Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

I seek leave that clause 69 and schedule 2 be one wide-ranging debate, but that the question be put separately on the clause and the schedule. We will be canvassing the same arguments in both clause 69 and schedule 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can we have some definition from you about what a wide-ranging debate is. Does the member mean that it is a debate across the clause and the schedule and not back across the bill?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I am talking about a wide-ranging debate on schedule 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? That will occur, then. The question is that clause 69 stand part. The debate includes schedule 2, as agreed.

Members will recall that I indicated that the issue of scampi fishing area 3, just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island, and the new fishing area scampi 4 around the Chatham Rise, caused some anguish in the scampi fishing industry. Certainly it did in the Primary Production Committee and within the National Party, because we saw those boundaries being changed.

Clause 69 states: “The principal Act is amended by adding the Schedules 13 and 14 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act.” Schedule 13, of course, is the one that shifts those very boundaries. I should be more specific: it does not affect the outside boundary of areas 3 and 4, but rather the internal dividing line, which is moved eastward over some hundreds of kilometres. In other words, it expands fishing area 3 well out east of the east coast of the South Island, and more towards the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Rise. We wondered why shifting an internal boundary line, given that the outside boundary did not change, would suddenly make available more and more fish. The response we had is that fishers will be forced to fish specifically around the Chatham Rise, as well as off the east coast of the South Island. They cannot move between the two fishing grounds without actually moving from fishing area 3 to fishing area 4, and back. That seems fair enough to me.

We will support these schedules, because we believe that the change in the areas is appropriate for sustainability and utilisation reasons. With the help of the maps, and in probably under 1 minute, I have been able to explain to a large number of my colleagues why we are doing this, yet it has taken weeks and weeks to get answers from the ministry about why it is necessary. Once the ministry gave us the right answer, everyone understood it clearly—just like that. It is of concern to us—certainly to those of us on the select committee—why we could not have had that simple answer in the first place. I guess it is a message to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Minister that when explaining these things they should go back to first principles and not talk about too much detail, just the practical aspects. When we see the practical aspects it is easy to understand them, and easy to support them. So we support those schedules.

I will be leaving it to my colleague David Carter to speak about schedule 14 specifically, which, of course, is the scampi provisional catch history allocations to the various companies involved in the scampi fishery historically. We are still concerned that a number of fishers have been left out of the fishery. They are the aggrieved fishers, as listed in the select committee scampi inquiry report. There were seven of them. A number of them, I see in the schedules, still get catch history for those areas where they caught scampi, but they are aggrieved fishers because there are other areas where they could have caught scampi, or there is more scampi they could have caught, adding to their catch history, if only they were able to obtain or execute the permits they were granted.

There is one person in particular who I would like to mention, Trevor Goodship—a man who wanted to go scampi fishing for himself, build up his catch history, and eventually pass on his business to his family. He has been locked out. He is aggrieved, and I would like to hear some assurance from the Minister that negotiations with him are continuing. I know that his compensation package, or ex gratia payment, was capped at $800,000 by Labour Party members on the select committee. We are not sure where they got that capping idea from, but we do know that he is not listed in any of these schedules to receive an allocation. He genuinely wanted to go scampi fishing. Everyone agrees, including the courts, that he should have been able to go scampi fishing, and we would like to see that result.

I would like to take a brief call to respond to the issues that have just been raised again around the boundary recommendation and change, which Mr Heatley has just canvassed and which were canvassed earlier. I wish to make it quite clear to the Committee that I am glad that acknowledgment has just been given of the lengths the ministry and my office went to in order to provide the information people asked for. But I find it extraordinarily unfortunate when members of this House, such as Mr Ewen-Street and others, bag ministry staff for doing what they were asked to do, by me, very late at night. They worked under extreme pressure, with very little notice, to provide, at my request and that of Mr Carter, information for the Primary Production Committee the next day. The fact that it was incomplete is not a criticism of the ministry; it is a compliment to the effort those staff put in that night, very late. The meeting that took place between me and Mr Carter was at 9 p.m. or thereabouts. The ministry staff worked late that night, and they worked the next morning. I think we see in this bill the results of a good, cooperative effort, and I am really sad that some of the comments that have been made tonight are so uncharitable and so downright misleading.

