Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take a brief call in this committee stage, and what I’d like to focus on is clause 7, but before I do that I want to focus on why this bill is so important and what clause 7 is designed to do, because what we’re talking about here is some incredibly threatened species. When I first spoke on this bill back at its first reading, what I talked about was my mum’s experiences back in the 1930s, when she was growing up, and I was talking about whitebaiting. What they used to do was go down to the river and catch whitebait by the kerosene tin - full, and often they’d bring them home and they’d have so many left over they had to feed them to the chickens. From my own whitebait experiences back in the 1980s, we never caught, in the same rivers, more than a cupful.

What we’re seeing now, fast-forwarding to my children’s own generation, is that over 70 percent of our freshwater species are either threatened or at risk of extinction, and that includes four of our whitebait species, along with lampreys and longfin eels. So what this bill does is it protects our threatened species, because nowhere else in terms of our native species are you able to go and—say, for our native birds, depending on where they live, you can actually go and get them and use them for food. So this is something that’s about protecting our indigenous species.

In clause 7, it talks about placing those restrictions on taking indigenous freshwater fish. It says, basically, “A person must not take [an] indigenous freshwater fish from a conservation area except in accordance with an authorisation given under section 26ZHC(1)(a) or 26ZHD.” For those that are not familiar with this, basically, at the moment, you can’t fish for our native species in reserves or national parks without express authorisation, but this same protection doesn’t cross over into all of our conservation areas. So what this is enabling us to do is create some protections around those areas so that our fish, when they’re thinking about travelling upstream, spawning sites, etc., they can have some areas which are protected.

But what it also does in this clause is it also allows the Director-General of Conservation to authorise the taking of indigenous fish on application, and it also allows the director-general to authorise it by Gazette notice. What that allows is that ability to create regulations which will oversee how those freshwater fish are taken. So when you’re talking about the director-general authorising the taking of fish by Gazette notice, what that needs to outline is the kinds of fish that can be taken, the areas from which they can be taken, and the manners in which they can be taken, because this is incredibly important in terms of being able to have those areas where we can fish, say, for whitebait but also those that are going to be protected. We’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper here before the House, Supplementary Order Paper 360, that also talks about making sure that those regulations—we have time to develop them up. What it talks about is any of those regulations not coming into force for a period of two years after commencement date, because we need to be able to do that consultation and get this right.

Down South, where I live, many, many people love whitebaiting. It’s really important in terms of—you know, it’s a pastime but it’s also a way of getting food.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. I do have to start by saying that this side of the House is disappointed that we cannot support this bill. Of course, we supported it at first reading to go to select committee to be worked through, to do our due diligence, because, of course, we do support conservation and want pragmatic solutions with respect to the protection of our indigenous freshwater fish. However, as I said in the first reading, this bill goes too far. It was a somewhat poor process, and we are left concerned, especially with Part 1, which is the operative section that sets out to in itself prohibit the taking of freshwater fish—especially whitebait—from the conservation estate, and also goes further to reserve the right to put in place further regulation with regard to the taking of whitebait outside of the conservation estate.

I note the member opposite started to talk about clause 7, and that is in fact the operative part which outlines the prohibition on people being able to take indigenous freshwater fish from the conservation estate unless there is express authorisation. As such, I have tabled in my name Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 389, which seeks to amend that clause 7 and insert a new section 26ZHE, which suggests that “(1) A person may fish for whitebait from a conservation area in accordance with the Whitebait Fishing Regulations 1994 or [the] Whitebait Fishing (West Coast) Regulations 1994.” I think that this illustrates the pragmatic side that we subscribe to here on this side of the House—the National Party—in that we understand that whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition and that whitebaiting puts food on the table and it also creates livelihoods.

Now, that does not fly in the face of not wanting to eat populations to extinction; it’s simply acknowledging a tradition, and we are of course favourable with respect to pragmatic regulation, practical regulation, that looks to conserve the species, but we are not supportive of a blanket prohibition. When it comes to the way clause 7 is written at the moment, and especially looking further, as we will debate into Part 2 with the transitional clauses, that basically allow whitebaiting on a conservation area for a transitional period of a year—although I note that the Government itself has put in an SOP to extend that two years. That in itself suggests that there will be a blanket prohibition on the whitebaiting, moving forward.

