Horan Brendan: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12166. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent):Vote Primary Industries includes what was until 2 years ago the stand-alone Ministry of Fisheries. This vote includes appropriations of over $86 million for fisheries policy advice and operational advice on sustainability fisheries management and enforcement and monitoring—$86 million. It is interesting because if we spent only $20 million a year on buying back commercial quota from the large operators such as say Sanford then within 3 years the 15 percent improvement target would be reached and it would all be very very simple. But I must say that that was not in the options that were in the discussion paper that the Minister alluded to today when I was questioning the Minister.What is the Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy doing instead? Well he is snatching snapper off the plates of New Zealanders. It is not just a few recreational fishers who are affected because everyone is affected. The Minister’s answers to my questions today were entirely unsatisfactory. I wonder how that member could have got it so wrong. How can it be that this Government has not considered the possibility that the biggest maritime environmental disaster to ever hit New Zealand—and that is theRena —would not warrant a scientific investigation into its effect on the reproductive and growth cycles of our most valuable and dominant coastal fish the snapper?Today I was also told that I should get along to one of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ meetings. In Parnell tonight approximately 300 people listened and they went along to the Quality Hotel—and there is some irony here because there was absolutely no quality in that meeting. What was there tonight was absolutely embarrassing but a fair indication of that Government. What was there was a handful ofMinistry for Primary Industries representatives with posters and they were speaking to the different small groups that came along. There was no microphone there was no measured debate and there was no intellectual discussion. The people of Parnell went there hoping for intellectual discussion but there was none of that. Actually it is interesting because the Quality Hotel is on Gladstone Road and that is just down the road from where the Prime Minister lives. They would have snared a big fish if the Prime Minister had been there but alas that did not happen either.So I ask where is the science in this report? Where is the cost-benefit analysis of recreational fishing to New Zealand? The petrol taxes the diesel taxes bait tackle motors boats books videos food drink—the list goes on. Did you know that one-third of all kayaks sold in New Zealand are fishing kayaks? Where is the cost-benefit analysis of recreational and charter fishing with tourism and accommodation and other benefits? It is simply not in here. This is a devious document. It is a dishonest document. I ask where the basic thought is of seagrass areas snapper habitats and the most basic of options—that is the possibility of growing and seeding baby snapper into certain areas.Where in this document is the effect that the explosion of snapper would have on the mussel industry the mussel farms if there is a reduction in the recreational fishers’ catch? More snapper means more mussel spat being eaten on the mussel lines. That is probably $100000 a line. Can the mussel industry sustain the extra loss that would undoubtedly follow? At the moment snapper costs around about $39 to $40 a kilo for fillets. What would happen to that price—which is already beyond many Kiwis’ budgets—if this Government is successful in its effort to cut the catch limit to two or three snapper and thereby create a scarcity in the market? Well if you do the maths and you cut the catch from nine to three then we are looking at snapper going from $39 a kilo for fillets to $120 a kilo. Who will benefit from that? The big players—the big players just like Sanford. [Bell rung ] This bill will destroy—