I was not going to take a call on clause 69, but I rise now to comment on the matters just raised by the Minister of Fisheries. The information that was given to the Primary Production Committee was simply not accurate. That is fact. I fully accept that the officials worked into the dead of night to try to get that information. The fault here lies with the Minister himself, who gave this bill to the select committee and said he wanted it back in 3 weeks because there was some urgency involved. The select committee went to the Minister and asked for an extension of time. The Minister personally refused to give that select committee an extension of time, because he had to get the bill back into the House urgently in order to have it progress—and that was about a month ago! He said he would put it in the urgency motion, but it never appeared in the urgency motion.

So I tell the Minister not to criticise the select committee members at all; they worked hard for that Minister to deliver the information back on time. What the Minister should do is question why a time limit was imposed whereby this legislation was given to us and we were told to get it back to the House within, I think—I cannot remember the time—about 3 weeks. I think the Minister should also take the opportunity to acknowledge that all the members of the select committee asked the Minister for 1 more week to finalise this issue. It was the Minister himself who refused to give us that time, and then he sat on the legislation. He forgot to put it in the urgency motion. We are now, within a matter of weeks of 1 October, rushing the bill through the Committee tonight so that it can have its third reading on Thursday, and, finally, the scampi issue may be resolved.

Having said that, I would like to talk briefly to schedule 14, in schedule 2. In my mind, that is the finality of this issue. There are some big winners. Simunovich Fisheries, which has been mentioned considerably through the debate tonight, is a big winner. But it went out there and fished. It went out there and saw the potential of the fishery.

💬 Shane Ardern: It developed it.

Well, Simunovich Fisheries claimed it had developed it solely. I do not think that is entirely true. I think a number of fishers wanted the opportunity of being involved in developing it. But, without doubt, the big player that took the big investment decisions and operated through those important years was Simunovich Fisheries.

That is the essence of the legislation that was passed in 1996. It recognised in retrospect that the fishers who had been active in chasing any particular species over the catch history years would ultimately be entitled to quota at the time that the species came into the quota management system. It was never anticipated, when the legislation was passed in 1996, that it would take years and years for that finally to happen. I guess that is the history of the scampi fishery. It is the reason for the select committee inquiry and the reason for the State Services Commission inquiry. But, at the end of the day, the National Party certainly acknowledges that its role is now to finalise this issue, so that the fish can continue to be sustainably harvested, and to acknowledge that there have been winners and losers, but, in terms of trying to right the unfairness, it is just not possible to undo the issues and the creation of catch history that occurred so many years ago.

I say finally that it is not fair to blame the select committee members who tonight have been critical of the information provided. There were categoric examples where the information was in conflict. The pressure on the officials was created by the Minister himself, who gave the select committee an indecent amount of time to consider the issues.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, there has been a voting error. The voting list is to be corrected. The vote on Gerrard Eckhoff’s amendment to clause 68 was announced as Ayes 13, Noes 102. The correct result is Ayes 14, Noes 102.

I think I may have an answer to the question the Minister of Fisheries will not answer. He has been asked to answer this question on many occasions. In fact, we thought he was going to answer it just a few moments ago when he rose to take a call. Instead, he made a mistake in trying to blame the select committee members for the haste with which this bill was dealt with. I refer to the arbitrary decision to shift the boundaries. How will shifting the boundaries of area 3 and area 4, allowing more fish to be caught, enhance the sustainability of the fishery? That is a very perplexing question for us on this side.

I have before me two maps. I have been looking at them and I think I have concluded how that may be possible. The Minister may take a call to confirm whether I am right or wrong. By shifting the internal boundary between area 3 and area 4 we have now driven the fishers further off shore, where they may not have otherwise gone. Therefore, we have expanded the amount of fish that has traditionally been harvested. We have sent the boats further out to sea, and by doing that have developed a larger area of the fishery. I say to the Minister that maybe that is wrong, but it is the only logical conclusion, when looking at these maps, that anybody could come to. It is just purely nuts, as a proposal, to suggest that by changing the boundaries we create more fish. That does not happen. The only way we can make the fishery larger is by increasing the area to include parts where fish have not historically been caught. I presume that is the correct answer. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley has a view on that, and he may think it is the answer too, but the Committee would dearly love to hear from the Minister and have that confirmed. At this point in time we are still in a vacuum; so are the scampi and the fishermen. The fishermen do not know whether that is the answer, as well.

