O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'll just take the opportunity to take a five-minute call on an issue that I guess goes to the heart of many many West Coasters—not all of them but many—and I guess is part of what would be considered our local culture. I officially have to acknowledge that because of the huge amount of conservation area in our region actually we still have a good whitebait fishery for the most part. We don't know much about it I have to say. As has been pointed out by Opposition members over there we should know a lot more and it would be great if we did. But there has been an informal process and approach to whitebaiting that I have to say really can't be supported in the long term. What we have is a whole lot of different fishing methods we have a whole lot of different rivers and we have a whole lot of different outcomes. So one river might not have much fish one year and another one might have a whole lot and we have no idea why. One thing we do accept and I'm not quite sure that I have the confidence in the West Coast Regional Council to protect all spawning sites—I'm not sure that that's been the reality in the past. There is an acknowledgment of course we've had—like many other parts of New Zealand—intensification of land use and we've had conversion from indigenous forests into farmland and that has limited the spawning sites for whitebait. Luckily our region still has a huge amount as I said before of conservation area. Spawning sites are still I guess pretty prevalent particularly in South Westland which is why people catch literally tonnes and tonnes of whitebait. We do have a strange anomaly in that in most other fisheries in the country even with eels as an indigenous species we have some controls on them and we have limits. But in whitebait we have none and I have to say I get somewhat uneasy when I think about the long-term sustainability of the fishery for our region—I'll be bluntly parochial and say for our region"—where we've appreciated and enjoyed the privilege of having lots of whitebait. Indeed in the past they put kerosene tins in the garden. You'll hear those stories and they were true but they're not so prevalent now. While you have some big catches the vast majority of the time there are more people catching lesser amounts of whitebait but still enjoying the whole process and enjoying the eating experience. So from a regional perspective we have to protect this for our long-term benefit. Indeed there was a regional plan a development plan done by the previous Government that identified whitebait as one of the potential opportunities for the West Coast region into the future. I think that was perhaps one of the wiser things to come from that whole report. I met with someone who was talking about breeding īnanga and some other whitebait and I didn't think it would be kind of possible from a commercial perspective at all. I've now seen the operation and accept that there are opportunities in this area that would supplement what we would call the natural fishery. The issue of whether we can sustain huge catches on what we would call a commercial basis without any protection of habitat I think is a question we should answer and without information it's really really difficult. So whitebaiters are concerned that when they have a lean year they want to close rivers and when they have a really good year they want to carry on and have a longer season. It's simply the nature of humans I guess. But I do support the Minister in her attempts through this legislation to have some more control. Now we would expect the Director-General of Conservation on the basis of Supplementary Order Paper 389 or the amendment here to be cautious and to be responsible in taking any decisions in terms of spawning sites on private land which is under Supplementary Order Paper 390 or under Supplementary Order Paper 389 of course in terms of closing or restricting access. There are many rivers on conservation land that support huge catches and regular catches of whitebait and indeed that should continue. But if we do discover some warning signals and some threats to the species I guess the Minister's asking for the right through the director-general to be able to close that for some period to try and protect the species. Now indeed whitebaiters ask for that from time to time—not all the time but when they have a lean year. Again going back to a precautionary approach that will deliver long-term benefits for the West Coast I support the legislation as long as the responsible decision-making is made by the director-general and the Minister. I know there's lots of opinions about different Governments. Indeed it was the National Government in 1994 that proposed restricting and shortening the whitebait season. As the local member I took that to the Regulations Review Committee got that overturned and indeed we here now still have two weeks in November that would not have been there because the National Government wanted to shorten it. Now to give some credit to the National Government at the time they saw that there were some threats to whitebait and they had to look at tweaking the season. The new National Party seems to not consider that a real threat. It is an indigenous species and I have to say that in a previous part of this here where Fish & Game are going to give the Government some advice quite frankly I wouldn't listen to them. They look after a species called trout that do a lot of damage to whitebait. So I have to say that we have to balance what Fish & Game want and what we want for our indigenous species. So we're hoping that the director-general on behalf of the Government of the day would be responsible in any changes to access to rivers on conservation land. But we have to accept the reality that we have lots of whitebait in South Westland because we have lots of conservation land. I from time to time have to remind whitebaiters of that. They are quick to jump up and down and criticise the department but indeed without some of the protection of that conservation land we would have less whitebait. Really in summary I'm just saying that we'll take the advice of the Environment Committee regarding Supplementary Order Paper 390 on the issue of spawning sites and the obligation to consult. The select committee as I understand did not consider that should occur. So I without hearing the submissions myself will listen to the advice and say that the status quo should remain and we don't need an amendment through Supplementary Order Paper 390. To come back to the one on Supplementary Order Paper 389 the member on the opposite side there thinks that you should restrict the ability of a landowner to make decisions for their land and indeed I guess that was part of the Supplementary Order Paper 390 consideration as well. But here the director-general will only make that call I'm sure after consultation should the habitat be considered to be under threat. So I just say on behalf of the West Coast we want to protect our fishery. The vast majority of whitebaiters down there are responsible. They want to do the right thing. But we have such a variety of fishing methods from single-scoop nets to extensive net systems across rivers that the impact on the fishery from one river to another is dramatically different. We have to I think bring in some controls to protect it for the long-term sustainability of the fishery. While the legislation may not be perfect—and I respect the right of the Opposition to raise issues—in the end we have to trust the judgment and the wisdom of parliamentary process to protect indigenous species to make proper consultation calls and then to only make changes where necessary."