the best available information (being information that is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time) and decisions may be based on such information although it is incomplete or inadequate or unreliable.
Minister: “So here is how we have ended up – parts of the industry tried to stop me making decisions about sustainability when there was uncertainty.”
This statement is inconsistent with the court decision against the Minister. Miller J's decision against the Minister does not stop the Minister making decisions about sustainability when there is uncertainty, rather it reinforces that there must be genuine reasons for making a decision. The Minister did not base his decision on the best available information primarily because his Ministry did not tell him there was better information available at a reasonable cost.
Minister: “What they [industry] have succeeded in doing is imposing a massive new cost on the entire sector and I am now rethinking the way we manage ‘low information' stocks.”
Belief alone is not enough to make decisions, but this does not mean he needs to go to the other extreme of absolute certainty. “Most of our stocks are “low information” and require adaptive management,” a conference delegate noted.
Minister: “Maori are going to pay the price because your involvement in the industry is so central.”
This threat is unnecessary and the Minister would be unreasonable to impose new costs on Maori based on his misinterpretation of a sensible court decision.
Minister: “So far my invitation to Maori commercial fishers to help in developing a new approach to managing uncertainty in fisheries management hasn't been forthcoming.”
The Minister must mean his recent proposals to change Section 10 of the Fisheries Act – to give him more power. Only the Minister could describe his my-way-or-the-highway approach to this issue as an “invitation”. His Section 10 proposals were opposed by iwi, Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Limited because they were unnecessary for ensuring sustainability and unnecessary for managing uncertainty.
In fact, Miller J in his recent judgement against the Minister's decision on ORH1 agrees with the Maori approach. It is not about uncertainty – it is taken for granted in the fishing industry that scientific information is never going to be certain. The part of the Fisheries Act that needs to be looked at to ensure a better process for dealing with uncertainty is not Section 10 nor is it Section 13. The Minister would achieve better cooperation by looking to amend Section 14 to allow for more flexibility in adaptive fisheries management.
Minister: “This is not about undermining the Deed of Settlement. The amendments needed will not lead to wholesale changes in the current TACs.”
The Minister's proposals to amend Section 10 of the Act have already been rejected. So what other amendments is the Minister referring to? Possibly his plans to amend Section 13 of the Act!
Minister: “What we can't do is pretend there is no sustainability challenge before us.”
The fishing industry, especially Maori within the industry, is well aware of the sustainability challenge before us. No-one is pretending sustainability is not important. Te Ohu Kaimoana reiterates on a daily basis the need for sustainability. For example, Maori quota owners, as well as other industry quota owners, have “shelved” quota in both CRA4 and PAU7, as well as other areas, to further protect different fisheries. This is an example of how adaptive management plans can protect our fisheries.
Minister: “What we can't do is impose costs on the industry that cripple its ability to grow.”
“Hang on … didn't you just say that you were going to impose “a massive new cost” on the entire sector because one company successfully appealed your decision?”
Maori realise there is more fiction than fact in the Minister's speech. The full transcript of the Minister's speech can be found on the Beehive website www.beehive.govt.nz.
If you have any news or events coming up that you'd like covered
in an issue of Te Tai Pari, drop us an email at
Tiakina ngā rawa hi ika, a tātou kaimoana mo ngā uri whakaheke
Protecting Māori fisheries assets for future generations