Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I follow on from the debate last week, when Larry Baldock from the United Future party put before us his amendment to clause 58 to omit kahawai from the quota management system from 1 October this year. Currently it is gazetted to enter that system then. National believes that kahawai should go into the quota management system eventually, and in fact we would like to see it go in as soon as possible. The quota management system would be the best way to manage that fishery; there is no doubt about that. However, we have always said that that is dependent on the Minister’s allocation of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch. I must say that we were quite surprised by the Minister’s call on the total allowable commercial catch, and by his restriction on recreational fishers up and down the country, who see the kahawai fishery as their main target species.

Why were we surprised by that? We were surprised because the Labour Party’s election policy on recreational fishing states—and Tony Ryall will be surprised to hear this, because it affects the Bay of Plenty area where there are kahawai fishers, and other members will be interested in this, as well. Labour stated that it recognised the value of recreational fishing to New Zealand’s tourism industry, and that a kahawai or trout caught by an overseas visitor and cooked or smoked by that visitor’s host may be worth 10 times more to the economy than one caught commercially and sold in the market. [Interruption] Absolutely! The Labour Party and the Minister admitted that the recreational fishing of kahawai may be worth 10 times more to the economy than the commercial fishing process would be. Yet that Minister has seen fit to give an allocation to commercial fishers that will completely undermine that fishery for recreational fishers. The National Opposition certainly supports kahawai going into the quota management system, but definitely not under those conditions, in terms of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch.

Kahawai is a very, very small potato for commercial fishers. It used to be used for bait. I know that it is sent to Australia and put in cat food cans. Yet for recreational fishers, kahawai is a No. 1 sports fish. The Minister should have taken that into account when he gave his economic analysis, and he should have also taken Labour Party policy into account, which states that Labour sees the recreational fishing of kahawai as being 10 times more valuable than the commercial fishing of that species. He should have taken that into account when he did his analysis. If this amendment is passed now it would be a good thing for the Minister, because if it is not passed he will find himself in court. Recreational fishing groups are funded, they are ready, and they have the ammunition to take the Minister to court. The Minister will have to go through a long drawn-out process, which he will lose, and we will be back to square one, whereby he will have to go through the allocation process again. By that time many, many months will have passed. It will be well past the 1 October 2004 date, and we will have to start at the beginning point again, anyway.

I say the Minister should encourage his Green Party lackeys to vote for Larry Baldock’s amendment. He should vote for it himself, and he should sharpen his pencil and start again. He should make sure that the allocation that is made to the recreational fishers of kahawai truly reflects their interest and history in the fishery, their passion for the fishery, and the economic value to New Zealand of their involvement in that fishery. I tell members and people who live in Hawke’s Bay, and those who fish from Napier and other cities and towns off the coast of Hawke’s Bay and off the coast down to Wellington, that commercial fishers will now be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers. Commercial fishers in Auckland, off the Coromandel coast, and off the Northland coast will be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers.

First, I rise to acknowledge Phil Heatley’s speech before me and his clear explanation of the situation. I clarify, too, on behalf of United Future that Supplementary Order Paper 247, which I have put forward in my name, will not in any way take kahawai out of the quota management system permanently. It is simply to provide a pause in order to get our facts straight and set the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels appropriately. More important, it provides a pause in order for the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to begin negotiations with the commercial sector on how to deal with the problem that has occurred by allowing purse seine fishing methods to be used to target kahawai. That is really the problem. There is no way to solve that problem unless we enter into negotiation with, and possibly compensate, the commercial fishers for the rights that may be taken away from them, or for the rights that they expect to have. The problem will not be resolved by putting kahawai into the quota management system under the current levels, because there will always be an opportunity for the purse-seiners to catch their quota before recreational fishers have had an opportunity or a fair go to exercise their right to catch kahawai.

In answer to some questions today in the House, the Minister gave the excuse that there would be no controls on the commercial sector if my Supplementary Order Paper was passed in the Committee today. I find that incredibly hard to accept, or even to believe, because controls have been exercised over the commercial sector prior to kahawai going into the quota management system. There are ways to set catch limits prior to quotas being issued, and the Minister would need to exercise those controls, albeit voluntarily, as he may have intimated in his answers today. But nevertheless, there is a way forward if we can put a stop to the total allowable commercial catch level going in as is recommended by the Minister’s Gazette notice.

However, that problem is not the only issue for recreational fishers. They have always said they have no objections to kahawai going into the quota management system. They know there are fishers who catch kahawai as a by-catch, and who do not target it. The recreational fishing interests are not selfish. They have always acknowledged that when that occurs and kahawai are caught as a by-catch, it is entirely appropriate that fishers can take them home, smoke them, and provide them on the roadside for New Zealanders to enjoy. That is something the recreational fishers can live with. They do not want to see a situation where commercial fishers are faced with deemed value penalties because they are not able to get sufficient quota for that by-catch, and therefore start to dump the kahawai at sea, which is a no-win situation for everybody. The concern of the recreational fishers is that not only do the total allowable commercial catch limits the Minister has put in place by his Gazette notice allow for purse seining to continue but they restrict the amount of by-catch quota that regular fishers will be able to get. In the kahawai 1 area, over the last 5 years about 500 tonnes of kahawai have been caught as by-catch. Under the levels allocated by the Minister now, fishers will be able to get only about 300 tonnes of quota to cover that by-catch. If the Minister intends to reduce the total allowable commercial catch even further next year in order to restrain purse seine fishing, it will have the effect of further restricting the regular fishers who need that by-catch in order to cover what they catch incidentally as they go fishing. We do not believe that solution will be satisfactory.

