Baldock Larry: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19860] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In rising on behalf of United Future to address the Fiordland Marine Management Bill in its second reading I first express our appreciation of the initiative that has been taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. As we mentioned in our first speech it began a process of local decision-making in order to come up with an alternative to the approach currently being undertaken which seems to focus only around the marine reserve applications being put forward by the Department of Conservation. This alternative is something that gives a lot of people in New Zealand some hope of a way forward in terms of how our marine areas can be protected while still giving respect and consideration to those who enjoy the marine environment but do not particularly hold to the philosophy that the only way to protect it is to have large marine reserves all over the place. I congratulate the guardians on their process. It has been a major achievement for them to go through this process and arrive at a consensus and an agreement. As a result of listening to submitters to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on the bill I think the guardians do need to be commended further for the way that they have managed the process. 
It did however come as a surprise—and Phil Heatley mentioned this in his speech—to find that the guardians’ own submission had some quite serious concerns in it. The guardians felt that after they had completed their process the bill had been somewhat hijacked and diverted from its original intention which was really about a fisheries management issue in their area. I am pleased to see that the committee and the Minister have agreed to make changes so that the bill can be returned to much more of its original intent. I still have some concerns about the use of the word “preservation” in the bill because I do not think that that was the guardians’ intent. I think they are very practically minded people down there in Southland who understand that it is impossible to preserve anything. They simply want to do the best they can to manage and protect the area. The marine reserves that are being established are part of that goal but the idea that we can preserve things really takes matters a bit too far. In fact in my recent trip there seeing the damage done by recent earthquakes showed me that the environment is changing all the time. We have to be flexible in that situation and do our best to keep things in good order. But to go too far and try to keep everything locked up in order to maintain that pristine environment seems to me to be ideological nonsense. 
Fiordland is a beautiful area and in many ways it has a natural protection by virtue of its remoteness and its wild nature. I think that we could go over the top in trying to preserve it for future generations—it will preserve itself and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is a rugged and an amazing place. My recent visit was the first time I had been there and I really appreciated the assistance given to me by Ministry for the Environment officials and also by the Southland Regional Council. They facilitated an opportunity to look through the area and to talk with the guardians after we had completed the select committee deliberations on the bill. It certainly helped me to understand more of the complexity of the process. 
I am happy that the committee has addressed some of Ngai Tahu’s concerns about the extraction of pounamu. The final Supplementary Order Paper that we will discuss in the Committee stage is designed to finish that process. 
I had concerns about the recreational fishers’ submissions that came into the select committee and also about the submissions that they put into the guardians’ consultation process. I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the issue right because we are dealing with differences of opinion between local fishers people who go there on charter fishing trips and people who maybe travel there once a year from around New Zealand on their annual fishing holiday. It would be difficult to strike the right balance between those groups. I think there is a need to recognise the differences between charter boat operators and those who fish there in their own boats particularly with regard to the bag limits that have been recommended by the guardians. A cut from 30 blue cod to three with no right to accumulate numbers on a daily basis seems to me to be a very severe cut. It was agreed to none the less by the representatives amongst the guardians who were speaking on behalf of recreational fishers. 
My concern has been whether that cut was necessary. We heard from submitters who said that they did not mind accepting reductions in their bag limits or the non-accumulation provisions provided there was good science to back up the provisions. I think recreational fishers in New Zealand are good environmentalists. They are not there to plunder the resources of the sea; they want to see them remain there for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. But they were asking some fairly reasonable questions I thought. That is why I have raised the issue in the select committee with Minister Hobbs and also with the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. It is clear that it is difficult to make any changes to the “gifts and gains” process; it was the key part of the agreement. This bill does not even deal with the fishing regulations so United Future is happy to support the bill at its second reading through the Committee stage and into its third reading. We think it is a very good bill and one that will have very positive outcomes for the Fiordland area. But there were things that I thought could have been done to address some of the concerns of recreational fishers. I am very pleased to have had cooperation from the Hon Marian Hobbs and also from the Hon David Benson-Pope which has meant we were able to address those concerns in some way. 
The new advisory panel that the Minister of Fisheries is establishing to represent recreational fishers in New Zealand is a good forum for him to review the consultation process and to see what its members’ advice to him may be. There were 287 submissions during the guardians’ consultation process from all around New Zealand. Those submissions far outnumbered those from the other submitters in the process but they were treated as one submission because they all came from Option4 and were on a form submission which was somehow deemed to be less significant than other submissions. But I think those submitters still made very good points. In fact about 90 of them made personal comments on their submissions which still outnumbered the other submitters who had other concerns about the whole process. So I think it would be good if the newly established ministerial advisory group of recreational fishers could look at that and take up some of the issues. 
The other part of the recreational fishing issue had to do with the science behind the decision to make such drastic cuts in bag limits. I think there is a lot more that can be done to see whether the fish stocks particularly of blue cod are under any threat from fishing in the fiords. Perhaps some more scientific and investigative work could be done. Recreational fishers around New Zealand could then be reassured by the Minister giving an undertaking to conduct a review of the bag limits in a couple of years’ time if other scientific evidence comes to the fore that shows there is no real risk and no real danger to fish stocks. 
Perhaps there is also a way of treating the non-accumulation regulations differently for people on charter boats compared with those who are fishing on their own boats. I can understand the concerns about a charter boat that takes on 60 fishers who can each get three fish a day. When that tally is added up for a week a great tonnage of fish has been hauled out of the area. It may be wise not to allow for that accumulation on a charter boat. But for a family or for a fisher and a few of his or her mates who go out on their own boat and who suffer a few days of bad weather and therefore cannot catch any fish on those days it seems that it would pose no real danger to the environment if they could accumulate their bag limit over 3 or 4 days of that holiday and take a few fish home to give to their neighbours. That is very much a part of the Kiwi culture. We fish not only for ourselves; we give a bit to our neighbours when we get home. That is the way we all enjoy the bounty of the sea around us. 
United Future is keen to support the bill. We believe that it has been through a good process and we do not want to hold it up in any way. I really appreciate the consideration given to us but say that there will need to be some review of the catch provisions on behalf of recreational fishers. We look forward to further debate through the Committee stage in the House this week.