Turei Metiria: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17523] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will also support this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee. We consider it a necessary fix to many of the flaws in the Fisheries Act 1996. The High Court decided recently that under the current law the Minister must have estimates of current biomass and maximum sustainable yield before he can set a total allowable catch limit. Given that for many—if not most—fish stocks we have very limited actual biomass data let alone good enough data to accurately estimate what the sustainable yields are it is unacceptable for the Minister not to be able to set or change the total allowable catches for these fish stocks. A number of alternative methods for guesstimating maximum sustainable yields are required for fish stocks without good biomass data but as a result of the High Court decision these alternatives are not available to the Minister. 
I have done a lot of work and research on fisheries in my role as the Green Party’s spokesperson on fisheries. I have had discussions with researchers such as those from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd which says that for about 80 percent of the demersal landings of fish stocks the information that can tell us whether those fish stocks are being fished below at or above their sustainable yield is simply not available. There is excellent research from overseas for example research carried out by Japan on squid—a very important fishery in New Zealand—and on the climate change impacts on that fishery which should cause very serious concern for New Zealand. But the fact is that the legislation does not allow the Minister to make sensible decisions to ensure the sustainability of those fish stocks. As such we are seeing our fish stocks crashing around us. 
The Green Party believes that fisheries management in New Zealand is fundamentally unsustainable while it is structured as it is with fish stocks being continually depleted and requiring deep quota cuts. I congratulate the Minister on the cuts that he has made in the past. The classic example that is often given is that of orange roughy which has been fished almost to death by bottom trawling. Under the quota management system for example the Chatham Rise orange roughy fishery was fished out to just 3 percent of it original biomass even though the maximum sustainable yield was 30 percent. The quota management system could not ensure that that fishery was able to maintain itself at a sustainable biomass. The quota management system is failing our fish stocks; failing our industry which relies on those fish stocks; and failing the people of this country who rely on that fishery for sustenance and income. 
The hoki fishery despite its recent recertification by the Marine Stewardship Council is heading in the same direction as the orange roughy fishery as are many of our other fish stocks. The Minister may describe the quota management system as a world leader—and I have heard others in this House and elsewhere say that it is—but the sad fact is that it is not. It fails us. If it could be the Fisheries Act should be based on the precautionary principle that if the sustainability of fish stocks in the wider marine ecosystem were paramount if customary and recreational interests came before commercial interests and if the Minister mandated best practice fishing and by-catch avoidance methods then perhaps we could say that the quota management system works and is a world leader. 
The fish in New Zealand waters are a natural resource that belongs to all New Zealanders yet since 1992 the commercial fishing industry has been able to catch them for free provided that they own the right to do so. The public of New Zealand get no right in return for the use of this resource. If the commercial fishing industry for example were required to pay resource rentals for the fish that it profits from then again our fisheries management would be better and fairer for the people of the country and perhaps would lead to a more sustainable process than what we currently have. When total allowable catches are based on treating the biomass maximum sustainable yield as targets to be reached fishers regularly overfish the stocks. The biomass maximum sustainable yield should be treated as an absolute maximum in setting the total allowable catches and not as a target. The concern here of course is about the extraction of the fish from New Zealand’s oceans the unsustainability of the fisheries industry and its failure to address the problem of extraction and the problem of the reduction in fish stocks that are available to it. 
Earlier I mentioned the Japanese research on squid. While we are dealing with concerns around extraction other impacts are happening in our oceans that are also reducing our fish stocks and putting our fisheries under threat. One of those concerns is climate change and its impacts on the ocean in terms of ocean acidification where the ocean is absorbing more and more carbon from the atmosphere causing a chain reaction that leads to less and less calcium carbonate being available in the ocean for various species to use. 
Some of that Japanese research has shown that squid lose their metabolic function in highly acidic ocean environments. New Zealand has a significant investment in the squid fishery—so significant in fact that we regularly see the absolutely protected Hooker’s sea lion caught as by-catch with very little consequence because the squid fishery is so important. That squid fishery is at risk of the impacts of climate change yet there is no interest from this Government or the industry itself—especially the big players in the industry—in trying to make sure the industry deals with the extractive damage it causes to the fishery stock the environmental damage that it does to the ocean floor in particular through bottom trawling or in managing the inevitable change and shift in species dominance that will occur as a result of the environmental effects of climate change that are happening before our very eyes. 
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is suggesting that in 30 years we could have a serious impact on the kina population as a result of ocean acidification. This is extremely serious yet there is no interest in trying to protect that fishery for those people who rely on it for an income or for the communities that rely on it for sustenance. At heart this issue is about food security. It is about making sure our people—Maori who have been able to do so for 1000 years; and Pakeha who have been doing so for 200 years—can go down to the ocean and be able to feed themselves and their families from the bounty available to us. Money does not grow on trees but food does. Food grows on the trees it swims in our creeks and it lives in our oceans and it should be available to all our communities so they can provide for themselves and their families. When extractive industries like the fishing industry fail to provide research and support and fail to take action to make sure that fisheries remain sustainable what we have is a theft of food from the mouths of our children. That is what is happening when we fail to include proper precautionary principles in something like the fisheries legislation. 
The Green Party supports the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) with some reluctance. The bill is a watered down version of an original bill that failed to get through the House because a number of parties and members of this House refused to accept and allow for the inclusion in our fisheries legislation of a precautionary principle such that sustainability of our fisheries resource for our whanau would be the predominant concern. Those members should be ashamed of that failure to support that original legislation because they are part of the process of theft from the mouths of our children. 
What we need in this country and what we need particularly for our fisheries is good strong legislation that puts the sustainability of the fish stock right at the heart of the fisheries legislation. We need legislation that makes sure our industries are secure and able to deal with the changes in fish stocks that are inevitably occurring but that also prioritises above the commercial catch the rights of our communities through recreational fishing and particularly—particularly—through customary fishing whereby we are able to feed our families and ourselves from that resource. This bill is clearly an attempt by the Government to get some movement so we will support it on that basis but it is a poor attempt and we look forward to much better support perhaps some time in the future. Kia ora. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Pita Paraone I say to members that I was rather embarrassed during the previous speech as at least three conversations were going on. I could hear the conversations from the Chair. I know that conversations need to occur in the House but sustained conversations for a long time and in a loud voice are not fair to other members.