Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) amends the Fisheries Act. It has been divided from the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), where it was previously Part 3 of that bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004, and corrects a general problem with current quota allocation mechanisms identified during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system.

The management of scampi has attracted a great deal of attention and controversy over the last decade. Introducing scampi into the quota management system by legislation will remove the uncertainty surrounding the future management of that fishery. The allocation measures contained in the bill also ensure that no incentives to race for catch history are created. A key recommendation of the Primary Production Committee’s report on its 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. To ensure the status meets and gives effect to the select committee’s recommendations, the bill also defines all matters consequential to a declaration for introducing stocks into the quota management system, allocates provisional catch history to scampi fishers, provides capacity for fishers to appeal against provisional catch history allocations at the catch history review committee, and makes other consequential changes as necessary.

I thank members of the Primary Production Committee for their work on this bill. During the submission process submitters were divided on the passage of the bill. Support for passage of the bill was based on the belief that any delay would be bad for the resource, and would make management and marketing of the fishery less successful. Opposition to passage of the bill was for two reasons: firstly, submitters felt that it would impede effective negotiations with the ministry on appropriate compensation for, or redress of, the grievances identified by the committee in its inquiry report; and secondly, submitters felt that passing legislation before the public release of the State Services Commission’s report into scampi management would be inappropriate, unconstitutional, and unfair. The State Services Commission report, of course, was released during the select committee process. After consideration, the committee decided against delaying the passage of the bill.

The committee has acknowledged the Government’s decision to accept its recommendations with regard to the compensation of named scampi fishers in its report, and does not intend to establish a precedent for other fisheries by recommending changes to the allocation model in the scampi fishery. The allocation of provisional catch history to scampi fishers incorporates the committee’s specific recommendations relating to catch history records. However, the opportunity for fishers to appeal provisional catch history allocations at the catch history review committee is retained.

The committee has proposed an amendment to Schedule 2 of the bill in order to provide for the allocation of provisional catch history to one of the stakeholders in the fishery. That amendment could not be incorporated into the bill before the bill was introduced. However, the Government supports the select committee’s recommendation. I commend the bill to the House.

As the Minister said, this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) legislates scampi into the quota management system on 1 October this year. I have to say that that was never soon enough. Certainly, scampi has to come into the quota management system as soon as possible. With fishers not having quota allocated currently, there is a race for catch out in our scampi fishing grounds. Through the system that operates at the moment, fishers are encouraged to catch as much scampi as soon as possible. Subsequently, juvenile fish are being brought up out of the water unnecessarily. When scampi goes to the quota management system, scampi fishers will have all season to make their catch. They will not be under pressure to make their catch before anyone else. They will target older scampi and fishing grounds that can sustain that intensive fishing.

National supports scampi coming into the quota management system. We are very concerned, though, that there have been boundary changes to traditional scampi fishing zones off the coast of the South Island. In fact, National will not support this bill in its third reading unless during the Committee stage the Government either moves amendments to change back the boundaries of quota management areas 3 and 4 off the coast of the South Island, or gives us reasons why those particular boundaries have been changed. We believe that the Government has shifted the goalposts affecting the fair allocation of scampi quota in that lucrative fishing area, and that is of concern to us. The original boundaries, which have been in place for well over a decade, will change overnight through this legislation, so we want to hear from the Minister during the Committee stage—which we look forward to probably next week—why that is the case and how it benefits the fisheries, or we want to see amendments that will change back those fishing zones.

However, I do reiterate that National sees the need to introduce scampi into the quota management system as soon as possible. Interestingly, the Primary Production Committee was pushed quite heavily by both the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to see this bill come into the House. We were quite astounded that it did not come in during the urgency motion of 3 weeks’ ago, soon after that pressure was applied and after the committee reported back to this House. That was of concern to us. Given the pressure we were under, I would have to say that not introducing the bill in that urgency motion raised eyebrows across the industry and also across this House.