As part of my SOP 389, I take it further and say that “(2) The Director-General—(a) must not take any action that would prohibit, or result in the effective prohibition of, … taking whitebait” but can put in place measures to sustainably manage that fishery, and that may include things like looking at the net size that is used with respect to fishing, time limits for fishing, and the number of nets per person. So they’re more pragmatic and practical measures to look to conserve the species moving forward, but not look to kill people’s livelihoods or to stop a Kiwi tradition that has been ongoing for years and years and years and that allows people to go out and recreate and put food on the table.

So we’re looking at sensible solutions on this side of the House. We hope that the Minister in the chair, Eugenie Sage, will look at this SOP and see sense and support it. I know my colleague Maureen Pugh will speak about the effects of this on the West Coast, given that 85 percent of the land there is conservation estate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. This part of the Conservation Act has not been amended for two decades, so what this bill is seeking to do is ensure that we have a much better regime which integrates the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, and Treaty settlement legislation around the management of whitebait. We want to ensure that the whitebait fishery is sustainable for generations. We don’t want people eating whitebait patties when they’re looking at species that are threatened or at risk of extinction, and there are four of the six whitebait species—the giant kōkopu, the shortjaw kōkopu, the kōaro, and the īnanga—which are all threatened or at risk of extinction.

What the National Party and Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 389 is suggesting is that our native fish are a second-class indigenous species and that, unlike our birds and our plants, they should not be protected on conservation land outside national parks and reserves, because that is, effectively, what this SOP 389 would do. There is no biological, political, or legal reason why whitebait should be treated any differently to other native species, particularly given that 70 percent of native fish are threatened or at risk of extinction.

What the National Party is also doing, as Ms Dowie made clear, is continuing to scaremonger about this bill and its impacts. What the bill does is ensure that the Director-General of Conservation (DG) is able to authorise whitebaiting in conservation areas, and, yes, there are a lot of conservation areas on the West Coast. It also, because of a suggestion and discussion with our Government colleagues in the New Zealand First Party, ensures that the ability for the DG to authorise whitebaiting and perhaps close some rivers, where there has been consultation on that, will not come into effect until at least two years after this bill becomes law.

Now, Ms Dowie should well know that there are already whitebaiting regulations which set the length of the season, the length of screens, and the like that can be used and that actually help manage the fishery. There will not be any changes to those regulations without public consultation, and this has been a major theme of this Government’s efforts to promote a sustainable whitebait fishery. There was considerable consultation last year, with people identifying what were the key issues for whitebait management. Some of those were issues like better protecting spawning areas, better protecting our whitebait habitat, and better managing the fishery, and that is what this bill will do.

So this SOP, which Ms Dowie says is about being pragmatic, would mean that the director-general and the Department of Conservation could not have whitebait—kōkopu, īnanga, all of those species—protected anywhere on conservation land in the way that we protect birds. It’s, effectively, saying that they’re very different from Kiwi, from kākāpō, from kākā—they’re a second-class indigenous species. There is no need for this SOP because the Government SOP in my name, SOP 360, is about providing more certainty to whitebaiters about this interim period of two years where there won’t be any authorisation provisions in play and making sure that that transition is clear. But we do need to have some flexibility in the legislation that there may be reaches of rivers which could be closed to whitebaiting on conservation land for a temporary period or permanently, and in fact on the West Coast of the South Island, there are already a number of rivers which are closed to whitebaiting to ensure that these provide sanctuaries—areas where whitebait can spawn safely without the risk of being fished—and help boost the population that way.

So this authorisation process is really important because it will allow the director-general, on a case by case basis, river by river, informed by public submissions, to decide whether whitebaiting is consistent with the management of that conservation area. So it is all about having a much better managed, much more sustainable fishery to provide for whitebaiting for generations to come.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I too stand to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tonight in the committee stage of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, and that is Supplementary Order Paper 390 and that is the tabled amendment to the former Supplementary Order Paper that was submitted. It is in the name of my colleague Sarah Dowie. Now, Ms Dowie is a former lawyer with the Department of Conservation and National’s spokesperson on conservation. I’ve got to say, her pragmatic approach to conservation is to be applauded, and this amendment is a classic example of that pragmatism that we are already talking about here tonight. I’ve got to say, it’s not clouded by idealistic goals or blanket rules or a dictatorship mentality.