This whole debate tonight around the allocation of scampi, and scampi entering into the quota management system, has been very interesting. A number of things have been canvassed by a number of members, but none more so than the whole debate about whether this process is fair. Overwhelmingly, one can only conclude that the answer is no. This process is not fair, and this Minister has compounded the problem. I do not think it is fair to blame him entirely for the problem, because it has been going on for a long time, and he is a new Minister. But it is just a pity he did not take advice from some more senior Ministers, and perhaps even some former Ministers, as to why we had got ourselves into this muddle. Instead, he has listened to the officials, who have over a number of years given bad advice to a succession of Governments and Ministers, and, once again, he is here tonight making an arbitrary decision about a boundary, and he will not tell us why. He will not say tonight why this boundary is being shifted, which effectively is what is happening in this bill.

This proposal did not go to the select committee. It has happened since the select committee process. The officials came back and said the boundaries should be shifted because there would be more fish. On the surface, how do they work that out? But if we look at the map we see that maybe it is possible. I say to the Minister that if we go all the way to Australia, well beyond our economic zone, maybe we will have more fish. Somebody suggested earlier tonight that if we go to Norway, where these fish hail from, we will have more fish. That may well be so. Maybe the ministry’s advisers have told the Minister that we should implement a quota management system in Norway. I am not sure, because he will not answer the question. The bottom line is that we cannot make more fish by shifting the line on the map. The only conclusion we can come to tonight is that the Minister has decided that with the area going further out to sea there will be more head space for those who feel aggrieved. Maybe the Minister will take a call and clear that up once and for all. The Committee, and anybody who is listening tonight, must be in a huge vacuum as to why he has made that decision.

I was not going to take a call on this component of the bill, but then the Minister of Fisheries rose and had the audacity to blame the members of the Primary Production Committee, and other members of this House who have come down to the Chamber tonight to debate this legislation, who have said that there is something wrong with the advice that he has been getting, and that some of that advice has come from the ministry. The ministry has been fingered by independent inquiries as being ad hoc, inconsistent, and unprofessional, and this Minister had the audacity to get up and blame the members of the select committee. How pathetic is he? Well, I tell members that he is hopeless, and that is why he will not stay in the job for very long at all. The Minister should set the tone for how he wants his ministry to perform. He should not stand up and blame others for his own poor performance.

Having said that, I will turn my attention to the issues of the schedules and why United Fisheries in particular must feel highly aggrieved with the process that this Minister is proposing as a solution.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Bring back Jenny.

I hear Mr Mallard calling out—the man who is so dense that light bends around him—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that members should be referred to by their correct name.

I thought I had pronounced his name correctly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, you did not.

I have been referred to as Brian, Bryn, and Brain tonight, and I have not heard anyone objecting about that, but when this Minister and Mr Mallard get similar treatment they do not like it. Well, he has run into someone who is just a little bit harder in the head than he is. We will not worry about what Mr Mallard thinks, because he is a guy who, when the brains were given out, was not exactly home. All that he has ever done with his life is be a teacher, then come to this House—and he cannot even manage that particularly well. He wants to protect the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, because he knows he is hopeless. The Minister has demonstrated that to all the people who have been listening tonight.

I had started to refer to the schedules before I was rudely interrupted by Mr Mallard. I was beginning to say that I think United Fisheries and the other fishers who miss out somewhat under what this Government is proposing as a fair and equitable solution have cause to be totally despondent and to feel they have had no justice whatsoever under this process. The National Party, in the spirit of cooperation and using the benefit of our business experience, lent a perfectly workable solution to the Minister of Fisheries. But he is naive and inexperienced, and because he could not listen to those who knew better, he will not be in the job for long. He could not take advice or see past party lines. United Fisheries and those other six fishers are the ones who are missing out as a consequence. It is not just and it is not fair. The solution that was offered was entirely reasonable: give those fishers the first right of refusal. It could not be much fairer than that—provided they make a financial contribution. But what they are saying is that money is only part of the solution. This Minister did not have the capacity to get his head around that simple commercial issue, and that is the great tragedy.

So what happens? We have the courage to say that the way he is leading the ministry, and some of the performance from his officials, are not satisfactory. He then attacks the messenger. The Minister can mumble and grumble under his breath as much as he likes—that is all he is really good for. He has been invited on numerous occasions to get to his feet and answer some of these questions, but he has not had the conviction to do that. He is tough when he is sitting in his chair mumbling to the Chairman, but when he needs to get up and demonstrate that he has the capacity to get his head around this issue, he is not at home. It is no wonder that those fishers listening out there who have reason to be aggrieved have no confidence in him whatsoever.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have another amendment in the name of the honourable Ian Ewen-Street. It is an amendment to omit and substitute new schedule 14. However, I have ruled it out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision made on clause 67.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.