Members will be well aware of the work of the Primary Production Committee, particularly of our inquiry into the scampi fishery. On behalf of the National Party, I am bound to say we acknowledge that those fishing companies accused of unlawful behaviour, such as Simunovich Fisheries Ltd, had no such allegations proved against them at the select committee. No evidence was brought before us at the select committee that convinced me of supposedly flagrant, illegal behaviour on their part.

In addition, the State Services Commission inquiry, which ran roughly parallel to our own inquiry, came back with similar findings. What was interesting though was that our comments—our quite harsh comments—on the Ministry of Fisheries for being inconsistent, unfair, and unprofessional were reflected in the State Services Commission’s findings, but the commission was much more scathing of the Ministry of Fisheries. It called the ministry inconsistent, ad hoc, unprofessional—and on it went. I have to say—, and I am sure the member Ian Ewen-Street will comment on this as well—, that the select committee was quite disappointed in the media statement of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, made soon after the State Services Commission inquiry, when he said that his ministry had nothing to answer for and that it was completely professional at all times. We thought it would have been better if the ministry had acknowledged its deficiencies and promised an improvement.

There were also outstanding issues from the Primary Production Committee report. Firstly, all but one named fisher have not had an accepted settlement in that report. Members will recall that the select committee named seven fishers: Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and Mr H G Cave; United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and the Sealord Group. Those were the seven named fishers in the inquiry, who we believed were justifiably aggrieved. Only one of them has accepted a settlement; six more need to receive one. That is the first outstanding issue.

The second outstanding issue was that the select committee recommended minimum payments. The National Party did not support that. We did not believe we could pick what the minimum ought to be, but Labour Party members and New Zealand First decided to allocate $400,000 to most fishers as a minimum payment, and $900,000 to Mr Trevor Goodship. Interestingly, since that went to Cabinet those minimum payments became maximum payments by a statement through the Minister. We see that as unfair and not along the lines of the select committee report.

Thirdly, in terms of outstanding issues, the Sealord Group was a named fisher that the Government and New Zealand First did not see as being worthy of a settlement. Labour Party members felt that the Sealord Group did not deserve a settlement because it was too big a company, and because that amount of money was just a drop in the ocean—in other words, justice did not matter. New Zealand First members did not want to support a settlement to the Sealord Group because it was half owned by an Asian—that is, by a Japanese company. I believe that that is an appalling position to take on both fronts: firstly, a race-based objection from New Zealand First that the company is half Japanese; and secondly, an objection from the Labour Party simply because the company is too big. However, these are not our prime concerns and they will not stop us voting for scampi to go into the quota management system.

Our prime concern about this bill is the shifting of the goalposts, once again, in the scampi fishery. The original boundaries, which have been in place for over a decade, will change overnight. Quota management area 3, an accessible area off the Canterbury Bight and the East Coast of the South Island, and quota management area 4, which includes the Chatham rise, will change in area. I cannot understand that. Quota management areas can be changed only by an Act of Parliament; they are integral to the quota management system.

Even the report of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research stated there was no justifiable reason why one would change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. The institute’s report stated there were “no important differences” between the two main scampi areas. It stated that where there were “indications of differences” it might be appropriate to shift the boundaries, but that if that were done it would be “to some extent arbitrary”. The institute believed that if the boundaries were shifted the shift would be somewhere to the west, that the shift might be appropriate, but that there was “insufficient data” to assess whether scampi would benefit from the shift.

Given the report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, tThe National Party’s concern is that quota management area boundaries should not be changed adt hoc. We need a reason for those changes of boundaries. We would like to see from the Minister during the Committee stage amendments to change the boundaries back to what they have been for over a decade, or to hear a justifiable reason given to us why they should remain where they are with the changes in place.

I reiterate that National supports scampi going into the quota management system on 1 October of this year but cannot, and will not, support the bill in its third reading if the Ministry of Fisheries has not changed the boundaries of the scampi fishing zones back to where they traditionally were, or given us a reason why they should remain as changed.

Parliament is the last resort for people who have suffered injustice in our community. This bill means that Parliament has failed those people. It has looked at the injustice, it has acknowledged the injustice, and then it has cynically perpetuated the injustice. This is mean-spirited legislation that is wrong. It should be abhorrent to all reasonable people.

