Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that it be an instruction to the committee in its consideration of the bill that it divide the provisions relating to the introduction of scampi into the quota management system from the bill to form a separate bill to be reported to the House by 22 June 2004, that the remaining provisions of the bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, notwithstanding Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The bill is in three parts and has two schedules. Part 1 provides for revisions to the 1996 Fisheries Act. The bill amends the Act to reinforce the quota management system as the preferred framework for managing fisheries resources. The quota management system provides the best framework for sustainable use and to enable stakeholders to provide for their social, cultural, and economic well-being. The bill removes the parts of the fisheries law that empowered the use of individual catch entitlements, which are often promoted as an alternative to the quota management system but perform relatively poorly. The bill amends the Act to provide more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries. The lack of guidance in the current law has created uncertainty about potential management regimes. It will be replaced with sustainability and utilisation thresholds that, when breached, will require the Minister of Fisheries to bring a species into the quota management system, unless the Minister considers the purpose of the Act would be better met by an alternative management intervention.

The bill revises the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and removes the permit moratorium, which is unnecessarily impeding their use. Currently, a fishing permit gives access to stocks that are in the quota management system or that are specified on that permit. Access to stock outside the quota management system has been restricted to those fishers who had access to it in 1992. A specific provision addressing non-authorised stake is due to expire on 30 September 2004. Without that provision, many multi-species fishers would be unable to operate without committing offences. The bill amends the Act so that while the commercial fishing permit will remain the means of authorising access to fisheries, the restriction on issuing new permits will be lifted. That may raise some sustainability risk for certain species outside the quota management system. Such species have been identified and placed on the transitional schedule that the bill inserts in the Act. Access to all species and stocks on that schedule will continue to be restricted until they are considered for management in the quota management system.

The bill amends the Act to improve the means of allocating quota when stock is introduced into the quota management system. That improvement will be achieved by removing certain allocation mechanisms that are becoming outdated and are consequently impeding effective fisheries management. The current allocation mechanisms based on 1990-92 catch history or on an individual catch entitlement holding will be removed from the Act. When a stock is introduced into the quota management system, 80 percent of the new quota will be allocated to the Crown, and the remaining 20 percent will be allocated to Māori under the 1992 fisheries deed of settlement. The Crown will then tender the quota it has been allocated. The overall effect of the amendment will be that catch history as a means of allocating quota will cease, with the exception of species and stocks on the transitional schedule referred to previously—tuna and highly migratory species caught outside New Zealand fisheries waters. Revisions to the 1996 Act will also extend the coverage of the quota management system to provide for the management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries waters. It will enable total allowable catches to be set for highly migratory species prior to national shares being allocated by a regional fisheries organisation.

Part 1 also provides for minor technical amendments to the principal Act to clarify its wording or better achieve the intent of the legislation. Part 2 provides for revisions to the 1983 Act. The revisions provide for the removal of authority to issue spat-catching permits. The existing permit access will be retained until 30 September 2006. Those steps will ensure a smooth transition from the current spat-catching regime to the quota management system when greenshell mussel becomes subject to the quota management system from 1 October 2004. In order for the associated regulatory amendments to be made prior to 1 October 2004, I intend to move that the committee report Parts 1 and 2 of the bill by 27 July.

Part 3 provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004. A key recommendation of the Primary Production Committee’s report on its scampi inquiry was that scampi be introduced into the quota management system as of 1 October 2004, using catch history as the basis for quota allocation. In order to ensure that date is met, it is best to use legislation to give effect to the Primary Production Committee’s recommendations. The scampi part of the bill will also define all matters consequential to a declaration to introduce stocks into the quota management system, allocate provisional catch history to scampi fishers, provide the capacity for fishers to appeal against provisional catch history allocations to the Catch History Review Committee, and make other consequential changes, as necessary. To allow time to complete the remaining statutory obligations in the quota allocation process in the months prior to scampi’s introduction to the quota management system on 1 October 2004, I intend to move that the committee report on Part 3 by 22 June.

There are two schedules to the bill. Schedule 1 includes new schedules 4B and 4C, to be inserted into the principal Act. New schedule 4B lists highly migratory species, and new schedule 4C lists stocks and species for which quota is to be allocated on the basis of provisional catch history. New schedule 4C also lists those species that will remain under the current permit moratorium regime, due to sustainability concerns, on removal of the existing moratorium. Schedule 2 includes new schedules 13 and 14, to be inserted into the principal Act. New schedule 13 specifies quota management areas for particular scampi stocks, and new schedule 14 specifies the scampi provisional catch history allocations to be allocated to individual fishers.

In summary, this bill provides for revisions to the 1996 Fisheries Act, revisions to the 1983 Fisheries Act, and the introduction of scampi into the quota management system. It reinforces the preference for the use of the quota management to manage fisheries resources, and implements a key recommendation of the select committee report on scampi. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

First of all, I would like to indicate that the National Party will certainly support the referral of this bill to the Primary Production Committee. We believe there are matters in the bill that deserve a public airing, and, certainly, an airing within the fishing industry. There are some very significant changes to be made in the fisheries legislation, not the least of them being a movement from the 1990-91 and 1991-92 catch-history years, and from that arrangement, in terms of handover quota, to an arrangement whereby the quota is tendered right across the board. The legislating of scampi into the quota management system from 1 October 2004 is also significant.

