KEY POINTS:
Labour's Maori MPs are heading for a showdown with Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton tonight over legislation that changes the rules on how fish-catch limits are decided. The politicians fear supporting the bill could lose them votes at the next election.
Maori groups believe the measure will result in
unfair decisions that could hurt the $750 million in assets secured in the 1992 Treaty fisheries settlement.
The Fisheries Act Amendment Bill provides that where there are gaps in the information available on fish stocks, the minister must take a precautionary approach and favour sustainability over commercial interests when setting catch limits.
The present law does not specify whether preservation or commercial interests should take precedent in such circumstances.
Labour's Maori MPs are understood to be reluctant to support the law change, which would give the Maori Party ammunition against them in the battle to win the Maori seats at the next election.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples has warned that any support for a law that could hurt Maori fisheries would result in a backlash for the Labour MPs. He said the fisheries assets were a significant part of Maori wealth.
"The Maori Party and other parties would have to use that politically if [Labour Maori MPs] supported it, to show Maori people they do not represent that voice. It is these bills that really test them," Dr Sharples said.
Maori fisheries groups have lobbied Labour Maori MPs, claiming the change will affect the 1992 Treaty fisheries settlement and gives decision-makers too much leeway to ignore commercial interests even where there is no evidence that fish numbers are low.
Shane Jones, chairman of Labour's nine-strong Maori caucus and a director of Te Ohu Kaimoana, which administers Maori fisheries assets, would not say whether the MPs would ask for the bill to be withdrawn or vote against it if it went ahead.
However, he said there were concerns.
"We are caught in the middle really. There are strong arguments to ensure sustainability is not watered down, but equally compelling arguments that sustainability should be based on high-quality information," Mr Jones said.
"So it's the classic case where the Maori caucus can see benefits in both cases."
However, Mr Anderton said the concerns were a result of industry lobbyists generating "unfounded and unnecessary" anxiety because of the rushed introduction of the bill.
The change is designed to clarify the law to prevent legal challenges such as last year's action of Anton's Fisheries against the decision to reduce the commercial orange roughy catch limits by 43 per cent in the area off the north of the North Island.
The minister said there was "less consultation than ideal" when he introduced the bill in March but the urgency was necessary to get it passed by August - in time to apply to decisions made before the October start of the next fishing season.
If the law was not in place by then, any decisions made for the new fishing season were open to legal challenge, Mr Anderton said.
Robin Hapi, chief executive of Aotearoa Fisheries, backed the view of the Seafood Industry Council's submission on the bill that the present law was sufficient to meet international obligations and to preserve fish stocks.
He said the legislation would result in uncertainty and change the rules under which Maori had agreed to the fisheries settlement.
The primary production select committee was initially due to report back on the bill by June 4.
However, after concerns over the lack of consultation, it has asked for an extension until August to allow it to consider it more fully.