The story of scampi is a litany of arrogance and incompetence. I will start by quoting from an affidavit by Mr Vaughan Wilkinson in a 1993 court case involving Petromont Holdings Ltd. He said, in clause 12: “In or about 1987 Simunovich formed the view that there was sufficient numbers of scampi within New Zealand fisheries waters to sustain commercial fishing.” In clause 13 he said: “This view was founded on extensive research I had undertaken.” Well, Vaughan Wilkinson was still working for the ministry in 1987. He left in February 1988 to become a senior manager with Simunovich Fisheries. It is interesting to note that the information he passed on to Simunovich was not passed on to other fishers. Simunovich knew that at some stage scampi would be brought into the quota management system and that the allocation would be based on catch history. At the same time, and specifically on 9 December 1991, other fisher people were explicitly told by the ministry that catch history would not be used for future allocation of quota.

In 1993 Petromont was successful in judicially reviewing the ministry’s management of the scampi fishery. The courts described the ministry’s process of allocating temporary catch history as unfair, unreasonable, and unlawful. I will jump ahead for a moment to the Court of Appeal hearing in 2001, when Justice Thomas said: “Following the Petromont decision, instead of reconsidering the legality and fairness of its prior decision, the ministry ‘remade’ exactly the same allocations.”

In 1997, when smaller fishers judicially reviewed the ministry because they were going to take those temporary allocations into permanent quota rights, the ministry introduced new regulations to pre-empt the court case. The ministry came to the Regulations Review Committee and in front of that committee it undertook to start again with a clean slate for scampi allocation, if the court found that its actions had been illegal. The court subsequently did find that, but on the basis of that assurance the Regulations Review Committee upheld the regulations.

I move further on. In 2000 the High Court upheld the small fishers’ complaint, and I say again that the court found the ministry’s regulations to be unfair, unreasonable, and unlawful. The High Court did not have the jurisdiction to make a judgment on the regulations, so it went to the Court of Appeal, which also found that the regulations were unfair, unreasonable, and unlawful, and struck them down.

There seems to be a myth abroad in the ministry and amongst some of my colleagues that the judgment from the Court of Appeal was a minority one. That is not the case. It was, in fact, unanimous. I quote from clause 100 of the court’s decision: “All members of the court are in agreement that the appeals should succeed”—in other words, the appeals against the ministry. At that point one would have thought the ministry would accept that what it was trying to do was unlawful and unreasonable, and that it would change its policy—but it did not. It continued to do the same thing. Basically, it was thumbing its nose at the courts and at the Regulations Review Committee. The ministry also reneged on its undertaking to the Regulations Review Committee to start with a clean slate.

Then we come to the two inquiries that other members have discussed. First of all I mention the select committee inquiry, which really, in my opinion, failed to identify the solution to the wrongs that had been done in terms of reallocation of quota—because clearly the allocation mechanism was deeply flawed. The State Services Commission inquiry found that there was an unprofessional relationship between Simunovich Fisheries and the ministry, and found that favouritism had been exhibited. I would urge members to look at the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and at the definition of corruption. The definition of corruption in that dictionary states that favouritism is corruption. I will leave members to draw their own conclusions.

The two inquiries have been described, as my colleague Phil Heatley said, as the most scathing criticisms ever directed at a Government department in New Zealand. So we—certainly I—were utterly amazed to find that the chief executive officer had put out a press release claiming that the reports had completely vindicated his ministry. They had not. They had done anything but that. I would have thought that any press release the chief executive officer put out would have signalled his gallant falling on his sword.