However, I would like to indicate to the Minister that we find it unacceptable that there is a request that we sit on Fridays to consider this bill. The Minister may like to take into consideration that a select committee is already sitting on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, right across the country, on the Maori Fisheries Bill. That bill, under this Minister’s auspices again, is before another select committee set up to consider the seabed and foreshore legislation, and other special fisheries matters. I indicate to the Minister that he may recall that that is a separate select committee, and it could very well be sitting at the same time as the Primary Production Committee, which is soon to consider this bill. We will oppose the suggestion that we meet on Fridays, firstly, because we should not meet on Fridays as that is a time for MPs to be in their constituencies serving their electorates, and, secondly, because we already have major fisheries legislation—the Maori Fisheries Bill—before another select committee that is meeting at that time. How the spokespersons for the various parties are to attend those meetings without experiencing a conflict is beyond me.

This bill creates a transitional list of fish species that will enter the quota management system under the current system, where there is handover quota based on catch-history years. It will provide for non-established commercial species to enter the quota management system, with quota being tendered off without handover quota from catch history years. There is a big shift there. We understand that that is the most significant policy change in this legislation. It is recognised that the catch history years for quota allocation, the 1990-92 years, are becoming outdated. It is 12 years on since those dates, now that we are in 2004. Commercial fisheries newly discovered in the interim have little catch history in those particular years.

Last year I recall dealing with the paddle crab issue, the pilchards issue, and the butterfish issue, when we had a march on Parliament from various fishers involved in those commercial fisheries. They said that it was very unfair that under the legislation, the catch history would be divvied up on the basis of the 1990-92 years, when the fishers had actually established and committed to those particular fisheries—in particular, paddle crabs—during the mid-1990s. In effect, they would get no quota handed over to them, because they were not involved with those species in those particular years. It was unfair to them that they would have to bid on the open market for quota, when, in effect, they had built those fisheries up from zero to become a substantial resource. This bill will address that issue, and it is well worth debating it. I do not think the issues have been resolved about whether that is fair or unfair, or whether the legislation should be changed, but it is well worth having that debate.

I concede the fairness of the Minister’s argument that there are few species left to go into the quota management system that have a significant commercial potential, so not many will be affected. In fact, scampi and kahawai are the only two that come to mind that are substantial exceptions. The transitional list that we see at the back of the bill covers most of the commercial fisheries with any potential that anyone can envisage—they are covered off. The National Party supports the exploration of the straight tendering concept, but we will pay very close attention to the proposed tendering regime. We do not know whether there will be a preferential tendering regime, whether it will be at market value, at perceived market value, or what the regime will be, but we will explore that.

In relation to scampi being legislated into the quota management system before 1 October 2004, we certainly encourage the goal of having scampi in the quota management system as soon as possible . At the moment there is a race on at sea to fish as quickly as possible the commercial catch available to scampi fishers. At the moment all the boats are going out and fishing like crazy for scampi, and hurting undersized resources, and so on, which is actually damaging that particular fishery. We encourage the idea of scampi going to the quota management system as soon possible. But there are some concerns if that measure is to be considered and reported back to this House on 22 June this year.

Our first concern, of course, is that the State Services Commission inquiry into the scampi fiasco has not yet been concluded or reported on. Who knows what that State Services Commission inquiry may come up with? It may come up with new information that the select committee did not come up with, because the scope for the State Services Commission to look at the scampi issues is different from that of the select committee, and, furthermore, the State Services Commission was able to cross-examine witnesses in a manner not unlike a court system, which the select committee was unable to do. So we reserve our approach on scampi, because we have not yet heard from the State Services Commission inquiry.

Secondly, we have not yet seen whether the fishers named in the Primary Production Committee’s report are satisfied with the settlement. We do not know whether there is a negotiated settlement with any of the six named fishers, whether that settlement has been satisfactory in the Ministry of Fisheries’ view, or how far down the process settlements are. We will hear from those fishers, no doubt, at the select committee. They will be reporting progress to us, I am sure, so we reserve judgment on that issue in view of the scampi provisions of this bill.

There are also issues in the bill surrounding the highly migratory tuna species being put into the quota management system. That is highly contentious, because tuna is a migratory fish. Tuna pass through New Zealand waters for only a short time, having gone through the waters of a large number of other fishing nations, and having been hammered by a large number of those countries. To argue that New Zealand can effectively manage tuna species as they pass through our waters is somewhat absurd, given the reality of them passing through our waters, being here only a brief time, and having been hammered by other countries. So we will listen to the arguments about tuna species being put in the quota management system, and this bill gives us the opportunity to debate that issue.

In summary, we do support this bill going to the select committee. The National Party is intrigued at the idea of changing the fisheries legislation to see species come into the quota management system solely through a tendering regime and not through a catch history regime. We support the idea of scampi going into the quota management system as soon as possible, but we reserve judgment because of the State Services Commission’s inquiry and the Primary Production Committee’s suggestion that a settlement be made with the fishers concerned. We do understand the need to report the bill back in June, and again in July, with the bill to be split. But we oppose the idea of the select committee meeting on a Friday when the other select committee that is considering the Māori fisheries legislation is also meeting on that day.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and just want to mention a couple of aspects that the bill particularly refers to. Those are the revision of the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and the removal of the permit moratorium that is currently in place, which is unnecessarily impeding use. The bill also amends the legislation so that while the commercial fishing permit will remain the means of authorising access, the restriction on issuing new permits will be lifted. There are many positives points within this bill, and I think that is reflected by the member who has just resumed his seat, in that there is support for it from across the House. The bill has been well considered up until this stage, and the Primary Production Committee will be obviously reviewing it further and taking submissions on it. This bill is important to the industry. I am pleased to see it in the House, and I look forward to its rapid passage.

