Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

The title of any legislation should be designed to give people a fair indication of what the legislation is about. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) will not suggest to many people what this legislation is about, whatsoever. But as a member of the Primary Production Committee, I can tell members that the committee knows very well what the legislation is all about, because we have been working on the issue for years. The issue has been going on for years. The issue is, of course, the scampi fishery of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Oh, what?

That is right, the scampi fishery of New Zealand. Members of Parliament suddenly know why we are debating this today, because they know that this issue has a huge history and is hugely controversial. I say to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, that we should be honest with the people of New Zealand and call this bill the “Scampi Bill (No 1)”. Let us hope this bill tidies up scampi completely, so that we will not have any more legislation. We will not even need the “No 1”, because we will not have to have another bill for scampi, at all. If it is done properly, the scampi issue will be tidied up by Parliament in this legislation.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Is the member supporting the bill?

The Minister will have to wait to find out whether the member is supporting the bill. I know he will be keen to know.

I say to the Minister that we should seriously think about naming this bill, correctly, the “Scampi Bill”, because all this legislation does is take the opportunity to finalise scampi entering into the quota management system, and to allocate finally the quota entitlements to the fishers who were involved in that fishery 12-odd years ago, which is how long this scandal and controversy have been going on for.

💬 Shane Ardern: How long?

Twelve long years. It spans a number of different Governments—I accept that. I must say, right at the outset, that the Primary Production Committee, which conducted the scampi inquiry, acknowledged that the issue transversed a number of Governments, and it worked genuinely through the issues without trying to play party politics. I congratulate all the members of that select committee on coming up with a very detailed and progressive report that has tended to move the issue forward.

Before us today is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), which will finally—we hope—put the matter to rest so that fishers can get on with the job of catching fish and making money for themselves and for “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call to give us a reason why we should not correctly name the legislation the “Scampi Bill”, rather than the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). I think the “Scampi Bill” would give a far better message to people in the industry and to New Zealanders generally interested in the legislative process as to what the legislation is all about.

Before I call the next member, I want to remind members that we have been dealing with clause 1 as a wrap-up clause at the end of the debate. The debate on this clause is limited; it is not a wrap-up debate.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just seek clarification on your last statement. Are you saying that this debate, at the moment, is a wide-ranging debate? Is it just on the title and commencement?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the debate is not being dealt with as a wide-ranging, wrap-up debate; it is being dealt with as a limited title debate only.

Superficially, I am tempted to agree with the Hon David Carter’s suggestion that this bill be renamed the “Scampi Bill”, but I think that is a little too simplistic. Perhaps we should really look behind what the bill actually means. Perhaps it should be called the “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”.

💬 Hon David Carter: The what?

IAN EWEN-STREET:”. The “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. The scampi industry has a history of mismanagement by the ministry. It has a history of overfishing by some of the major players in the industry. If one looks no further than areas 1 and 2, one will find that there is no mature fishery left in those areas. They have been overfished. Perhaps we could call this bill the “Maybe this isn’t very democratic but, hey, let’s not worry; it’s only a few scampi fishermen Bill”.

💬 Janet Mackey: That’s a Green title.

It is a very appropriate title.

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s a bit long.

Members may very well laugh at it, but people have identified this as being a situation where they have been unfairly treated. They have been to court on several occasions, and they have been found to be right. They have instituted two inquiries, and, again, they have been found to be right. But what is happening to them? The Government is just riding roughshod over justice and putting this bill into a permanent quota allocation for the sake of convenience. We members may well laugh, but this is the thin end of the wedge. It could be the scampi fishers today, but people can bet their bottom dollar that it will be them tomorrow.

I join David Carter in asking the Minister to take a call and say why this bill should not be called the “Scampi Bill”, because that is clearly what it is. The title, Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), is quite meaningless really, to the general public. I do take issue, though, with what Mr Carter said about putting the scampi issue to bed. I would like to think that this would be the end of it, but I rather feel that when the full truth of the matter comes out, his National Government—for I presume at some stage National will become the Government—will revisit this issue. Hopefully, it will put a fair allocation of scampi quota into place, because I think even the most radical, the most enthusiastic member of this Parliament who wants this bill to go through, would have to concede that the allocation is unfair. We would also have to look at court cases and say that it is not only unfair but also unreasonable, and it is unlawful. We are putting into law something that has been shown by the courts to be unreasonable, unfair, and unlawful, and we should not go there. I support David Carter in renaming this bill the “Scampi Bill”.

