They ignored 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 and has overwhelming evidence to prove 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.

option4 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.

option4  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.

Moyle’s Promise

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?

Fisheries Act 1996

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. 

High Court Opinion

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.

The ministry 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.

Maintaining 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?

Remember, the 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.

Political party policy statements

option4 will be following every statement made by all of the political parties seeking your vote in the July election. As this Update goes to press (17/6/02) there is no policy statement from any party (other than the newly formed Outdoor Recreation Party) clearly endorsing the Principles of option4. Whilst we are aware that many individual MP’s are supportive of the option4 principles their opinions are, as yet, not reflected in their party manifestos. option4 will be posting on its website, option4.co.nz, all relevant information as it becomes available, right up to the day of the election. It is our intention to highlight positive policy and make recommendations as to where your vote will have the most impact. PLEASE, log on, confirm your support for option4 and be there to receive this information as it comes to hand. Join the many thousands who have already seen fit to actively stay informed. If enough stand together on this issue we will prevail.

Please cut out the attached letter and post it, Freepost, to a politician you feel will listen to your concerns. Remember, no stamp required when mailing MP’s c/o Parliament, Wellington. Feel free to copy this letter and send it to more than one politician. Try to get your friends to send a copy to their MP as well.

The four principles of option4 are ­
1. A priority right over commercial fishers for free access to a reasonable daily bag-limit to be written into legislation.
2. The ability to exclude commercial methods that deplete recreationally important areas
3. 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.

4. No licensing of recreational fishers.