Māori Concerns
24. All the submissions that dealt with this subject considered that Māori concerns should be taken into account to some extent in the review of the Act, although they varied considerably in the emphasis that should be given to those concerns. Only two submissions were received from groups that specifically represented Māori.
25. The Māori groups that made submissions were Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa and the Ngatiwai Trust Board. These groups submitted that indigenous species be excluded from coverage of the Act until the Wai 262 claim has been resolved. Te Rūnanga O Ngāti Awa submitted that any future legislation be consistent with the Mataatua Declaration and also urged that consultation with Māori be part of any legislative reform.
26. The environmental groups were sympathetic to Māori concerns and generally considered that any amendment to the Act must take account of the views of Māori. A number of these submissions advocated that there be a total moratorium on the granting of plant variety rights over indigenous flora until the Wai 262 claim is resolved. ARENA and Greenpeace suggested that the review of the Act be deferred until the Wai 262 claim is resolved. The WILPF, PIRM, and the Wellington Rainforest Action Group pointed out that the concerns expressed by Māori about the granting of plant variety rights were shared by many pākehā.
27. Greenpeace submitted that any review of the Act should examine Māori spiritual values, traditional knowledge, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing and enhancement of biological diversity.
28. Submissions from plant variety right holders and supporters expressed mixed feelings about the need to consider Māori concerns. The NZIPA suggested that the Māori Consultative Committee proposed by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification could have a role in identifying indigenous varieties that are of common knowledge to Māori. Wrightson recognised the need to consult with all concerned stakeholders, including Māori where appropriate.
29. NZPBRA supported the principle of consultation with Māori, but saw a disadvantage if such consultations, and their form, were prescribed in law, or were compulsory. Pyne Gould Guinness submitted that it might be appropriate for any party having a PVR to consult with knowledgeable Māori, but that this should not result in cancellation of the right. Fonterra and Liner Plants (NZ) Ltd considered that concerns of Māori and the Wai 262 claim should not hold up reform of the Act.
Back to Top