Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the Primary Production Committee consider the bill, and that the bill be reported back by the end of February 2004. This bill seeks, firstly, to validate and implement a settlement agreement between the Crown and industry concerning the under and over-recovery of costs by my ministry and the Department of Conservation since 1994. The costs of fisheries services and conservation services incurred by the Crown in the management of New Zealand’s fisheries have been recovered from the fishing industry since 1994.

Section 265 of the Fisheries Act 1996 requires the Minister of Fisheries to have regard to any under and over-recovery of costs in a previous financial year when recommending a new levy order. Since this obligation was established in 1996, there has been no adjustment. A joint working-group of industry representatives and Ministry of Fisheries officials was established in December 1999 to determine the extent of under and over-recoveries of costs since October 1994. It was also asked to develop a process for dealing with under and over recoveries in future years and to make recommendations to me on methods to resolve those historical issues. The joint working-group unanimously recommended that a negotiated and agreed sum of $24.6 million, which includes interest, be returned to the industry by the Crown by way of a non-discretionary reduction in future levies. In return for this reduction in future levies, and to ensure that this settlement is durable, this bill validates the settlement, the historic levy orders, and the cost recovery rules. It confirms that as Minister of Fisheries, I have fulfilled all obligations to have regard to costs over-recovered and under-recovered from 1 October 1994 to 30 September 2002. I have agreed to the recommendations of the joint working-group.

This bill validates, and implements through legislation, the settlement of a longstanding issue, to the satisfaction of all parties. I am grateful for the hard work and effort of all of those involved in the joint working-group process, from both the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council and the Ministry of Fisheries. This complicated issue has taken some time to resolve, as it concerns levies recovered up to 8 years ago. Implementing the settlement at fish-stock level will take 2 years to complete for the majority of levy payers, and up to 7 years for some other fish-stock categories. Having the bill reported back to the House no later than the end of February next year will enable the implementation of the new levy regime, from 1 April 2004.

The second function of the bill is to amend section 233 of the Fisheries Act 1996, in response to a recent Court of Appeal decision, to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. This section contains the Act’s highest band of offence provisions, aimed at poaching and black-market trading. Offending of this nature poses a serious risk to the sustainability of high-value fish-stocks. It undermines the integrity of the quota management system, and impinges on the rights of recreational and customary fishers.

In March 2002, the Ministry of Fisheries undertook a large undercover operation to detect and prosecute this type of offending. Fisheries officers were successful in identifying offenders throughout the poaching and black-market chain, from offenders on the beach, to the foreign exporters of illegally taken fish. Recently, the Court of Appeal concluded that the imprisonable offence, designed specifically for this type of offending, was largely ineffective due to a drafting error. The original provision made it an offence to knowingly contravene the Act for the purposes of obtaining a benefit under the Act. The Court of Appeal held that commercial gain was not a benefit under the Act.

The proposed amendment would ensure that people who knowingly contravene the Act, and obtain a benefit, or intend to obtain a benefit, commit an imprisonable offence. “Benefit” is defined to include all types of economic gain. This proposed amendment has been developed promptly, to ensure that Parliament’s original intent is reflected in law, and that offenders can be prosecuted effectively.

Finally, this bill includes a technical amendment to place it beyond doubt that the word “Act”, throughout the Fisheries Act 1996, includes rules and regulations made under the Act. This is the applicable definition of the Interpretation Act. Including it in the Fisheries Act should ensure that legal challenge to the current interpretation of the word “Act” could not render offences against fisheries rules and regulations unenforceable.

The National Party will support this bill. We believe that it is an important piece of legislation, and we will also be interested to see what submissions go to the select committee. I want to make brief points about trading in illegally obtained seafood. The bill replaces the present section 233 of the Act, which makes it an offence for any person to knowingly, for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act, receive or possess any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed otherwise in accordance with the Act. It is also an offence to engage in any commercial activity involving the taking, possessing, receiving, procuring, processing, conveying, selling of, or otherwise dealing with, any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed otherwise than in accordance with the Act.

We believe that the bill will strengthen those provisions. It redrafts these offences, one of which relates to obtaining a benefit by knowingly performing one or more of these actions, and the other relating to knowingly doing one or more of these things, with the intention of obtaining a benefit. So the word “benefit” is defined to mean “includes any privilege, property, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration of any kind whether for that person or any other person.” We can see that definition in clause 6. So it more clearly defines an offence to trade in illegally obtained seafood and it overcomes the effects of the decisions in the court case the Minister mentioned earlier on.

The other area that we think is important—the Minister mentioned it and National wants to reiterate it—is the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies. The bill replaces section 265 of the Act relating to the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies for the costs of fishers and conservation services. These amendments will, we believe, strengthen the way the fishing industry operates. They are important changes, and National is supporting them for those reasons.

I find myself in the somewhat strange situation of agreeing with the House. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. There do appear to be some pretty sensible changes here, especially the changes relating to those who seek deliberately to destroy the fishing stocks of this country through poaching. I can only agree entirely with those who have been promoting the quota management system, and I believe that my colleague Rodney Hide was one of those who was instrumental in the early days in getting the quota management system in place. We must absolutely ensure the sustainability of this most valuable asset we have of our coastal shores and deep water.

I have to say that I am searching in vain in the explanatory note for a comment where the Government says: “Sorry, fishing industry. We got it wrong. We overcharged you by $24.6 million.” No such apology is forthcoming, but it is pleasing to see that the industry is prepared to get together with the Government and iron out this anomaly. I have no idea what the opportunity-cost might have been to the industry of being overcharged by $24.6 million. I cannot help but reflect also that many people in this country would see a surplus of $24.6 million in the ministry’s coffers as somewhat similar to the $5.6 billion in the Government’s coffers. Many would regard that as the taxpayer being overcharged by the Government. Maybe we should return that, as well. I think that would be a rather nice Christmas present by way of tax cuts.

However, it is good to see that the ministry has done something right by returning that money to its rightful owners. Again, I reiterate the importance of adequate penalties being imposed upon those who break the law—[Interruption] The Minister is interrupting.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Sit down so we can get it passed.

He wants to go home. Well, I think it is important that political parties in this land actually have their say—not just the Government, which is getting a bit arrogant about this whole business. But I see the time is almost upon us, so I will finish by saying that, yes, ACT will support the Government on this particular issue, but with the cautionary note that the Government does have to be a bit more careful about how it levies and charges the public of this country.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill by 27 February 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.