Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) amends both the 1996 and 1983 fisheries Acts, as well as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2). Part 3, which provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004 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, has been reported back separately and received royal assent some 12 days ago.

Part 1 of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) provides for revisions to the Fisheries Act 1996 to reinforce the quota management system as the preferred framework for managing fisheries resources, remove the parts of fisheries law that empower the use of individual catch entitlements—known as “ICE”—provide more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries, revise the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries, and remove the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of fisheries resources. That legislation also extends the coverage of the quota management system to provide for management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries’ waters, and provides for technical minor amendments to clarify wording or to provide for technical amendments to better achieve the intent of the legislation.

Part 1 makes important changes to the way quota will be allocated in the future. Current quota allocation provisions are impeding the effect of fisheries management as they are based on catching patterns of over 12 years ago that detract from the smooth transition of species into the quota management system. The bill changes quota allocation in two ways. Firstly, the bill immediately removes the individual catch entitlements allocation and 1990-92 catch history allocation for most low-value and low-volume stocks and species. Secondly, for stocks and species that have current utilisation value, the bill retains 1990-92 catch history as a way of allocating quota.

I have listened to submissions on the bill and will be proposing amendments to improve the way this transition works. I will refer to those amendments shortly when I outline the contents of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper to this bill.

Part 2 of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) provides for the transition from green-lipped mussel spat catch permits, issued under the Fisheries Act 1983, to management under the quota management system. Schedule 1 of the bill includes new schedules 4B and 4C, to be inserted into the Fisheries Act 1996. Schedule 4B lists highly migratory species, to which certain provisions of the 1996 Act will apply. Schedule 4C lists species and stocks to which the moratorium on the issuing of new permits will apply. It also lists the stocks and species that will be allocated using fishers’ 1990-92 catch history.

The Primary Production Committee has reported back to the House and recommended by majority that the bill not proceed. It is essential, however, that this bill does proceed. The bill contains a number of important provisions that will provide for improvements in the management of New Zealand’s fisheries resources. The proposals contained in the Supplementary Order Paper meet the concerns reported by the committee.

I would like to draw the House’s attention now to the amendments to the bill proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Earlier I referred to the bill’s changes to the way quota will be allocated. Several submissions from the commercial fishing industry recommended that catch history cease in 2009 as a way of allocating quota. I consider this proposal to be eminently sensible and in line with the Government’s policy intent for the bill.

Submissions to the select committee called for the 1990-92 catch history quota allocation to be kept for additional stocks and species. I consider that there is scope for the catch history to be retained for those additional stocks and species. The Supplementary Order Paper keeps catch history allocation for an additional eight species by means of a new schedule to the bill—schedule 4D. Once amended, the overall effect of the bill will be to retain until 2009 around 80 to 90 percent of catch histories for stocks and species still outside the quota management system on 1 October 2004.

The Supplementary Order Paper also inserts an allocation schedule to enable the introduction to the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area 9 on 1 October 2004. The allocation schedule has been agreed amongst stakeholders. The Supplementary Order Paper also amends quota allocation for pipi in area 1A by revoking current allocations of provisional catch history and allocating quota direct to fishers. This amendment is to address quota allocation concerns in this fishery.

The Supplementary Order Paper amends the bill so that quota management system management of a highly migratory species outside New Zealand fisheries waters will be limited to certain circumstances. Quota management system management of such stocks outside New Zealand fisheries waters will be able to occur only where a regional fisheries organisation has made national allocations or other management measures.

The Supplementary Order Paper introduces a requirement for the Minister of Fisheries to consult with the Minister of Conservation when considering future management of species listed in schedule 4C inserted by schedule 1, which are also listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The Supplementary Order Paper introduces new provisions to enable balances from the cost-recovery settlement between the Crown and industry to be correctly apportioned to the new fish stocks and then allocated to levy-payers, as was intended by the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) in 2004.

This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the Fisheries Act 1996 so that it can better achieve its purpose, which is, of course, to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources in this country and in our waters, at the same time as ensuring sustainability. I commend the bill to the House.

