Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

Clause 68 has been particularly intriguing for the National Party because one of the aspects it talks about is the boundary changes between quota management area 3, which is just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island, and quota management area 4, which is roughly around the Chatham Rise. What happens under clause 68 is that the boundary that is the dividing line between those two areas, after a decade and a half of fishing scampi, is to be shifted eastward. That was of huge concern to National members because we knew that shifting the boundary would change the quota management allocations to each of the fishers, the amount of surplus Crown quota available for tendering to the market in general, and also, and more important, affect the management and sustainability of the fishery.

We did not get sufficient information from the Ministry of Fisheries at the select committee to understand clearly why the boundary change was necessary. We were quite concerned that in shifting the boundary what may happen is that, firstly, the fishery would not be managed sustainably, and secondly, a number of fishers would be locked out of the scampi fishery forever, and we did not want to see that happen. However, I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries, and I would like to extend some gratitude to him today, because in the House he answered clearly my question, and the question from United Future MP Larry Baldock, about why the move of the line was necessary.

Two issues came out of that. Firstly, in moving the line, there would be more surplus Crown quota to be tendered. It would seem strange that if an internal line were moved, suddenly there would be more fish to catch. However, as we understand it, when the line is shifted, people are able to lift the amount of fish that can be caught in area 4. If the line were back where it was, the amount of fish that could be caught could not be lifted, because there would be no guarantee that fish in that particular area 4 would be targeted. I understand the reasoning there. So more quota will be available for tendering, and we are pleased about the maximum utilisation with sustainability. That, of course, is a Fisheries Act goal.

The second issue—and one raised by Larry Baldock—is the issue of sustainability: whether it was sustainable, in the Ministry’s view. Again, the Minister gave a positive answer in the House today. We are pleased to say that we understood his reasoning. He was saying quite simply that by shifting the line, more fish would be available to be caught, the fish would be utilised better in a sustainable manner, and secondly, more Crown quota would be available for tendering. So we are pleased about that.

With regard to that, I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the National Party suggestion in the select committee report back that where there is excess Crown quota, the Minister could consider giving the aggrieved fishers listed in our inquiry the right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management allocations they historically indicated they wished to fish.

We are not saying that that is something the Minister should definitely do, but it is something that ministry officials ought to consider, to put the issues of the seven aggrieved fishers we listed behind them so that they can fish for scampi, put those issues behind the ministry so that the ministry can get on and manage the scampi fishery properly, and certainly put the scampi issues behind the whole seafood industry, which, at the moment, is being hamstrung by the bad press of that fishery.

I rise to speak to clause 68 also and I will address the issue of the boundary change that is now recommended in the bill. On behalf of United Future I shall explain how we have come into this situation, not having been on the select committee in the first instance, and not having worked through all the issues that other members on the select committee have worked through. The issue of the boundary change really exercised our minds when we were asked to support the legislation. We were prepared to support the recommendation of the committee, in terms of the allocation to those aggrieved parties. It seemed to be the best solution possible, and we certainly respected all the time and effort that other members had put into coming up with a solution to things that had been mentioned in this debate.

So far I have not participated in the other clause-by-clause issues. I think they have been covered very well by others. It was the issue of the boundary change that was of most concern to us, and mainly that we could understand why it was happening. The member who spoke before me also covered the issue very well, and we are grateful, as he has been, to the Minister and the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries for assisting with our inquiries. The issue was quite complicated and difficult to get our heads around, and the additional information that was given to us was gratefully received, and enabled us to say today that we supported the boundary being where it is. We also support the bill being passed this week so that it can take effect. United Future is supportive of scampi coming into the quota management system this year and not having to wait.

Now that we understand that the boundary was changed in order to provide greater sustainable management of the fishery, and to create more quota, we are very pleased to be able to support this clause, and the schedules that will accompany it when the debate gets to that point, so that it is the best outcome for all those who have been involved in the process. The more quota that can be created means more, whether tendered or allocated, for those who have missed out, and ultimately the sustainability of our asset in that fishery is managed.

The fish stock around the Chatham Islands can be utilised to its maximum potential, and the fish stock around Mernoo Bank can also be managed without the complication of a boundary line running right through the centre that would lead to the possibility of misreporting, if trawlers moved across the imaginary line in the sea. We are now comfortable that that makes very good sense and is the best possible scenario for the future.

The Committee put a lot of time into the rationale for changing the boundaries, because we were concerned about any effect it may have on further allocations to the fishers who qualified. Conversely, we were concerned about the effect it would then have on the National Party’s solution to try to address some of the unfairness. I shall go back to that issue first, because it was not covered well in the earlier debate.

The committee, and those who have followed this issue, all accept that unfairness occurred. I do not think that there is any doubt about that in anybody’s mind. The issue is then how we move to address that. The National Party feels that it has advanced a very sensible solution, whereby where headroom is available, then the identified aggrieved people have a preferential right of tender at the market price. Fiscally, it will cost the Government absolutely nothing, but it will move to satisfy many of the concerns.

