Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn)to theMinister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his public statement yesterday that the Snapper 1 Policy proposals are not “too controversial”?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes in the context in which it was given. There is nothing controversial about ensuring the sustainability of our most valuable inshore fishery. I do acknowledge that some aspects—in particular the option to reduce the bag limit to three—are controversial. But that is why I have publicly stated that that option is unlikely to proceed and why I will be taking any decision I make to Cabinet.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer would the Minister like to tell the House how many emails and submissions he and his office have received to the nearest 10000 and say why he is not listening to either them or the thousands of angryfishoswho have turned up in places like Tauranga Thames HamiltonWhakatāne Kaikohe Whangarei Warkworth North Shore Bucklands Beach—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think we have all got the gist of the question.Hon NATHAN GUY: I am listening. That is why on Friday when the consultation period closes my officials will be summarising all the submissions with some advice and then I will make a decision.David Bennett: What comments has the Minister seen on Snapper 1 policy proposals?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have seen a range of comments on this consultation proposal including: “I congratulate the Government for running their policy on this as well as putting out a review.” That comment was from David Shearer last night at a public meeting in Auckland. I thank Mr Shearer for acknowledging the process that the Government is going through.Hon David Cunliffe: In seeking to hide behind the argument that he has not yet made final decisions is he aware of section—[Interruption ] Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member again ask the question without the inference at the start.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister is using the defence that he has not yet made final decisions is he aware that paragraph 5.12(f) of theCabinet Manual requires that all discussion documents must be taken to Cabinet prior to their release or consultation or does he think that John Key his Cabinet colleagues and backbenchers like Scott Simpson David Bennett—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! The question is substantially too long. It has now been given and can be answered by the Minister.Hon NATHAN GUY: No decisions have been made.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not begun to address the question which was—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: I have not made the point of order yet with respect—Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If the member wants a specific answer then he can go to his office and do a far better job at drafting a question than he did on that occasion.Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia oratātou. Has the Minister investigated the impact of the various options on Māori families in area 1 whose traditional lifestyles are sustained by the fish they catch as recreational fishers; if not why not given that the seminal Treaty fisheries claims and the Sealord deal resulted from a previous Government’s failure to consider the impacts of the fisheries management changes with the introduction of the quota management system on Māori fishers in that same area?Hon NATHAN GUY: I can assure the member I will be taking into account the impact of any decision that I make on families in the particular area including the impact on Māori families. The member makes a very good point about ensuring that those whose lifestyle depends on catching fish can continue to do so for generations to come. This is what the consultation is all about.Brendan Horan: In considering the Snapper 1 proposals has the Minister consulted with the Māori Council; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: I specifically have not consulted with the Māori Council but I cannot answer whom my officials have consulted with.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked “if not why not?”.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I think the question has been adequately answered. The Minister said he has not but he was not sure whether his officials had done so. Clearly he is saying he did not think it was at his ministerial level.Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he not consult Cabinet when theCabinet Manual required him to under paragraphs 5.12(a) 5.12(b) and 5.12(f) which include for discussion documents on any matter that is significant or controversial?Hon NATHAN GUY: It is important for the member to realise that this is just one fishery stock assessment of 17 that are out for consultation at the moment. In the last decade under the Labour Government as well there have been on average 20-odd fishery stock consultation documents a year that have been released. These are very technical and routine and I would be very surprised if many of those went through Cabinet.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table theCabinet Manual 2008 —Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] TheCabinet Manual is available and has been well referenced.Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question. [Interruption ] Order! Is there a further point of order coming from the member?Hon David Cunliffe: Yes. I seek leave to table a series of transcripts of interviews with National MPs including—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] They will all be freely available to members if they wish to go and search for them.Brendan Horan: In considering the Snapper 1 proposals what is the cost-benefit value of recreational fishing to the New Zealand economy including cars boats trailers tourism bait tackle accommodation food drink and all associated economic activity and jobs?Hon NATHAN GUY: I do not know that that evidence has been provided to me right down to the level of cans of Coke and packets of chippies but what I can say is that when it was last looked at the estimated value of recreational to commercial was very similar.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask what it was compared with commercial—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. That question was addressed satisfactorily. If the member is not happy with the answer that is his problem.