This is the kind of situation that comes only once in a career, I would have thought. The Government put a bill before the Primary Production Committee, with all the numbers in the world, and most parties supported the bill because they believed it deserved some scrutiny. Then, when the Government bill was scrutinised by the select committee, one by one the committee members have fallen away. The support for the bill has dropped off. National, New Zealand First, and ACT have dropped off supporting the Government bill. The Greens, who love those guys on the Government side of the House, have dropped off and no longer support the bill. A vote in the select committee on this bill was lost by a majority, and that was reported back to the House. What did the Government members on that committee say, in meek, quiet voices? They said they would not write a minority report. That is what they said to us; they said they would not write a minority report. They have not written one for 5 years—not since they were last in Opposition. They have forgotten how to write a minority report because they did not think that situation would come up, so they said they would not write one. The sad thing is that members will not hear a speech—certainly not a passionate one—about this bill from the Labour Party members who were on that select committee.

The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is absolutely absurd, and the National Party opposes it. We oppose it for lots of reasons, but we have three main ones. The first reason is that we do not believe that the majority of highly migratory species should come into the quota management system. The second reason is that we do not think the Government has thought long and hard enough about tendering off the rest of the rats-and-mice species that swim around in our seas. Thirdly, we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat, which drifts around the ocean minding its own business, into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island. That is why we do not support this bill.

I have heard a little rumour. I want to tell David Carter about it, because I do not think he has heard it yet. He will laugh, because he was the chairman of the select committee. We had a lot of assistance in drafting our majority report against this bill.

💬 Hon David Carter: From the Labour members?

We had assistance from the Labour members, and more assistance from the Green member. The Green member opposed this bill vehemently.

💬 Hon David Carter: He lost his head.

He did. He wrote pages—screeds—for the majority report, recommending that the bill not pass, but I have heard a little rumour that he will support the Government and vote for this bill. At the last minute he did a little deal, and he will vote for the bill in its last readings, even though he wrote the majority report that stated that the bill should not proceed. That is a sad, sad thing indeed.

National supports the quota management system as the best system to sustainably utilise most of the fisheries stocks in the New Zealand economic zone. That is sensible. But tuna and other highly migratory species are in New Zealand waters for a very short time. They are targeted by lots of countries on the high seas and in other countries’ fisheries waters. They are being hammered by many of those nations, and we pick up 2 or 3 percent of the catch of those species in our fisheries waters. To argue that New Zealand can effectively manage a fish stock that spends only a short portion of its life in our fisheries waters is absolutely absurd. It is important to note, also, that neither albacore nor skipjack tuna is under fishing pressure from any nation, let alone from New Zealand, which means that capping New Zealand’s catch for sustainability reasons is entirely unnecessary.

We are particularly concerned that the legislation will allow highly migratory species to be brought into the quota management system prematurely. If they are brought into the quota management system, it means that skipjack and albacore tuna, and every other highly migratory species, will have a cap on its catch by New Zealand fishers only. That means that when we make an international agreement about how many tonnes of a fish species can be caught, all the other countries will point to New Zealand and say that we only caught 500 tonnes. All our fishers will say that that is because the Government stopped them from catching any more than that, but the other countries will say that is too bad. They will say that that is our quota figure because that is all we have ever caught, and that is all we will ever catch under the agreement. I say, and National says, that that is wrong. Why should we cap New Zealand’s catch, when other nations are fishing highly migratory species all over the world, and particularly in the Pacific region, with no limit, at all? If those species are brought into the quota management system before an agreement is signed, New Zealand’s fishing industry will lose an opportunity to build up a more realistic catch history. That is absolutely absurd and unfair.

That is not the only issue. We are also concerned about the by-catch quota—moonfish, shark, and broadbill swordfish. The catch history years for by-catch species do not line up with the catch history years for the target species. That means that someone who catches by-catch species will not proportionally catch target species at the same volumes. I do not think the Government or the Ministry of Fisheries has looked at that matter particularly well, at all.

The requirement that 20 percent of the tuna caught in New Zealand waters be given over to Māori is absolutely inconsistent with the intent of the deed of settlement. We completely agree with the statement in the deed of settlement that 20 percent of all fish species as yet unknown should be passed to Māori when they are entered into the quota management system. National absolutely supports that; Māori should get 20 percent when such a fish species goes into the quota management system. However, the infinite intent of including species still unknown did not encompass the infinite spatial jurisdiction. In other words, it was never intended that the quota management system go outside New Zealand’s economic zone and that, therefore, Māori would get 20 percent of such fish when they are caught in the territorial waters of Fiji, Australia, or China. That was never considered, and it is absurd that the Government is considering doing that.