Even worse than that, after the release of the two inquiry reports and while the Primary Production Committee was still considering the bill, was the Ministry of Fisheries’ announcement that it was going to change the boundaries of the quota management areas. We asked the ministry to give us a breakdown of how that would impact on the actual quotas. Ministry officials arrived the following week with a chart, and the chart had blank cells in it. That was the ministry telling the Primary Production Committee what the changes were going to be—with blank cells! When we said that that was not good enough, they came back an hour later with the cells filled in. In that chart, they said that Simunovich Fisheries would get an additional 129 tonnes, which was greatly in excess of the total allocation for any other fisher. When we complained and said that that was still not good enough, they went away and an hour later came back with a third sheet of paper. This time the increase for Simunovich was only 64 tonnes, which was still greater than the total allocation for any other fisher—except Sanford Ltd. That is outrageous. Constitutionally, it is unbelievable.

I believe that the favourable treatment shown to Simunovich, and the unfavourable treatment shown to other fishers in the scampi fishery, should not be perpetuated by putting that allocation model into the quota management system, based on the 1992 catch history years. Simunovich has already had more than a decade of preferential fishing as a result of the ministry’s incompetence—or dare we say “worse than incompetence”—and that injustice should not be made permanent. I have no real objection to scampi going into the quota management system but not on the basis of the injustices that have been shown up by two inquiries, the High Court of New Zealand, and the Court of Appeal. I say that the ministry has been grossly incompetent, and that the people at the top of the ministry should be resigning. If they are not prepared to resign, they should be made to resign.

In addition, and to compound that unfairness, which the Government is now putting into perpetuity, the Government is allocating this quota by legislation and in so doing it is taking away the usual rights of appeal that fishers have—that is, an appeal to the Catch History Review Committee and the usual right of review by the judiciary. The Government has chosen to put its own shonky decision-making beyond the reach of the courts by forcing this allocation through by legislation. This bill is very bad legislation and the Greens will definitely not be supporting it.

This whole scampi issue and the subsequent two inquiries are possibly the most damning indictments on a Government ministry, on Government officials, and on a Minister that this country has ever seen. Indeed, successive Ministers have presided over continuing abuse, unfairness, and arrogance from this Ministry of Fisheries. One could almost say that this Government ministry in its entirety should be towed outside our exclusive economic zone and dumped. That is probably the best solution for it.

The cost to this country in round figures has been $10 million—that is, $10 million of taxpayers’ money. For the record, I want to quote from the commentary on the bill so that it is in Hansard forever. I shall quote what Helen Cull QC has had to say about this ministry: “The findings of the report”—that is, the select committee’s report—“mirror those of our inquiry. In particular, the report is severely critical of the former Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for its unfair and inconsistent policies and procedures, and for inappropriate, unprofessional relationships that compromised the impartiality and integrity of its management of the scampi fishery. The report, however, found there are no grounds for further investigation of potential criminality on the part of either officials or fishers.”

It continues: “The report also recommended to the Ministry of Fisheries that: ‘if the legislation, policy and process for the allocation of scampi quota finally adopted allows administrative discretion, then to the extent such discretion allows, those exercising it consider, when coming to an over-all view of the relevant public interest, the exercise of the discretion be informed by the findings of this Inquiry.’ ” Those words, especially that first paragraph, amplify the thoughts of all members of the Primary Production Committee, who sat for a year listening to the “incompetence” of that ministry. That is the only word that can be fairly attributed to it.

I stand here in a rather difficult position, in that although there can be no question that the fishing community in this country has been treated abominably by this ministry, on the other side of the coin there has been allocation. Both committees of inquiry, in fact, found that there was no corruption, so I suspect that to redistribute now would cause more problems and more grievances. Therefore, the real question for me, I guess, and for the ACT party—indeed, for members of the House—is whether we vote to progress the passage of and pass this legislation, or vote to stop this scampi fishery going into the quota management system.

I have to go back to what I would call first principles—that is, to consider the fishery itself and its sustainability. There is no doubt, at all, that the quota management system is far and away the best method of ensuring the sustainability and sensible management of that fishery. It is with some real regret I have recommended, and my party has accepted, that we vote for the passage of this scampi fishery into the quota management system. But I say yet again that it is only on that principle—that it is in the best interests of the fishery itself.

