Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. The bill amends the Fisheries Act 1966. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004—a key recommendation of the select committee report on scampi—and corrects the general problem with the current quota allocation mechanisms identified during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system.

Members have expressed some concern regarding the new quota management area 3 and area 4A boundaries for scampi. Scampi are currently managed within 10 fishery management areas that were set in the late 1980s. As part of the process to bring scampi into the quota management system, the Ministry of Fisheries sought independent scientific advice on the best future management regime for the fishery. The proposed changes are based on the strong recommendations of that advice. Scientific analysis of catch rates, by-catch, and scampi biology provide evidence that scampi on the Mernoo Bank and the north-west Chatham Rise are one stock and should be managed as such. Under the old boundaries, that stock is split in two. The benefit of the new management boundaries provided in this bill is that I can sustainably provide more quota than under the old boundaries, because I can provide for new areas to be developed. To date, fishers have taken sustainable catches of scampi mainly from one small part of the two existing management areas on the Chatham Rise. We know that the habitat and populations of scampi attend across a much wider area. The new management boundaries separate out the existing stock of scampi, to allow better management and provide development of the fishery, particularly in the waters surrounding the Chatham Islands.

I have yet to decide on the new total allowable commercial catches in the proposed new areas 3 and 4A. The Ministry of Fisheries is currently finalising advice to me, after consulting on a proposal to increase the catch limits in the new areas 3 and 4A from their current combined total of 310 tonnes to 460 tonnes. As a result of the boundary changes, if the catch limit increases are implemented the amount of Crown quota available for tender in area 3 will more than double. There is also potential for quota to be allocated to the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust under the new boundary arrangements. The amount, if any, of such quota will also ultimately depend on the total allowable commercial catch set for the new area 4A.

In closing, I need to comment on the personal price a number of senior staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and, later, the Ministry of Fisheries have paid in the course of this long debate. It is true that the State Services Commission investigation found no substance to the serious allegations that were made against those individuals. That is, of course, welcome. However, the personal toll on the individuals and their families of living with such accusations hanging over them must be acknowledged. I thank those staff for their professionalism and integrity.

I commend the bill to the House.

As members will be quite aware, there is quite a history in this House with regard to the scampi debacle, if one likes. The unfortunate activities in the scampi fishery over the last decade culminated in a parliamentary select committee inquiry, whereby myself, my colleague David Carter, Janet Mackey, Clayton Cosgrove, Doug Woolerton, who was replaced by the Hon Winston Peters, and others spent considerable time looking into those issues. We became—more than most, I think—educated in the greater overview of what went on during that decade, both out on the water, in the different scampi management areas, and behind closed doors in the business rooms of the fishing industry.

We also gained huge insight into what the Ministry of Fisheries—previously the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—was up to during that time. It is interesting to note that the unfortunate incidents that unravelled in the ministry happened under a number of Governments—the Labour Government in the late 1980s, the National Government in the 1990s, then a Labour Government again. Fortunately, we were able to form a select committee that did not have a political agenda, if one likes. There were members on that committee who certainly had personal agendas, but no particular party had a party political agenda. That is why that particular select committee made a whole lot of progress, and we were pleased with that.

At the same time, and roughly in parallel, the State Services Commission also had an inquiry into the management of the scampi fishery. It was looking at allegations of corruption against State-employed officials, and it, too, spent a considerable amount of time looking at the management of scampi. Interestingly, the two inquiries came back with similar findings, although I would have to say that the State Services Commission inquiry was a lot harsher on Ministry of Fisheries officials than we were. The State Services Commission said that the Ministry of Fisheries officials had been unprofessional, ad hoc, and inconsistent, and had little regard for fairness. That was a sad indictment on those officials at that time. We can only hope—and I am sure Mr Ewen-Street will comment on this—that they have learnt something from that.

We also heard from a number of aggrieved fishers who had been effectively locked out of the fishery. Their names are Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and A G Cave; a third party, United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company No 14; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and Sealord Group—seven aggrieved fishers that we were able to identify had just cause to be in some way compensated. The committee recommended that they should receive ex gratia payments. Some members of the committee, by putting their fingers in the wind, came up with figures of $400,000 for most of them, and $900,000 for Mr Trevor Goodship. Committee members said that those payments should be a minimum payment to those particular aggrieved fishers. The Government came back and said that they would be a maximum payment to those aggrieved fishers.

