Feedback
to Ministry Policy Proposals at MCG
option4
June
2001
Printable full text in a 47 page
document in pdf format (131 Kb)  |
Get Acrobat reader here »
»  |
5/6/01
The Minister of Fisheries
Dear Minister
We value this opportunity to offer you advice on the Ministries
"Draft Working Papers for Recreational Fishing Reform"
and provide you with feedback.
We believe that our next meeting with you will be a critical step
in the process, and feel it is very important that you read our
feedback prior to the meeting with you in Wellington on 10/7/01.
A 2 hour meeting without you having read our feedback would diminish
the value of the process you have requested and not allow invitees
to address the very significant issues at hand.
We enclose our response, by email and we would respectfully ask
that you read it over the weekend. We realise that your time is
precious and your workload immense. To simplify this we have commented
in italics. If you are unable to review our document we would rather
that the next MCG is rescheduled to allow you the time to become
conversant with our thinking. We have consulted with 23 recreational
leaders, many from outside option4, in the process of developing
this response to ensure it covers a broad range of views.
We seriously question the adequacy of the Public Consultation phase
of the Soundings process and we are far from confident of the veracity
of the analysis of submissions received from the public. An independent
review undertaken by the NZRFC also agrees that the submission analysis
is seriously flawed.
Put simply Minister, the recommendations put forward to the Ministry
from the Joint Working Group do not reflect the statements of the
vast majority of the public who made submissions to the Soundings
public consultation. There is strong evidence of pre determination
in the whole process, which we believe you should be made aware
of.
We believe the "Draft Working Papers for Recreational Fishing
Reform" are biased by these errors and consequently ignore
the overwhelming majority of what the public submissions said. In
fact, we would go so far as to say that the Working Papers we have
been considering are not a reflection of the Public Consultation
but are in fact an agenda of what Ministry wants in terms of recreational
reforms regardless of the public view.
We remain clear - the public desires a Priority right over commercial
fishing, clearly defined in legislation. Having established that,
then and only then does the public want to truly commit to further
involvement in the management of its precious, inshore, shared fisheries.
Kim Walshe
Scott Macindoe
Paul Barnes
TOP
|
