Fishing bill before House

Press, 23 September 1988, Page 2

Fishing bill before House

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Legislation to give Maoris 50 per cent of the fisheries quotas over 20 years, if they want this, was introduced in Parliament yesterday.

It was promptly criticised by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, for preferring one race over another. He promised the next National Government would either amend it significantly or repeal it, but did not respond to Government challenges to say which. The Minister of Fisheries, Mr Moyle, said the Government could not proceed with its proposals unless it could do so without the crippling uncertainty of claims to the courts and Waitangi Tribunal. Such claims would cripple an important industry and people whose lives were committed to commercial fishing. The Maori Fisheries Bill, introduced yesterday, would take away from the Waitangi Tribunal jurisdiction to hear claims for fishing rights for 20 years. That applied to all claims whether potential, filed or under way. The bill also limited the ability of the courts to hear claims on fishing rights, whether based on the Treaty of Waitangi or common law. But while the ban on Waitangi Tribunal claims was for 20 years, no time limit had been set on the restriction imposed on the courts. The reason for this was that the treaty had been a political act, Mr Moyle said, and so its consequences had to be dealt with bn a political level. People would say, and were saying, that these proposals meant the Gov-, ernment was giving 50 per cent of fishing resources to Maoridom. That was not so.

“In fact the news media, public and Parliament should stop’ feeding on the emotional fixation of either global tonnages or total theoretical costs,” he said.

What was being proposed was the right to catch 2.5 per cent of 30

different . kinds of fish each year under the quota system. The bill provided the structure for Maoris to earn their share of the quotas, he said. Mr Bolger said the bill gave Maoris a preferred position in fishing based not on need, not on rights and not on purchase but on race. “I don’t condemn the attempt to reach a political solution but this is not a political solution,” he said. “It is a compromise on race, which cannot endure.” Mr Moyle said there were a number of options open to the Government in obtaining the fish quotas to which it was committing itself. What the Government would not do was take from -the present quotaholders without compensation. “That would be to do what the Government was not in the business of doing — visiting the sins of the parents on the children,” he said. The last thing the Government wanted to do was damage the fishing industry. The Crown already held substantial amounts of quotas in some fisheries and would actively acquire quotas in the market place, Mr Moyle said. The Crown envisaged a cost not exceeding $25 million a year which was the theoretical maximum; the reality was likely to be significantly less. With the exception of the first 2.5 per cent of quotas in the first year, the Government would not be "giving” Maoris anything. Maoris, rather, would have the chance to earn by their, own efforts a place in the fishing industry, he said. This had been done to compensate for repealing the old fisheries legislation that no Government measures would derogate from the treaty.