Treaty ‘missed’ in fisheries system

Press, 12 April 1989, Page 2

Treaty ‘missed’ in fisheries system

By

SUZANNE KEEN

The Treaty of Waitangi was never directly addressed during the establishment of New Zealand’s fishery quota system, says a fisheries economist with the Ministry of Fisheries, Mr lan Clark.

Mr Clark told the Waitangi Tribunal in Christchurch yesterday that the Ministry had developed the system to control the amount of fish taken from New Zealand’s waters. The biggest users of this resource were commercial fishers. “In developing the quota management system we concentrated on commercial fishers. We did not ignore non-commercial or Maori fishers, but we assumed they would benefit from, or not be affected by the system,” he said. Asked by the tribunal if the Ministry ever learnt the concerns of Ngai Tahu in relation to fisheries, Mr Clark said he did not believe specific issues such as this were considered. Sixty-five public hearings, including 25 in the South Island, were held in 1984 and 1985 to brief fishers on the individual transferable quotas (I.T.Q.S) and to collect their comments, he said. Some Maoris did attend these meetings, but no complaints about breaches of the Treaty were made. It seemed to have been understood that Maori fisheries was embodied within commercial fisheries, Mr Clark said. He believed the existing quota

management system addressed the conservation of the fishery resource better than previous controls. One of the tribunal members said he was concerned that just because some Maoris were present at public meetings and raised no objections, it had been assumed they were satisfied with the system. It was also questioned how I.T.Q.s could be retrenched if the tribunal decided some of the fishery resource should be allocated to Ngai Tahu. Most MAFFish witnesses suggested they would be unhappy to see any increase in the total allowable catches set for various species of fish and that an attempt to accommodate Ngai Tahu claims would probably have to be made through the reallocation of quotas. A fisheries scientist, Dr John Booth, said rock lobster fisheries had been heavily exploited since limited licensing was lifted in 1963. The fishery would be safer, more productive and more economically efficient if catches were reduced for several years. Dr Booth said rock lobster were the most important inshore fishery in the South Island. New Zealand’s

annual rock lobster landings were about 5000 tones, about half of which came from the area under claim by Ngai Tahu.

Rock lobster in this area had an export value of about $50.3 million. Dr Booth acknowledged that rock lobster had always been important to Maori people. He said Maori groups were involved in an investigation by MAFFish into the feasibility of rock lobster culture and enhancement.

“I hope we can all work together to ensure that rock lobster is as important to New Zealand in the futuure as it has been in the past.” Dr Talbot Murray, also a fisheries scientist, said paua was the second most valuable fish resource in the coastal area of the South Island. Its export value in the claim area was about $B.l million.

Dr Murray said it would be possible for Maoris to farm paua, although several factors would have to be considered first.

The tribunal also heard submissions on South Island shallow water, fin-fisheries and shell-fisheries, groper, bluenose and tarakihi. It will continue to hear from MAFFish representatives today.