Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

Clause 66, the interpretation clause, is an interesting little clause that was slipped in at the last minute when the bill was tabled in the House for the first reading. I will read it out for members who may have forgotten their glasses: “Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after the definition of scallop spat, the following definition: “scampi” means any fish of the species Metanephrops challengeri”. That is Latin, and only those like myself who know Latin will recognise it. I will interpret it for members. It means “scampi”.

This is an important clause, because if one mentions scampi to the average punter walking up Queen Street—

💬 Shane Ardern: Or Lambton Quay.

—or Lambton Quay for that matter—all that he or she will think about is corruption and mismanagement. People will think of commercial fishing in bad terms, sadly, and of all sorts of issues, including free lunches. But scampi is a commercially fished species, caught mainly off the east coast of New Zealand, so it is clearly important to put the definition of scampi in this bill, given that the fishery is coming into the quota management system.

I have a picture of a scampi here should members like to come over and chat to me. I know that Judith Tizard wants any excuse to sidle up to me and chat. [Interruption] She has one. She can come over to this side of the Chamber to see a scampi picture that I have here. Interestingly enough, a scampi is not a prawn; it is a lobster, and it looks more like a lobster. When people ask me what a scampi is, I generally say that it is a fish species that is halfway between a prawn and a rock lobster. It roughly is, in size. It is about a foot long and is part of the lobster family, strictly speaking. It has the Latin name Metanephrops challengeri. I was quite intrigued by the last part of the name, “challengeri”. I thought it might indicate where scampi was originally found, which is in the Challenger Area fishery—area 7, as members will know. Apparently, it is not particularly prevalent there, but, interestingly, that is part of its scientific name.

National will be supporting the Minister on this clause, simply because it is important to put a definition of scampi into the bill—certainly into a bill that is about that specific fishery. It is intriguing to me that the Minister has seen fit to put the definition, “scampi”, after the definition, “scallop spat”, given that, alphabetically, “scampi” comes after the term “scallop spat”. That will help members, his Labour Party colleagues, librarians, and others to find it quickly. We support that definition. I mentioned before in Italy it is also called scampi. In Spain it is called cigala, and in Germany it is called the kaisergranat. Here in New Zealand we call it scampi.

I feel compelled, after listening to that member, to take a call to say that if National became the Government, he could be the Minister of Fisheries. I would imagine that anybody from the fishing industry who has just heard that speech would now be walking on water, quickly in the other direction. Because, for somebody who spent so many weeks on the Primary Production Committee, that member’s knowledge has some huge gaps in it. It is like a fishing net with none of the knots tied together. I suggest that he now reads the bill again, and all the submissions that were received on this very, very important legislation—and he should reconsider before making a speech after the dinner break.

This is a bill that has significant importance to the fishing industry and a huge amount of debate has preceded it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to stick to the clause.

Yes. I am surprised at the level of that member’s contribution.

I was not on the Primary Production Committee, but I do like fish and I do like scampi. It is interesting to see the different pictures of scampi that that my colleague Phil Heatley has with him. There are some very good ones, and they clearly identify what we are talking about here. As he said, they have different names in different countries. There is another name here that I cannot pronounce because it is in Japanese.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

We are debating clause 66, “Interpretation”, and over the dinner break I did some research and made a remarkable discovery about the word “scampi” in my trusty Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition. The dictionary states that it is the foremost authority on current English, so I thought there would be no better place to find out about scampi. I looked up “scampi”, on page 1231, and I found that “scamp” has a number of derivatives. As mentioned earlier, there is a Latin name for scampi, and, going back to the days when I learnt Latin, many years ago—[Interruption] I learnt “amo amas amat amamus amatis amant moneo mones monet monemus monetis monent”. I found in the dictionary that a “scamp” is a rascal or a rogue. Further on, it states that “scamper” is to run or skip impulsively or playfully. Then we come to “scampi”. As we go from “scamp”, to “scamper”, to “scampi”—those are the Latin derivatives—we find that a scampi is a Norway lobster.

