Olympian Blair Tuke calls on government to scrap Fisheries legislation

Source: Radio New Zealand

America’s Cup winner and Olympic gold medallist Blair Tuke says the government should scrap its Fisheries legislation.

Tuke was speaking to the Primary Production select committee on behalf of the Live Ocean Foundation alongside ultramarathon swimmer Jono Ridler in response to the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

The bill makes changes to catch limits and the handling of on-boat monitoring footage with the aim of growing exports.

Several environmental groups have called for the bill to be stopped, while fishing companies say it helps modernise a system that has worked well for New Zealand for decades.

Tuke said New Zealand was responsible for the fourth-largest ocean space in the world, but the legislation would further entrench bottom trawling and fail to protect habitats – many of which could take centuries to recover.

“For a country surrounded by the moana, when it comes to ocean stewardship we are not leading – in fact, if it was sport, I would say we don’t even rank.”

Ridler said that while the bill did not specifically promote bottom trawling, the amendments “in aggregate prioritise short-term, bulk harvesting over broader ecosystem impacts”.

“It prioritises economic gain and bulk harvesting, including bottom trawling, while reducing safeguards to protect the environment. This increases the pressure on at-risk species and vulnerable habitats.”

He said their second concern was a weakening of environmental safeguards.

Fishing company opposes public access to boat footage

Moana New Zealand general manager Mark Ngata said New Zealand’s largest Māori-owned seafood company would be open to having an independent officer of Parliament review boat footage, but it should not be made public.

He said the company had begun using on-boat cameras eight years before it became mandatory, and having the ministry check footage was “more than sufficient”.

“We have always had the view of transparency, but also collecting information, otherwise you can’t make good decisions on what’s happening out there … it’s very important to maintain the privacy of our fishermen.

“We believe that having an organisation like the ministry out there that’s that watchdog, if you like, we think that’s more than sufficient.”

When questioned by New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson about whether an independent officer of Parliament could do that job instead, he said “trust comes from working together and solving problems … something like that could be considered”.

Overall, he said the bill was an important step for modernising fisheries management, improving responsiveness, efficiency, and certainty.

“We consider the bill to be a natural evolution of the quota management system reflecting advances in monitoring, reporting, and data availability.”

Canterbury council fears for biodiversity

Speaking for Canterbury Regional Council, councillor Genevieve Robinson said it had “serious concerns” that the proposed law risked undermining the council’s ability to meet its obligations to protect biodiversity and threatened species.

“Canterbury has the largest coastal marine area jurisdiction of any regional council in this country. More than 40 percent of our jurisdiction is coastal marine area, and that includes nationally significant ecosystems.”

“Several aspects of this bill move fisheries management away from ecosystem-based management. In particular, the council is concerned about the narrowing of the total allowable catch considerations, the reduced transparency around the onboard cameras, and the increased flexibility around annual catch entitlement carrying forward.”

She said catch limits should be set on an ecosystem-wide basis, and footage from fishing boats should be publicly accessible.

“This bill should not weaken its ecosystem safeguards, reduce transparency, or undermine our own regional councils’ ability to protect under the New Zealand coastal policy statement.”

A flotilla of crafts, from fishing boats and yachts to kayaks and stand up paddle boards, surrounding a floating ‘ban bottom trawling’ banner at Mission Bay in Auckland, New Zealand in a show of opposition to bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf marine park (file image).

Greenpeace

Speaking for Greenpeace, Ellie Hooper said the current balance of protection versus profit for New Zealand’s waters was “drastically off kilter” and extractive industry had been prioritised.

“It’s extremely clear that this bill, if it was passed, would take ocean policy in this country further in that wrong direction, prioritising extraction and removing the very few environmental checks and balances that exist in the Fisheries Act to stop further decline.”

She said the bill was “rotten and must be rejected in its entirety”.

“The idea that the minister would be able to disregard the environmental principles currently in the act as if fishing happens in a vacuum and doesn’t have an impact on other species or habitats is kind of non-sensical to us.”

