Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15269] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise today to voice United Future’s opposition to the third reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is not the position we initially wanted to take but it has been forced on us by a Parliament and a Minister who were either unwilling or unable to assess the big picture accurately and then act in the best interests of New Zealanders. After the Primary Production Committee voted to discharge the bill United Future after discussion with industry stakeholders recognised that it still had some value and we undertook to work with the Minister to bring this bill into a form that was more acceptable to us so that we would be able to support it. 
We did make several useful changes. We discussed the issue of tuna and the highly migratory species coming into the quota management system within the 200-mile zone and not on the high seas as was requested by industry. We addressed the issues of the by-catch for tuna which was out of sync with the catch history years and got agreement that that would be addressed through a preferential tender so that fishermen would be able to access the necessary by-catch they needed when they were allocated quota for their tuna. 
We dealt with schedule 4C and schedule 4D in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to some of the other species that needed to have their catch history recorded so that property rights would be withheld for those who had catch history in 1991 and 1992. We addressed the whelk and the geoduck issues. We addressed the pipi issue but cockles was not dealt with because it was retroactive and we could not see any point in dealing with that but that is something perhaps the Green Party was able to pick up on when it began to enter into negotiations with the Minister. All these agreements were agreed to. 
We then moved on to an outstanding issue that of kahawai which we had a great deal of discussion about. There was another issue within the bill around the green-lipped mussel spat. We had a great deal of discussion with industry and found that there were conflicting opinions within industry about whether this should go into the quota management system now or whether it should go in in a couple of years’ time. Finally we resolved that there was a majority acceptance that it was going to happen and that it was not an issue that should delay the other good things in the bill that needed to be passed. 
The outstanding issue concerning kahawai was about the recreational species being introduced into the quota management system at a level that makes commercial purse-seine fishing economical. All we asked was that either the level that was made available for commercial fishers was reduced now and not later or else its introduction into the quota management system be delayed until more scientific research could be undertaken and a better decision made. It was clear to us that it was impossible to revoke a  
Gazette 
 notice by the Minister once it had been gazetted without an Act of Parliament. This bill provided an opportunity for Parliament to express its will over and above the Minister’s intention through the  
Gazette 
 which would have freed the Minister from any comeback from the industry had that occurred. It seemed to us a sensible step to follow so that time would be bought in order for further discussions to take place. 
We clearly are still of the opinion as Gerry Eckhoff has expressed that the commercial sector needed to be compensated if it was going to lose out through those negotiations but it would give an opportunity for the Government to do that prior to the quota being issued and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer because of that. Once the quota is issued I believe it would be more expensive to buy it retroactively and then settle for the benefits of the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately the Minister did not agree and craven political opportunism on the part of the Greens New Zealand First and ACT won the day. The support for my Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage which could have led to the outcome we sought was defeated. 
As this bill approaches the end of the long journey to its third reading I do not believe that the Ministry of Fisheries can be blamed for everything it has been accused of during the long process of this bill. People or organisations are seldom as black as they are painted. But this bill and all the controversy that has surrounded it has highlighted one clear undeniable fact. The Ministry of Fisheries does need serious attention to improve its management of our fisheries resource. It needs accountability and it needs a culture change in order to be more responsive and receptive to New Zealanders. 
It would be a huge advance for the ministry if it acknowledged that it does not know everything about our fishing stocks and that those who spend their time out on the sea day in and day out both commercially and recreationally have a very good knowledge of what is going on and should be listened to more carefully when Ministry of Fisheries officials are making decisions about people’s recreational activities or livelihoods. I have had conversations with frustrated industry participants even as recently as today who are giving up and leaving the industry or even leaving New Zealand because of the frustrations they experience with ministry officials. Recreational fishers are also incredibly frustrated because they do not want to have to fight for their rights in court as they did several years ago with snapper. Now it seems they have no alternative but to do so for kahawai. 
Recent fisheries legislation has been fraught with fall-out from at best extraordinarily poor and at worst downright negligent actions by the Ministry of Fisheries and its predecessors. We do not want to see similar tragic or messy situations emerge with regard to kahawai. For this reason we want no further part in perpetuating the flawed fisheries policies of this Government and of the Ministry of Fisheries and as a gesture of support and in an effort to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of recreational fishers throughout New Zealand United Future opposes the passage of this bill on its third reading.