The Minister should resign. I am quite disappointed that, given the job straight up, the Minister put the bill before our select committee. The bill had all the support in the world. The support then shrank away. It was lost at the select committee. Not even the Labour Party members had the heart to convince us, or even the Greens, to vote for the bill at that stage, and it came back into the House with a recommendation that it should fail.

I can only say as a final concluding remark that I am disappointed at the Green member who drafted that report back. The Green member has been bought off in some way. I do not know what it is, but he was bought off in some way, and he is looking to support the passage of this bill through the House even though he opposed it at the select committee. I do not know what kind of dirty deal has been done, but I never thought I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles.

💬 Hon David Carter: He’s going to be the ambassador for London.

I do not know whether he is to be an ambassador for London, but I did not think I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles.

Difficult as it is, I will try to rise to the challenge and give an impassioned speech on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). One of the first pieces of advice I ever got from the Gisborne Herald was: “Don’t ever write your column on fishing legislation.”, so I will give it my best shot.

This is one bill that did cause a flurry in the normally very tranquil Primary Production Committee. It is normally a committee of peace and reconciliation, but on this occasion there were very strong differences of opinion, and that is what the select committee process is about. The bill came back to the House with the recommendation that it not proceed in its current form, but it also came back with a commentary that suggested ways in which this legislation could meet some of the concerns of the select committee.

I have a little bit of advice for the National members opposite. Before they take any more calls, they should read Supplementary Order Paper 246, because it does not reconcile with Mr Phil Heatley’s speech at all. It is a shame that Mr Heatley may have read the briefing notes that were handed to him by officials in the select committee but has not actually read the Supplementary Order Paper, and he has given a speech on the bill as it was reported back rather than taking into account the amendments that have been made.

One of the main changes that has been made is that the committee accepted absolutely that the bill as it was presented to the committee provided a huge disincentive for New Zealand fishers to increase our catch of the migratory species on the high seas, prior to the agreement on the high seas being agreed to and ratified. There is now a trigger clause in the legislation that enables New Zealand fishers to get out there and compete for those species on the same terms as other countries. For me, that removes a significant concern that the committee had when it looked at this bill.

The second issue Mr Heatley raised was the fact that Māori will get 20 percent of the fish caught off Fiji, and that is a very shallow and somewhat misleading way of representing what actually happens. Māori will get the fish that they catch. They will not get other people’s fish; they will get the fish that they get out there and fish for. What they will get is 20 percent of the quota, because there is an agreement in this country between tangata whenua and other New Zealanders that says Māori get 20 percent of any fishery that goes into the quota management system. So I would suggest that that be presented in an honest light. Let us not pretend to New Zealanders that some hard-working fisherman will go out there in 20 years’ time, catch 20 fish, and will then have to give a couple of them to Māori, because that is not the way it is.

💬 Hon Member: Four of them.

Four of them—sorry! That is why I am not the Minister of Finance. But I would like to think that this House was mature enough to present that situation accurately, responsibly, and in a proper light. I also recommend to Mr Heatley that he check to see whether skipjack and albacore are still there, because I think he needs to just check it. I still think he has an opportunity to go away and read that Supplementary Order Paper, and if he wants a little bit of help, he can come over to this side of the House, and we will give him some assistance.

The bill has come back to the House with a number of recommendations and a number of changes and, as a Government member, I am very comfortable with supporting this legislation.

There is no question that this bill was a very flawed piece of legislation when it came to the Primary Production Committee, and we were very concerned at a lot of the things that were in it and a lot of the things that were not in it. We applied to the Business Committee for an extension of time so that we could make amendments to the bill to make it a reasonable piece of legislation, but leave to do that was declined by the Minister. We had no option at that point but to report back, officially as a majority—and I say “officially” in inverted commas—so that we could make amendments in the House.

I still believe that this is very poor legislation. We have the opportunity in this House to put some of the wrongs in the bill right during the Committee stage. If the bill does not get to the Committee stage, then we cannot put it right. So what members have to do is support this bill to the Committee stage, but I want to stress very clearly to the Minister that I am not supporting the bill per se, as it stands, but on the basis, firstly, that the Supplementary Order Paper will address some of the wrongs and, secondly, on the basis of undertakings that the Minister has made to me personally. Members have to recognise that this bill is deeply flawed and that we do have to change it.