Likewise, New Zealand First will be supporting the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the Primary Production Committee and we look forward to hearing the debate upon it. I would like to put a few of these issues into simple language that a lot of people who may be listening or, indeed, want to read the Hansard, can understand. Tendering for quota, which is after all a property right, is of concern to New Zealand First, and we look forward to the debate around that. But one would have to assume, as these measures have turned out in other sectors of society, that it would favour those fishers who are somewhat larger than others. This is not always so, but it is something that is a logical conclusion, and it is something that has proved to be in other sectors of society—those with the deepest pockets are able to secure the quota. Once having secured it, of course, it is a property right, and that right is there for some considerable time or, in fact, until that person, or that firm, gives up fishing.

In the past, securing a quota for fishing has been somewhat like the old West in America. We have read the history books about riders, or proposed claimants to the land, being sent out on a horse and told: “OK, sunshine, whatever you can get around in the day, and as long as you return to this spot at nightfall, that is yours.” It has been a little similar with quota in this country, because it has relied on the fishers going out and fishing as hard as they can—and this is what Mr Heatley referred to—to get a catch entitlement, and to make sure that that becomes their quota by a system that has been outlined in previous bills.

We are concerned that there were inequities in that, which also favoured the bigger fishers. There have been numerous court cases and challenges back and forth to establish the correctness of that model.

Now, because it did have flaws, we are entering into another model that is straight-out tendering. It is, perhaps, not much cruder, but I am not so sure that it will be much more sophisticated, and we in New Zealand First are concerned about that and will be watching the submissions with interest. I think that, perhaps, they will fall into two quite distinct groups—those who think they will gain advantage and have deep pockets will say: “Yay, this is us; we want this.” Those who are entering, or those with smaller pockets, will have some hesitation. I think we will very quickly see the differences.

When it comes to the highly migratory species or “HMS”—and one could be forgiven for thinking that that is a ship of the Royal Navy—such as tuna, which, Mr Heatley said, briefly pass our shores—

💬 Hon David Carter: They grab a hook on the way through!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Yes, they grab a hook on the way through. These people who chase these fish—the tuna boats—are quite entrepreneurial and have, in the main, come from the United States of America. They have had spotter planes, and they have had huge operations to track these fish by all sorts of electronic means. They go out and—“plunder” is not quite the right word—grab as many as they can on the way through.

This bill proposes that the process be brought into line and there be quotas in accordance with agreements surrounding these migratory species. And, of course, the question that common folk will ask is: how is this to be implemented? Mr Heatley said that the National Party has some reservations, and likewise, so does New Zealand First, but not of the same nature. We worry, in many cases, that being fair-minded New Zealanders—law-abiding New Zealanders—we may be left somewhat on the back foot in this situation. How will we monitor people in other countries who may be more rapacious than we are, and who perhaps have a lesser understanding of the sea, or a lesser feeling for the plundering of the oceans?

That is what this whole quota management system is about. It is about ensuring that those fish and that resource is there for future generations. We care about that a whole lot, and so do our fishers—to give them credit—although they do take a wee bit of bringing into line with some of those new innovations, as they may be called. We care about the sea and the sustainability of our oceans, and it is sad, but it is true, that other countries do not.

We do not want the tuna business to end up like the Rio Grande, as it flows through America, with various people taking water. By the time it gets to the country of Mexico, there is 5 percent of darn-all left. We do not want the tuna or migratory species fishery to be like that. As well as monitoring our own fisherman, New Zealand First is concerned that a solid regime is put in place. I look forward to hearing the details of this at the select committee to see that we are not being the good people while other people are plundering the resource that we care for. So that is a concern we have.

Likewise, we are happy to see the scampi part of this bill split off and put through a bit of a fast track—if one wants to put it that way. We agree that this should come under the quota management system. Dare I say it, there is some evidence already that in the rush to have this catch entitlement, or pre-quota catch, as high as possible, in some quarters there is overfishing of the scampi fishery, which has been relatively newly discovered in this country.

We need to understand and speak more about the property right that has been created as each species of fish comes into the quota management system. Years and years ago, before I entered Parliament, the view of many, and a view that I hold, was that perhaps rather than create a property right, we should have a lease-type system. After all, and I know that some announcement will be made later this week as far as foreshore and seabeds go, we are in a situation where people are fishing the commons, as it were. It is the ocean that is open to everybody, and I would have thought that perhaps it would be more appropriate that those things should be done by lease rather than by an ownership title.

However, that day has passed, but I do not think it would hurt to revisit it now and again to remind people that it is ownership we are talking about. It is hugely valuable to have this quota. It is completely understandable that fishers, to protect their livelihoods henceforth, and to protect that of some very big companies they have established, will go all out to establish their right to as much quota as possible. I do not believe that the past system was perfect in that regard, and I do not believe that a tender system will be perfect. I look forward, hopefully, to people convincing me that it is otherwise.