I think my comments in my opening remarks make clear enough what I actually think of this Government ministry and the oversight given to it by Ministers. It seems to me that the most important thing that Mr Benson-Pope can do during his stewardship of this ministry is to clean up the mess immediately. He should be charged with nothing else by the Prime Minister than to sort this whole ministry out, so that the public can have some confidence in its future. I know there will be a huge number of fishers terribly disappointed, possibly in the ACT party and possibly in others, for their accepting that this bill will progress—although it is up to members of this House to determine whether it will.

I refer again to United Fisheries, which was one of the first companies to enter the scampi fishery. In fact, that company was wrongfully denied access to the scampi fishery during the 1988-89, 1989-90, and 1990-91 seasons. It was denied access by the Dunedin office, which had a policy of not issuing scampi permits through the late 1980s. How can it be possible that a ministry could have a policy that surely reflected its views, yet the Dunedin office could makde a unilateral decision that was at variance with the national policy statement, and with the requirements of the Minister and that department?

Perhaps one of the worst aspects of this whole business is that we had a Government ministry ignoring High Court directives. That is outrageous for a High Court in relation to redress. Mr Ewen-Street is quite right to say that Parliament is possibly the last venue for redress. But when we have a situation where business people, fishers, go to the High Court believing there has been unfairness, proving their case before a High Court judge, and receiving a verdict—as United Fisheries did—that states they have been unfairly treated, to any reasonable person, it seems to me, that is a directive to a Minister with any sort of integrity to say “My ministry will accept that directive of the High Court and ensure that this situation is put right.”

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: And the Court of Appeal.

And the Court of Appeal. But on far too many occasions and in far too many examples the ministry decided that it knew best, and knew more than the High Court. It decided to ignore that advice because—well, goodness knows why.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Why are you voting for it?

I tell the member I am voting for it because scampi ultimately has to go into the quota management system, and I am voting for it because there is nothing to stop continuing litigation against this Government ministry, whether it is inside the quota management system or outside it. I would certainly encourage those who have justifiable claims to continue them, because they have the sympathy of the entire Primary Productions Committee.

As I said earlier, this is an exceedingly difficult decision to have to make, but on reflection I see that I have little option but to follow through with the bill’s passage and vote for its second reading—albeit with the greatest amount of regret.

As a member of the Primary Production Committee I rise to support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), and also to add to the comments of members in respect of the scampi inquiry. I will start with that and say to the Green member, Ian Ewen-Street, that he is right: under our system this is the last place to try to correct injustices for our people. I pay tribute to every member of the select committee. It is by its nature almost a non-partisan committee and that was nowhere more exemplified than in this inquiry, because every member, despite differences in politics, realised that this was a grave issue to deal with and that people’s livelihoods were at stake, both large and small.

By the end of the process we unanimously came to the conclusion that some gross unfairness had taken place. We have to remember that this was perpetrated some 10 years ago and has hung around since then. But I would say to Mr Ewen-Street that in talking about injustice, one must remember that under our parliamentary and select committee system we must deal with the evidence put before the select committee. We were unanimous as a select committee that allegations of illegality and corruption, whether they were laid at the feet of a number of fisheries players or the ministry, were not proved on the evidence. We do not operate a kangaroo court system in this democracy. We must make judgments as a committee based on the evidence, despite, I must say in qualification, the gut feeling that many of us had on varying occasions about certain issues. Members who sat for those 59 or 100 hours that we did considering evidence and listening to submissions will know what I mean by that. But as a committee we identified unfairness and attempted in the best possible way, we believe, to correct that unfairness.

The only issue that the select committee parted company on, and I acknowledge Mr Heatley’s contribution, was whether or not to name dollar figures. Even that issue was dealt with in the spirit of the committee. There was a difference in opinion as to whether that should happen.

💬 Phil Heatley: It was a line- ball call.

It was a line- ball call, the member says. The majority of the committee supported putting in some minimums, I suppose in essence to ensure that the ministry played a fair game with those people who were to be compensated. After all, the committee’s job was not to allocate dollars; the committee’s job was to make recommendations.

