Tweet
The government has agreed to a tighter timeframe for the banning of shark finning in New Zealand waters.
Conservation Minister Nick Smith and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy confirmed on Thursday the government's plan to ban the controversial practice, which has been descibed as a national disgrace.
The ban will mean sharks won't be able to be caught, killed and have their fins sliced off before the rest of the body is thrown back into the water. It's already illegal to slice off a shark fin and throw the shark back into the water alive.
The government received 45,300 submissions in favour of the proposal to ban shark finning, but many expressed concern that the ban wouldn't come into force soon enough.
A first group of shark species will be covered by the ban from October 1 this year, with a second group covered a year later.
Only the highly migratory blue sharks will be left until October 1, 2016, Mr Guy said. "This tightened timetable is achievable and puts in place these new protections for sharks as quickly as possible," he said.
The government's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks also contains a number of goals for the conservation and management of sharks. "It's now widely recognised that sharks are an important part of the marine ecosystem and that we need to ensure the 113 species of shark in our waters survive," Dr Smith said.
Mr Guy said the commercial fishing industry has been aware for some time that the changes were coming.
"Timing for the banning of shark finning provides sufficient lead in for the industry to practically adjust their processes," he said.
Sharks fins are a valuable commodity, particularly in Asia, where they are used to make shark fin soup.
Growing prosperity, in China in particular, has increased demand for shark fin soup, which is considered a delicacy.
The sharks in our justice system need to be finned around about the throat area ..... and maybe a bit of "Russell Packering" to the head !!!
Those Acts incorrectly assume the Acts writers, administrators and enforcers have integrity. In that the Acts incorrectly credit those with titles of “Judge”, “Sir”, “Minister”, “A-G” and “Lawyer” with integrity (that those individuals always claim).
As many of those individuals do not have integrity the Acts are worthless, as would any new Act or regulation.
To ‘protect’ the public both Acts (the Judicial Conduct Commissioner … Act 2004 and the Lawyers … Act 2006) also rely on their statutory officers having integrity. Those officers are; the Commissioner and the Legal Complaints Review Officer.
The problem for the public is that:
Those who drafted the Acts are……………………………………………………………………………............LAWYER S
The administrator of the Acts (Minister, Judith Collins) is a…………………………………….........LAWYER
The public “protection” Officers applying the Acts are…………………………………………............LAWYERS
[If a member of the public does not believe they are being “protection” by those Officers]:
The public “protector” Judges who review the Officers decisions are….………………............Ex LAWYERS
[If the public believes a Judge acted corruptly in dealing with the Officers decision or badly to them];
The reviewer of that Judge’s miss-conduct (again the Commissioner) is a.…………….........LAWYER
The administrator who deals with corruption (the Director of the SFO) is a....................LAWYER
[Before anyone (an individual, the Police or SFO) can charge any of the above with corruption]:
The only person who can grant leave to lay those charges (A-G, Finlayson) is a………......LAWYER
AND:
The Public opinion surveys always results in the least trusted professionals being…........LAWYERS
SO:
Who is being “protected” on really important issues; LAWYERS and Ex LAWYERS or you and me?
Do the non-LAWYER politicians realise how they and the public have been screwed by the legal profession?
The solution for the public appears simple to me!!!!!