The Greens will not be voting for this bill at this stage. I hope that that may still change if the select committee process, and any changes that may be made there, satisfies us that the bill genuinely advances the purpose and the principles of the 1996 Act. At the moment it is hard to see how it does.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to two sections in the 1996 Act. In our view, they are central to what fisheries management must achieve. Section 8 states that the purpose is to ensure sustainability. That means “(a) Maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generation; and (b) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment”. Section 9 states that everyone under the Act must take into account the principle of associated or dependent species, which “should be maintained above a level that ensures their long-term viability”, that “Biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained”; and that “Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be protected.” Those two sections of the Act are honoured much more in the breach than in the observance.

The quota management system is often touted as a huge advance in ensuring the sustainability of fishing. The object of this amendment bill is to reinforce further the quota management system and to introduce new species under the quota management system. There is no doubt that in theory the ability to set a total allowable catch, and then allocate rights to catch within that total allowable catch, ought to be a big improvement for sustainability. However, the system has so many holes at the moment that I do not think anyone could argue that New Zealand fisheries were being fished sustainably.

I shall spend a minute or two looking at the holes in the quota management system at the moment and the background as to why we are concerned at the idea of further entrenching this system in New Zealand law. The quota management system does make some attempt to sustain individual target species—the ones we want to catch. However, it is hopeless at sustaining the ecosystems of which those fish are part. That is despite the sections in the Act that state that that must be an overriding concern for those exercising powers under the Act. There are no mechanisms to sustain the ecosystems of which the fisheries are part, and there is virtually no science, and no dollars allocated to science, to really understand the relationships between the target species and the other species that they depend on, or that depend on them. Of course, if a marine ecosystem is not sustained, then the fishery itself will eventually collapse. It may just take a little longer.

We have good data on recruitment, abundance, and mortality of only 15 percent of the fish stocks that we currently catch. We do not have the information we need to start to manage them sustainably. Half of those for which we have information are currently below the biomass that would maintain the maximum sustainable yield. We know even less about the ecosystem relationships than we do about the fish resources themselves.

The quota management system has already failed spectacularly to sustain several orange roughy stocks that, before the fishery was closed, sank to 3 percent of their original biomass. There are also inadequate mechanisms—admittedly there are some and they are improving—to deal with the by-catch in fisheries: by-catch of endangered species like albatross, sea lions, fur seals, and Hector’s dolphin. We cannot call a fishery sustainable while it continues to wipe out other species on the scale that goes on at present.

We do have overfishing under the quota management system, but it is in particular areas—namely, the inshore fishery. So a species may be sustainable across the whole huge quota management area, but it may be wiped out in particular locations that are the most accessible ones close to the coast that also tend to be the locations where customary fishing and recreational fishing are most important.

Destruction of habitat by fishing methods is not really dealt with in the 1996 Act, and it is not really dealt with by the ministry. We know that scallop dredging has a devastating effect on the benthic organisms where the scallops live, and that bottom trawling wipes out many other species. Bottom trawling has been described by international fisheries scientists as like felling a forest in order to catch the deer in that forest.

We know that there is illegal fishing, and that that is outside the total allowable catch. Even when we set a sustainability limit it is exceeded and we do not have adequate enforcement measures to deal with that.

The system also gives rights in perpetuity to fishers. We believe that that is a privatisation of a public resource, for far too long, and would prefer that there were limits on the length of time that individual transferable quotas can be held. We have also, in the past, strongly opposed the idea that these individual transferable quotas were given to fishers on the basis that, one could say, those who had plundered the most in the past got the greatest rights to continue plundering. That grandfathering of the fisheries rights sold the public short, because it is a public resource.

One thing in this bill that we are pleased to see is the replacement of individual catch entitlements for entry into the quota system, with a tendering process that at least gives everybody a chance.

Looking more precisely at what the bill does, it brings scampi into the quota system. We have just had a select committee inquiry into certain aspects of the scampi fishery, as some other members have pointed out. The select committee did say that scampi should be brought into the quota system, but it also found that it was not appropriate to legislate to do this. So why is it that we are legislating to do it?

An inquiry is still going on. The State Services Commission is also looking into the behaviour of the Ministry of Fisheries, in relation to scampi, and it does not report until the end of this month. It is possible the commission may come to a different conclusion from the select committee, as to whether there was any wrongdoing. This bill sets in concrete the ministry’s decisions in relation to scampi, yet they are still disputed. Those are the same decisions that the courts found were unfair and unlawful.

The bill also changes the quota management areas for scampi. It is not at all clear in the bill why that is, or even what it is. I am advised that those area changes will favour Simunovich still further. The select committee needs to study very carefully any evidence that fishers bring about the effect of those changes in quota area boundaries.

The bill lifts the moratorium on issuing new permits for fisheries not in the quota management system. I cannot find any evidence in the bill of any sustainability provisions to cover the issuing of those permits. I have no confidence that a sustainability framework will be in place and I look forward very much to learning I am wrong, in the course of the select committee process.

The intention to join the international effort to keep the catch both fair and sustainable for highly migratory species is of course commendable, but industry has real fears that the effects of this on the tuna fishery will be to wipe out the small firms with one boat, in favour of the large firms. I think the committee should listen carefully to submissions on that.