The issue then regarding the movement of boundaries becomes extremely important if the headroom available changes negatively for the Crown. That is where I have trouble with the information that was then provided to the select committee. We asked for a schedule, which was given to the select committee, about what effect would occur for the individual fishers. The first information they came back with showed that the largest fisher in the area—Simunovich Fisheries—would receive an additional 129 tonnes of allocation by changing the boundary areas, and the Crown, conversely, would receive 47 tonnes less of headroom available. The select committee then proceeded to deliberate on the legislation, only to find at the very eleventh hour—and the eleventh hour was perhaps 10 or 15 minutes later—that a further piece of paper was presented to the select committee that stated, lo and behold, that the Crown would also be a winner.

It is certainly fully explicable that the select committee had trouble understanding the effect of the change of boundaries when the officials themselves were not able to state categorically who were the benefactors and who were the losers. Our colleague Phil Heatley has now spent additional time with the Minister and ministry officials and is convinced that by the moving of the boundaries the issue of available headroom actually increases substantially.

The reasoning for the select committee being advised by the officials that the boundaries needed to be changed was one of sustainability. If that is an issue, then that should have been known to us quite some time earlier. The issue of sustainability still remains a question in my mind, whereby the suggestion is that the Committee will agree to the change of boundaries tonight yet we are doing that change because we are worried about sustainability, but the result will be that it allows an increased amount of fish to be caught. There may be a logical explanation that the Minister can help us with, but it is certainly something of a puzzle to me at this stage that the rationale for saying we need to urgently change these boundaries is that the sustainability issues exist—and we are then told that it will allow additional fish to be caught, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

The boundary changes certainly allow additional quota to be allocated to those who have been lucky enough to be within the system and lucky enough to have obtained catch history over those vital years that we discussed in regard to the previous clause.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: It wasn’t luck.

No, I guess that is true, and those people were actually out there fishing and doing the job at the time, but the issue around the fairness is that there were a large number of other people who also wanted to be out there doing the fishing at the time, and for reasons that are now familiar to many people in this Committee they were not given the opportunity to do so.

Having said that, I still think that the National Party’s suggestion, which the Government was not prepared to accept at the select committee stage, should be given further consideration by the Government. The aggrieved fishers do not simply want a monetary contribution as a means of settling their grievance. They want the opportunity to fish. Many of them had proven track records as fishers, but they were certainly not given the opportunity. Somebody mentioned United Fisheries earlier. United Fisheries applied and applied, and the ministry kept saying that that company had not applied.

Like my colleague Phil Heatley I was somewhat mollified by the Minister’s answers in question time today, because I have been quite strongly opposed to the idea that the boundary changes should take place. However, like David Carter, I am still puzzled as to how one can change the boundaries for sustainability reasons and yet allow more fish to be caught. It seems like a paradox that only the Ministry of Fisheries could come up with—logic it away in some magic way. I do not really understand the process that the ministry went through to get to that point. It is clear that there was some consultation with the industry over a period of time, and I commend the ministry for that; but it is also clear that not everybody was consulted.

Why is it that the ministry waited until the very last minute, after the two inquiries were over and after the Primary Production Committee was just about done with its consideration of the bill, before it announced that it would change these boundaries? The ministry claimed to have all sorts of scientific evidence, and it may be right, but why did it leave it so long? My main opposition to it, apart from my puzzlement over the sustainability issue, is why it is that every time the ministry makes a mistake or makes a line-ball call it favours one fisher over everybody else—and this is another example of Simunovich Fisheries being favoured over everybody else.

First of all, as Mr Carter said, when the ministry came in it gave us what effectively was a blank sheet of paper. I do not think I am saying things out of school by saying that we were utterly outraged that the ministry could come to us and give us a blank sheet of paper, as if we would not know what the heck was going on.

💬 Phil Heatley: Fill it in yourself.

Yes. When the ministry realised that we were on to it, it suddenly came back with another sheet of paper that stated that Simunovich Fisheries would get 129 tonnes extra, which was more than the total allocation for any other fisher. Let me say that again: the increase for Simunovich was greater than the total allocation for any other fisher. When we rejected that as being as equally outrageous as being given a blank sheet of paper, the ministry came back about an hour later with a third sheet of paper. This time the sheet of paper stated that Simunovich Fisheries was to get—oh, gosh—only 64 tonnes extra. Again, that was more than any fisher in the industry, except Sanford Ltd.

💬 Hon David Carter: Is Sanford here?

Yes, I think that Sanford Ltd was to get 89 tonnes. If we look at the figures, we see that the ministry has increased the headroom by 200 tonnes. Do those figures add up to 200 tonnes? Does that third sheet of paper actually make sense? Maybe it does, but I need a bit more explanation from the ministry to actually agree with it. It is a mishmash. If I felt confident that the ministry was operating on the basis of scientific evidence, it would not have come up with three different versions of this event in the one day. Why should we have confidence in the third sheet of paper any more than in the blank one? It seems like a whole series of guesses.

