Grandad's fear: No fish `because we sold them'

Paul Haddon fears his mokopuna may one day ask: "Grandad, how come there are no fish?"
The 68-year-old from the Utakura Valley said he would have to reply: "We sold them for money."
Mr Haddon is a Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi representative on the Hokianga Accord, an alliance of Maori and Pakeha traditional, recreational and sport fishing interests supporting the controversial Fisheries Amendment Bill, now on hold for three months while fishing sustainability issues it covers are thrashed out.
Mr Haddon said measures to ensure fish stocks were kept at sustainable levels were essential.
"Food on the table for the whanau and our mokopuna must take priority over commercial interests," he said.
Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton agreed to put brakes on the bill this week after Labour's eight-member Maori caucus told him of iwi concerns the proposed legislation could unnecessarily slash their commercial fishing income.
Northland Labour list MP Shane Jones, who stood down recently after six years as chairman of the Maori Fisheries Commission and was Sealord's chairman from 2000-04, said the iwi concerns stemmed from uncertainty over the amendment's intention to increase ministerial ability to trim fish quotas to ensure sustainability.
The 10 percent of the fishing industry worth about $150million received by Maori in the fisheries settlement of 1989-90 had since grown to a 50 percent share with a market value of about $1billion, Mr Jones said. Vast sums of money were at stake when the Government - acting on "expert" advice - annually stipulated the amount of fish available for commercial and other purposes.
Fishing industry members knew that if there were no fish in the sea their quotas were worthless. The need for sustainable fisheries management was accepted, Mr Jones said.
If iwi now felt their fish quotas were set at indefensible levels they could question the limits in court.
But court rulings on kahawai last year favouring recreational fishers and a decision stopping a company's orange roughy limit had alarmed some industry participants. The value of advice to the minister was being questioned and there were concerns bureaucrats could make decisions with inferior information.
"The fear in the Maori caucus is that the increased bureaucratic powers envisaged in the amendment would not be equalled by accountability in the courts," Mr Jones said.
Some iwi had told the Primary Producers Select Committee now considering the amendment the proposed legislation could lead to their fisheries income being cut by up to 30 percent.
"I don't know if that's right. The bill has been parked up for three months so these concerns can be sorted out," Mr Jones said.