HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

Transcription

1 RECEI V ED HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD Kia mau ki te Rangatiratanga o te iwi o Haurabi 1 7 eeb2003 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT 14 February 2003 Marie Alexander Clerk of the Committee Local Government and Environment Select Committee Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD SUBMISSION ON THE MARINE RESERVES BILL INTRODUCTION This is a submission of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board ('the Board'). The Board is established under the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988 and operates on behalf of the tribes of Hauraki; Ngai Tai, Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Patukirikiri, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora, Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau, Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Tara Tokanui and Ngati Whanaunga. Hauraki Iwi have relied on the marine environment and its resources for their social, cultural and economic well being over many centuries. Today this connection is reflected in the variant commercial and non commercial activities of Hauraki Iwi and in their corresponding duties as kaitiaki. The rights and interests of Hauraki Iwi in the marine environment are guaranteed by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. This government has an obligation to actively protect such rights and interests as they pertain to the Hauraki rohe Mai Matakana ki Matakana. Since its establishment, the Board has been outspoken in their opposition to the establishment of marine reserves on the basis that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 failed to recognise, let alone provide for the rights and interests of Hauraki Iwi. The Bill does nothing, in practice, to change this situation. Furthermore, between the Board and Hauraki Iwi expended considerable resources and effort objecting to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park proposal on the basis that it sought to lock up Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), a taonga of the utmost importance to Hauraki Iwi as a playground for Aucklanders. The Bill in its current form brings those threats right back home for Hauraki Iwi. Coronation Chambers 41 Belmont Road PO Box 33 Paeroa New Zealan Telephone Facsimile general@haurakimao

2 The concerns raised by the Board in this submission are matters the Board has repeated ad finitum over the years, most recently through its responses to Tapui Taimoana: Reviewing the Marine Reserves Act 1971, Oceans Policy process (stage 1) and the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. These submissions have gone unnoticed in the formulation of this Bill. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board supports the subrnission of the Treaty Tribes Coalition. SUBMISSIONS Ownership Interests Hauraki Iwi assert that they are the customary owners of the foreshore and seabed within their rohe, including Tikapa Moana and that these rights and interests have never been relinquished. Having customary title of the foreshore and seabed affirmed, seeking redress specific to the Treaty breaches suffered and ensuring no contemporary grievances are created as a consequence of non recognition of customary title is of fundamental importance to Hauraki Iwi. Hauraki Iwi filed applications to the Maori Land Court to seek a determination that the foreshore and seabed surrounding the Hauraki rohe is held in Maori customary title. These applications are identical to those in the Marlborough Sounds case and have been adjourned sine die pending the outcome in that case. The decision of the Court of Appeal on whether the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction to declare the foreshore and seabed to be Maori customary land is reserved. The ownership status of Tikapa Moana goes to the heart of the Hauraki Treaty Claims, in particular Wai 100. The inquiry into the Hauraki Treaty Claims concluded after four years of hearings in November Wai 728 on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 was heard as a discrete claim. At the final week of hearings, Hauraki Iwi gave notice to the Waitangi Tribunal that it would file an Amended Statement of Claim and seek further hearings specific to the question of the Treaty breaches suffered by Hauraki Iwi in respect of the foreshore and seabed. In the event that the Bill is not postponed, a provision is inserted in the Bill that specifically protects the Treaty based interests of Hauraki Iwi in foreshore, seabed and coastal space. Pre empting the Oceans Policy The Board accepts that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 needs to change however it does not consider that enacting the Bill is so urgent as to justify pre empting the Oceans policy. The Board specifically raised this matter in its submissions to Tapui Taimoana: Reviewing the Marine Reserves Act 1971 and Stage 1 of the Oceans Policy process and in terms of the latter process the need to identify "the nature and extent of the rights and responsibilities of each Treaty partner to the other in relation to the marine environment" has been identified as a matter of priority. f 2

3 The Marine Reserves Bill 2002 is postponed until the Oceans Policy process is completed. 2.3 Marine Protected Areas Strategy The Board has also previously expressed concerns about limiting the range of mechanisms available to protect marine areas to marine reserves only. One of the reasons for the review of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 was to ask whether marine management mechanisms, for example those governing customary fishing, commercial fishing and recreational fishing could be better co ordinated. The Bill, in its current form, does not appear to have given any consideration to such matters. However, the government's Marine Protected Areas Strategy (MPAS) appears to take a coordinated and integrated approach to protecting the marine environment recognising that a range of marine management tools are available to protect marine biodiversity, including mataitai and taiapure. Having said this it is of serious concern to the Board that there has been no consultation with Hauraki Iwi on the MPAS. In a similar vein to our submissions on pre empting the Oceans policy, the Board can see no justification for the Bill pre empting the MPAS. Should the Bill proceed without being informed by the MPAS then an amendment to the Bill that requires decision makers to assess the full range of marine protection tools, including those provided for in the Fisheries Act, customary fishing regulations and the Resource Management Act before making decisions is necessary. s a) The Marine Reserves Bill 2002 should be postponed until the MPAS is completed. b) In the event that the Bill is not postponed it will require amendment to ensure decision makers are required to assess the full range of marine protection tools available. 2.4 Purpose The purpose of the Bill is to protect marine biodiversity. The protection of marine biodiversity is a purpose fully supported by the Board because it is consistent with the duties of Hauraki Iwi as kaitiaki in that without it, sustainable use is not possible. It is untenable that the Bill will regulate to extinguish the fishing rights (commercial and customary) of Hauraki Iwi in marine reserves while enabling other users such as scientists, educators, eco tourism operators and recreational users to undertake activities in marine reserves. It makes the Board wonder if the protection of marine biodiversity is the key aim here. There are many threats that can impact on marine biodiversity including sedimentation, pollution, habitat destruction and introduction of exotic species so it is difficult to understand why fishing and in particular customary fishing is specifically excluded.