She said they opposed the introduction of five-year catch limits, shortened judicial review timeframes, and exemptions for fishing camera footage from the Official Information Act.

“We note the issues with privacy from the industry, but there is surely a way that we can rectify this with blurring all the releases of segments of footage. This industry does have a large impact on the ocean environment, and locking up that footage from public view is not going to rebuild trust in the commercial sector’s activities.”

“Having a fine that could potentially be five times higher for somebody releasing evidence of environmental damage versus someone who actually did that damage in the first place, we think is pretty egregious.”

Young Ocean Explorers

Steve Hathaway from marine educational charity Young Ocean Explorers said the waters around New Zealand once had abundant crayfish, snapper and other stocks – but things have changed.

“Our goal is to ensure we have a thriving ocean for future generations, and we’re on the coalface with Kiwi kids. We’ve personally given presentations to over 150,000 kids around Aotearoa and we’re hearing regularly that this generation of kids are really concerned about the planet and the ocean they’re inheriting.

“Most of New Zealand is actually ocean, about 93 percent of it, and it’s thought over 80 percent of our natives live there … a very old friend of mine told me that he wouldn’t stop to have a fish at 90-Mile Beach until he saw the ocean was pink, where he knew there’s enough snapper that he would get a good feed. These days are long gone.

“I’ve seen crayfish and scallops in abundance, and something we thought would never run out. They should be our God-given right as Kiwis to harvest, but now our Northlands were not allowed to take either of them, as numbers are so diminished. How has it been so poorly managed that it’s got to this place?”

He said New Zealand needed an ambitious goal for the future of its oceans.

‘Minor updates and modernisations’ – Fishing company

Fishing company Solander Group’s managing director Paul Hufflett said many of the other submitters were making “a lot of noise” and talking “off subject”.

“What we’re dealing with is effectively an update to a piece of legislation that has served New Zealand incredibly well for the better part of 30 years,” he said.

“Really we’re just talking about some relatively minor updates and modernisations of a robust piece of legislation that’s put New Zealand in an excellent position to go forward for another 30 years.”

He said they supported the minister having the power to make five-year Total Allowable Catch decisions, supported excluding boat footage from the OIA, opposed the 20-day time limit on judicial review, opposed the introduction of alternative deem values for inshore and deep water bycatch, and strongly supported allowing fish to be returned to sea.

Ngāti Porou settlement body was not consulted

Whangaokena ki Onepoto Takutai Kaitiaki Trust spokesperson Keryn Goldsmith said the trust was not consulted over the bill.

She said the Crown was obliged to engage with them on any Fisheries legislation that affects regulations in the area under their settlement.

“We’re not opposed to the fisheries reform, rather our submission supports improvements to the fisheries system, provided those changes operate consistently with the statutory and deed-based recognition arrangements already provided and agreed between Ngāti Porou and the Crown.”

She said the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act and the deed to amend the deed of agreement 2017 were binding on the Crown.

“They establish a bespoke framework that must be taken into account whenever fisheries decisions or decision making affects our Rohe Moana. Those obligations apply throughout the legislative development, not just at implementation, and they are not displaced by generic public consultation processes.

“As drafted, the bill would reduce scrutiny. It would compress participation time frames, concentrates discretion with decision makers, and limits accountability. Considered together, these changes risk narrowing the practical space in which hapū are able to exercise their authority and responsibilities that parliament has already recognised from a kaitiaki perspective.”

She said the Crown’s obligation was to engage with Ngāti Porou hapū on any amendment to fisheries legislation that affected the recognition and fisheries mechanisms.

“That consultation did not occur prior to the introduction of this bill. This is not merely a procedural irregularity, it is a breach of statutory and deed-based obligations owed to Ngāti Porou hapū. The Crown cannot meet those obligations by treating Hapu as one voice among many in a generic public submission process.”

Goldsmith said they did not oppose the reforms, but they must proceed in a way that honours existing commitments.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand