KEY POINTS:
There are plenty more fish in the sea - or so the saying goes. Unfortunately, for too long that is the attitude we have taken towards New Zealand's fisheries.
Most New Zealanders assume that fish caught in New Zealand waters must come from well-managed, healthy and abundant fisheries. But whether through the fishing methods used or the intensity of exploitation, many of our fisheries are far from sustainable.
Of New Zealand's 68 fisheries, 17 are over-fished or have substantially declining stocks. In 51 of them fishing practices damage marine habitats and non-target fish species are caught.
In 27 a significant number of seabirds are killed, and in 32 a significant number of marine mammals are killed.
Many of the species we know and love to eat - groper, oysters, most species of tuna, blue warehou, squid, hoki, orange roughy, snapper - are caught in fisheries that are simply not sustainable.
Our Fisheries Act 1996 is supposed to allow our $3.8 billion fishing industry to make use of fishing resources as much as possible while ensuring sustainability of those resources.
Unfortunately, in practice the Fisheries Act has been ineffective in ensuring that the sustainability side of that crucial balance is upheld.
In the decade since the Fisheries Act was introduced we have seen our two most significant fisheries go from bad to worse.
The majority of our orange roughy stocks continue to be significantly over-fished (several stocks have collapsed so far they are now closed) and in the past six years hoki catches have plummeted by 60 per cent, from more than 250,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes per year.
In many cases there is insufficient information because the research has not been done to determine with absolute certainty whether or not a fishery is sustainable.
It is internationally accepted that when information is uncertain the proper course of action in managing fisheries is to act cautiously.
As Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton told a seafood industry conference recently: "Fish left in the sea are fish in the bank. To keep on taking fish when you don't have a good idea of how many are left is, in my view, like robbing the bank."
The problem is that when Mr Anderton (and other Fisheries Ministers before him) have attempted to make decisions in favour of sustainability of fisheries in such situations, legal action by the fishing industry or even the mere threat of legal action forces them to back down.
For example, the minister was prevented from reducing the number of sea lions killed by trawl fisheries, reducing orange roughy quota to rebuild collapsed fish stocks, and implementing emergency measures to stop excessive by-catch of sea birds.
Earlier this year, the minister proposed a Fisheries Amendment Bill which would give decision-makers clearer directions to act more cautiously - and therefore in favour of sustainability - in situations where information is uncertain.
If amended in this way, the Fisheries Act would provide for environmental sustainability and the long-term future of our fisheries ahead of immediate and short-term economic gain.
However, the bill's chances of success are threatened by opposition from some in the commercial fishing industry and some of Mr Anderton's parliamentary colleagues.
Te Ohu Kai Moana (the Maori Fisheries Trust) called for the Government to withdraw the bill, with director Ngahiwi Tomoana claiming that it was to the detriment of Maori and the fishing industry and was not needed to ensure sustainability.
Labour's Maori MPs are also opposed to the bill. Most vocal among them is Shane Jones, who until recently was chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana.
In May Parliament's Primary Production Select Committee, which was due to report back on the bill by June 4, asked for a three-month extension because of concerns over a lack of consultation. After a meeting with Labour's Maori MPs, the Fisheries Minister agreed to allow extra time on the bill.
Opposition to the bill is short-sighted and threatens the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of our fisheries. To quote Anderton: "Why would anyone interested in the long-term vitality and growth of the fishing industry want to risk destroying the very resource it is based on?"
Or as he also put it: sometimes you need to sacrifice one fish today to catch 10 fish tomorrow.
A large number of fishers, community groups, conservation groups and political parties support the bill. Neither are all Maori opposed.
A number of groups, including Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi and mid-north iwi regional fisheries forum the Hokianga Accord, have spoken in favour of the bill and the precautionary approach it supports.
In Parliament, NZ First's Brian Donnelly, Labour's Ashraf Choudhary, the Green's Metiria Turei and National's Phil Heatley have also voiced support for the bill as a sensible rebalancing of use and sustainability under the Fisheries Act.
The bill received nearly unanimous support - 115 votes in favour at its first reading - but the rest of its journey through the parliamentary process may not run so smoothly.
The select committee will now report back to Parliament on the bill in August. Until then, no doubt, behind-the-scenes pressure by vested interests to drop the bill will continue. Let's hope they do not succeed - the future of our fisheries may depend on it.
* Kevin Hackwell is Forest & Bird's advocacy manager.
