Donnelly Brian: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8059] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Government for allowing me this slot because people will recognise that when this legislation was being debated on Tuesday night the New Zealand First speaker was Pita Paraone. The debate would have wound up because there was only 1 minute to go but he took that slot. Unfortunately he is on leave—within the 25 percent I might add. So the Government has given us this spot because we believe that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill is very very much in line with what New Zealand First is all about. It is certainly in line with our policy on where we believe our nation should be going. 
I have to admit to the House that I would describe myself as a very enthusiastic recreational fisherman but I would not necessarily describe myself as a particularly successful one. I will give members one story. I fish out of Doubtless Bay up in the far north and down in Ngunguru out of Whangarei and next to Tutukaka but not all the way out to the Poor Knights Islands because that area is a reserve. One day along a beach up in the far north my mate and I were collecting mussels off a mussel rock there and several groups of people further up the beach were collecting tuatuas. A four-wheel drive stopped and the driver was looking and looking. I have to say that for a moment when we came out of the sea we thought that maybe he was a fisheries officer but we were well within our limit so we did not have anything to worry about. He was in fact an American and he asked us what we were doing. We said we were getting the mussels off the rocks to eat. He asked if anybody was allowed to do that and we said yes that was available to all New Zealanders as long as they stayed within their limits. He asked what all the other people were doing along the beach. We said they were picking up tuatuas. He just could not get over the fact that New Zealanders were able to go out on to their coastline and collect a feed for themselves and their families with no interruptions and that this was part of the New Zealand lifestyle. 
That is what this bill is very very much about. If I think in terms of Doubtless Bay—and I go back to the 1970s there—and look now at my successes in January for example at trying to get snapper it would appear to me that the fish stock has dwindled. It may well be that the phenomenon we find up there is that for the couple of weeks after New Year the fishing is not particularly good and then it gets good in the second half of the month. I remember that back in the 70s we were fishing in the latter part of January. In the bay at Ngunguru people have been saying that kahawai stocks are dwindling. Well at times we look out from our window and see schools and boil-ups of kahawai that go halfway across the bay so we really have to ask ourselves whether our stocks are dwindling—are they the same or are they getting fewer? 
That is what this bill is all about. New Zealand First believes that it is the birthright of all New Zealanders to be able to throw out a line and catch themselves a fish to have access to kai moana and to have that right for themselves and for their families. It is not the right to be able to rape and pillage but to be able to catch fresh fish and enjoy them around the barbecue out in the backyard or wherever it might be over certain periods of time. Members must admit that there is nothing better than a fresh snapper for example or a feed of fresh kutai. Therefore we as a nation have a responsibility to ensure that both our freshwater and our sea stocks of fish and other kai moana are maintained. 
We have put in place a strong system. Although I say it is a strong system I tell members it is not a totally foolproof system. One of the problems with the Fisheries Act 1996 as it currently stands is that when the various sustainability measures are being decided upon such as the total allowable catches and fishing method restrictions the Act does not allow for a precautionary approach to be fully taken. So where there is an absence of information—and let us face it: there is a lot of absence of information around our ecosystems—rather than requiring the decision makers to take the fully precautionary approach so that they minimise risks the Act actually does the other thing. In fact it tells them to take risks. 
The problem with that is that in the absence dearth or weakness of information available the wrong decision can be made. For example when there was not full access to information about orange roughy inadequate decisions were made about total allowable catches and that was to the detriment of the fish stock. This bill changes the law so that if the full information is not available then the decision makers will be able to act in a fully precautionary manner. New Zealand First believes that this is the way it should have been from 1996 and we are 100 percent behind this bill. 
We are not necessarily behind the shared fisheries proposals and we are asking some questions about the problem there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that it is a longstanding convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so and then so as not to disturb proceedings because it is distracting for the member who is trying to address the House. Thank you. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: As I say we in New Zealand First will defend to the end the right of recreational fishers to be able to have sustainable stocks and to be able readily to obtain fish—not necessarily in the manner in which it used to be done but certainly in an easy fashion. However we are not absolutely convinced about the shared fisheries proposals and we ask what the problem is. We fish in the snapper 1 area and that has the smallest restrictions upon recreational fishers. I tell members here and now that I have not heard even one of the people who live up in Doubtless Bay complain that the restrictions are too great. The number of fish that is allowable—nine snapper per fisher for example—is certainly adequate for the people who fish recreationally to be able to feed themselves and their families. So we ask what the problem is that the legislation may be trying to fix. 
This issue is a different issue altogether. This issue is something to do with setting the total allowable catch across customary fishers Maori fishers recreational fishers and commercial fishers—the total whole. We believe that decisions being made around that if they are got wrong will negatively affect all sectors—the recreational sector the commercial sector the Maori sector the customary sector—the whole lot. Therefore we believe that it makes eminently good sense to have legislation that requires the decision makers in the absence of the full degree of information about the impact upon ecosystems fish stocks and stocks of seafood to employ the precautionary approach to its fullest measures. 
That we believe will enable my grandchildren for example to come out in the boat with me and have that thrill of catching a fish on a rod and line. They will be able to take the fish back to grandma and say: “Look what I caught grandma!”. Grandad can fillet it for them and then they can enjoy the eating of it. That is the birthright of every New Zealander—and every new New Zealander. As far as we in New Zealand First are concerned we will do everything possible to protect that birthright. Therefore we will support this bill through all its stages.