Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15184] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It would be very nice to be able to support this amendment and curry favour with the recreational fishing lobby. We know that Outdoor Recreation NZ has thrown its weight behind United Future and is expecting results from them. We have seen Mr Baldock come to the first hurdle and fall and he will fall. He says there is no principle attached to this and that it does not really matter if we take some quota away from one entity and give it to another. He thinks that that is perfectly acceptable. If Mr Baldock has learnt anything in the House he surely must have learnt that the fishing industry is hugely litigious. That would happen at the first sign of the Minister overstepping his boundaries and taking from one and giving to another. Goodness knows we have just gone through the scampi inquiry over the past year or so on issues different but having some similarities in respect of inappropriate allocations. 
Mr Baldock was saying that purse-seine fishers go out there and grab their 3000 tonnes and they are destroying the fishery. But United Future does not seem to grasp the point that fishers can take only 3000 tonnes whether by the purse-seine method circling a huge school of fish and taking out 3000 tonnes in one fell swoop shall we say or over 10 or 20 attempts. It does not matter. The purse-seine fishers can do it one fish at a time if they wish. They are allowed only 3000 tonnes. Finish! End of story! That is it! I cannot understand why United Future does not seem to grasp that very simple point. 
I know that the recreational fishing lobby says those fishers are sending up spotter planes and grabbing all the fish out of the sea. But they are taking only the entitlement they are allowed under law. They are not taking any more or any less than that. So what does Mr Baldock not understand about that? It is quite simple. 
I am sure most members agree that clearly the fishery has to be managed and clearly the quota management system is far and away the best system. But things can go wrong when politicians climb into this debate and favour one section over another. This whole matter of kahawai—the “people’s fish” as it is called—could be solved relatively quickly. All the Government would have to do is approach the purse-seine fishers and buy their 3000 tonnes from them and give it to the recreational people if they so wish. But that is a matter for the Government. I cannot do it Mr Baldock cannot do it and the Opposition cannot do it. But the Minister can if he so chooses. 
That is a bit of a challenge to the Minister. If he really wants to ensure that kahawai remains the fish of the people then he will buy the allocation from those commercial purse-seine fishers if that is what is troubling him so very much. It is quite a simple concept a freely negotiated concept. He can do it if he chooses. That is the nub of the issue. 
I am told there is no sustainability issue around kahawai. I know that recreational fishers say that kahawai are nowhere as big as they used to be but that is the same whether it is deer or any other recreational resource. The same applies to trout in the streams. The days of getting the big ones are almost long gone because of fishing pressures. That is nothing new. But in this important recreational fishery we cannot have the situation whereby the Government steps in and creates new grievances amongst various fishers be they commercial or recreational. The rights of Maori fishers are recognised because they get 20 percent of everything that goes into the quota management system. The rights of the commercial guys are recognised but the real problem is that recreational fishers are not.