For the record, the Government and the committee, and we all agreed on this inquiry, have attempted to clean up a large amount of incompetence that occurred 10 years ago. Without getting into the politics of who was in Government and who was not, because I do not think it is appropriate, it is on the record that there was gross mismanagement and, I would argue, incompetence in terms of how the scampi fishery and the allocation processes were managed, and gross unfairness resulted from that. I have to say that those same officials were, to put it as delicately as I can, less than helpful from time to time in coming before our select committee. Some would say that from time to time they were obstructive, but I will leave it at that.

I conclude on the point that I believe we have, through this bill placing scampi into the quota management system, tried to move this issue forward and bring it to a resolution, but also tried, ultimately, to protect that fishery. But I say to the major players and protagonists—Simunovich Fisheries, in particular, which will, through catch effort, gain the vast majority of that scampi fishery—that I think the days of litigation are over. I am a little outraged that further litigation in various quarters is proposed by various parties, because I think enough is enough. I suspect that, though I do not speak for them, other members of the select committee on different sides of the House may tend to agree, at least in part, with what I am saying. I say to Simunovich and other major players to get on with it. The issue is coming to a conclusion. The records, to the best possible extent, have been put straight. I call on those parties to get on with it, get out of the court, get back in the boat, get their feet wet, get a bit of salt going, and go and catch some fish.

I say to those people who came before us—in particular, to Mr Goodship and others who were compensated here—that I think we would all agree there were some pretty heart-wrenching stories, and some huge impacts, both emotionally and economically, on a number of players. I pay tribute to those fishers who kept fighting right through that 10-year period to try to get that unfairness corrected.

In summation, I support the bill. In summation, as a still relatively new member of the House, I congratulate and commend each and every member of the select committee, because I think we showed, as a committee, how people would like Parliament to work more often. I think it would be a delight for people to come and sit around the table at the Primary Production Committee and see the good humour, see the non-partisan nature that members engage in, and see exactly how this inquiry rolled out.

In my short time here, but having talked to other senior members, there must be something about that committee, that committee room, the air-conditioning, or something, because generally that committee—[Interruption]. Maybe the Green member contributes in a smoky sort of way. There is something about that committee whereby members fire their shots and have their political points of view, but at the end of the day, the intent of that committee is to get decent legislation and get decent outcomes back into this House. I acknowledge every member for that. I think we did the best possible job we could. We have been criticised—whichever way we go on this inquiry we will be criticised.

I finish by just repeating this: I call on those in the fisheries industry to get out of the courtroom and get back on the boat, and let us keep developing the industry.

In rising to speak to the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) I can do no better than follow on from the comments made by my colleague from the Labour Party, who paid tribute to the work that goes on in select committees. I personally have had a wonderful experience in another committee that deals with fish—we are hearing submissions on the Māaori fisheries settlement legislation—where the cooperation around the table has been really outstanding. We wish more of the public could see the good work going on in this place.

I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee—indeed, no one in United Future has a seat on that committee. It was with some trepidation that I had to start getting involved with the bill we are debating this afternoon, having watched from afar the issues surrounding scampi being dealt with through the inquiries and the courts, and all the accusations and allegations that were going on. I have only recently had to become familiar with the policy and the industry issues surrounding the bill. I am still amazed at the depth of complexity and controversy that surrounds it. I certainly have sympathy for those on the select committee who have sat through it for many hours, trying to make the best out of what has become a real dog’s breakfast. Trying to address issues of the past when things have not been dealt with properly is indeed complex, but our job in this House is to try to seek the most just situations we can. I think the people in New Zealand who elect us do not expect us ever to come up with perfect solutions all the time, but really to try honestly to find the very best and most just situation we can that is fair to all New Zealanders.

The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is the culmination of more than 10 years of controversy, litigation, and politicking, not to mention of two inquiries by the select committee and the State Services Commission. It is set against a backdrop of poor practice by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry of Fisheries officials who unfairly favoured some fishing interests over others to such an extent that allegations of corruption have even been levelled. Unfortunately, although we now know that there was no corruption per se, the allegations of unfairness have been proven, but nevertheless appear set to carry through into the scampi quota allocations due to be made in October this year.

