I wish to address the amendment moved by Larry Baldock on the question of kahawhai. I agree with the substance of what he said about the kahawhai fishery. It has been Green policy for many years that kahawhai should be managed as a recreational-only species, because it has so much greater value as a recreational species than it does as bait, which is what much of the commercial catch is used for. There should, however, be just enough commercial quota to cover the inevitable by-catch so that that is properly accounted for, but kahawai should not be targeted. I have had hundreds of emails from recreational fishers, thanking me for the position that the Greens have taken on that for years. They are convinced that the stocks are declining, that they are harder to catch, and they blame the purse-seine boats that have been scooping them up. I discussed that issue with the former Minister, and I thought at the time that he agreed that that was how kahawai should be dealt with. So I was quite disturbed to find that when kahawhai went into the quota management system the quota issues were based on commercial catch history, just like any other fishery. The fact is that kawhai are not in this bill, and the amendment is not in any way related to this bill. Kawhai are already in the quota management system. I was quite intrigued to see how Larry Baldock would fix the situation through an amendment to this bill. When I saw the wording of the amendment I could not support it, because it would not actually fix the situation for the recreational fishers but it would make it worse. I also cannot support a process whereby a party withdraws support for a bill it fundamentally accepts, in order to get an amendment that has nothing to do with the bill. That kind of horse-trading does not work around this place, and we have always refused to trade between issues in that way. The fact is that the Minister is constrained by law. Once a species is in the quota management system, he has to make decisions that are based on scientific information that can be challenged in court. As Larry Baldock himself said, we have a great paucity of information about kahawhai stocks and about kahawhai catches. I have talked with the Minister today, and I have a personal undertaking from him that $1 million will be put into getting good information on the kahawhai fishery over 1 more year, at which stage the quota will be reassessed — not after 3 to 5 years, but after 1 year — and that if there has been no recovery in the stock, then the commercial quota will be reduced in order to protect the recreational catch. At this stage there is no other way that that can be done.