4 s: a) Amend the Bill so that the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity is the sole purpose. b) Delete references in the Bill that provide for protection of historic resources, scientific, educational, recreational and tourism related uses. 2.5 Fisheries Settlement The Bill must in no way impact upon the commercial and customary fisheries rights of Hauraki Iwi and it is the duty of the Crown to ensure that the settlement is protected at all times. There are no provisions in the Bill that protect the commercial and non commercial fishing interests of Hauraki Iwi. Furthermore, what limited protection existed under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 (concurrence role of the Minister of Fisheries) has been removed from the Bill. The Bill needs to specifically protect the Fisheries Settlement Act and the Deed of Settlement in respect to the commercial and customary fishing interests of Hauraki Iwi and to re introduce the concurrence role of the Minister of Fisheries % of EEZ Policy The 10% rule of thumb promoted tirelessly by the Department of Conservation over the years seems to be more about creating marine reserves as an end in itself rather than for the purposes of protecting marine biodiversity. The Board assumes that what marine biodiversity should be protected is based on good information and a process of dialogue and negotiation amongst different users and right holders. In 2003 this arbitrary 10% policy seems old hat and at odds with the kind of integrated regime promoted under the Oceans policy, MPAS and New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Abandon the government's EEZ arbitrary goal of imposing Marine Reserves over 10% of the 2.7 Kaitiakitanga The Bill does not recognise and provide for the responsibilities of kaitiaki in relation to the protection of marine biodiversity both conceptually (see submission 2.8) and in terms of providing for participation and input of Hauraki Iwi in decision making processes. For example: Iwi Authorities are not recognised as bodies that may be appointed to the management of marine reserves (Clause 20(1)) 4

5 There are no provisions to enable Hauraki Iwi to appoint their own members to any marine reserve committee under the Bill; (Clause 27) There is no recognition or provision for Iwi management plans (Clauses 32 & 36) There are no provisions for the Minister of Conservation to consult Hauraki Iwi before approving marine reserve management plans (Clause 44) It is not a given that Hauraki Iwi will be consulted on all marine reserve proposals in their rohe (Clause 48) The information requirements are limited (Clause 52(2)) Specific references are included in the Bill to recognise and provide for the role of kaitiaki and their participation in decision making processes. 2.8 Customary Fishing Interests The Bill incorrectly assumes that it is possible for Hauraki Iwi to maintain their relationship with their moana without having an active relationship with it. Prohibiting Hauraki Iwi to access and use places they have used traditionally for the purposes of customary fishing because it happens to be where a marine reserve is located is strongly opposed by the Board. In the event that the Bill is not postponed until the completion of the Oceans Policy process, provisions in the Bill that specifically provide for and give effect to customary fishing activities in marine reserves are required. 2.8 Treaty of Waitangi The Board is supportive of the inclusion of a Treaty clause in the Bill (Clause 11), however guidance on how those administrating the Act will fulfill its obligations requires clarity. The Board considers that this clause is an overarching one and to ensure that it is not bundled up in a balancing exercise against other principles, it should be moved ahead of the principles in the Bill. s Insert the Treaty clause before the "Principles" clauses to recognise its overarching nature.

6 2.9 Minister 's decision Clause 67(3) of the Bill provides a number of tests for the Minister to consider when deciding whether to grant or decline a marine reserve application. It is untenable to the Board that "the public interest" is contemplated as one of those tests thus having the potential to outweigh the undue adverse effects test on customary, treaty based rights and property based rights (ITQ) of Hauraki Iwi. In short the only legitimate reason for the government impinging on the Article II rights and interests of Hauraki Iwi is in the interests of biological diversity. Clause 67(3) be deleted. e CONCLUSION Ensuring that Hauraki Iwi are able to exercise the ancient relationship that they share with their rohe moana, including customary and treaty based rights is of the utmost importance to the Board. This Bill threatens that relationship and places the livelihood and well being of present and future generations of Hauraki Iwi at serious risk. The Board wishes to be heard in support of its submission. Noho ora mai Sam Napia Chief Executive Officer HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD