| |
Smokescreen
Covers Cracks in Amendment Bill
by
the option4 team
September 2008
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
This article was originally
written for the New Zealand Fishing News October 2008 edition.
| |
Objections
from non-commercial fishing interest groups have failed
to convince the Primary Production Committee that proposed
changes to fisheries legislation:
|
are detrimental to sustainable
management; |
|
could leave future Ministers open
to legal challenge; and |
|
appear as a smokescreen hiding an
intention to increase commercial take. |
|
| Select
Committee |
In
late August 2008 the Select Committee made its recommendations
to Parliament on the proposed Fisheries Act Amendment Bill,
with no significant changes to the draft. The Bill could be
passed into law by mid-September.
Representatives of amateur, customary and environmental interests
from option4, the Hokianga Accord and the NZ Big Game Fishing
Council are demanding a more democratic process before any
legislative changes are made that could deplete inshore fisheries
further and affect people’s ability to fish for food.
|
Concerns
about process and sustainability
|
Major concerns
surround the manner in which an exclusive group of industry,
Treasury and Ministry of Fisheries officials developed the
amendment. Amateur, customary and environmental interests
were not invited to participate in the development of the
Bill and to debate the relevant sustainability issues.
Richard Baker, President of the NZ Big Game Fishing Council
is concerned that the sustainability threshold will be lowered
which will lead to more fisheries declines.
“Fisheries
management is littered with examples of devastated fish
stocks because of poor information. It is ludicrous to suggest
the Select Committee could have considered all the consequences
of this law change in just four weeks. Fisheries legislation
is complex. Time is needed to review the proposals and allow
people to have adequate input.”
|
Ngapuhi’s
non-commercial fisheries spokesperson on the Hokianga Accord,
Paul Haddon, also questions the rushed changes and the motives
of the people promoting the Bill.
“If
the Bill is just a ‘technical’ change then you
have to ask why both Maori and non-Maori are being excluded
from participation and input in the process. Is it because
industry and Ministry want to make sure they protect themselves
from a public backlash?”
|
If the intention
is to make the current purpose of the Fisheries Act subordinate
to the objective of achieving maximum yield, then this carries
other risks. A shift from managing fisheries to enable people
to provide for their wellbeing to a goal of achieving a
single biological objective is a huge shift in legal obligation.
Scott Macindoe, spokesperson for option4, has additional
concerns.
“The Crown
has an obligation to maintain our fisheries for future
generations of New Zealanders. The proposed amendment
is at odds with Ministerial duty to protect our fisheries,
the environment and leave enough fish in the water for
our children’s children.
“Future Ministers could be vulnerable and under
constant pressure from commercial operators to set maximum
catch levels whilst going against the Crown’s statutory
obligation to manage fisheries by ensuring fish in sufficient
abundance to enable people to provide for their social
and cultural wellbeing.”
|
| |
Non-commercial representatives
are determined to work together to bring this important sustainability
issue out in the open for discussion and uncover the façade
that is being used to cover the cracks in this fisheries debate. |
| |
| If you value the work option4
is doing please use the secure online facility available
here and invest in your fishing future. |
|
Back
to Updates Index page here >> >>
TOP |