What this SOP seeks to do is to put a new subsection into new section 26ZJA in clause 9. It inserts that new section 26ZJA as it relates to situations where the Director-General of Conservation identifies a spawning area, and we are talking mostly about a spawning area for whitebait.

Now, as it currently reads, the bill allows for the Director-General of Conservation to “declare an area as a spawning area if the Director-General has reasonable grounds”—not proof—that the area is to be used or can be used or is being used for the spawning of freshwater fish. It is if he has “reasonable grounds”, or it is suitable for the spawning of freshwater fish—“suitable”—but what on earth does that mean? If it’s suitable and there’s no freshwater fish there right now but they might take up residence at some time in the future, is that suitable?

When I read that, I thought, well, that sounds a little bit like KiwiBuild to me. It’s “Build it and they will come.”, and we know how that turned out. So this SOP suggests that before such a declaration is made over private property—and remember we are talking about private property here—the director-general must consult with that property owner. I actually believe that that’s a very reasonable suggestion.

The SOP also suggests that the director-general must provide for an appeal process so that the private property owner actually can be heard—his views can be heard and taken into consideration. We’re talking about private property, and generally that will be in a rural area. It is likely to be a farm of some type. Also this SOP suggests that the director-general must give effect to the private property owner’s rights to justice under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I would even go further with this SOP, Ms Dowie, and suggest that if there actually is a national good to declaring private property to be a suitable spawning area, then surely there is a national obligation to that private property owner to offer some kind of recompense, because what’s going to happen is if there is a declaration made—and I’m talking about fair and reasonable recompense—because there is going to be loss of use of that land, and remember that once that declaration has been made, then no further modification can happen to that particular parcel of land. There’ll be no grazing, there’ll be no cropping, and possibly you can’t even take the kids and the dog for a swim down there during the summer.

So I’m challenging the assertion in this bill that whitebait, of course, is only part of the freshwater fish that we are seeking to protect. As I’ve said in this House before, the only expert that we have been able to find in this country is a man who works out of Canterbury University. He will assert, based on his research and science, that whitebait are not actually threatened with extinction. It is their habitat that is at risk, but the species certainly is not. So if the habitat is really the issue at heart here, then what is the problem—[Bell rung]—with our regional councils—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking another call?

Yes, Mr Chair. So I would assert that our regional councils, who are charged with the administration of the Resource Management Act, have the oversight by mandate to protect those habitats. I can assure you that the West Coast Regional Council does take account of whitebait habitat when they are considering resource consent applications. So if that’s not working in other parts of the country, I suggest that we look at the processes that those regional councils are following and maybe use the example of the West Coast Regional Council in how they are managing habitat over there. They are a really good example.

This SOP does ensure that the private property rights of these rural landowners are protected, that their voice is heard, and that they have an opportunity to challenge or to have input into any declaration that the Director-General of Conservation may make over their private property. As I said, Ms Dowie, I think we could even go one step further and protect that private property right by asking that the recompense for the loss of use of that land for the national good is paid for. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a second call on Part 1 and follow on from my colleague with respect to what was Supplementary Order Paper 390, which has been replaced by a tabled amendment. I thank the Table Office for helping me with that amendment and what was a drafting error by them—something that was lost in translation. They helped me fix that up at the eleventh hour to make sure that the tabled amendment was quite clear with respect to new section 26ZJA in clause 9 that natural justice principles and consultation with affected landowners—where the Director-General of Conservation has a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site there and is looking to gazette it, they will undertake consultation with that affected landowner prior to the notice being gazetted.

My colleague Maureen Pugh has talked quite extensively about the potential of what could happen on the Coast with respect to 85 percent of the landmass there being conservation estate, and certainly with a great deal of it in the Southland region being conservation estate, but this amendment and the powers with respect to spawning sites and the declaration thereof apply to private land and will affect private property owners’ rights. Again, as my colleague said, there is an issue with whitebait habitat protection and we do want to see its habitat protected so it can spawn, but equally, when you have private property, you do have rights and you want to be able to use your land in the best means possible. So my tabled amendment suggests that there should be, prior to that Gazette notice and that process, consultation with the property owner.