The second issue I raised today in the House is that there is a requirement in the Minister’s advice, and his published statement, for there to be a 15 percent reduction in the recreational catch. That is absurd. In order to achieve a 15 percent reduction in the actual figures, there would need to be a reduction in the bag limit from 20 down to four kahawai. I do not understand how the Minister can expect recreational fishers in New Zealand to accept that their bag limit is to be cut from 20 to four, while they watch the purse seiners continue to catch exactly the same amount of fish they have been catching, on average, in the last 5 years. I do not see how he can ever expect the average New Zealander to accept that as a reasonable and just solution to the problem.

I move, That the question be now put.

It would be very nice to be able to support this amendment and curry favour with the recreational fishing lobby. We know that Outdoor Recreation NZ has thrown its weight behind United Future and is expecting results from them. We have seen Mr Baldock come to the first hurdle and fall, and he will fall. He says there is no principle attached to this, and that it does not really matter if we take some quota away from one entity and give it to another. He thinks that that is perfectly acceptable. If Mr Baldock has learnt anything in the House, he surely must have learnt that the fishing industry is hugely litigious. That would happen at the first sign of the Minister overstepping his boundaries and taking from one and giving to another. Goodness knows we have just gone through the scampi inquiry over the past year or so, on issues different but having some similarities in respect of inappropriate allocations.

Mr Baldock was saying that purse-seine fishers go out there and grab their 3,000 tonnes, and they are destroying the fishery. But United Future does not seem to grasp the point that fishers can take only 3,000 tonnes, whether by the purse-seine method, circling a huge school of fish and taking out 3,000 tonnes in one fell swoop, shall we say, or over 10 or 20 attempts. It does not matter. The purse-seine fishers can do it one fish at a time, if they wish. They are allowed only 3,000 tonnes. Finish! End of story! That is it! I cannot understand why United Future does not seem to grasp that very simple point.

I know that the recreational fishing lobby says those fishers are sending up spotter planes, and grabbing all the fish out of the sea. But they are taking only the entitlement they are allowed under law. They are not taking any more or any less than that. So what does Mr Baldock not understand about that? It is quite simple.

I am sure most members agree that clearly the fishery has to be managed, and clearly the quota management system is far and away the best system. But things can go wrong when politicians climb into this debate and favour one section over another. This whole matter of kahawai—the “people’s fish” as it is called—could be solved relatively quickly. All the Government would have to do is approach the purse-seine fishers and buy their 3,000 tonnes from them and give it to the recreational people, if they so wish. But that is a matter for the Government. I cannot do it, Mr Baldock cannot do it, and the Opposition cannot do it. But the Minister can, if he so chooses.

That is a bit of a challenge to the Minister. If he really wants to ensure that kahawai remains the fish of the people, then he will buy the allocation from those commercial purse-seine fishers, if that is what is troubling him so very much. It is quite a simple concept, a freely negotiated concept. He can do it if he chooses. That is the nub of the issue.

I am told there is no sustainability issue around kahawai. I know that recreational fishers say that kahawai are nowhere as big as they used to be, but that is the same whether it is deer or any other recreational resource. The same applies to trout in the streams. The days of getting the big ones are almost long gone, because of fishing pressures. That is nothing new. But in this important recreational fishery we cannot have the situation whereby the Government steps in and creates new grievances amongst various fishers, be they commercial or recreational. The rights of Māori fishers are recognised, because they get 20 percent of everything that goes into the quota management system. The rights of the commercial guys are recognised, but the real problem is that recreational fishers are not.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very serious issue. It is a very important resource, and I think you should allow some members to make a speech about it. [Interruption] It may not concern those Government members down in Auckland, but up there and around the coast and the Bay of Plenty, and all the way to Kaitaia it is a big, big issue. I think you are premature in allowing people who do not take part in the debate, who clearly do not want to be part of the debate, and have clearly never read the bill and clearly are under marching orders, to rise here and say nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever, and just move that the debate be shut down. You have to admit that that is a bit premature, particularly when one party has not had a chance to say anything on this Supplementary Order Paper, whatsoever.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. He is a senior member of the House, and I recognise the points he made. There have already been four closure motions, and 18 speakers. I had heard what I considered to be sufficient debate on the issue, and the proportionality was in keeping with the Parliament’s overall membership.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I think you have not gone nearly far enough. When I sit in this Parliament and hear a member of Parliament behind me making the cackling sounds of a hen, not once but frequently, I wonder about one of two things: firstly, whether he is compos mentis—[Interruption]. There has to be a range of explanations. Secondly, he is sitting upon a pitchfork and refuses to move himself, or thirdly he is a silly, juvenile incompetent and has no place in this Chamber. In that sense he should be removed for the rest of the day.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member, but that is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is correct there was a noise from this side during the casting of the vote, but I draw your attention to the fact that there was also one most inappropriately made from the Government side, only a few words earlier. I think that if you are going to warn members on this side, you should be warning members opposite.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. The warning goes to all members in the Chamber—both sides.