💬 Hon Members: What?

It is a Norway lobster. There is no better reference than this dictionary. A scampi is a Norway lobster.

The work I have here, the Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species, which I quoted from earlier—Phil Heatley was the instigator of this—has in it some very glossy pictures showing what scampi look like. I like fish—although I cannot tell the difference between a scampi and a prawn—so long as they taste nice. That is indicative, is it not? I am not interested in what the cover of a book looks like; it is whatever is inside it that is the main thing. And so it is when I look at scampi and prawns. I note that other names for scampi are mentioned in the book. I did not have time to catch up on my Japanese during the dinner break, but in Italy and the UK they are also known as scampi. I think it is significant that the explanatory note states that scampi has an average size of 25 to 30 centimetres overall, that from the end of the tail to the tip of the rostrum—I do not know what that means—it is about 16 to 21 centimetres, that the abdomen is about 3 centimetres in diameter, and that large scampi weigh over 100 grams. In the interpretation—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Has the member ever eaten scampi?

I have eaten lobster. In Norway it is called lobster. The book states that scampi is a lobster, not a prawn. So that is clear, and it corresponds with Norway lobster or Dublin Bay—I thought that was a wine—prawn.

The book describes scampi as being whitish or pinkish, with darker orange strips at the joints, that the rostrum is long and upward curved with a strong spine, and that it has large eyes. I am sure that clearly identifies it. It states that scampi are widely dispersed around New Zealand, that experimental fishing has been conducted from the Bay of Plenty northwards, using specialised deepwater trawlers, and that the largest prawn-like species in New Zealand waters are likely to be the main species of any possible future fishery for prawns. This is a very good book. It refers to other fish, but I will not go into that because it is not part of the debate.

It is interesting to note that the Concise Oxford Dictionary does not refer to those other areas. It states that scampi are from Norway. So what I found out over the dinner break was interesting. As I said earlier, I was not on the Primary Production Committee. Gathering this information has been a steep learning curve for me. I have certainly learnt a lot by going through the Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species, and also by going back to the dictionary.

With those few thoughts, I will finish. Suffice it to say, I appreciate what scampi are, compared with prawns. All the different interpretations and names here are significant, but I am aware now of what the issue is. When we discuss the other clauses, and especially the schedules, we will talk about those who will actually fish the zones. I think that will highlight the issues we face, and the reasons National is supporting the bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I normally agree with your rulings, Mr Chairman, but on this occasion I am not so sure. I was not going to take a call on clause 66, “Interpretation”, but having listened to the very learned contribution of my colleague Lindsay Tisch, I felt I would rise to state that, without any question at all, I support this interpretation clause.

Having listened to Lindsay Tisch’s superb dissertation on scampi, its various descriptions, and its definitions in his well-worn Concise Oxford Dictionary, I think it is absolutely vital that we have a clear, concise definition. I was struck by Lindsay Tisch’s explanation that at some stage scampi is called Norwegian lobster. That raises a concern that I think has not been addressed in the debate so far. We have been talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4), and we know that before the Primary Production Committee was a Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill was about Māori obtaining 20 percent of the quota of tuna caught anywhere around the world, it seems. I wonder, then, whether the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, needs to clarify for us whether there is any claim by Māori on scampi caught in Norway.

💬 Brian Connell: Was that in their quota management system?

I say to my learned colleague Mr Connell that I am not sure whether the Norwegians have a quota management system. Maybe the Minister could answer that for us, as well. I do not think it matters whether they have a quota management system, because the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries has decided that we will impose our quota system on fish caught just about anywhere around the world.

💬 Shane Ardern: Chocolate fish.

There was a suggestion of chocolate fish, but I think the Labour Party was just showing a zealous enthusiasm when it was thinking of putting even chocolate fish into the quota management system. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to allay our fears that there is any claim at all in the interpretation as to whether the scampi claim for 20 percent will extend well beyond New Zealand waters, maybe as far as Norway.

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clause 67 Qualifying years