Certainly, within the Environment Committee this was teased out some more, because I was concerned as I talked to officials as to the process for this and as to how they would go about it, especially if there were, for example, commercial activities going on on that property such as gravel extraction and farming activities. For the director-general to come in on the basis of a reasonable belief and put a stop to that has significant social and economic effects on that private property owner. So consultation is key if there is a reasonable belief that there is a spawning site on that property, and I think that the Department of Conservation would have an onus to undertake that consultation and make itself aware fully of the potential impacts that protection of a spawning site on private property would have on that property owner.

The second thing that the tabled amendment does is provide for an appeal process. What I’m meaning there is an internal appeal process, at this point, that if the director-general makes a preliminary decision that, yes, in fact, he or she believes—he at this point—that there should be a declaration that there is a spawning site to allow an appeal process to occur, he is to have that decision reviewed and make sure that he has arrived at that decision in an objective way, because we certainly don’t want any interference or any undue influence to breach a good process to arrive at that decision, and as part of that, those economic, those social, impacts need to be properly considered. Then, of course, we have paragraph (c) that gives effect to section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is to allow for an appeal process for judicial review and bring civil proceedings if that landowner there disagrees with the decision.

So I, again, submit that these are practical amendments to a bill that was introduced as being minor and technical, but we can see it is anything but. It has wide-reaching ramifications that certainly I don’t think have been worked through properly.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll just take the opportunity to take a five-minute call on an issue that I guess goes to the heart of many, many West Coasters—not all of them, but many—and I guess is part of what would be considered our local culture.

I officially have to acknowledge that because of the huge amount of conservation area in our region, actually, we still have a good whitebait fishery for the most part. We don’t know much about it, I have to say. As has been pointed out by Opposition members over there, we should know a lot more, and it would be great if we did. But there has been an informal process and approach to whitebaiting that I have to say really can’t be supported in the long term. What we have is a whole lot of different fishing methods, we have a whole lot of different rivers, and we have a whole lot of different outcomes. So one river might not have much fish one year and another one might have a whole lot, and we have no idea why.

One thing we do accept, and I’m not quite sure that I have the confidence in the West Coast Regional Council to protect all spawning sites—I’m not sure that that’s been the reality in the past. There is an acknowledgment, of course, we’ve had—like many other parts of New Zealand—intensification of land use and we’ve had conversion from indigenous forests into farmland, and that has limited the spawning sites for whitebait. Luckily, our region still has a huge amount, as I said before, of conservation area. Spawning sites are still, I guess, pretty prevalent, particularly in South Westland, which is why people catch literally tonnes and tonnes of whitebait.

We do have a strange anomaly in that in most other fisheries in the country, even with eels as an indigenous species, we have some controls on them and we have limits. But in whitebait we have none, and I have to say I get somewhat uneasy when I think about the long-term sustainability of the fishery for our region—I’ll be bluntly parochial and say “for our region”—where we’ve appreciated and enjoyed the privilege of having lots of whitebait. Indeed, in the past they put kerosene tins in the garden. You’ll hear those stories and they were true, but they’re not so prevalent now. While you have some big catches, the vast majority of the time there are more people catching lesser amounts of whitebait, but still enjoying the whole process and enjoying the eating experience.

So, from a regional perspective, we have to protect this for our long-term benefit. Indeed, there was a regional plan, a development plan, done by the previous Government that identified whitebait as one of the potential opportunities for the West Coast region into the future. I think that was perhaps one of the wiser things to come from that whole report.

I met with someone who was talking about breeding īnanga and some other whitebait, and I didn’t think it would be kind of possible from a commercial perspective at all. I’ve now seen the operation and accept that there are opportunities in this area that would supplement what we would call the natural fishery.

The issue of whether we can sustain huge catches on what we would call a commercial basis without any protection of habitat I think is a question we should answer, and without information, it’s really, really difficult. So whitebaiters are concerned that when they have a lean year, they want to close rivers, and when they have a really good year, they want to carry on and have a longer season. It’s simply the nature of humans, I guess. But I do support the Minister in her attempts through this legislation to have some more control.

