their arrogance deserve your vote?
your submission - they cannot ignore your vote.
The Soundings process, the public consultation and the Ministerial
Consultative Group (MCG) that followed has now been exposed for
what it was - a farce. The trust option4 and its supporters placed
in the Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson was misplaced.
option4 is utterly
convinced the whole process had nothing to do with redefining the
publics right to fish. Rather it has been a Ministry of Fisheries
ploy designed only to cap or reduce the recreational harvest and
avoid compensation issues for the crown.
is appalled at the arrogant attitude and lack of commitment from
Pete Hodgson, which ignores the 61,000+ people who submitted in
good faith to the Soundings process. Remember, the stated objective
of the Soundings process was to find out how the people wanted their
fisheries managed. The public spoke loud and clear - yet again the
government has ignored them. To add insult to injury the Ministry
of Fisheries continued to slavishly promote its privatization agenda
at the MCG as its only option.
believe that the threat to your right to fish remains and that this
government, if re-elected, will legislate against our interests
and continue to legislate in favour of the commercial sector.
Not only did they ignore the submissions from the public, they continue
to ignore their own policy on the fishery - Moyle's Promise. Those
driving option4 believed the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries
acknowledged Moyle's Promise as being the basis for ongoing discussion.
The promise reads "Government's position is clear, where a
species of fish is not sufficiently abundant to support both commercial
and non-commercial fishing, preference will be given to non-commercial
fishing" Where is this promised "preference" reflected
in reform initiatives now, was it only words?
Even the current Fisheries Act 1996 supports this preference. Section
21 of the Act states. "In setting or varying any total allowable
commercial catch for any quota management stock, the Minister shall
have regard to the total allowable catch for that stock and shall
allow for the following non-commercial fishing interests in that
stock, namely (i) Maori customary non-commercial fishing interests;
and (ii) Recreational interests." The government cannot continue
to ignore the letter of the law regarding our basic right to fish
for food, and expect the public to vote for them.
When the courts looked at the Minister's responsibilities regarding
recreational fishing High Court judge Justice McGechan ruled "If
over time a greater recreational demand arises it would be strange
if the Minister was precluded by some proportional rule from giving
some extra allowance to cover it
"- To option4 this is
acknowledgement by the courts that the Minister should be allowing
for our interests instead of simply trying to sidestep the allocation
issue to avoid being challenged by the commercial fishing industry.
In short, it appears the government is trying to escape from or
even deny it's responsibility to ensure the correct allocation is
set aside first for non-commercial fishers before it sets the Total
Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC). After all is said and done, the
inshore fisheries belong to the people of this country. The part
of the fishery that is for commercial harvest and sale (primarily
export) is only what we, the non-commercial sector, do not take
to feed ourselves.
has tried to bully the public into accepting the leftovers from
the Quota Management System and accepting a proportional share.
When this system was established in 1986 the public were not adequately
consulted and all non-commercial interests were ignored. Maori recognised
this and went to court to challenge the government's position. The
courts recognised the disparity and allocated strong priority rights
to Customary Maori, which have now been recognized in legislation.
sustainable non-commercial fisheries now and in to the future is
paramount. Don't forget, the option4 Principle "The ability
to devise plans to ensure future generations enjoy the same or better
quality of rights while preventing fish conserved for recreational
use being given to the commercial sector." How can this essential
style of management be achieved without defining the nature of our
individual rights and how they relate to other users rights?
Soundings process was not about giving us anything; it was about
taking our rights away, weakening them in order to complete the
property rights based Quota Management System dumped on us in 1986.
party policy statements
option4 is following every statement made by all of the political
parties seeking your vote in the July election. option4 will be
emailing you with the respective party policies as they come to
NOW IT IS
YOUR CHANCE TO ACT
Remember: the four principles of option4 are
- A priority right over commercial fishers for free access to
a reasonable daily bag-limit to be written into legislation.
- The ability
to exclude commercial methods that deplete recreationally important
- The ability
to devise plans to ensure future generations enjoy the same or
better quality of rights while preventing fish conserved for recreational
use being given to the commercial sector.
- No licensing
of recreational fishers.