Compromise on fishing rights

Press, 1 December 1987, Page 3

Compromise on fishing rights

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Parliament A compromise has been reached between the Government, the Maori Council and the fishing industry which ought to permit the 1987-88 fishing year to go ahead as normal. This compromise involves a series of agreements between the parties so that the Crown and Maori Council can return to the High Court to vary interim declarations made by Mr Justice Greig.

He had declared on a claim by the Maori Council which had the effect of permitting no more interim transferable quotas to be issued for fishing that cut across traditional Maori fishing rights — specifically on squid* and jack mackerel.

Now the parties have agreed to go back to him to vary his interim declaration and have the prohibition lifted, so everyone can go fishing for 1987-88. A mechanism has been set up to allow present and pending Maori fishing claims to be resolved.

This involves a working party comprising the Crown, the Maori Council, and fishing interests represented by the Fishing Industry Board and the Federation of Commercial Fishermen.

The Attorney-General, Mr Palmer, announced this yesterday, and said there had been extensive consultation with the fishing industry which had agreed to the measure. "Fisiiing must go on, and now it can go on,” he said.

Mr Palmer refuted claims made earlier in the day by Mr Maanu Paul, fisheries representative on the Maori Council, that the Government had agreed to hand control of the disputed fisheries to the Maoris.

What had happened was that all the interested parties had agreed to seek the consent of the High Court to vary its decision so fishing oould go ahead this season while the parties talked about the future.

That was a victory for common sense and moderation, he said. The joint working group to be set up would report to the Crown and the Maori tribes and people by June 30, 1988, on how Maori fisheries might be given effect, on the conservation and management of the fisheries in

the interim, and on a transitional timetable. The working group would comprise six people, three nominated by the Maori parties and three nominated by the Crown, Mr Palmer said.

In the meantime, everyone was still waiting for the Waitangi Tribunal’s definition of what “traditional Maori fishing rights” were. This definition would not be binding on the Government, he said. It would be accorded great weight and would be considered by the working party, which would then advise the Government. Until then, and apart from paua, the status quo would broadly prevail. Mr Palmer said the issue of any compensation had not been raised yet. AS well as the working group with the Maori claimants, the Crown was making liaison arrangements with the fishing

industry and other interests. "Because the fishing year begins on October 1, 1988, it is essential that a solution be found well in advance of that date,” he said. “Some legislation is likely to be required by then, so a deadline of June 30 has been set for completing the process.” The Maori community had very limited resources to allocate to the process, so the Government would fund the cost of the working party. Mr Tipene O’Regan, chairman of the NgaiTahu Maori Trust Board,which successfully sought interim High Court action against the controversial Individual Transferable Quota (1.T.Q.), said yesterday that while a tentative out-of-court agreement had been defined there were some aspects which seemed to have been resolved, Jane England reports from Greymouth. He said the Government had proposed: • To grant $1.5 million for Maori tribes to split as they decide. • A working party to be employed by the Crown to investigate Maori fishing rights and the quota management system. • Tribal research on fisheries be funded by the Government on the presentation of accounts. • Foreign fisheries allocations and domestic squid allocations to continue under the present system for one year only. • Jack mackerel be exempted from I.T.Q. or total allocation of catch (T.A.C.) and be subject to new conservation measures. Other High Court action taken against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was last week resolved by a similar agreement. Although the Ministry of Fisheries has faced a series of High Court actions against the implementation of its I.T.Q. system the quota management system has been regarded as a reasonably successful conservation measure by most parties. It was the means by which it was divided and individually transferred which became the object of attack. The Crown and tribes, had difficulty finding middle ground on the I.T.Q. system particularly in respect of paua, he said.

A proposal being floated and which may be applied generally suggested that the system would be restructured so individual quotas could no longer be transferred indefinitely, he said. The system would be known as I.L.Q. and be structured on a leasehold basis. This would enable fishermen who had invested in the system to get some return on their money, he said. Questions remain as to the length of the lease and whether the Government could be sued by fishermen who have al : ready sold or leased their quotas to companies on the understanding that the quota belonged to them indefinitely. There is also some concern about the political ramifications of applying a sirtgle solution to tribes with differing amounts of coastline. Legal counsel for the Crown on the Ngai-Tahu Maori Trust Board’s land claim, Mrs Shonagh Kenderdine, said she would like to see tribes coming before an independent body such as the Waitangi Tribunal where their rights could be considered. “A global solution would run counter to the whole concept of traditional right. There is judicial authority which establishes that the right would then become a political one.”