Now we would expect the Director-General of Conservation, on the basis of Supplementary Order Paper 389, or the amendment here, to be cautious and to be responsible in taking any decisions in terms of spawning sites on private land, which is under Supplementary Order Paper 390, or, under Supplementary Order Paper 389, of course, in terms of closing or restricting access. There are many rivers on conservation land that support huge catches and regular catches of whitebait, and, indeed, that should continue. But if we do discover some warning signals and some threats to the species, I guess the Minister’s asking for the right, through the director-general, to be able to close that for some period to try and protect the species. Now, indeed, whitebaiters ask for that from time to time—not all the time, but when they have a lean year. Again, going back to a precautionary approach that will deliver long-term benefits for the West Coast, I support the legislation as long as the responsible decision-making is made by the director-general and the Minister.

I know there’s lots of opinions about different Governments. Indeed it was the National Government in 1994 that proposed restricting and shortening the whitebait season. As the local member, I took that to the Regulations Review Committee, got that overturned, and, indeed, we here now still have two weeks in November that would not have been there because the National Government wanted to shorten it.

Now, to give some credit to the National Government, at the time they saw that there were some threats to whitebait, and they had to look at tweaking the season. The new National Party seems to not consider that a real threat. It is an indigenous species, and I have to say that in a previous part of this here, where Fish & Game are going to give the Government some advice, quite frankly, I wouldn’t listen to them. They look after a species called trout that do a lot of damage to whitebait. So I have to say that we have to balance what Fish & Game want and what we want for our indigenous species.

So we’re hoping that the director-general, on behalf of the Government of the day, would be responsible in any changes to access to rivers on conservation land. But we have to accept the reality that we have lots of whitebait in South Westland because we have lots of conservation land. I, from time to time, have to remind whitebaiters of that. They are quick to jump up and down and criticise the department, but indeed without some of the protection of that conservation land, we would have less whitebait.

Really, in summary, I’m just saying that we’ll take the advice of the Environment Committee regarding Supplementary Order Paper 390 on the issue of spawning sites and the obligation to consult. The select committee, as I understand, did not consider that should occur. So I, without hearing the submissions myself, will listen to the advice and say that the status quo should remain, and we don’t need an amendment through Supplementary Order Paper 390.

To come back to the one on Supplementary Order Paper 389, the member on the opposite side there thinks that you should restrict the ability of a landowner to make decisions for their land, and, indeed, I guess that was part of the Supplementary Order Paper 390 consideration as well. But here the director-general will only make that call, I’m sure, after consultation, should the habitat be considered to be under threat.

So I just say, on behalf of the West Coast, we want to protect our fishery. The vast majority of whitebaiters down there are responsible. They want to do the right thing. But we have such a variety of fishing methods, from single-scoop nets to extensive net systems across rivers, that the impact on the fishery from one river to another is dramatically different. We have to, I think, bring in some controls to protect it for the long-term sustainability of the fishery. While the legislation may not be perfect—and I respect the right of the Opposition to raise issues—in the end we have to trust the judgment and the wisdom of parliamentary process to protect indigenous species, to make proper consultation calls, and then to only make changes where necessary.

Well, that member opposite, Damien O’Connor, is very hopeful, isn’t he? I can’t believe that contribution—that we hope for the best. That is symptomatic of the introduction of this bill that it was introduced with haste, that there wasn’t proper consultation at the onset, that it has gone through quite a fraught process, and that, from our opinion, on this side, there are many, many holes. That is what my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) seek to do—to dam the leaks of this bill, in fact. We’re not hoping for the best; we want to legislate for the best.

With respect to officials answering me about the process for declaring spawning sites, while there was an indication that of course we will adhere to natural justice principles, saying that and delivering that in real terms can often vary dramatically from case to case. Isn’t that interesting, too, that the member opposite talked about prohibitions and closing rivers? Well, I’m sorry, but that’s a ban. That is a ban on taking whitebait in certain areas, and we can all see where this is going if we don’t put in practical solutions to manage the fishery, looking laterally at different ways to do that. There is not only an option to close rivers from fishing but there are other practical solutions, as outlined and my SOPs, as to ways that that can occur.