The tripartite agreement on the southern bluefin tuna fishery with Australia, Japan, and New Zealand has often been breached in the past. I will be interested in evidence on just how good the international enforcement will be.

Finally, I am concerned that the bill proposes to issue quota for species that are so endangered that they are subject to the convention on endangered species, such as basking shark, whale shark, and sea horse. I wonder just what kind of conservation message it sends to the international community that New Zealand is bringing endangered species within its commercial fishery.

I am always delighted to speak on an important bill such as the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). I am also rather delighted to speak after a Green member has just spoken at some length on this very subject. I cannot help but recognise that the problem with the Green Party is that its members always point out the problems that exist. Nobody denies that these problems exist out on the oceans, but I listened in vain for an alternative. We do not want to go back to the open slather, the plunder, the days of Captain Ahab roaming the seas killing whales. We have moved on and found better systems. We are striving to achieve sustainable and sensible use of the world’s resources. It is a little upsetting—although I am getting used to it—to hear the Greens constantly bagging the industry that is striving to achieve a far better outcome than we would have had under open-slather systems.

The ACT party supports this bill going to the select committee. As previous speakers have pointed out, this bill is technical in nature and has technical adjustments that require considerable in-depth analysis by the select committee. The Primary Production Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr David Carter, is recognised as having good cross-party support and input into this matter. I am sure we will come up with a very sensible outcome.

I want to spend a moment on the referral motion moved by the Minister. I have forwarded an amendment to his motion, recommending that the committee not sit during urgency. It is fine for the major parties, but a smaller party like the ACT party, with eight members, finds it very difficult to achieve its obligations in Parliament when its members are required to front up to a select committee while the House is sitting under urgency. It is a problem for us, so I have put forward that amendment, which I hope the House will take notice of.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Should have kept Donna in the chair!

Well, all things are possible.

The bill does away with catch history, and we say that is fine in a technical sense, but one of the real questions is how will that transition be managed? That is a very real concern of the fishing industry—how will the catch history of the fishermen be protected until the species goes into the quota management system?

Based on the past history, I suspect that few in the fishing industry will have a great deal of confidence that the ministry will be able to address the concerns of the wider industry. We have just completed a very substantial inquiry into the allocation of scampi. It is fair to say that the ministry is not riding the crest of the credibility wave after that particular inquiry. There will be some very real issues and concerns about the ability of the ministry to meet the demands and requirements of the industry.

There will be an increased focus in the bill on the quota management system. Despite what the Greens say, New Zealand’s initiative is lauded worldwide as the best system we have to date. That does not mean that concepts that better suit the world’s requirements will not come up in the future, but at this point in time it is a very substantial and worthwhile process to ensure that our fish stocks continue.

One of the difficulties in speaking rather late on a bill is that much of it has already been referred to. At the risk of repeating those remarks—sensibly made by many members—I will make some comments about the migratory species aspect of this bill. In New Zealand we have something of a problem, in that the migratory species of tuna, for example, is now being caught off the top end of the North Island. The quota is then taken by those fishermen from the far north area, and by the time we get down to the West Coast, where the tuna fishing started, there is no quota left.

That is something that the select committee will need to look at. It is the West Coast fishermen who have the catch history, if I can put it that way, but the migratory nature of tuna indicates that they are being caught before they get down there. So that is an issue I think we will need to address on behalf of those fishing off the West Coast of the South Island.

Another issue, of course, is the catch out on the high seas. Until this international quota comes into force, there will be something of a boat race to get out there and catch as much species as possible. If there is any constraint on the fishing industry from New Zealand ports, it will be taken up by internationally owned boats—vessels out there fishing for the same fish. They will then receive a higher quota than would be the case if New Zealand vessels were out there getting their fair share. So that, too, is a very real issue.

The problem alluded to by Mr Doug Woolerton and Jeanette Fitzsimons is to how we best allocate ownership—and that is what has to happen—of a public asset, namely, fish stocks. We have had that problem just recently with Project Aqua—how to allocate a publicly owned resource such as water—and it is a very real problem. The tender process seems to work extremely well when we come to allocate land. It has always worked that the highest tender receives the prize, whether it is for land, or artworks, or whatever.

The tender process is a fair one. The fact that somebody else has a far deeper pocket than I have, if I wished to purchase a piece of land or an artwork by tender, is irrelevant. That is just one of the facts of life we have accept, but there is certainly no justification for excluding the tender process just because the bigger companies, or those with greater knowledge or technical abilities, can win. That is basically what I want to say, but I do support the concept.

As a quick overview, I think it is important that bills that come before the House go to a select committee rather than get voted out. It gives the public and the industry a very real chance to have their say on a particular issue, and that is as it should be.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support the first reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). United Future holds firm to the belief that processes that ensure that New Zealand’s fisheries resources are used in a sustainable manner need to be enshrined in legislation and committed to law. That is an important issue for our party, and one of serious relevance and importance for us as a nation. This bill serves to organise and reinforce the quota management system specifically to achieve that end.