United Future supports the introduction of scampi into the quota, and we understand the urgency around this legislation so that it can be done this year. Again, although the quota management system is not perfect, it is our best tool for sustainable management of our wonderful fishery resource.

I commented on the fact that there has been proven unfairness in this process. I will read a couple of comments from, first of all, the State Services Commission inquiry, which stated: “We have concluded that the former MAF/Fish acted unreasonably in administering the grant of permits for scampi fishing and for vessel approval during that period. We have also reached the conclusion that MAF-Fish did not have adequate, appropriate or consistent administrative systems and processes for the granting of such permits.” That is established as a fact.

The select committee’s inquiry also made the comment that we found there were significant failings by the ministry in its administration of the permitting system for scampi up to 1 October 1990. The difficulty is what this House does with those issues and how we deal with those who have been unfairly treated as a result. With such a long, drawn-out process having already been undertaken, this bill represents what is probably the best hope for a lasting settlement—flawed though it may be.

The scampi fishery is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and given its capital-intensive nature, fishing interests need certainty and stability before they can commit the resources needed to get the maximum economic benefits from the fishery resource. United Future favours certainty for business and for the creation of the conditions necessary for enabling maximum economic growth in such a lucrative industry. We also recognise an impracticable situation where we see one, and believe that the reparations process currently being undergone should mitigate the worst of the injustices that have resulted from injudicious actions by Government officials last decade. This bill, therefore, represents an imperfect yet practical and common-sense solution to this ongoing issue.

For that reason, United Future supports the second reading of the bill but we still have questions about the shifting of the boundary within scampi quota areas 3 and 4, and we will be continuing to look into those questions before the bill returns to the House next week for its Committee stage.

I thank those who have been assisting my own personal inquiries into these issues, knowing that many of the issues have been gone over again and again through the select committee. But I am grateful we have been given the opportunity to ask our own questions, and to try to find answers that will enable us to continue our support and support that will continue to give the best result for the people involved in this issue. We look forward to some robust debate during the Committee stage. We are committed, though, to seeing scampi introduced into the quota management system and, therefore, for this bill to pass through the House next week.

But there are still unanswered questions, and every answer I get seems to beg me to ask another question. So I am grateful for the patience that some are extending as we continue this process—from officials both within the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister’s office, and also from others who have shed light on matters for me, which I have found very, very helpful. We hope that we will see a really united support for this bill as it approaches its third reading after the Committee stage next week, and I do believe in the integrity of all the committee members who have sought to do their very best through this process.

I am encouraged that all those I am dealing with at this particular point are doing so from a motive to achieve the best for those they have listened to over these months—through submissions, and from personal meetings where they have pointed out their concerns with the legislation as it currently stands. Again, I reiterate that United Future is grateful to those who have worked hard on the select committee and who have been involved in these inquiries to try to put this issue to rest. We are grateful to the Minister and to his office for the assistance being given us right now as we engage in this process and are able to come to give our support to the bill. We will look forward to further discussions next week, and to the debate during the Committee stage, but we commend the bill to the House today.

I rise with some apprehension, having not been on the Primary Production Committee but having listened to a huge amount of debate on this issue now, over a long period of time, in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). National supports the scampi fishery going into the quota management system by 1 October this year, and there are a range of reasons why that is so, which previous members have spoken about.

During this debate I have been reminded of some comments made by none other than Albert Einstein himself. He said that some of the things we do count are not worth counting, and some of the things we can count do not count. I think that that is absolutely so in the debate that has gone on around this legislation. We have here a situation where a very good select committee—of which I have been a member myself in the past—has grappled with difficult issues of incompetence and bad management. I could stand here as an Opposition member, take a few shots at the Government, and talk of bad Ministers, poor Government, and all the rest of it, but the reality is that the incompetence that has gone on in this ministry for so long covers a number of different Governments. So it would not be a fair shot if I were to do that.