Having sat through the inquiry and on the Primary Production Committee, which reviewed this bill, I would like to say in supporting the bill that I do not give a toss what it is called. We can call it the “Chocolate Fish Bill”, if members like, as long as we get this stock into the quota management system so it can be managed sustainably.

I am not sure whether it was Shakespeare who once asked: “But what is in a name?”. I think when it comes to the scampi bill, quite a lot is in a name. A member of the public listening to this debate might tune in and say: “Oh, this is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)—what an innocuous title.” Anybody listening would think that the subject has to be the most boring ever, and switch off. In reality, as the Hon David Carter mentioned, this bill is about one of the biggest commercial—how can I rephrase that? I cannot recall a time when an allocation of any product, anywhere, has caused so much controversy. It has taken over a year of inquiry—indeed, there have been two inquiries—to actually come up with this final bill that we have in front of us, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4).

In fact, the bill should be named the “Scampi Bill”, as Mr Ian Ewen-Street and Mr David Carter have quite rightly observed, because everybody in this country who has any interest in the fishing industry knows this infamous No. 4 bill as the “Scampi Bill”. It is entirely appropriate to give it a name that describes it exactly. It is important that the title should reflect accurately what this bill is really about. The bill is about huge controversy. There has been enormous controversy. It is about allegations of incompetence. It is all about allegations of corruption. It is about ineptitude. It is about all of those things, yet nothing in the title actually or accurately reflects exactly what this bill contains.

I hope that the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, will take a call. I guess he is embarrassed about this whole business around the scampi issue, as indeed the whole of Parliament is. Certainly, the ministry must be embarrassed about it. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and to explain to us why this innocuous title, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), was used instead of a title that accurately reflects what this has been about. In fact, I would go further and call it the “Scampi Debacle Bill”, which might even more accurately reflect what it is about. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for the players in this industry, as indeed it has been for the members of the select committee in trying to come up with reasonable outcomes, which I hope and believe we have done.

I come back to my first question: what is in a name? I think there is an awful lot, and I would much prefer to call the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) the “Fisheries Debacle Bill”.

As I wandered down to the Chamber to take a call on this legislation, I was bemused at the title of this bill. Along with a number of other speakers, I wondered what the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” tells us, and what issue the bill addressed. When I started to flick through the legislation it became very clear, as other speakers have pointed out, that this is really the “Scampi Bill”. That is what it is about, amongst other things. So I propose, along with the Hon David Carter, that the appropriate title for the bill is the “Scampi Bill”.

However, I have had the opportunity to reflect on a couple of alternative titles. As I flicked through some of the other contents of the bill, I thought that the “Change of Boundaries Bill”, or the “Change of Line Bill”, may also be appropriate titles. I have only just thought of that. I am in an arbitrary mood, and it occurred to me that changing the boundaries, as the Minister has done, has been quite arbitrary, as well. So those titles may be appropriate. Another title that comes to mind is the “Quota Management Bill”. When one picks up this bill and looks through it, one finds, in essence, that that is what it is about. Essentially we are saying—and National agrees with this component of the bill—that we want to see the scampi fishery come into the quota management system. So that title would be reasonable. However, I could be a little more controversial and call it the “Scam Bill” because, first, it rhymes with scampi, and, second, it also makes me think of some of the things that have foreshadowed the creation of this legislation. We have had two inquiries, and we are now getting to a point where we will have legislation that is still surrounded in controversy.

Another possible title that comes to mind is the “Mismanagement Bill”, a title that resonates with me somewhat.

💬 Hon David Carter: What about the “Scampi Scandal Bill”?

