Annual Review Debate — Oceans and Fisheries

I will stand up from the Primary Production Committee and speak to the annual review that we went through.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Where’s the chair?

CATHERINE WEDD: I’m not the chair of the Primary Production Committee—no, I’m not, but the chair doesn’t appear to be in the Chamber currently—but I am a very strong member of the Primary Production Committee and I have had a very long involvement in the past six months on the Primary Production Committee.

But we certainly went through the annual review and I would like to acknowledge our members of the Primary Production Committee for all their input on that annual review with the Ministry for Primary Industries. It was a long, long review where we looked at many areas, and particularly in relation to fisheries and ensuring that we have a very strong export industry. This was a lot of the focus of our annual review when it came to the Ministry for Primary Industries. We looked at many areas around trade and export, and looking at the Government’s objective of ensuring that we double our exports in the next 10 years and looking at ways that we would do that by doubling the value of our exports in the next 10 years.

Part of that was ensuring that our food producers are more equipped, and that is also looking at our fisheries sector, where we want to ensure that we’re making some amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996. The changes on that included clarifying commercial fishing rules that set out which fish must be brought back to port and which fish can be returned to sea. Looking at on-board cameras was another area where, you know, we looked at ensuring that we are better equipping our fishing industry to ensure that we can fish in our waters and ensure that we have this high-value, added-value fisheries industry and making sure that it is sustainable as well—a very, very important focus.

We talked about some of our areas—me coming from Hawke’s Bay, we have a strong fisheries industry there, which is really, really important to support that industry. But also looked at, you know, areas which are restrictive around fisheries, and bottom trawling was another area that we also discussed through the annual review process. We had a few comments that were made from our Minister for Biosecurity and Food Safety, and the Associate Minister of Agriculture as well.

But particularly looking at our fishing industry, the Ministry for Primary Industries highlighted two pieces of work regarding bottom trawling in New Zealand waters, and they consulted on a lot of this. So those were areas that that we focused on. But also, I think one of the main things is to look at the fact that we have got this great resource here in New Zealand and we’ve got a great resource, you know, around in our waters and we’ve got potential to add a lot of value to our fishing industry and ensure that—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, like was spelt out in the industry transformation plan!

CATHERINE WEDD: No, but this is what was spoken about during the Ministry for Primary Industries annual review process and the fishing aspect of it because, you know, we spoke about a lot of things during that annual review. But fisheries is certainly acknowledged as an important export for New Zealand, and there’s a lot of great work going on there. And I would like to acknowledge the Ministry for Primary Industries for a lot of the great work that they’re doing in this area and for their vision and focus.

So on that note, I think we’ve got a lot of opportunity and it was great to speak about that as a committee, and it was great to be on the Primary Production Committee really focusing on our New Zealand fisheries.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries.

Minister, after the industry fought for so long against cameras on boats, we found that when the data came in on the 127 vessels with cameras, there was significant under-reporting: a sevenfold increase in dolphin interactions, a 350 percent increase in albatross interactions, and an almost 50 percent increase in discarded fish volume. When will your review of cameras on boats be completed? And will you extend the programme? That’s my first question.

Secondly, are you concerned about a company that is wholly owned by the fishing industry—FishServe—taking control of camera footage from commercial boats? And who will have access to that footage—the Department of Conservation? And how often will they have that access? That’s my first tranche of questions, but I would also like to talk about the bycatch kill limit.

Minister, you removed the fishing-related mortality limit (FRML) on sealions just recently. My question is: if, as the industry claims, the sealion exclusion devices are working, surely, then, there is no need to remove the limit, because it won’t be reached? Secondly, will you consider setting a fishing-related mortality limit for leatherback turtles, following recommendations of a recent National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report? And, on what basis did Fisheries New Zealand set the fishing-related mortality limit for Māui dolphins—i.e., why isn’t it set over a period of time, like other FRMLs? And will the Minister release the underpinning advice? Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions, but I’ll start with a couple of them. The first is in relation to cameras on boats—to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries—whether specific advice has been given to him about the future of cameras on boats, and, if so, what is the nature of that specific advice? I think it would be also very helpful for the committee to understand from the Minister what has been learnt, from his perspective, as a result of having them on board. I’ll just start with those.