I have to admire the ministry, though. It has got to this point by steadfastly believing that allocation on the basis of the 1990-1992 catch history years was the way to go. The ministry lost in the court case in the High Court. It told the Regulations Review Committee that if its new regulations were struck down by the court, it would go back and start afresh. It did lose in court, but did it go back and start afresh? No, it did not—“Our policy is to allocate on the 1990-1992 catch history years.” Two inquiries have slammed the ministry in the strongest terms possible, yet it has carried on and, to its credit, is getting this through Parliament. It has conned the Government. Why are we doing this? It has been shown over and over again to be wrong and unfair.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have an amendment to this particular clause. I am the first to admit it is probably not perfect, and I am sure that members of this Committee could word it better, perhaps make it a little clearer, or whatever. However, it is designed—and I am sure Mr Ian Ewen-Street will be delighted to hear this—to achieve what we have been discussing all evening: the question of fairness. We have had continual complaints from fishers that they have been shut out, and will be into the future. I will not go through the names again; the ministry knows full well who they are. My amendment offers an opportunity in the future for those who want to go scampi fishing to do so.

One thing is certain around the fishing industry—that is, that quota will be traded, regardless of what species is involved. Those who held quota 10 years ago in orange roughy, crayfish, or whatever fishery it might be, have traded. My amendment, which I hope will be picked up by the Committee, suggests that when quota is legitimately traded between a willing seller and a willing buyer, 20 percent of the value of that quota—and the value will be established when two people have a deal to do—should be made available to those who have been adversely affected. My amendment proposes to add subsection (6) to section 369R, and states: “(b) The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for ‘scampi’ and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement and mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred.” So this amendment is an attempt to redress the problems that do exist.

I repeat, in the not too distant future the fishing industry will languish. Indeed, I am told that it is languishing somewhat right now. The cost of diesel, for example, is getting to a level where it will make fishing unproductive for a number of individuals or companies. They will, no doubt, sell their quota in order to survive, or move on to some other fishery or into another line of business. Quite clearly, scampi quota will be on the market at some stage, and I think that if this amendment is accepted, there is an opportunity of redress—or to add some redress, anyway—for fishers who have been shut out and who want to advance their cause and prospects in the scampi fishery. I hope that the Committee will consider this particular amendment.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a critical part of the debate, and I note that my colleague Mr Ardern is also seeking a call. Also, my good friends from New Zealand First have not yet had the opportunity to take a call, but I am sure they will. Certainly, if the Chair allows the debate to range over these issues it will be very worthwhile, and it will be to the betterment of the fishery.

National has provided conditional support thus far with regard to this bill. On my way down to the Chamber I felt very certain in my mind that that support would be withdrawn if we could not get some satisfaction as to why these boundary changes have been made. I am somewhat mollified by the information my colleague Mr Heatley shared with me, but I still have some questions for the Minister. I note that other questions have been posed to him, as well. I would like him to get to his feet and address some of the issues so that I have a better understanding of how moving these boundaries in such an arbitrary way will enhance the fishery and enable it to be managed on a sustainable basis. I think that is a very fair question. I have heard other members putting that question to the Minister, and, if we could get some satisfaction around that, I think the Minister might get some sense of cooperation from us. I have to say, though, that in offering his answer to us, I would like more advice than his simply saying: “My ministry officials told me so.” I think it only fair and reasonable, given the circumstances that surround the ministry’s performance on this legislation, that we are given some sense of independence in the advice we receive. I think it is wholly reasonable that the Minister give us an assurance that the advice has been sought.

There is a significant opinion—maybe it has changed over the last 24 hours—that says that the boundary changes should not be moved and that moving them is simply of little practical use. I note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research says there is no justifiable reason why we should change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. I accept that new information does, and can, come to hand. If that is the case, and if there have been compelling reasons why these changes are not simply arbitrary decisions made by the Minister and his officials, then I will listen carefully to what those reasons are. That necessitates the Minister getting to his feet and giving some explanations. I am perfectly happy to yield the balance of my call if he will give me some indication that he will get on his feet and take a call. However, it seems he will not. One then wonders why we get suspicious about what is actually driving these changes. We have a Minister who, I accept, is new to his role. I accept that he takes advice from his officials because he simply does not have the experience to make these decisions himself. But surely instinct would tell him—given the circumstances surrounding the performance of the ministry—to seek independent advice. I can only conclude that he is not getting to his feet to answer the questions because he simply does not have that advice.

I have to tell the Minister that I am particularly concerned at the way that United Fisheries and the six other fishers that my colleagues named have been treated around this quota issue. It is no fault of theirs that they have no part, or a limited part, in the scampi catch at the moment. The decision of the Minister’s officials not to bring some sort of closure and justice for them is wholly wrong. I want to quote from part of a letter from Geoffrey Palmer, who wrote from Chen Palmer and Partners, to every member of Parliament—if I can find it. I cannot find it, but he pointed out that getting things wrong is not the essence of the issue, but how or whether we put things right is. That, essentially, is the issue. The Minister is not giving me any confidence that he is prepared to deal with these issues.

I move, That the question be now put.