The move to open tendering is something that I applaud. It should have happened a long time ago. Obviously, the catch history years have been a deeply flawed method of allocation. I just wish the Government had had the courage to introduce open tendering for scampi, as well, in this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The word “courage” is out of order. The member must not challenge the Government’s courage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: The word’s “boldness”.

I thank Mr Prebble. I wish the Government had had the boldness to do it for scampi, but it did not for this one.

It is very interesting to look at the catch history for other species that are introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper, and I noted with some mirth the presence of prawn killers. I am sure my select committee colleagues will remember the case of prawn killers. It was discovered in the scampi inquiry that Simunovich Fisheries had landed some hundred-odd tonnes of prawn killers allegedly as by-catch for scampi. Scampi, of course, are trawled from the bottom of the ocean at depths of around 300 to 500 metres, and prawn killers are not only tropical, shallow water dwellers but they also live solitary existences and have never been caught in commercial quantities anywhere in the world—except for Simunovich’s catch.

I have to agree with Mr Heatley on the green-lipped mussels. Why do we have to bring them into the quota management system at this stage? It is simply does not make sense. I do not think I can add much to the arguments that particularly Mr Heatley has put forward about the highly migratory species, though I do take exception to his idea that Māori should not be entitled to quota caught outside the economic zone of New Zealand. The deed of settlement in 1992 quite clearly says that Māori are entitled to 20 percent of all new species that are brought into the quota management system—full stop. I do not think there is any kind of argument that we can have there.

The issues that I would like to focus on are the geoducks and whelks to start off with, and cockles and pipi. Geoducks and whelks do not really come into this bill per se, but they suffer a consequence of the bill being passed.

💬 Phil Heatley: Is this an issue you caved in on?

This is an issue that the Minister has given me an assurance will be addressed by him—and this is exactly what I was getting to—[Interruption] I wish the Minister were here. It is not in the Supplementary Order Paper, and what we are doing here is discussing the second reading.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Where is the Minister?

I wish the Minister were present. I daresay he will be listening.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

💬 Hon Member: He is busy running the country somewhere.

Yes, he is busy running the country somewhere.

Westhaven Shellfish is a company from Golden Bay at the top of the South Island that has been farming geoducks and whelks for some years. Because of the incompetence—some would say the deliberate obstruction—of the ministry, it was not given the catch history it was entitled to in the catch history years of 1990 to 1992. Westhaven Shellfish went to court and won its case. It proved beyond any doubt that the ministry was wrong and it was right. The consequence of this bill for Westhaven Shellfish is that without the intervention of the Primary Production Committee, it would basically have gone back to square one. The ministry said that it would allow Westhaven Shellfish to apply for a permit—that is fine, but everybody else can also apply for a permit. Westhaven Shellfish has been through the ropes, done the hard yards, and proved its case, so it is incumbent on the ministry to do the right thing.

I would like to quote a paragraph from the select committee report, because I think it is really relevant to the whole way that the ministry has dealt with small fishers. “As previously stated we accept that departments can make mistakes. Once recognised, however, the focus should be on rectifying the mistake rather than on defending a questionable past decision. Rather than simply moving from one management regime to another, the ministry could more constructively use its resources and energy in focusing on rectifying errors and injustices, especially where these have been found by the courts to be unlawful and unfair.” That is particularly true in the case of Westhaven Shellfish.

💬 Phil Heatley: Why are you voting for it?

I tell Mr Heatley that the Minister has undertaken with me that Westhaven Shellfish will be given its allocation for both—

💬 Phil Heatley: Where is the Minister?

—I am not answerable for the Minister—geoducks and whelks.

I want to move on to the subject of cockles, because that is a classic case of unbelievable incompetence by the ministry. [Interruption] Everybody agrees that it was a cock-up that was exacerbated by the 1996 fisheries amendment bill. I think the Minister agrees that it was a cock-up. Basically what happened was that eight people were farming cockles. One of those eight decided he wanted to buy out some of the others, and five of the others decided that they were prepared to sell. But because they were fishing under an exploratory permit, they could not sell their personal shares, but they could convert their personal allocation into a legal entity that was a company. Then the shares in that company could be sold. So that one operator bought five other shares, so he had six shares and two other operators had one each. Subsequently, they found that the 1996 Act said that both the original share in the private holding and the subsequent share in the company holding were entitled to a quota allocation, so instead of eight there were 13.