Our fishing industry is a very important part of our economy. It has grown in export earnings from $17.9 million in 1975 to $1.4 billion in the year 2000, and it may have grown considerably since even that time. Domestic sales, on the other hand, have grown rather modestly, from $114 million in 1987 to $130 million in 1999. I guess that is partly because so many people in New Zealand can catch their own fish, and that is a very important thing for us as New Zealanders. But the export sales that we generate through our fishing industry are very important for our economy and for the employment of many New Zealanders. In 1975, 4,100 people were employed in the fishing industry. In 1999, 10,620 were employed directly in fishing, and it is estimated that nearly 27,000 fulltime-equivalent jobs were attributed directly to the fishing sector and through spin-off effects.

While one select committee of this House is currently hearing submissions on the Māori Fisheries Bill to allocate the proceeds of the 1992 deed of settlement, we can also today note that the health and sustainability of our fishing stocks are of vital importance to Māori in this country, as well. This bill will do a lot to ensure the sustainability of our important fishing stocks.

With almost $1.5 billion in export earnings, fishing is very significant for our economy. United Future is concerned about how much more we could be earning by way of exports, if we were not allowing so many joint ventures to operate in this country, within our economic zone, where they are able to lease our quota at prices that our local fishermen cannot compete with. Because the joint ventures pay very low wages, and do not have to pay GST and local taxes, they are able to pay for quota at a level that is unsustainable or uneconomic for our local fishermen. They take the catch from our waters, and take it back to their shores where it is processed, providing jobs that should be for New Zealanders. Then, in many cases, our fish is exported as product of New Zealand, but it does not benefit our balance of payments or our balance of trade. In fact, that fish has not seen the shores of this great country, at all. That is of concern to us in United Future, and we hope to see that concern addressed by this House at some stage in the near future. There is no point in our having a quota management system to protect the sustainability of our fish stock if it is being taken away from us progressively over the years through joint ventures. I do not believe that any other nations in the world are allowing their valuable resource to be harvested by other than their own citizens.

This bill revives the Fisheries Act of 1996 and seeks improvements to our quota management system. We in United Future are proud of this quota management system. Although it is not perfect, it is a very important part of the protection of our marine environment. I want to make this one point in general before I move on to the specific issues within this bill. When the Government states it has a plan to have 10 percent of our marine environment under protection in the near future, surely we are missing the point that we already have a very good form of protection for our marine environment through the quota management system. To go into the issue of marine reserves as a means of further protection, without recognising that we have protection through the quota management system, is, I believe, flawed. The marine reserves are not going to provide the kind of protection that many believe they do, and we need to be careful about how much of our marine environment we lock up in no-take reserves.

With regard to this bill, United Future welcomes the revisions that will come through it. The revisions to the Fisheries Act move to cement the primacy of the quota management system in New Zealand’s fisheries management regime. That is a prudent measure that will achieve, among other things, a couple of key improvements. It will improve the means of allocating quota by removing both the outdated catch history and the individual entitlement allocation mechanism. It will also rescind the redundant commercial fishing moratorium on non - quota management species, which has been in place for over 10 years. Those measures will serve to enhance the process for identifying and introducing stocks into the quota management system, and provide for much-needed revision of a moribund commercial fishing regime. They are progressive and practical.

United Future commends the importance that, throughout this bill, is placed upon the need to manage risks. The revision of the Fisheries Act of 1996 with regard to changes to spat-catching permits will smooth the progress of a transition from the current spat-catching permit regime to the quota management system when greenshell mussels become subject to the quota management system later this year. That will eliminate the possibility of a troublesome duality of access regime once the greenshell mussels come under the quota management system.

It is pleasing to note that this bill allows for the required flexibility in the allocation of additional entitlements to highly migratory species. This bill will allow for the extended coverage of the quota management system to permit the management of highly migratory species beyond our fisheries’ waters. Furthermore, this bill will enable total allowable catches to be set for those highly migratory species, in advance of national shares being allocated by a regional fisheries organisation where sustainability and management needs require it. That is a constructive and flexible approach for the allocation of additional catch entitlements, for highly migratory species increases in allowable catch are realised through bilateral arrangements, and the bill is revising the mechanism by which foreign licences that apply to highly migratory species have been authorised. That provides for rational and judicious management of important species, such as bluefin tuna.

United Future supports legislation to ensure that the date scampi is made subject to the quota management system is upheld. That will give certainty to the industry, through the use of this legislation. United Future supports this legislation being referred to the select committee, and we look forward to its reports in due course.

I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is an important bill. It reinforces the preference for the quota management system to manage our fisheries resources, as opposed to the use of individual catch entitlements, which are often touted as an alternative but do not perform well by comparison. The bill provides more direction on when the quota management system will be used, as the current laws lack guidance and have created uncertainty in the industry. Sustainability and utilisation thresholds will be introduced, which when breached will require the Minister of Fisheries either to bring the species into the quota management system or to implement an alternative management intervention. I think those provisions are good for the industry, they provide certainty, and I commend the bill to the House.

In speaking to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), I reiterate the comment of my colleague Phil Heatley, the National Party spokesperson on fishing, that the National Party will support this bill going to the Primary Production Committee.

