Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will simply round off this debate by making a general statement about the title and, of course, given that that is wide ranging, about the bill in general. What we have heard in this debate in this committee of the whole House is contradictory statements from that side of the House—pretty much “Trust us, we know what we’re doing. Trust us, there isn’t going to be a ban.”—but then, in the same breath, talk about closures of rivers. The simple fact is that this bill reserves the right to do that. There is the power to implement a complete ban, and to simply say “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.”, without adequate quantitative, evidential research being undertaken is simply a nonsense.

We are not sure what is happening with the population numbers of whitebait. We have had reports from various whitebait fishers and other scientists that the species is not endangered but that there are some issues about habitat in different locations. However, by and large, things are going— and excuse the pun—pretty swimmingly for whitebait, and that there have been reports of record catches this season. So the population is doing well.

Whitebaiting is a Kiwi tradition, as I have said. It puts food on the table and, in some cases, creates livelihoods for people. My Supplementary Order Papers, which have been declined, would have made this bill more pragmatic and allowed more practical solutions to provide a win-win between allowing this activity to continue and also protecting the species. Nevertheless, should this bill go through unchanged, it will reserve the powers to ban the activity of whitebaiting—that is what it does in black and white.

In the first instance, it says that the taking of indigenous fish—aka whitebait—from the conservation estate is prohibited unless there is express authorisation to do so. What is then elaborated on in Part 2 is a transitional period that allows whitebaiting for a year—now extended—that I asked for in select committee. That was declined at select committee, but now the Minister has thought better of it and will extend it to two years. After that, without express authorisation, the taking of whitebait from the conservation estate is prohibited, and that is in black and white. Then, with respect to taking of indigenous fish from outside the conservation area, you must do so in accordance with the regulation, and it is with those powers that the Minister reserves the right to place bans on the taking of indigenous fish.

I’m sorry; it doesn’t matter which way you look at it, but you can see in black and white in this bill that this bill is not about hoping for the best. It is a rushed bill; it is more than minor and technical.

We cannot rely on the Department of Conservation to do the best it can. We need to put in place pragmatic solutions to make sure that our whitebait is protected and that our Kiwi tradition of fishing is protected, and, equally, that due process is followed, that New Zealanders’ pastimes and traditions are protected for the long term, and that the fishery is made sustainable in the future.

It’s a poor bill. We don’t support it. We wanted to put in place pragmatic solutions to make it better. That was declined by this Government, and, again, it is an assault on provincial New Zealand from that side of the House. This Government supposedly knows best and wants to tell us how to act on our land and what to do, even though, as the member opposite, Mr Damien O’Connor, said, whitebait fishers want to do their best and preserve their Kiwi pastime for the future.

This Government does not know best. This Government has asserted that through a poor piece of legislation, and hence we do not support this bill.

I’d just like to round off my contribution too, and speak very briefly to Part 2 and endorse the words of my colleague—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’re doing clauses 1 to 3.

Excuse me—clause 2, not Part 2. I endorse the contribution of my colleague Sarah Dowie, who, as I mentioned before, is highly qualified to make a contribution to this bill based on her previous experience in a legal capacity within the Department of Conservation, and now as a spokesperson for conservation.

We have heard very little from the Government’s side tonight to give us any confidence that we are on the right track with this piece of legislation. We have heard very little or nothing in the way of science that supports the need for this bill. In fact, we are unsure about what it is that we are trying to protect and save, when, actually, we have no evidence that there is a need to protect or save, and I have made that really clear in my contributions, which have been based on the scientific evidence. So what we have done is put whitebait into the same category, in terms of risk, as the North Island brown kiwi, which takes four years to mature and might produce four to six eggs a year, whereas at least 20,000 īnanga, that live for just a year, exist in the smallest of small streams or creeks on the West Coast, with equal numbers of male and female, produce up to 6,000 eggs each.

So, as I’ve said in this House before, we are never going to catch the last whitebait. We do not believe that there is a need to reserve all of the power in a person who has reserved the right, through this piece of legislation, to bring in regulation that will, in effect, create a ban on whitebaiting and that will, in effect, determine that private property rights are at risk.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Oh come on, Maureen.

We hear from the Greens—you know, the Greens sigh and moan because we produce evidence that supports our argument. But—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): This is actually a really narrow debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3, and the member has gone way off clauses 1, 2, and 3, so come back.

I appreciate that, Mr Chair. At the moment, I am disheartened by the process and I have no pleasure in watching this bill progress through the House.

Clause 1 agreed to.