💬 Phil Heatley: Why are you voting for it, then?

Mr Heatley is clearly a very slow learner. We cannot rectify this situation unless the bill reaches the Committee stage, where we can move amendments. [Interruption] It could go back to the select committee. That is a possibility, too.

The cockle allocation can be resolved in exactly the same way as the pipi allocation foreshadowed in the Supplementary Order Paper. One can simply say that rather than take away something from the people who got a double-dipping allocation, the three parties that missed out on the double-dipping can be given an increased allocation. Everybody knows that that is fair, even the people who got the double dipping. What did the ministry say? It said: “We can’t be unfair to those guys because they have been double-dipping for 2 years now, and they’ve got a business case going, and therefore we can’t take it away from them.” Well, I am sorry, but the ministry’s job is to be fair and to administer the fishery, and I do not think it is doing it in a reasonable way in this particular case.

I was shocked during the select committee hearing to realise that the bill included three species that are on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora list—they are endangered species. The ministry was proposing to put three endangered species into the quota management system. What sort of signal does that send to other countries?

I came down to the House this evening to debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That is the one I have in my hand. In fact, what we are discussing this evening is not the bill but the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246, which was brought down to the House and given to members at the eleventh hour. He is expecting this House—

💬 Phil Heatley: 17 pages.

It has 17 pages. We are not debating the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) in any real sense; we are debating a Supplementary Order Paper with amendments that the Minister says are minor and technical adjustments. Well, that is just not correct.

I heard Janet Mackey try in some rather—I would not call it pathetic—small way to justify the treatment this bill received from our Primary Production Committee. She was quite right; our select committee, generally speaking, because there are no Government subsidies involved in agriculture or fishing, passes the legislation that comes before it. There is a lot of unanimity amongst the members, and we generally find a sensible solution. But as soon as we turned the pages of this bill we found that it was fit for the round filing cabinet, and it was into the bin with it. It was an appalling piece, as befits, I guess, this new Minister of Fisheries. He has been in the job long enough to know that he should not put an outrageous bill before the committee.

But the real reason the Minister wants the bill withdrawn has not been discussed at any length this evening. The real reason he is withdrawing it is because it allocates to Māori 20 percent of quota of migratory species caught—not in our territorial waters, and not within our exclusive zone of up to 200 kilometres—in the South China Sea. How many people in this country would tolerate for one second quota caught in the South China Sea or off Kiribati going to Māori? The Minister has recognised that there would be huge political embarrassment over this bill, and his colleague Trevor Mallard, who is responsible for trying to keep the Government’s credibility on racial matters half-reasonable—

💬 Shane Ardern: He’s losing that battle.

—he is losing that battle, as Mr Ardern says—has told him that the bill must be changed.

💬 Hon Member: He’s changed it.

Yes, he has changed it, but not totally. The Government has tried to buy time. It has said that when it gets some agreement to a regional plan for the South China Sea and right down to the South Pacific, down to New Zealand—maybe in 5 or 10 years’ time—it will bring it into the quota management system. Nobody, I am sure—well, perhaps the Greens might be a bit diffident about it—would disagree that the quota management system is, far and away, the best fisheries management tool. There is no dissension on that issue, at all. But we strongly disagree that migratory species like tuna caught in those faraway places should be brought into the quota management system.

I got the Parliamentary Library to check thoroughly for me whether, in fact, the deed of settlement—the Waitangi Fisheries claim—had any relevance or reference to fish caught in international waters. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever in the deed of settlement to fish caught outside the exclusive economic zone, in international waters—none.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: In the South China Sea.

Well, quite rightly, there was no reference to that, but what is referred to is—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Well, Winston says Māoris come from China.

Well, some say they come from the coast of Taiwan, and I just have this visual picture of Parekura Horomia paddling his canoe out in the South China Sea, dropping a hook overboard, and hauling in a lovely 200 kilogram tuna. It is stretching the issue, is it not?