It’s interesting, too. My colleague Maureen Pugh actually pointed out on YouTube a recording of a meeting that had occurred with commercial whitebait fishers and recreational whitebait fishers on the Coast. There was a scientist there who was on the consultation group, who openly said that he is in consultation with the Department of Conservation as to the closure of certain rivers. Again, the closure of rivers means a ban on taking whitebait, and I simply do not believe that we are at the state that we need to close rivers at this stage. I think that there are still pragmatic measures that we can put in place to conserve whitebait but also to sustain the fishery.

But my contribution on this point will be with respect to my final SOP, which is SOP 391, and that is with respect to the regulation-making power in Part 1. What I would like to do there is to insert new section 48A(1) in clause 16(3A) so that before making any recommendation, the Minister must consult with any person or organisation that is likely to be substantially affected by any regulations. I do that for the simple reason that I have not seen meaningful consultation. I have seen a bamboozled process—one of this bill going through the House with a lack of consultation. That was outlined in the regulatory impact statement. The bill was introduced with haste. There wasn’t proper consultation undertaken. At a separate point, there was another process undertaken with respect specifically to whitebait, and then that morphed into something else.

As you can see, it’s all smoke and mirrors as to what’s going on with respect to the management of the whitebait fishery moving forward, and so this SOP clearly outlines that there must be consultation with those affected before any regulations are put in place. It’s symptomatic, again, of this Government to rush things through and not undertake meaningful consultation. We don’t trust that with the best of legislation with holes in it, it will transpire that the best of situations will be the outcome. We want to make sure that it is there in black and white and that process is followed, and that for these people where their livelihoods are affected and their recreation is affected, and where Kiwi traditions are affected, there is meaningful consultation to arrive at regulations that are, again, effective and can, hopefully, provide a win-win moving forward, and also we want that scientific and quantitative evidence taken into account, because, quite frankly, there is dispute over the science with respect to population of whitebait. There is dispute over the evidence that the population of whitebait is declining. There is a lack of research that is available on each river within our catchments within our regions, and I think that there needs to be some of that undertaken so that we can get a very good grasp on what is going on.

Look, in my region, in Southland, in the wilds of Fiordland, there are rivers that are untouched, that basically house spawning grounds where whitebait are thriving. But let’s ascertain that in a quantitative way, and especially on the West Coast, where there is 85 percent of the landmass there being designated conservation estate. Let’s start doing that research. Let’s start working with whitebaiters to understand what their catch has been from season to season and to put in place regulation that is effective, that is practical, that is pragmatic, and that actually means something, rather than just putting in place measures because somebody thinks that that’s the right thing to do.

As I said, there are two sides to this argument. Whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition, and also our indigenous fish are very important to us all, so let’s meet in the middle. Let’s pass these SOPs that I have put up, let’s knock this bill into shape, and let’s bring about some solutions that are good for regional New Zealand but also good for our native fish.

Thank you. It’s really interesting: the previous speaker, Sarah Dowie, was talking about a lack of consultation, but seemed to be totally unaware earlier this year, in asking me questions in the House, about the consultation that the Department of Conservation had done around whitebait.

There was a report that was put up in May this year called New Zealanders’ views on whitebait management: Summary of findings from a public engagement process. In that process, 3,000 people engaged, and they highlighted 18 major issues for whitebait, including habitat loss, obstacles to fish passage, problems with fisheries compliance, and knowledge gap. Of those who responded, 90 percent believed that changes were needed to make New Zealand’s whitebait fishery more sustainable, and that is what this bill is about. It is based on public concern that the management of the fishery needs to improve, and some of the management options that people were supporting in that process included protecting and restoring whitebait habitat, closing some rivers to whitebait fishing, shortening the season, reducing catch limits, and ending the commercial sale of whitebait.

The bill doesn’t do anything around that, because any changes to the way the fishery is managed happen through regulation, and there will be further consultation on that in a document that will come out later this year. But protection of spawning sites is absolutely critical if the species of whitebait are to thrive. The Hon Damien O’Connor was correct that it is because there is a large amount of conservation land where habitat is protected that there is such a good fishery on the West Coast, but we have a local member saying that the habitat is at risk, not the species. That’s why the provisions in the bill around protection of spawning sites are so important.