Kia ora. Greetings to members of the Primary Production Committee and thank you for those questions. As a few words of introduction, sadly, this is a sector of governmental and economic activity riddled with apocryphal falsehoods. The fishing industry is not going out there plundering, plaguing, or targeting rare and endangered species. It grieves me to hear—in fact, it reminds me of the milky flesh disease when I listen to the member from the Green Party suggesting that the industry, number one, is not telling the truth. The modelling carried out by the officials behind me is not too inconsistent with the recent results, and the camera initiative is all about the future.

On the question as to what the future of the camera roll-out is, a number of boats will be focused on and the cameras will be affixed to them, and at that point we’re going to have a taihoa and ascertain who’s going to pay for this, and, if it’s a public good, then how the public is going to pay for it. We’re not going to have this commercial sector continually burdened down with a host of compliance costs preventing it from generating the necessary economic dividend to pay for our schoolteachers, our police men and women, and to meet the costs of our schools and hospitals. Neither are we going to have a situation where the footage associated with the cameras is continually chased up by these busybodies, these meddlesome third-party interests who want to further stigmatise the existence of a proud industry. So to be very, very clear, I’m not going to continue with the perfidy of the last regime. I campaigned against cameras, but that was unsuccessful, sadly.

On the matter of FishServe, FishServe is a legitimate, legal, and, indeed, existing company with enforceable obligations. One of the options that will be investigated is how more of the responsibility of cameras can be delegated down to FishServe. I hope, at some point in time prior to the next election, as my officials work with us to enhance and optimise the outcomes from a better fisheries management system, to take and place before my colleagues—in our drive for greater relief in terms of regulatory burden—an option as to how that burden might be shared between the State, and, if it’s good enough, for the National Animal Identification and Tracing programme to not be fully, fully covered by the Official Information Act. I’m exploring how that can be emulated with cameras.

Can I ask the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries if he’s able to elaborate on the time frame around his thinking around the next steps around cameras on boats, given that he’s indicated what his general sense of direction is. Moving to industry transformation plans (ITPs) and what he sees as the state of those ITPs: what learnings can be taken forward as a result of that exercise of pulling all of that information and people—not just the info but the people—together to put in place an industry transformation plan; and whether he agrees or not with David Wilson, New Zealand First’s Upper Harbour candidate, who said at the pre-election World Wildlife Foundation debate that he agreed and celebrated what the ITP was for the sector?

My final question in this particular phase is around—the annual review talked about the fact that fisheries was seeking more accessible information. My question to the Minister is: what does that mean, what does it look like, and what can people expect as a result of having more accessible information being made available?

I thank the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries for his time. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the committee a little bit further on the technology that, especially, the coastal commercial fleet has implemented over the last few years and speak to, if he’d be so kind, the changes in net technology—the fact that it has gone from a four to a five to a six, from a diamond to a square—especially in the mid-water fish space, and, by virtue, the technology that has embraced, taking into consideration the bycatch limits and how onerous it is.

Could the Minister also, if he’d be so kind, enlighten the committee of the rigours, especially, that the coastal commercial fleet suffers, of operational cost, and how that is affecting the table fish market.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries about the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. Despite our nation, New Zealand, having put through a proposal for a 70 percent protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts—which was actually a descent in the proposal of the whole body, for 100 percent protection; we reduced it to 70—after the change of Government, we refused to submit that proposal and in fact Australia had to submit it. New Zealand backing out from this was a cause of some significant annoyance to the United States and to Australia—to the extent that Australia considers it should now treat New Zealand as an opponent when it comes to managing fisheries in the South Pacific. Apart from the international embarrassment of this, my question is: is the Minister committed to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation? Is the Minister committed to a Pacific-wide marine protection strategy? And as a general point, is the Minister committed to marine protected areas at all? Has the Minister given any instruction to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

A very quick response: the member Steve Abel correctly identifies that our Government did change our stance in respect of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, although that relates to the fact that we’re not going to carry on with this indiscriminate destruction of our fishing interest in international waters, as was a hallmark of the last regime. We won’t be having any of that. Neither will we pay any attention to MPs standing up here invoking provisions from overseas trade deals as if it’s some type of bludgeon to undermine the democracy and the sovereignty of our legitimately elected Government. We’re not tolerating and we’re not agreeing with the outsourcing to overseas jurisdictions as to how we should run our resource management programmes. Go and talk to the Spanish about their own fishing outcomes before you lecture the matua.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Still interested in the Minister’s thoughts around the industry transformation plan for the sector—it’s still a question that is yet to be addressed. And also—

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the taiao?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, the taiao approach of cameras on boats and when we can expect to see the next step in that particular phase of the Minister’s thinking?