I start my contribution by taking this opportunity to thank the new Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, and also, and probably more appropriately, the Leader of the House, for ensuring that this legislation will go to the Primary Production Committee. We are aware of other fisheries legislation, essentially associated with Māori fishing, that recently has gone to a special select committee. The Primary Production Committee over many years has been the select committee that has examined fisheries legislation. I think that, over the time I have been a member of Parliament, that select committee—and I have sat on it for a considerable period during my term as a member—has handled a lot of fisheries legislation. I think it is dangerous and risky to see, increasingly, legislation deemed to be special or somewhat risky from a political point of view being chugged off to a specially formed select committee. I know that the members of that committee will do their best to examine the issues, but the institutional knowledge around the table of a select committee that has dealt with fisheries legislation over a long period of time, and the institutional knowledge amongst that select committee’s support staff, are factors that this House must continue to recognise. So I am pleased to see this bill go before the Primary Production Committee; I only wish the earlier legislation, associated with Māori fishing, was also there.

I want to speak initially about Part 3, which is associated specifically with ensuring that the scampi fishery resource comes into the quota management system by 1 October this year. I understand that the Minister is instructing the select committee to split this parcel of the bill off into separate legislation in order to progress it very rapidly, to ensure it is referred back in time for it to proceed through the House so that scampi can come under the quota management system by 1 October this year. I accept that, as we are debating this bill in April of 2004, there does need to be a rushed process. I find that somewhat sad. If the Minister had been prepared to devote his energies to ensuring the legislation was before the House somewhat earlier, there would have been every opportunity for submissioners to be involved in a genuine process without that rush. I hasten to add that that is not a criticism of the new Minister, David Benson-Pope, but a criticism of his predecessor, Pete Hodgson. There is little doubt in my mind that he was relieved of that portfolio in a recent Cabinet reshuffle.

It is necessary to have scampi in the quota management system as quickly as possible. That fish species has been the subject of huge controversy for a long period of time, and it is important for the sustainability of that species that it comes in the quota management system as quickly as possible. There is little doubt that the select committee will receive many, many submissions from people with whom we have become quite well acquainted over recent times. I am referring to the Primary Production Committee’s work on the scampi fishery investigation, which began in October 2002. The report was released late last year, in December 2003. That inquiry was a massive undertaking by the select committee. The report tabled in the House totalled 226 pages, and there were 43 hours of hard work. I do not blame some submissioners for wanting to relitigate the issues that were discussed and investigated during that select committee inquiry; it is only natural that they would take the opportunity to do so.

The select committee unanimously reported, in that particular inquiry, as to aspects of unfairness. As the member of Parliament who chaired that select committee, I have no doubt that that unfairness occurred. What we collectively need to do, as members of this Parliament and as members of the industry, is now find a way forward so that the issues of unfairness in the past are put behind us and the industry can focus on trying to sustainably manage and profitably fish that particular resource. Having made those comments, I acknowledge that the solution is harder than just uttering those words.

The other thing the select committee will want to know during the examination process is how effectively the Minister of Fisheries and his ministry officials have tackled the recommendations of that scampi select committee inquiry. The unanimous result of the report was the finding of issues of unfairness that went back over a decade, but, more important, the select committee then identified seven fishers who had appeared before the select committee with a genuine grievance that required the ministry, and therefore the Minister, to sit with those particular identified fishers to find a solution to their grievances. Where the select committee was not able to maintain a unanimous stance was on the issue of our giving a signal to the Minister on how best those grievances might be settled. It is well documented in the select committee report that a majority of the select committee members—namely, the New Zealand First representative and the Labour Party members—recommended that six of those fishers receive quite substantial compensation. The actual compensation figures were detailed in the report, and ranged from a $900,000 minimum to a $400,000 minimum.

The question that I think also needs to be asked is why the select committee, by a majority, saw fit to agree that one company, Sealord’s, which is substantially based in Nelson, should be identified as an aggrieved party but not be mentioned in terms of a specific figure for compensation. That question has been puzzling members of the National Party caucus. Phil Heatley recently asked the Minister whether, Sealord’s having been identified as having a justified grievance, he felt that the company should be receiving any form of payment. The Minister, David Benson-Pope, answered by saying simply that Sealord’s as a company had not been identified as requiring a specific payment. Mr Heatley knew that; Mr Heatley was a member of the Primary Production Committee. He then asked a further question, and that was whether the select committee report that was presented to the Minister prevented the Minister from recognising an injustice to Sealord’s as a company, and negotiating a similar payment. The response from David Benson-Pope was: “I refer the member to my earlier response.” That is not an answer, and I assure the Minister and ministry officials that that issue will not go away.

In the closing minutes, I want to comment on the State Services Commission, which initiated an inquiry, contemporaneous to the select committee inquiry, into that very issue. Now, quite some time on, we have not seen the results of the State Services Commission inquiry. The inquiry is being conducted by a Queen’s Counsel, Helen Cull. I rang the State Services Commission office this morning to ascertain when a result might be expected. It was unable to supply that information in time for me to deliver it to the House today, although I note that the Greens stated that the report would be through by the end of this calendar month—namely, April. Until that report is also finalised, the select committee is presented with difficulties in finalising this legislation.

The quota management system has served New Zealand well in terms of managing our fisheries resources in the last decade or two. The objectives of this bill are to improve upon that system by emphasising that it will be the preferred framework for managing the fisheries resource, but also by introducing some improvements to allocation of quota when a new species is introduced into the quota management system.

The bill is also intended to begin to try to regulate the overfishing of some highly migratory species, and for New Zealand to do what it can as part of the international community. I am happy to support the reference of this legislation to the select committee.