Can I reassure any landowners who are listening that the bill actually clarifies the situation in relation to spawning sites, so that any sites that the Director-General of Conservation declares on reasonable grounds—and that already provides a significant threshold, which would open the director-general up to judicial review, as Duncan Webb noted, if the grounds were not reasonable. It makes it certain what those sites are and, in fact, it loosens the current legislation by ensuring that some activities on those spawning sites can be restricted, but not all. So the bill is making it much clearer what happens at those spawning sites, and it will also enable some activities like the mowing of grass margins to be potentially restricted to protect the spawning habitat.

What the National Opposition seems to fail to understand is the whole life cycle of some of the whitebait species, where the adult fish swim downstream in the autumn, they lay their eggs on long grass—this is for īnanga—and then those eggs must stay moist. Then they must hatch at the next spring tide, go out to sea, and grow bigger there, and then, in the spring, they come back upstream. So it is protecting those spawning sites from things like vegetation damage which helps ensure that we get a good catch in subsequent seasons.

Now, Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 390, which is putting in a requirement to always consult landowners, is putting a burden on the department that doesn’t apply in other areas. Under the Local Government Act 2002 and under the Resource Management Act, the councils don’t have to consult every single landholder when they are putting provisions in their district plans which may affect those landholders, so it would go well beyond what other laws would require. The provisions in the SOP around natural justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it is normal that those sorts of provisions apply. They don’t need to be repeated in the bill, as the SOP proposes, and the SOP is putting landholders above all others. It may be that the protection of spawning areas might affect gravel extractors, for example, or it might affect road-controlling authorities. So, in that SOP, it’s just treating one interest above all others, and that makes no sense.

The National Opposition is asserting that if you own land, you therefore have a right to control fish in the water, but that is not the case in law. Fish move around. We want to ensure that their habitat is protected so that we get a sustainable fishery. The bill, in these provisions around spawning sites, is making sure that happens.

I’d also like to point out that the SOP that is in my name—SOP 360—does make a small change around the spawning areas to reassure the concerns of Fish & Game, because they wanted to ensure that for any areas that were used by spawning trout, their ability to protect those areas was also safeguarded by the bill. There was just a minor drafting error there that didn’t ensure that those areas could be sustained.

The other SOP in Ms Dowie’s name—SOP 391—states the obvious, which is that scientific information would be considered in drafting regulations. Of course it will be considered, but we have a major problem in the whitebait fishery that the Hon Damien O’Connor mentioned, which is that it hasn’t been properly regulated. There is no requirement for fishers to provide catch returns. That is one of the reasons why there is so little information—because it is not a well-regulated fishery.

Unlike any of the quota species, catch returns don’t have to be provided, even though there are large elements of the fishery that are commercial. There is information, though, on the state of our native fish from a lot of the ecological surveys that the Department of Conservation does. That shows that 70 percent of our native fish and four out of the six whitebait species are threatened with extinction. Yes, because of the large area of conservation land on the West Coast, the fishery is a lot better there, but elsewhere around New Zealand, people want to go fishing for whitebait.

People want to be able to experience streams where our native fish are abundant. This bill is about making sure that whitebait all over New Zealand are in good health, and about providing the tools to ensure that we can have good regulations to better manage the fishery to make it more sustainable and to better protect our spawning sites and manage activities that happen on those sites. To make it more certain for landholders, fishers, and everyone where those sites are through that declaration process that the director-general can do, and to ensure that the whole of the legislation is simpler to administer, you haven’t got the complexity that this Government inherited. We want to reassure whitebaiters, too, that the bill ensures that the status quo prevails for the next two years in terms of authorisations to fish on conservation land, but given that a lot of the public submissions that came back were saying that some areas need to be closed, that is what the provisions in the bill will enable the director-general, through a proper process, to do.

It’s about sustaining the fishery. It is not—as the National Party has repeatedly scaremongered—about putting in place a complete ban on whitebaiting. It is closing potential reaches of some rivers, and that will be done after public consultation. It is scaremongering by the National Party to claim a ban, and it’s indicating that the National Party—for all its claims that it cares about conservation—wants our native fish to be second-class species and not to have the ability on conservation land to have the same protection that kiwi, kākā, whio, and all of our native plants and our wildlife have.