I just wanted to touch on this issue of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and ask the Minister what the current position is regarding the proposed bottom fishing management boundaries—but, in particular, the role that New Zealand scientists were involved in in developing those boundaries and what might be seen by some as world leading, and whether or not the Minister supports them as scientists in their approach or not?

Thank you. I wanted to repeat the question to the Minister: have you given any instructions to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas? Have you given any instructions to Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

Minister, if I make a statement—and I’m pleased with a yes or no—do you agree: do you agree that the coastal commercial sector has innovated significantly over the last 10 years to try and alleviate bycatch? And what does innovation look like, to try and nullify some of the concerns on the political left?

Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister a question about Maōri fisheries. There is a bill going through the House at the moment which is essential to creating a regime which is fit for purpose now, so that Maōri can realise the value of fisheries assets and unlock the economic potential of that not only in the regions, but everywhere around Aotearoa. Maōri fisheries are really important and I want to ask the Minister why he is proposing to change what is a bill that was supported by iwi Māori, worked on by the Māori Affairs Committee that used a cross-partisan approach, that dealt with stakeholders for a number of months and engaged deeply with those stakeholders, and is it because the Minister is only taking advice from Te Ohu Kaimoana? And is the Minister acting in the interests of Te Ohu Kaimoana?

Firstly, references to innovation within the fisheries sector is beyond cavil. Sadly, the fisheries sector is plagued by a whole host of dangerous and hurtful allegations on a regular basis, heard here every week in this House. Well, they are clapping in the streets because they know they have a champion in my good self. Innovation will be supported. It doesn’t necessarily mean we stay with exactly the same template of an industry transformation plan. Indeed, four times a year we are engaging with the senior figures of the fishing industry to effect better outcomes between the civil service, myself, and them. As indeed I’m doing it with oil and gas, as I’m doing a similar thing with minerals—in particular coal. So I don’t think anyone should imagine that the zest to develop better innovation outcomes has diminished.

And the final thing I’d say about Māori fisheries: the member makes a very good point: I have no interest in disfiguring the progress forward for Māori fisheries but neither do I want to set up a host of opportunities for Māori and for them to argue with each other; I’d rather see them mend a net, catch some fish, and make some money.

If the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is correct in saying that he wants Māori to be able to progress their interests in developing their fisheries rights and sharing that with iwi who benefit from settlements, then isn’t the first version of the bill which came to this House, which had cross-partisan support, and will be enduring, a better option than what has come back and has been proposed, essentially, by Te Ohu Kaimoana to suit their interests in the status quo?

Thank you, Mr Chair. In 2023, the New Zealand orange roughy fisheries ORH 3B, responsible for 80 percent of the catch, lost our Marine Stewardship Council certification—an important marking point to the United States and EU consumers. Evidence showed that the fishers were having to trawl for longer yet still not catching more fish, suggesting depletion and spawning aggregations had disappeared or were severely reduced on seamount areas and had been heavily trawled. The only seamount that showed some positive signs for the fish was one that is closed to trawling. The implication is that the extent of the exploitation was meaning that there would be no sustainable orange roughy, because we’d fished it to oblivion. How is that sustainable for the industry, let alone the environment, and what does the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries intend to do to ensure that New Zealand fisheries remain actually ecologically sustainable and viable? And to that point, has the Minister given any instructions to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

On the latter, I’m aware that the Minister of Conservation has a bill wending its way through the House. My level of interest in that is not particularly strong, but it’s not my statutory role. I, as you may have worked out, sir, am here to enable the industry to boost the dividend within the parameters of sustainability.

On the question of orange roughy, I’m advised by the officials, on searching for the answer in this mammoth midden heap of paper, that in 2023-24, orange roughy 3B was reduced by 40 percent. The system works in this very simple way: scientists establish—and I’m talking about robust, genuine science, not these lib pen-pushers—genuine enforceable justiciable figures, and the politicians, like myself, act on that. But we have no time for these lib pen-pushers who write all this green diatribe.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ll try third time lucky. We still haven’t had an answer from the Minister to industry transformation plans and the time frame for the taihoa on cameras on boats. Perhaps he’s still looking through his mammoth heap of paper there to find the answer.

Can I move to the Oceans Secretariat. I’d like to put to the Minister: what has motivated him to, essentially, disestablish the Oceans Secretariat and how does he expect that to impact the fishing industry and the health of New Zealand’s oceans, respectively. And, in the absence of such a secretariat, what resources does he foreshadow the Oceans and Marine Ministers Group will need to make informed decisions that will ensure the long-term resilience, but also the long-term health, of ocean and costal ecosystems, including the role that fisheries would play within that?

