Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15134] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to direct my comments to two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that relate to Part 1. First I will comment briefly on the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246 which is largely the result of some of the discussions I have had with him and with ministry officials since I was asked to try to sort out the mess left after the Primary Production Committee had had enough and had recommended that the bill be discharged. I agree with some of the comments that have been made by committee members that it is a large Supplementary Order Paper. It is something we ought to have the time to go through particularly as it was tabled just this week. I hope the Minister will stand and take a call to answer some of the questions that have been put specifically about issues because it is important that this is done correctly. 
The other Supplementary Order Paper on the Table is mine. It seeks to withdraw kahawai from the quota management system for this year to give time for the ministry to do a better job of giving advice to the Minister regarding the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch levels that it has recommended occur on 1 October which the Minister has accepted. This bill has always been about things the ministry has not done properly right back from the time of the scampi issues and on through a myriad of others where one thing has led to another and where people have been disenfranchised from their rights or kept out of their opportunities to gain rights. It was always said that once something had been done it was too late to fix it so things just kept going on in the way they were. Today we have an opportunity to support my Supplementary Order Paper 247 and at least to pause with kahawai so that we do this job right. The Supplementary Order Paper affects up to 300000 recreational fishermen in the country who are very concerned and who have made their concerns known through an email campaign of 1900 emails which I am sure other members in Parliament have also received. 
It is clear from the advice that officials have given in their paper that they are not doing their job properly yet again. Let me refer members to some of what they have said regarding the kahawai stock assessment: “While a stock assessment indicated that by 1996 the biomass of kahawai had declined to around 50 percent of its original level it is unknown whether stocks are currently above or below the biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield.” They admit they know nothing about the science in this situation. They are having a guess yet they confidently step up and try to assure the Minister that a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch will be sufficient to protect this fishery which is of importance to recreational fishermen all across the country. They go on to say: “In gauging the required change in catch levels necessary to achieve any particular target level the matter of a stock size is largely academic.” That is not the sort of advice we should be operating on when it comes to our fish stocks. 
I have sought by putting this Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and by seeking support from other parties that we at least pause for a year so that better science can be gathered and more negotiations entered into in order for a better decision to be made. I appreciate the offers of support that I have had from other parties in Parliament. It is very disappointing that the ACT party is resolute in its ideology and will not support this Supplementary Order Paper because of what its members perceive to be the property rights of the commercial fishing sector. I think all of us want to respect those rights but those rights have not been given yet. They are really there only as an expectation because of the error that the Ministry of Fisheries made in allowing purse seine vessels to target schools of kahawai and plunder what is really a fish that belongs to the recreational fisherman. Any rights that commercial fishers perceive they own are taken at the expense of New Zealanders all across this country who have for many years enjoyed going out and catching kahawai. The advice that the officials have given the Minister requires not just a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch which in reality ends up meaning commercial fishers end up catching more this year than they did last year—because the catch is averaged over 5 years—but the imposition of a 15 percent reduction on the recreational fisherman. The bag limit right now for kahawai is 20 fish and there is not a fisherman in the country who has caught 20 fish for years.