The Sealord Group was left out of that list for two reasons. I gather that one was that the Labour Government felt it was too big a company to receive compensation, which would be just a drop in the ocean to it, so it ignored justice. Winston Peters, from New Zealand First, opposed it because the Sealord Group is half-owned by Asians, and, of course, he wanted to take a racist approach.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you sit that junior member down and tell him he cannot use the word “racist” in this House.

I withdraw—

Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would that member sit down and shut up while I am talking! I am entitled to make my point of order without his jumping up and down like the inexperienced novice that he is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That has been settled. Could we please have the member’s point of order?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He cannot make those statements—

💬 PHIL HEATLEY: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now he has done it twice. If he does it a third time, he should be told to leave the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I will be the judge of that. The member is encouraging that behaviour. I have the member’s point of order, and I thank him for it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I have my point of order heard in silence where that member is concerned?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Absolutely! My Heatley is not to repeat that behaviour when a point of order is in progress.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That member cannot make allegations like that. He should get up, withdraw and apologise, and wash his mouth out.

💬 PHIL HEATLEY: I withdraw and apologise. Unfortunately, Sealord Group has not seen any justice in print, and certainly will not see any justice in practice, and we are disappointed with that.

However, the National Party will support this bill. It is our view that scampi should come into the quota management system as soon as possible, and, of course, this bill allows that to happen on 1 October of this year. It is our view that the scampi fishery not being in the quota management system is unsustainable, simply because there is a race to catch fish. There is little regard for ensuring that fishing occurs during the time of the year when scampi are mature, and there is no incentive at the moment to do so. Juvenile fish are being brought up, fishing-grounds are being targeted, and there is a fair degree of tension out on the water in the scampi fishing-grounds. So we support scampi coming into the quota management system, and will certainly vote for the bill with that in mind.

We also note, and refer back to, our concerns over the boundary changes to quota management area No. 3 and quota management area No. 4A. Members will recall that quota management area No. 3 is off the Canterbury Bight, on the east coast of the South Island, and quota management area No. 4A is further east, around the Chatham Rise. We were concerned that that larger area, quota management areas No. 3 and No. 4A, had a dividing line within it, and that that particular dividing line was going to be shifted well to the east. We knew that would have consequences with regard to the amount of Crown quota available for tender or available for settlement on the aggrieved fishers. That was of concern to us, but what was of more concern, what was the most significant and paramount concern, was the fact that shifting that line may make the scampi fishery in that area less sustainable, and the fish in some respects may be pillaged and the fishing-grounds damaged. We were given assurances by the Minister of Fisheries in the House—and I thank the Minister for giving those assurances—that that line was shifted for sustainability and utilisation reasons.

We now know that there are two specific fishing-grounds, in areas 3 and 4A. The line as it is now shifted in this bill—and the National Party endorses this change—splits those two fishing-grounds cleanly. That means that the take of fish can be increased and everybody is a winner. The fishery is a winner because it is being fished sustainably; the fishers with quota are winners because they are able to get more quota and improve their businesses; and, of course, the aggrieved fishers, or others wanting to get into the scampi fishery, are winners too, because there is excess quota for them to purchase. We are delighted about that.

National will be supporting this bill, with that proviso. Our prime concern, having worked through the other issues, was always those boundaries. I would like to say that working through the scampi inquiry was an arduous process. Most of us on the select committee were focused on getting a good result, and I would like to acknowledge all the members on the committee, particularly the Labour Party, National Party, and ACT members. Others certainly pursued their own agenda, but that was OK because we came out with the right result. We were not influenced in any way by others on the committee. We are delighted to see scampi going in to the quota management system this year. That accords with the wishes of the majority of those in the seafood industry, who simply want to sustainably utilise the scampi fishery.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is timely. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system, and that really needs to happen. The Primary Production Committee has done an excellent job, and we look forward to better management of our quota fisheries.

I think this is the first speech I have ever made on the issue in respect of this bill. It is a fact that for about 50 percent of the meetings I replaced my colleague Doug Woolerton on the Primary Production Committee, and that was because he asked me to, and because since 1986 I have taken an interest in fishing. I was the National Party’s associate spokesperson on that subject, before it foolishly expelled me from its caucus on the matter of the Sealord’s deal, circa October 1992. Of course, National knew everything about fishing then, but somebody was right and somebody was wrong, and we know today who was right and who was foolishly wrong. One would not think that the National Party had handled the legislation in 1992, by the way its members talked today. But as I have always said, their blood type, their DNA, and their fingerprints are all over this issue, and their speeches display a word that begins with “h” that I cannot possibly use because it is outside the Standing Orders.