Minister, I appreciate you commenting on the Minister of Conservation’s opinion on marine protected areas, or something to that effect. But I wonder: have you expressed any opinions on marine protected areas to the Ministry for Primary Industries?

I realise that time is running out, and this is obviously an important feature, because marine protected areas, marine reserves, rāhui areas, mātaitai areas, and taiāpure areas are a key feature of marine-based resource management. That role, obviously, rests with my officials to study the various demands and needs. If you’re asking me “To what extent is that a priority?”, you’re asking the wrong guy.

So I understand that our seafood exports are going to increase, hopefully, to around $2.3 billion by 2024. Obviously, that drives a lot of productivity here in New Zealand and that’s something that we’ve discussed a lot on the Primary Production Committee. And obviously there’s a lot of potential in our fisheries industry to add a lot of value and drive some of this productivity. What’s your vision in that area?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, can I, for the sake of the question, help you illuminate—or you might be able to illuminate this further—the difference between the coastal commercial fleet fishing and the deepwater fleet, the disparities in technology. And for the former Minister’s benefit, maybe some of the cost structures therein in terms of the roll-out of cameras on boats—the technology—what it looks like in terms of implementation, and the distinct difference between table fish market and the export market.

Sadly, the cameras issue was conceived without true appreciation of costs, but it’s driven and propelled by an ideology which is very hostile to the flourishing of the fishing industry. Sadly, that was allowed to carry on uncontested. But wait, taihoa, help is on the way.

In reference to the member’s question from my right—yes, we are seeking to boost the profitability of the fishery sector. To that end, four meetings a year are happening between the key leaders. They are finding common ground that will include—that will include—options not to increase levies during the next two or three years, and to learn to live within a shortened piece of cloth.

To that end, it’s important we work out how the industry can not only profit but how the industry can work more effectively with the State—maintain their social licence, but curb the incessant upward pressure on levies and other costs that are being imposed on industry in New Zealand. So the question to my right was a very clever question, and given that we will be addressing the uncertainty around the permits associated with aquaculture, you will find there will be a greater level, percentage-wise, of wealth coming from aquaculture over the next 5 to 10 years. Details will be revealed very, very soon.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, given the recent article in the Sunday-Star Times this weekend of the footage of the efficacy or otherwise of the SLEDs, the sea lion exclusion devices, will you release that footage or instruct that that footage is released for public scrutiny so that we can indeed assess the efficacy of the SLEDs? And, in that regard, I wanted to repeat my question: why remove the bycatch kill limit for sea lions, if indeed the SLEDs are working? Surely there is no need to remove the limit, because it won’t be reached. And will you bring, in pace, a similar mortality limit for leatherback turtles? Those are the two follow-up questions. Thank you.

Just before we wind up, there is no great threat to sea lions. I trust the quality of advice coming from our officials. They are not driven by politics, ideology, such as the member who’s just resumed his seat. And, similarly, there is no great threat from the technology which has been deployed to enable the sea lions to escape when they may, from time to time, encounter harvesting activity. And I’m not interested in the wittering of that lady from the Otago university—irrelevant to me.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I ask the Minister around the suitable use of fishing stocks but also around the question of allocation. What has been the direction of travel for the three types of fishers—the commercial, customary, and recreational fishers—and whether or not we can expect, with him as Minister, to see any changes regarding stock but also allocation?

There don’t appear to be—Steve Abel.

Never to miss an opportunity, Mr Chair. I guess I’ll repeat the question: will you release the footage that proves, or otherwise, the efficacy of those seal protection devices? What are you afraid of showing; what is the industry afraid of showing? If that footage is available, it can be scrutinised independently and it can be assessed. If you are so certain of the advice, what is the harm in releasing that footage, Minister?

JENNY MARCROFT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister: could he inform the Chamber as to what is the response to the roll-out of the camera programme? What is the response from many of the skippers on the boats that have these cameras?

Obviously, the existence of the footage in respect of the sea lions issue does not rest with the Crown. Obviously, the footage that is referred to associated with the cameras has enabled the officials to better test their models—and they’ve found that their models are remarkably accurate. But let no one think in this session that that footage is going to be surrendered to people who have as their motivation the delegitimisation of fisheries. That’s just not happening.

The time with the Minister has expired. I’d invite an honourable member to move that the committee report progress.

I move, That the committee report progress on the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.