Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:9940] 
6.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does he stand by his statement that the 35 percent decline in the number of apprehensions by fisheries officers between 2002 and 2006 is a “pleasing trend”; if so why? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes. This decrease in the number of apprehensions can be attributed at least in part to an investment in education and increased patrol presence and inspections by fisheries and honorary fisheries officers. Increased public support is also a possible contributing factor to the improving levels of voluntary compliance as a consequence of television series like  
Coast Watch 
 the 0800 4 Poacher telephone line and the “Poaching is Theft” campaign. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister see the irony that the decline in apprehensions comes despite an increase in the number of fisheries officers and that in any other enforcement agency an increase in the number of enforcement officers results in increased apprehensions; and would he not agree that for him to claim that the Ministry of Fisheries is an exception to the rule is nothing but an attempt to put a spin on the shocking decline in apprehensions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well I do not think that people can have it both ways. People wanted stronger compliance and stronger monitoring of the fisheries area. That is exactly what has happened. As a result people have learnt the lesson that losing their boats and cars and being fined heavily is not a great experience. Because a lot of this activity takes place in well-identified regions word gets around and I think we should be congratulating fisheries officers on the magnificent result they have achieved. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why does the Minister not think that the 35 percent decline in the number of apprehensions is due to the fact that there were 246 honorary fisheries officers in 2002 and there are only 161 fisheries officers today—cutting the numbers by almost 100 staff—why does he not think the decrease in the number of apprehensions is due to the decrease by 100 in the number of honorary fisheries staff? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Some of the honorary fisheries officers whom the member seems to want to rely on for prosecutions convictions and monitoring were performing their duties on 1 or 2 days a year. The reason that the number of honorary fisheries officers has been reduced is that the number of full-time officers has been increased. I would have thought that even the meanest of minds could comprehend that. 
Pita Paraone 
: Would the Minister agree that the decline in the number of apprehensions is actually the result of his ministry’s policy which requires fisheries officers to work in pairs due to safety concerns—a policy that has effectively halved the manpower available to patrol our 15000 kilometres of coastline and allows poachers to pillage our coast at will—if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The reality is exactly the opposite of what the member claims. In truth while the number of apprehensions has reduced because of education and the acknowledgment of the regions where this is a problem—poachers do not want to engage in the activity any more—the level of prosecutions has increased because the activity of full-time well-qualified fisheries officers has meant that those prosecutions are sheeted home and convictions are obtained. The word is getting around that poaching is just not worth the candle.