This bill is improving the tools. The National Party doesn’t like that. They did nothing about that in their last term. We want to ensure that we have a healthy fish population, that the whitebait fishery is sustainable, and that people can go on enjoying whitebait patties for many years to come.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, what a load of rubbish. What we’ve seen here tonight and heard from these people on the other side of the Chamber is all the hope. They’ve got all this hope about “Things will be fine. Just trust me, we know what we’re doing.” Well, I’m sorry, Minister Sage, but we don’t trust you, because we are seeing the slow creep—the slow creep—of loss of property rights, the slow creep of the loss of our ability to go out and catch our whitebait.

There are incremental steps being taken to ensure that the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is shut down, and we are seeing that with significant natural areas (SNAs). Leaked documents from the Minister’s own department—SNAs, which will take 35 percent of private property off the Coast. So no wonder we’re a little bit nervous when you say “Trust me, we will do the best for the whitebait.”

Well, I’m going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of Sarah Dowie. What this does in clause 16(3A) is it replaces the new section 48A(1) with new wording: “Before making any recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister must—(a) consult any person or organisation that the Minister considers is likely to be substantially affected by, or will be representative of the interests of people likely to be substantially affected by, the regulations; and (b) take into account any scientific and quantitative evidence available.” We have never in the course of the passage of this bill had any scientific or quantitative evidence made available. In fact, the only scientific evidence that I can recall is the presentation that I did in a former reading of this bill from a fish biologist.

I’m going to argue that there is sufficient concern over the details and powers afforded to the Director-General of Conservation and the Minister in this bill that 3,000 people submitted on it. The irony that I’ve heard tonight is that the only submission that made any change—which was to clause 5 of this bill—was made by Fish & Game, through the advocacy of the National Party. We’ve already heard in the committee tonight that we shouldn’t take any notice of Fish & Game, yet they’re the only ones that were listened to by this Government when they made the only alteration to this bill as it passed through this House.

So who do we listen to? “Trust me.”, we are told.

What this bill does is it proves that this is not based on science or quantitative evidence, but let me tell you, the only data that showed any long-term trend in the whitebait catches was done between 1934 and 1974 on the West Coast.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Interesting.

Very interesting, Ms Dowie, because what it actually showed was incremental increase in the stock numbers of whitebait—increase in the numbers. Now, that is quantitative data and evidence that we need to be using when we pass legislation in this House.

A fish biologist and whitebaiter has been researching whitebait on the West Coast and around the country for the past 15 years—so a scientist who has the qualifications to comment. He is telling us that, including the habitat restoration, changes in populations in each of the five species as they returned to rivers, etc., etc.,—that’s what he’s been studying. He said whitebait larvae produced on the West Coast washed out to sea and followed the currents around the bottom of the South Island and back up to the Canterbury rivers. So what he is telling us—this scientist providing scientific evidence and quantitative data—is we are not catching an endangered species. We are not catching an endangered species, but habitat was vital. As a consequence, the West Coast of the South Island is the only part of the country that has closed rivers for that very purpose. It already has 61 West Coast creeks and rivers that are closed.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Absolute pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in its committee stage. It is my pleasure to take this call and I would just like to say: good news—good news—the whitebait patty is not off the menu. There will be no blanket ban on whitebaiting, so let’s get that absolutely clear. That is the good news, not the fake news that we’re hearing from the other side of the House.

There is a whakataukī which reads—and I’ll do it in the English language—“Fish for the future and there will always be more”. That is about conservation. That is about taking care of the stock of our fish. If you want fish for the future, then you need to make sure you plan for it by taking care of the habitat and by taking care of the species. We have a number of species in New Zealand which are threatened—our indigenous fish are threatened—and that’s why, on this side of the House, this piece of legislation is so important.

I would like to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Minister, SOP 360. I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done between New Zealand First and Minister Sage for ensuring that any new authorisation process for whitebaiting on conservation areas would not come into force any earlier than two years after the bill is in place. That will give ample time for consultation to happen. It will give time for the processes that need to go through, discussions between iwi, discussions with fishers, and looking at how the habitat and these species can be managed so that in the future there is plenty of stock. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for taking part in the conversations with New Zealand First there. On that, I would like to take a very short call and thank the Minister on our behalf.

I move that the motion now be put.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage, and the following amendment in her name, to Part 1 be agreed to:

in clause 16(3), in new section 48A(1)(s), replace “26ZJA(4)” with “26ZJA(5)”.