I wish to say, first of all, that the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust entitlement in the future—off shore for 450 miles—is a sound idea. Those people deserve special treatment in respect of the resources that abound their lands, and we should have regard to that.

But I want to mention, also, the question of the affected parties—Goodship and others. I want to tell them that, though they may not know it, there is one reason they are being compensated as a benchmark in fairness, and that is that there was a New Zealand First presence on that committee, and no member of that committee can deny it—first, as to the principle of fair compensation, and, second, as to the amount.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: The amount, maybe!

If there is no amount set, then no amount will be paid. Goodship, who is bound to get $950,000, and the rest, who get in excess of $400,000, as a benchmark, owe it to one party—New Zealand First—even though they do not know it. I just wish some members would go out and tell those people, disgruntled though they might be, the truth.

I want to say this. The National Party members at all times in the select committee were. as always, all over the place. We found out today during the third reading that they support the bill. I saw their spokesperson, Mr Heatley, get up and say recently in Whangarei, at the recreational fishing conference at Onerahi, all sorts of statements in front of all those recreational fishers, who were utterly bewildered as to, first, what he did not know, and, second, what he was prepared to say. But he also said yesterday, during the Committee stage, that everywhere he goes amongst the industry, people always tell him what a great spokesperson he is. Well, name one person in the industry who thinks that boy on a man’s mission is a good spokesman when it comes to fishing!

💬 Darren Hughes: It will have to go to the Privileges Committee!

I will get to that soon. But that is what he said. I do not know one person in the fishing industry who thinks he is a competent spokesperson, yet he had the arrogance to say at Onerahi: “If you’ve got any problems, come and see me.” That is what he said. I thought: “By gee, they’ve become arrogant so fast and so sudden.”

💬 Darren Hughes: What does the “Great Debater” think?

Well, the “Great Debater”, or the “Great Communicator”—

💬 Darren Hughes: The “Great Pretender”!

The “Great Pretender” is never here. The “Great Debater” never debates. Once a week for about 10 minutes we see this great Leader of the Opposition, and for the rest of the time—

💬 Darren Hughes: What’s his name?

What is his name? Well, the point here is where is the “Great Communicator”. Well, we know where he is: dodging the House, dodging accountability, dodging being exposed, and dodging being shown not to have the capacity to do what every Leader of the Opposition must do—take on the Government day in and day out and show some leadership. He wins all his fights by 100 yards, and out there we have all those journalists and reporters saying: “Oh, he’s the next Prime Minister.” Stop dreaming! One has to show—as overseas, in free democracies, leaders of other Opposition parties show—some leadership, and the capacity to do the job that one’s caucus tells one to do. Thus far all we have got is rank plagiarism of New Zealand First policies. He reads our speeches back to us, and claims that the policies are National’s.

The National Party members were all over the place. At three different times on three different occasions, with the knowledge of their leader, Don Brash, they alleged corruption against one of the members of the committee, and they are facing serious defamation claims as a result. We will see them through to the very end. If they have any idea that TVNZ and its money and its bank will save them, or save Mr David Carter or Mr Shirley, they can stop dreaming about it now. One thing is protection in a defamation case, and it is the protection and defence of truth. What was said was a tissue of lies—most particularly, when I was not here to defend myself.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am surprised you did not bring the member to heel. It is quite incorrect to refer in the House to a matter that is before the courts in the way that the member has done, particularly when he is a party to that action against another member of this House. That is grossly in breach of Standing Orders, and I ask you to call him to desist.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that Mr Shirley needs to listen and pay more attention to what is going on in the House. I said that what was said was a tissue of lies. If the glove fits then wear it. But only then, when he makes his complaint, can he possibly have any right to bring a point of order in the way he did. If he wants me to say he is one of them, then I will. But at that point of time I had not done so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thought it was another matter that the member was calling a point of order on. There is no need to give any ruling in respect of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters is saying. Please continue.

For the remainder of the time, the National Party was all over the place. I want to ask Mr Heatley this.

💬 Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to give the old man a breather.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just heard what that member said. He is about to leave the House because he cannot defend himself. Let me say that I will be around long after he has gone.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): OK. Can we move on.

