25 May 2001
Minister of Fisheries
Pete Hodgson
Parliament Building
Wellington

Dear Minister,

Thank you for your recent letter.

Upon reflection, I can understand how you may have been disappointed by the tenor of my letter dated 24 May 2001. I was trying to reflect the views of our members after they were informed that they the role of the MAG was as "sounding board" for MFish ideas. We had hoped for more.

I also take your point that many of the detailed issues about the Soundings process raised in it should be taken up directly with Mfish.

I will attempt to explain the reasons I raised those issues with you directly before discussing nominations to the Ministerial Advisory Group in the hope that it will provide you with a clearer picture of where we are coming from.

There are two important points to make about our exchange of letters. First, the underlying message in my letter of 24 May was an attempt to convey to you the mistrust that the recreational fishing public has about Mfish. Option4 representatives, who attended almost all the North Island public meetings, experienced at first hand the deep-seated level of mistrust and near contempt of Mfish. They listened to nonstop negative comments about the apparent favouritism which officials of the Ministry show toward the fishing industry. Those sentiments were expressed loud and clear at every meeting attended by option4 representatives. It is a pity you were not able to attend some of the meetings to observe this personally.

Much of what was said related to the bad old days with MAF. One of the main insights option4 gained from attending so many Soundings meetings was that the recreational fishing public believes that Mfish is only interested in managing the commercial fishery and has no real understanding of recreational fishing values and issues. The public need more assurance than they received in the Soundings document that Mfish is acting in their best interest.

Because of that, option4 believes that, if the MAG is to be successful, you as Minister of Fisheries should become actively involved as chairman at most of the meetings. While we recognise you are a very busy man, we look to you to see fair play. If you are not in the chair, we fear that Mfish will inevitably try to bulldoze a preconceived agenda through the MAG process. You may be interested to know that much of the Soundings process was conducted that way and admitted to us just after you left our last meeting. Members of the Rights Working Group also continue to complain bitterly about Mfish ignoring or misreporting their input during the process that formed the Soundings document.

We believe that past wrongs must first be righted and, equally importantly, prevented from happening again.

Our second point relates to a statement in your previous letter in which you said that you have no intention of re-litigating the past, but would rather focus on defining the future of recreational fishing.

We appreciate your feelings and support your desire, but you should understand the apparent paradox that, for recreational fishers, the past is the single most important factor for the future of recreational fishing. That is because recreational anglers cannot forget how the fishing industry was allowed to successively rape New Zealand's inshore fisheries. First, it was pair trawlers thrashing the snapper in the Hauraki Gulf, Bay of Plenty and the West Coast in the 70s and 80s. The snapper stocks at the top of the South Island were similarly devastated to near collapse. Then the purse seiners took our trevally. The gill-netters cleaned up the kingfish and made a mess of the reef fish in the 70s, and continue to do so today. The purse seiners then devastated the kahawai fishery in the 80s. Now the surface longliners are destroying the swordfish stocks as I write, all done with the apparent blessing of Mfish.

The point is that commercial overfishing has demoralised and disenchanted the public, while the quota system has completely failed to restore the inshore fisheries to the way they were before the commercial fish downs. Then fisheries were in balance and people could expect to catch a bag of fish. Now 50% of boats return to the ramps with a zero catch.

While the quota system has made the big fishing companies rich, the public are sceptical of its ability to deliver a workable and fair management system for recreational fisheries. It was so obvious during the Soundings process how people have remembered all these wrongs from the past. There is deep-seated anger out there. The public simply will not blindly accept any recreational reforms until the wrongs of the past are righted.

On the matter of the MAG: we are pleased to offer five nominations. These are made on the understanding that the contributions of these participants are not to be construed as being representative of the option4 position, or considered to constitute formal consultation with option4.

Members will participate on the understanding they are acting as individuals and as a sounding board for Mfish policy development.

Option4 will not be bound by any agreement or findings of this group.

We assume that the MAG will have up to 10 members. Given that option4 represents the views of 70,000 people, we would expect to have at least four people on the MAG.

We assume that Mfish will pay all airfares, accommodation and meal costs, and the standard rate for consultants.

MAG Nominations
Kim Walshe
Paul Barnes
Scott Macindoe
Tony Orman
Grant Dixon

We also consider it important that the MAG is comprised of recreational fishing people with no conflict of interest with other stakeholder groups. Recreational MAG members should not wear a customary Maori hat, environmental hat or commercial hat.

Again, I stress that if the MAG is to be successful you will have to be closely involved to referee the debates that will take place.

In addition, we do not expect Mfish to try to put a gagging order on the MAG. New Zealand's fisheries are a public resource, and the public have a right to know what is going on. We will be talking about fish, not top-secret matters of state. Our people should be able to talk freely both inside and outside the MAG.

A final point is that we would like to have an idea of the agenda for the MAG, though perhaps that can be left until the first meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Barnes
Project Leader
Option4