Under this legislation, fish caught in the South China Sea can be brought into the quota management system, and automatically there is a 20 percent allocation to Māori. That was never intended under the deed of settlement, yet under this bill it would happen. But because there is huge political sensitivity around this matter at this time, the Government has decided it will delay it. It will still come in, ultimately, but the Government will delay it.

This bill is also about buying votes. It is about taking 20 percent of the mussel spat catch, which is owned, essentially, or controlled, by a handful of people, who, once this spat goes into the quota management system, will have to hand over 20 percent of their allocation, of their expertise, and of their knowledge. It will have to be handed over immediately to Māori as soon as this bill gets the royal assent. I say, and the ACT party says, that this is wrong. That is why we oppose mussel spat going into the quota management system. It is not because we are opposed to sensible management at all; in fact, we are highly in favour of such matters, but it is totally and utterly inappropriate to take 20 percent of what is essentially a property right away from the present catchers of mussel spat, and place it into the quota management system. That really is what this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper are about.

I would like the Minister to take another call on this, if he can, and explain to us why this Supplementary Order Paper came down at the 11th hour, because what should happen with it—and many have said it is a complex—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is twice that a very senior member of the Opposition, the Hon Murray McCully, has referred to the absence of a member. Everyone in this House knows that is not allowed under the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is actually Speaker’s ruling 23/7. If the member did that, then he knows that he should not have done so. I ask him to desist.

The Minister has studiously avoided the embarrassing questions around this bill. He just refuses to address the questions that people listening in to this debate really want to hear answered. The bill was examined at length, it was discussed at length, it was dissected, and it was recommended that it not proceed. That was almost unheard of. Certainly in my time in this House, I have never been a member of a select committee where the so-called Opposition actually won the debate. That embarrassed the members of this Government enormously, so the Minister and his ministry have scuttled down at the 11th hour with this complex Supplementary Order Paper, and they expect the members of this House to absorb it in 5 minutes then pass it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It should go back to the select committee.

Mr Prebble is absolutely right—it should go to the Primary Production Committee where we could examine it properly. Issues have been raised by Ian Ewen-Street. I very rarely agree with the man, but on this occasion he has raised one or two issues that should be addressed properly by the select committee. I believe that that should happen, and I am hoping that that will be the case.

Government members are hugely embarrassed by their Minister. This measure is about buying votes and buying time so that the Government can retain some vestige of credibility in the eyes of the fishing industry. But those who understand this issue will recognise that this measure is nothing more than a barefaced attempt at buying votes into the future. The ACT party will be listening with bated breath in the Committee stage to see how it finally pans out, but the bill should not proceed at this time.

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), where we debate the report of the Primary Production Committee, which has recommended to the House that this bill be discharged. The honourable member Janet Mackey commented earlier that it is a good select committee and that its members have often enjoyed very good working relationships, but, clearly, something has gone wrong on this occasion. The committee became convinced that enough was enough and that it would simply recommend that this bill be discharged. I do not have any criticism of the select committee. As I look at the task and at the long journey it has had, working with the scampi issue and then the issues in this bill, I can certainly understand its frustration. What seems to have occurred is a breakdown of trust in the Ministry of Fisheries officials who have been giving it advice, amongst other things. So in what I have to say here there is no criticism of the select committee having arrived at this point.

United Future does not have a member on the committee, so we have not had to go through that arduous process, but we were asked by the Government for help when the committee made the decision to recommend that the bill be discharged. As United Future members are not lapdogs but guide dogs, we were prepared to lend our assistance and give some guidance on this occasion. I had to ask myself whether the industry wanted this bill to proceed. I had discussions with the Seafood Industry Council and other players in the industry, and the answer that I received was that, yes, there were things in this legislation that needed to be passed. I also asked whether everything would be OK if this bill were discharged, and the answer was that, no, there would be things left unresolved, and that some things in the bill that were being complained about would actually continue. For example, mussel spat entering the quota management system would continue regardless, except it would be in a form that was not acceptable to those involved in the industry.

So we began discussions to resolve the committee’s concerns, because we take seriously the deliberations of the committee and the things it has mentioned in its report. I began to work through those issues, and I am grateful to the Minister’s adviser Steve Hurring, who has worked very hard throughout this process in giving us assistance and answering the questions we had, and also to the Ministry of Fisheries, although I have to say that every time we met with the ministry we met a different person. That may well be part of the problem here—the lines of accountability and who is covering what. It is difficult to have to face someone new every time one has a new question to ask.