That is another title that comes to mind. Both those titles resonate with me a bit, because when I look through the bill I see the contribution that the Ministry of Fisheries has made to its drafting. Even the best friends of the Ministry of Fisheries cannot really say it did a good job. The ministry has been found wanting by a number of different parties, and I do not mean just political parties. The Primary Production Committee went through the legislation and was very critical of the ministry, and the State Services Commission inquiry also pointed the stick at the ministry, as well. The “Mismanagement by the Ministry of Fisheries Bill” could be a reasonable title. It probably does not serve the fishery industry very well. Maybe that is one suggested title that we will not pursue, when I think about it. However, we cannot have a debate around this legislation without at least saying to the ministry that it will have to lift its game. It was a pretty hard critique of the ministry’s performance when an independent body said that the ministry was unprofessional, ad hoc, and inconsistent. Those are the sort of things that we need to take into consideration.

The contribution of the Labour member Janet Mackey was—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to come back to the title.

I was about to. I am sure that Janet Mackey’s suggested title of the “Chocolate Fish Bill” was not a particularly serious suggestion, but I did think that it was of some interest. It talked about fishing a little more than the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” does. It occurs to me to ask why the bill is titled the “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)”. What went before it?

💬 Shane Ardern: Three before it.

I assume that three bills went before it, but why should we call it that? Who cares?

💬 Hon David Carter: No, that’s wrong. No. 3 hasn’t gone before it. No. 3 is still before the select committee.

Maybe the Minister can take a call to explain why this is the No. 4 bill, when there has not been a No. 3. I am struggling with that, and I see that the Minister is also struggling with it, because he has neither rhyme nor reason for the title. He is struggling to get past No. 1, probably. However, that is a dilemma that we find ourselves in at the moment, as well.

I rise to speak on the title debate, and to support my colleague David Carter in putting forward the proposal to change the name of the bill to the “Scampi Bill”. Clearly, Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) tells no one, except those seared by the pain of the scampi inquiry, what the bill is about. But before I do that, I would like to address Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I know that Ministry of Fisheries’ officials are very keen to put every fish species they can find into the quota management system. They want to put in highly migratory species, tuna, mussel spat—anything that moves. I bet that a working-party will be produced to look at Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I put it to the officials that they should slow down and hold their horses, as they will not get any support on this side of the House for that suggestion.

I refer to Brian Connell’s question about this legislation being the No. 4 bill, and what in the world were the No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 bills. I shall address those titles briefly. The No. 1 bill was passed well before I was a member of Parliament, taking an interest in fisheries, but I can tell members that the No. 2 bill was about the conservation levies paid indirectly to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Department of Conservation, which were overcharged during a 4 or 5-year period. The Labour Government had to give back $16 million or $17 million to the fishing industry, because of that overcharging, and that bill was sorted out before the committee.

The No. 3 bill relates to highly migratory species and tuna going into the quota management system, which everyone is up in arms about, including the member Ian Ewen-Street. He is concerned about that, too. He is not just up in arms because of line dancing; he is up in arms genuinely, because of highly migratory species going into the quota management system. The No. 3 bill is also about mussel spat going into the quota management system, and of course about a whole lot of species going in, without catch history being recognised through the allocation of quota.

However, the No, 4 bill is clearly about scampi. I support David Carter’s change of the bill’s name to “Scampi Bill”. If he wanted to be more technical he could call it the “Metanephrops Challengeri Scampi Bill”, the reason being that that is the Latin name for scampi. Interestingly, the French call it langoustine, Italy also calls it scampi, but Spain calls it cigala. They smoke scampi in Spain. They call it cigala. I understand that the Greens also smoke scampi, although that has not been confirmed. So that is the “Scampi Bill”.

This bill is strictly about scampi. Clearly, the title should include scampi in its name. Members of the public constantly come to me when they discover that I am the National Party spokesperson on fisheries, and they say two things. Firstly, they ask: “What’s the story about scampi, because that’s all we hear about when it comes to fisheries, and I think it’s hurting the industry.” The second thing they say is: “My, you’re a jolly good spokesperson. Are you the one the officials go to for advice?”. That is what they say to me.

I put it to the Committee that there is tremendous interest in what David Carter and I call the “scampi” legislation. Unfortunately, the whole seafood and commercial fishing industry has been tarnished because of what has happened in the fishing industry over the years, and that is hugely disappointing. We as a National Party team are keen to put all those problems behind us and resolve them, through the passing of this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.