The Minister of Conservation has justified allowing commercial fishing to continue in the Hauraki Gulf, saying those vessels will provide a source of affordable fish for poor South Aucklanders.
That’s been met with heavy criticism, particularly Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki, whose island, Motutapu is one of two areas where fishing will be permitted for the latest bill.
“To claim that this decision has been made in response to the impact of cost-of-living increases for Māori and Pacific whānau and then specifically for South Auckland as a justification for allowing commercial enterprise in this area, it’s weak,” Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki te kaiurungi chief executive Jada MacFie says.
“And it’s the first we’ve heard of that so I would hope that that claim can be backed up by the MPI’s fish serve data,” MacFie says.
Potaka’s office has said communities in South Auckland are why commercial fishing will be allowed in the two high protected areas, saying this will help people facing the cost-of-living, ability to access fish and affordable prices. But iwi and advocacy groups say it just doesn’t stack up.
“If feeding South Auckland is a priority, there are plenty of alternative ways to do it other than having to fish inside a high protected area,” says Sam Woolwort of Legasea.
And Woolwort knows this firsthand, as Legasea is part of the Kai Ika project, an initiative that has been feeding South Auckland marae and communities for almost 10 years using the already-caught fish by fishing operators, collecting their unwanted fish heads, frames and offal.
Woolwort finds the proposal to allow ring-net fishing within two high-protection areas of Kawau Bay, Rangitoto, and Motutapu absurd.
“Fishing inside a high protection area just doesn’t really make sense to me. Why? Why would you take the one area where there is gonna be some regulation and de-regulate it? It’s bewildering,” says Woolwort.
Commercial fishing was banned in the original Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana Protection bill proposed by the previous government but the coalition government controversially added it to the bill this week.
And Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is among many other mana whenua groups unhappy about the amendment. But to find out about the amendment in the news after years and years of advocacy for change was most upsetting.
“Honestly, it was a shock and it was a blow,” MacFie. says.
”That has never been part of the conversations with ‘Tai Timu Tai Pari’ which was the Sea Change change plan in our conversations with the associated ministries around what the implementation of the proposed bill would look like.”
“At no point has there been any conversations about commercial interests and, if anything, I would say the majority of stakeholders and feedback in this area all agree that that area needed protecting for the benefit of the rest of the area,” says MacFie.
WWF-New Zealand chief executive Kayla Kingdon-Bebb asys the main problem with this amendment is that if there’s commercial fishing in a high protected area, it’s not a high protected area.
Giving exclusivity to about five commercial operators in the two high protected areas for migratory fish is also considered wrong. These fish could easily be caught in areas where there are no conservation issues, critics say.
Exclusivity to five commercial operators wrong.
Kingdon-Bebb says the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has a lot to answer for.
“There will always be a commercial fisher somewhere who can make a case for a special exemption from marine protection proposals and Shane Jones knows this too. Our strong suspicion is that the minister cares much more about the precedent value of this concession to fishers than he does about the particular circumstance of the handful of ring-netters who are going to be permitted to fish where no one else is allowed.”
MacFie says, “We don’t know who these entities are that have been allowed in.”
“It’s the first that we’ve heard of ring-net fishing needing to be specifically in that area, we’ve not seen them before and the claim that this is really the only place that they’re going to be able to pursue the fishing of migratory breeds. Grey mullet and kahawai and spotted dogfish, they can be found anywhere and everywhere so it’s a really weak claim to make,” says MacFie.
According to the Minister’s Office, “Operators currently take a total of around 18 tonnes of kahawai, grey mullet, parore, and trevally from these areas annually. The proposal would be limited to these operators and would not allow for new entrants in the fishery.”
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka told Te Ao Māori News “The particular fishes that we’ve been describing over the last couple of days have a very, very narrow band or amount of commercial catch available to them for the specific four species that we have referred to over the last couple of days to be fished in the relevant fisheries management areas.”
The mnister’s office says, about five commercial operators will be allowed to continue ring-net fishing not dredging and that the existing commercial operators will use small vessels less than 6 metres in length and will operate within the two high protection areas between March and August. These HPAs are Kawau Bay, Rangitoto and Motutapu. “These total about 50 square kilometres in size – that’s only about three per cent of the total 1500 square kilometres of High Protection Area.”
According to the minister’s office, ring-netting is “a method that has very little impact on the environment beyond the target species removed. Ring-netting operates from small vessels and involves deploying a net to target an identified aggregation of target species.”
For additional coverage on this issue, see the following articles:
Using the poor to justify commercial fishers in the Hauraki Gulf HPA’s, ‘Is weak’, says iwi leader. (aired 16.10.24)
Potaka undeterred by criticism impact commercial fishing may have in Hauraki Gulf (aired 15.10.2024)
Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana bill amendments a slap in the face for mana whenua and advocate groups (aired 14.10.2024)