We believe that the issues in the committee’s report have been addressed by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246, which he has alluded to tonight, and by other undertakings that he has given. I can confirm that some of the undertakings that Ian Ewen-Street has referred to are part of our giving our support for the second reading at least, at this point. As I said earlier, they relate to the things that the select committee has raised in its report, such as the changing of the quota allocation system and the shifting to a tendering process, which we believe is a worthwhile transition. In fact, in hindsight I think some of us might look back at the way that quota was allocated in 1991 and 1992 and think it should have been tendered right from the very beginning, because people have been given a right in perpetuity that perhaps they no longer deserve. If they have completely ended fishing and simply are living on the proceeds of leasing out their quota, I hardly think that is a fair system. However, that is the one we have to deal with.

The issues that the Seafood Industry Council and Te Ohu Kai Moana raised about some of the property rights being allocated for by-catch or catch history are now being addressed in a new schedule 4D, and we will debate those in the Committee stage as the bill proceeds.

With regard to the issue with green-lipped mussel spat, as I said earlier it is going to enter the quota management system, anyway. I have had discussions with different players in the industry and had different responses from them. Some welcome it coming in and some believe all of that species should come in, because the quota management system works more effectively when everything is in it. Others are concerned about the level of total allowable commercial catch that will be set when the green-lipped mussel spat comes in, and I believe there is room for the Government to make a very generous allocation there. It may involve the Crown holding some of that quota for future tendering, which would offset any move from those who have the quota to operate a monopoly in any way, or to push up the prices. I think there is room for those concerns to be addressed.

The issue with the highly migratory species is being dealt with by the exclusion of those not yet under international agreements from the quota management system on the high seas until those international agreements are passed. In particular, skipjack, which is the species of greatest concern because we want to build up a good catch history of it, will not come into even the inshore quota management system. In respect of albacore, I have had representations from a number of people in the industry who want to see it now come in within our 200-mile zone. I think that will address their concerns.

I understand that the issue of by-catch, which many people feel left out of because the years do not line up for the allocation of bluefin, will be addressed by a preferential tendering process. We will be watching very carefully to see how that eventuates, but we have had an undertaking that that will be the case, so that the by-catch can be made available to those who need it in order to carry on with the bluefin quota that they will be allocated. With regard to Westhaven Shellfish Ltd, which Ian Ewen-Street referred to, we take the Minister at his word that he will act honourably on it and respect the wish of the court, which has already made some deliberations on that issue. With regard to the cockle fishery and issues that relate to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, I think we will find some amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper that address those concerns.

I want to conclude my remarks by addressing an issue that relates to kahawai, which we will put into this bill. We have an opportunity here to address something that I believe is very serious. Another injustice may be perpetrated in the fishing industry if we do not address it. Some may say that kahawai is not part of this bill as it has already been gazetted to enter the quota management system, and the Minister has already allocated the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch for it. But with the Clerk’s confirmation to us today that my Supplementary Order Paper 247 is within the scope of this bill, I say to those who would say that kahawai is not in the bill that it is now. I will table a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House to revoke, effectively, the Gazette notice bringing kahawai in with the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels that the Minister has publicly communicated, because it ignores the concerns of the recreational fishing groups in this country that have lobbied long and hard to convince the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister that kahawai is no longer available for them as a recreational fish to catch.

I acknowledge that the Green Party has also campaigned long and hard for the removal of purse seine fishing with regard to kahawai, and we look forward to Green Party support for this Supplementary Order Paper, and, I believe, the support of other members in this House. I know that Winston Peters is a great fisherman, and many of the members in New Zealand First will have a concern about this issue. I am sure people in the National Party and ACT will know many people who are very concerned about it. We had an email campaign of nearly 2,000 emails from people around this country. I have received more emails on kahawai than I did on the Civil Union Bill. People were saying they can no longer find kahawai to catch. It has been stolen from them by a mistake made by the Ministry of Fisheries when it allowed purse seine fishing to target kahawai. It has always been accepted that it could be a by-catch, but its being targeted by spotter planes and purse seine vessels is an injustice to the recreational fishermen of New Zealand, and we want to see that issue addressed in this legislation.