But I want to ask the National Party and Mr Heatley this: are they prepared to tell the House today what the ownership, control, and direction of the Sealord’s company is? The Japanese are not known for putting up 50 percent of the money, and giving the control, the direction, and the leadership over to someone else. Where in the world have the Japanese or any Japanese company ever done that? I tell Mr Heatley or Mr David Carter to get up and tell the House what the Sealord’s ownership, control, and management is, and if they cannot do that they should sit down and shut up. If they cannot do that, they should stop making stupid complaints born of the National Party’s ignorance. They should be the last people to talk about influence when it comes to politics; they should be the very last people to do that. I ask Mr David Carter to tell us who it was that Don Brash saw when he was abroad—in Europe, in particular.

💬 Hon David Carter: I wouldn’t have a clue.

I know; he never has had a clue. But he should have a clue. He is a front-bench member of the National Party.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: He was the numbers man.

He was the numbers man, so he should tell us who Don Brash saw. Were they not the very same people who were setting out to corrupt the National Party in 1988, 1989, and 1990, and who poured millions of dollars into the National Party’s coffers? I was a front-bencher and I knew. That was why I got fired. I tell Mr David Carter not to tell me that those members do not know. [Interruption]

I say to Mr Shirley that being fired from the National Party Cabinet is a badge of honour. Unlike Mr Shirley, who would do anything to keep in office, we do not. We in New Zealand First believe in principles, in ethics, and in doing what is right. I know that is strange territory for the ACT party, whose members will do anything to survive in politics. But we in New Zealand First do not just talk about honour and principles; we act by them. That is why our party will massively hold the balance of political responsibility come 2005. When ACT has gone, when the Greens have gone, and when United Future and all the rest have gone, there will be one party, at least, here to keep the industry, the economy, and Parliament honest, and that party is New Zealand First.

I believe that today is a sad day for democracy. Parliament became aware of a grave injustice in the scampi industry. I believe that almost every member of the Primary Production Committee, and perhaps of the House, has acknowledged the grave injustice that has been perpetrated, but now Parliament is proceeding to turn its back on that injustice, and I do think it is a sad day. I can only ask the Government: where do people go to receive justice in this country?

The scampi fishers were done wrong by a Government department. As a consequence, they went to the High Court and they won. The ministry ignored the outcome of that High Court decision. The fishers went to the Regulations Review Committee and they got support there, on the basis that they undertook to change their regulations if the court found that they had done wrong. The court did find that they had done wrong, but they reneged on their undertaking to the Regulations Review Committee. The scampi fishers went to the Court of Appeal, and they won a unanimous case there. The Court of Appeal found that they had been wronged. The ministry again ignored the outcome.

The scampi fishers succeeded in initiating two inquiries. Both of those inquiries returned scathing criticisms of the ministry. But the ministry has managed to ignore the outcome of those inquiries, to the extent that the chief executive officer put out a press release saying not that he was falling on his sword but that the ministry had been completely exonerated; that it had been vindicated. I think that all the members of the select committee were as amazed and as gobsmacked as I was when that came out. But Parliament has had the opportunity to right the wrongs that have been done to the people in the scampi industry. They have proved their case over and over again, yet this Parliament is setting that injustice in concrete.

I do not believe that this measure will put the scampi injustice issue to bed, as the Government so sincerely hopes it will. I think that the Kiwi psyche is so attuned to a sense of fair play that people know when they have been wronged, and the issue will come back to haunt this Government. I believe that some future Government, of whatever colour, will have to revisit scampi quota allocation, because such a wrong is being done to it. This is bad legislation, and I suspect that history will confirm that. The Greens oppose this bill.

The day the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) passes is the day that many people will see as the final settlement for what has been a very difficult issue. I fear that members will actually find that this is not the end of the matter, at all. The saga of the scampi fishery is a long and sad one. It has been characterised by vicious litigation, with fishers contesting the decisions of the ministry and being pitted one against the other as they contest what is obviously a very, very valuable resource. I am also saddened to note that the case has now moved to the courts, with two members of Parliament—myself being one of them—being sued by another member of Parliament.

I became significantly involved in this issue in October 2002, when an Assignment television programme aired and repeated the allegations that had been made in this House 6 months earlier—allegations of corruption amongst officials in the Ministry of Fisheries.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Who made the allegations?