I rise on behalf of the National Party, also in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). There are a number of reasons why the National Party supports this bill, but mainly because it sets up a sustainable management programme, through the quota management system, for an industry that has grown to export earnings now of somewhere between $1 billion and $1.5 billion, employs some 25,000 to 30,000 New Zealanders, and is a major export industry in this country.

But the National Party will not support the notion that the Primary Production Committee should meet on Fridays. The reason for that is quite simple: a number of the members of the Primary Production Committee who have knowledge of this bill are also on a special select committee that the Government has set up to look at the Māori Fisheries Bill that, it would appear, is running simultaneously with this bill. So National will not support that.

Also, given that the Government knew that there was a certain amount of urgency around the implementation of the scampi quota, the question has to be asked why this bill has sat on the Order Paper, even through an urgency motion, when a whole lot of “rats and mice” stuff has been debated in the House that is of no particular interest to the economy—or, for that matter, and on particular occasions, to anybody else in New Zealand. This very important legislation has been allowed to languish and not be put through its proper process.

I know that the Primary Production Committee, which is chaired by the very capable Hon David Carter, will give this legislation the proper scrutiny it needs. I know that those listening to the debate who want to make submissions—and who will be notified through the select committee process—will come in and do so. The problem is that the committee will be working to a very tight time frame, given that the report back date for the scampi part of the bill—which has to be reported back earlier than the rest—is 22 July.

Given the industry’s size and importance to the economy, I sincerely hope that the Government will give those people who have a major interest in it the proper time and respect they deserve, because I am sure they will have some concerns to raise during the select committee process. Up until now there has been no evidence of that time and respect being given in any process the Government has gone through with regard to major legislation such as this, so I am pleading with the Government to give them that recognition.

This bill substantially alters the 1996 Fisheries Act, which has become outdated. The history of the fishing industry in New Zealand has been a process of evolution. The quota management system has at times come under severe attack from many people who have been outside of it, or who have not been in a position, either financially or physically, to benefit from the structure in place. The historic grievances that exist, and will continue to exist, around the way that that system has enabled people to have a bigger chunk of the quota, are, I guess, something that Governments will struggle with for years to come. The reality is that this bill tries to address some of those issues, and for that reason it is a very good move.

I see a number of Ministers here, and perhaps one will take a call to inform the House why, given that the scampi report back on 22 July is urgent—and we know the reasons for that—the final report back is set down for 27 July. Why is there not a bigger gap between the two report-back dates, given that the scampi part of the legislation, because of its importance, will obviously take up a large chunk of the select committee’s time? The Primary Production Committee has already gone through a huge inquiry in that regard.

At this stage, the Government has not told us what it will do in response to the report back on that scampi requirement. It would be interesting to see—either in the select committee or at some stage during the debates in the House—a Minister take a call to tell us what the Government intends to do with that issue with regard to this legislation.

The bill will create a transitional list of fish species that will enter the quota management system. Under the current system, we have a handover quota based on catch history going back to 1990-1992. That is an excellent provision. It will provide for non-established commercial species to enter the quota management system as technology and food tastes around the world alter, and as new species can be harvested and exported. It takes into account the issues around migratory fish—in particular, tuna. That fishery has an interesting history. The select committee process will, I hope, tease out some of the difficulties concerning tuna in the bill. Some of them have already been raised by my good colleague Gerry Eckhoff.

The West Coast of the South Island is probably the area where the catch history of tuna is best established, and yet catching tuna there will be now quite difficult, given that the quota is exhausted. I think that is mainly because of modern technology, better equipment, electronic “gizzardry”, and the like. That technology—I hasten to add—is now used by nations other than New Zealand to, as one speaker suggested, exhaust or even plunder the fishery before it reaches New Zealand waters. It will be interesting to see how the select committee deals with that, and what comes forward in the way of submissions in relation to it.

As I have said, the bill legislates to include scampi in the quota management system from 1 October, which, obviously, will be a very beneficial tool in terms of managing that fishery. Equally, that fishery may have been overfished, or is not being properly investigated, and after the select committee has a look at the submissions, there may be a need to adjust our thinking around quota management.

The bill also brings a much more overarching approach to the sustainable management of fisheries in general, and that has to be a very positive thing. I know that the fishing industry itself is keen to see some of those changes, and for that reason, and in light of the fact that it is a major export industry for New Zealand, I ask the Government to give those people consideration. I suggest to members that the Primary Production Committee has the right people to make sure that those changes are taken into account.

I note that the House has been dealing with several pieces of fisheries legislation in recent times, reflecting the fact that policy in that area has been progressed well, and underlining the industry’s importance to the New Zealand economy. I support the passage of the first reading so that the select committee can get on with its very good work of considering this legislation.

, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that it be an instruction to the committee in its consideration of the bill that it divide the provisions relating to the introduction of scampi into the quota management system from the bill to form a separate bill to be reported to the House by 22 June 2004, and that the remaining provisions of the bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during the sitting of the House, notwithstanding Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Just before I put the question on that motion, an amendment has been put forward by the honourable member Gerrard Eckhoff. It is an amendment to add the words “, and that the committee will not meet when the House is in urgency.”

Amendment agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make it very clear that we are voting separately on the ACT amendment and the Minister’s motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister’s motion as amended will be put next.