Kerre Woodham: The Fisheries Amendment Bill – time to go back to the drawing board?

I doubt there'll be many people out on the water —certainly not in the upper North Island on the East Coast— but the next time you go out, let me know what the catch is like. The Government's done a U-turn on minimum size limits for commercial fishers, but that's not enough for fishing advocacy groups. They want the Government to kill the Fisheries Amendment Bill entirely. They say it's not doing enough to protect our fish stocks. Meanwhile, Seafood New Zealand says it's ironic that the change has resulted in an outcome that's not great for the environment and doesn't provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish. So when the advocacy groups and the commercial fishers are not happy, you'd have to wonder at the point of the bill.  

The Fisheries Amendment Bill as drafted would have ditched most commercial size limits, effectively allowing commercial vessels to land and sell baby fish if they can, including snapper and tarakihi. Recreational fishers said this is madness, the changes would decimate future populations. Other people say, well, it's a bit more complicated than that. Catching the big fish, they're the ones that have the babies. So nobody's happy. Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has argued that the change would prevent wastage, but after public outcry was forced into a major U-turn over his plans. He says, hey ho, it's democracy in action and isn't that good to see. But still, no one is happy. Sam Woolford from LegaSea told Mike Hosking this morning that the fight is not over. 

“No, it's definitely not over and I think that's the really important thing is that there's actually some really nefarious stuff still in the legislation. They want to remove judicial reviews or make it really hard for public to get involved in public consultation. They're still going to legalize dumping and discarding of fish at sea. So even if they catch those undersized fish, they're still going to be legally allowed to dump them.” 

Well, quite. Seafood New Zealand Chief Executive Lisa Futschek told Radio New Zealand she was disappointed because the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishers to avoid catching small fish. She says we don't want to catch small fish. Our processors don't want to process small fish. This proposal would have provided incentives not to catch small fish. She said the change would have meant those catching small fish would have needed to balance that fish against their quotas. They would have had to pay for it. As it turns out, removing that clause means the status quo remains. That is, fishers that catch small fish return them to the sea and don't pay for it.  

So is it time to go back to the drawing board? If everyone thinks the bill is a dog and isn't addressing the real issues, everybody within their own particular lobby group or advocacy group is saying no, it doesn't address the issues. The environmental groups, the commercial fishers, the recreational fishers, maybe it's time to tear it up and start again. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from news Talks, he'd.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Be I doubt there. We many people out on the water,
certainly an Upa North Island on the East coast are
But the next time you go out, let me know
what the catch is like. The government's done a u
turn on minimum size limits for commercial fishes, but that's

(00:30):
not enough for fishing advocacy groups. They want the government
to kill the Fisheries Amendment Bill entirely. They say it's
not doing enough to protect our fish stocks. Meanwhile, Seafood
New Zealand says it's ironic that the change has resulted
in an outcome that's not great for the environment and
doesn't provide the incentive to avoid catching small fish. So

(00:54):
when you've got the adversity groups and the commercial fish
is not happy, you'd have to wonder at the point
of the bill. The Fishery's Amendment Bill, as drafted, would
have ditched most commercial size limitstively allowing commercial vessels to
land and sell baby fish if they can, including snapper
and terokee. Recreational fishes said this is madness. The changes

(01:17):
will decimate future populations. Other people say, well, it's a
bit more complicated than that. Catching the big fish. They're
the ones that have the babies, so nobody's happy. Fisheries
Minister Shane Jones has argued that the change would prevent wastage,
but after public outcry was forced into a major u

(01:39):
tune over his plans, he says, hey, ho, it's democracy
in action and isn't that good to see? But still
no when is happy. Sam Wilford from Legacy tod the
My Costing Breakfast this morning that the fight is not over.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
No, it's definitely not over. And I think that's a
really important thing is that there's actually some really nefarious
stuff still in the legislation. They will to remove judicial reviews,
will make it really hard for public to get involved
in public consultation. They still going to legalize jumping and
discarding a fish at sea, so even if they catch
those other sized fish, they're still going to be legally
allowed to dump them.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Well quite Seaford New Seafood to New Zealand chief executive
Lisa Footzchek told Rady New Zealand she was disappointed because
the proposal would have strengthened the incentives for commercial fishes
to avoid catching small fish. She says, we don't want
to catch small fish, our processes don't want to process
small fish. This proposal would have provided incentives not to

(02:30):
catch small fish. She said. The change would have meant
those catching small fish would have needed to balance that
fish against their quotas they would have had to pay
for it. As it turns out, removing that clause means
the status quo remains. That is, fishes that catch small
fish return them to the sea and don't pay for it.

(02:51):
So is it time to go back to the drawing board.
If everyone thinks the bill is a dog and isn't
addressing the real issues, everybody within their own particular lobby
group or adversy group is saying no, it doesn't. It
doesn't address the issues the environmental groups, the commercial fishes,
the recreational fishes. Maybe it's time to tear it up

(03:11):
and start again.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks at b from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.