The allegations were made by none other than the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In the speech he made then, he promised to table voluminous amounts of evidence in the following weeks. To my knowledge, that evidence has not ever been tabled by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. After the Assignment programme aired in October 2002 and highlighted the fact that Mr Peters had made these allegations in Parliament, I and a number of other members of Parliament thought it was worthy of the Primary Production Committee instigating a significant inquiry to find our whether the allegations of corruption levelled by that member of Parliament had substance.

As history now shows, the evidence presented to the select committee during the whole of 2003 and the conclusions of that select committee satisfied us that the allegations of corruption against ministry officials had no foundation. I acknowledge the comments that the Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, made earlier when he acknowledged the effect that that continual level of allegation against some ministry officials must have had on them and their families. It must have been absolutely demoralising.

The interesting thing is that in that select committee report we unanimously agreed that the sooner scampi was brought into the quota management system, the better—and that is the reason the National Party is supporting this legislation. I might add that Mr Peters earlier said that the National Party had not maintained a consistent position on this. We supported the legislation in its first and second readings, and throughout its Committee stage on Tuesday. We support it now in its third reading. I am quite happy with that level of consistency.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about compensation?

I am happy to move to the issue of compensation. One of the findings of the select committee was to identify a number of aggrieved fishers. The committee recommended that compensation be paid as a means of trying to rebalance some of the unfairness against them. When we called for submissions, not surprisingly we received some from a number of those people who had been identified as being aggrieved fishers. They were expressing extreme frustration with the process of negotiation that was occurring with the Government. It is not appropriate for me to comment on the process that those negotiations are going through, but I do take this opportunity of imploring the Government to complete this saga and negotiate in good faith.

I refer specifically to one submission that came before the select committee from Mrs Hazel Lanauze and Mr Tuck. This was a submission that identified information that had not been available to the select committee but that had clearly been made available to the State Services Commission inquiry. The evidence made available to the State Services Commission proved that Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck had very, very similar circumstances to most of the other aggrieved fishers we had identified. If the select committee had had the full amount of information at the time it deliberated, I am sure that they would have been listed as aggrieved fishers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why weren’t they?

Because the information was not presented to us at the time. I take this opportunity to implore the Government to also recognise the submissions of Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck and any others that may come to light now that further information is available.

I thank the committee staff, whom I see in the gallery, for the extreme support they gave the select committee throughout the inquiry. I add, in response to an interjection from the Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, that his suggestion that this issue spans but one Government, the National Government of the 1990s, is not correct. This is a saga that began in the 1980s, continued through the 1990s, and has continued through the early part of the 2000s. It is interesting to see in the House today the Hon Ken Shirley, who was the Minister of Fisheries under the Labour Government in the 1980s.

The Minister ought to take note that the select committee was mindful of the fact that this saga spread over a number of Governments. There was the opportunity for the select committee members to attempt to play politics with the issue. The select committee members unanimously stood well above that. I say to Mr Benson-Pope that they did not want to play politics with this issue. They worked extremely hard over the period of the select committee hearing and through the deliberations to present a report that the Government has now accepted, and which has gone a long way towards getting the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) before the House and this issue towards finality.

In the closing minutes I will comment on the issue regarding the boundary changes of the quota management areas. The committee was worried at the time about the boundary changes that were proposed to the committee, because we were unaware of what the ultimate effect may be on some of the fishers who had catch history, and on the headroom that may have then been available to some of those who had not had the ability to enter into the fishery. The information that was provided to the select committee by the officials was contradictory. The first information suggested that the change of boundaries would greatly lessen the amount of headroom available for the Crown. Information that became available after the select committee had completed its work and deliberations now suggests that there will be more headroom available. On that basis the National Party will now accept the boundary changes.

This has been a long and arduous saga of mismanagement and misjudgment by the ministry. Hopefully, by passing this legislation today we will see an end of these issues of unfairness and mismanagement. I sadly think that that will probably not be the case.

I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the Lanauze and Tuck submission made to the States Services Commission inquiry well over a full year after the select committee had conducted its inquiry. The second document is my submission to the committee on what was defined as the “X Case”, which Mr Carter promptly refused to investigate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Documents not tabled.

I seek leave to table the Hansard of April 2002, when Mr Peters raised the allegations of corruption against the Ministry of Fisheries.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not certain whether you ruled in my favour in respect of the leave I sought. The critical part of my documentation is that it provides all the evidence of corruption anyone would ever want to see, but the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee refused to investigate it.

Debate interrupted.