The fact is that this has been a vexed, difficult issue, where there has been a huge amount of unfairness, but at the end of the day, this is the ultimate court of the land in terms of judging what is fair and what is not fair. We can talk about the detail of the law, and clearly there have been some huge discussions about that—about how the historical catch has been achieved, how the quota system has been established, and how different fisheries have entered the quota management system—but at the end of the day someone has to make an arbitrary decision about what is fair and what is not fair. There has been a huge amount of unfairness in the history of this process.

I thank those members of the select committee, who have done an excellent job—many members have said so. I know they can because I have been in that select committee when other difficult issues have been debated, and I congratulate the committee on coming back with a recommendation. I say to the Minister, though, that now the select committee has done that work in a non-political, non-partisan way, he should take notice of what the committee has said. He should certainly take notice of the history that has brought the select committee to the position it is at, because what I fear and what we are seeing is a Minister and a ministry that, once again, through an arrogant approach, are deciding that they might change various lines in the sand—or in the scampi fishery, as it were—and create more unfairness.

My colleague Phil Heatley has given me a map that shows that area 3 of the quota management system off the South Island is likely to be changed—an arbitrary decision to change the line. We do not know what that means. We do not know whether there will be a number of undetermined applications affected. We do not know whether the science backing that up is robust. We do not know whether it should be changed back. The Minister needs to explain that to us. If he cannot, and if his ministry cannot give a reasonable explanation, then National cannot support it. It is that simple. The ball is in the Government’s court on that matter.

The work that the select committee did also uncovered, in my view, a range of areas that could be described as being very close to the letter of the law, but there was nothing in the inquiry suggesting that any laws had been broken. As I said when I started, at the end of the day those decisions are always on-balance decisions. There is always a fine line between what is legal and what is not legal, and there is always a fine line between what is fair and what is not fair. I think it has been overwhelmingly established, over a long period of time, that a certain amount of what went on certainly could never be described by any fair-minded person as fair.

Having said that, the reality is that we will be watching this bill through the process with great interest. Certainly, there will be some debate on various clauses during the Committee stage, and we will listen to that with great interest. We will be waiting for the Minister and his ministry, which have demonstrated no competence in this matter thus far, to come back and tell us what it is they are trying to achieve through their arbitrary change of lines. If we are not satisfied with that, we will not support the bill going any further. That is about all that needs to be said by me.

J MACKEY

As deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee, I start by thanking all the members of the committee, and the people who travelled—quite often, long distances—to come before the committee to make submissions. I thank those players for their work in trying to make this bill into good legislation. I believe we have achieved that.

I have listened to the speeches today, and I note that a number of parties are expressing concern over the change in the boundaries. Certainly, I imagine we all responded to the consequences of that change. However, I commend the National Party members for saying that they will be seeking further advice as to the reasons for it, and that they are prepared to listen to that advice and judge the change accordingly. My understanding of the change in boundaries is that the scampi beds lie over the border of the fishing-ground. If we believe in the quota management system—and, certainly, the Primary Production Committee is the first committee to urge the Ministry of Fisheries to get people on boats in order to ensure that people are taking the correct amount of fish from the correct place—I would say that the fishery is impossible to manage if the fishing bed is divided in half by the boundary between the two regions. So I certainly hope that members opposite follow up on the rationale for the change. Knowing the consequences of it—and, certainly, none of the committee members are ecstatically happy with the consequences—I would say that that needs to be taken into consideration in balance with the ability of the ministry actually to police that fishery, and to ensure the sustainability of the scampi beds.

Dealing with scampi has been a long and wonderful experience. I never believed, when I came here 12 years ago, that I would leave here something of an authority on the behaviour and life-cycle of, and the fishing methods for, scampi—even if I have never tasted them. It has been an extraordinary experience. Once again, I thank the other members of the committee for the sensible and intelligent way that the issue was approached. I am delighted to speak today, as scampi goes into the quota management system. Long may that put to bed all the problems the industry has suffered in the past.

I call the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street.

💬 Hon Member: He’s had a call!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry, the same member cannot have two calls, unless, of course, the member seeks leave. It is then up to the House whether it is granted.

I seek the leave of the House to have a second call on this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.