We really do hope for the support of all the parties in this House for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have made it very clear to the Minister that our support for this legislation is only for its second reading. If we do not see that Supplementary Order Paper pass through the Committee stage, we will not support this bill’s third reading. This issue is another injustice that needs to be prevented, and this bill deals with many issues like that. I believe that the members on the select committee will be very sympathetic and supportive because of the number of times the Ministry of Fisheries has made mistakes and been unable or unwilling to correct them.

I do not expect that my call will be very long. I have listened with interest to the contributions made by members, and I have to say that I think the substance of the bill has been well canvassed. I am taking a call because I am concerned about the issue of democracy in this place. We have the Greens once wanting to discharge the bill, and if Mr Heatley is correct, they actually wrote a large part of the majority report. We heard from United Future, which did not have a member on the Primary Production Committee, commenting on the bill. United Future is supporting a Supplementary Order Paper about 50 percent the size of the bill. If Mr Baldock believes in democracy he should be standing up and telling the Government to send the bill back to the select committee, with the Supplementary Order Paper, so that the issue can be thrashed out properly, and New Zealanders can have a say on this substantial Supplementary Order Paper, which is half the size of the bill. He should not have stood up and told the House that he had had a little patsy talk with the Minister, and wanted to agree on the legislation, and that he knows better than the whole of Parliament.

💬 Larry Baldock: I read that member’s report.

Mr Baldock needs to read it again, and he will see that New Zealand First stands for ethics and integrity. We believe that far too often when bills come to this House, a large Supplementary Order Paper is tabled, and then the bill as amended is passed in the dead of night, but the public has had no opportunity to comment on it.

Mr Ewen-Street implied he had a personal assurance from the Minister—and it is not in this Supplementary Order Paper—of some magnitude by the sound of it. The Minister has not taken a call to comment, one way or the other. But for that reason Mr Ewen-Street is supporting the bill. He should be ashamed of himself. New Zealand First will be consistent. We have major concerns about this bill. We will oppose it. We have made those views clear. I hope the National Party takes on board the comments we have made about ethics with regard to the way this legislation has been handled. New Zealand First will oppose this bill.

Whenever I am looking at fisheries legislation I am glad that I live in a landlocked electorate, because I think these issues are quite difficult to get one’s head around. I compliment the Minister, David Benson-Pope, on the work he has done. He took over the portfolio in the middle of the process and has had a good deal to sort out and work through. I thank him for the work he has done in this regard.

I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee, and I feel somewhat overwhelmed when we get fisheries regulations and have to understand how the quota management system works. I thank members of the Primary Production Committee—although there is a lot of banter going on here tonight—for the work they have done. I am sure other members of the House are very grateful, because those of us who are not involved in fisheries, find that some of the terminology and discussions about the quota management system tend to make our eyes glaze over. The select committee has done a good job on this extremely difficult issue for an industry that is very important for New Zealand. I say a big thank you to those involved.

I tell the member who has just resumed her seat, Dianne Yates, that I am familiar with fisheries legislation, and I say to her that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is thoroughly bad legislation, advanced by an absolutely incompetent Minister of Fisheries who was totally captured by his officials. The House should accept what the Primary Production Committee said, and that is that the bill does not proceed.

I have listened to the debate so far, and I am bitterly disappointed with the contribution from the Green member, Ian Ewen-Street. He was a valuable member of the select committee who worked with the rest of the members of that committee, and contributed to a report presented to the Parliament following the select committee process in which he, representing the Green Party, voted for this legislation not to proceed further. I am bitterly disappointed to find in the House today, as we debate this legislation, that he has now had a change of heart and is saying to the House that he thinks the Minister will look after his concerns by means of the Supplementary Order Paper.

We then had the contribution from Larry Baldock of the United Future party, who, true to form as a member of that party, simply supports the Government and has made no attempt at all to find out what the issues are. Mr Baldock said that he understood the Minister was to be taken at his word with regard to the content of the Supplementary Order Paper, because the Minister is an honourable member.

Well, I have to say, after reading Supplementary Order Paper 246, which was dropped into the House earlier today, that I cannot be convinced that Ian Ewen-Street and Larry Baldock are correct, and that this Supplementary Order Paper addresses the concerns raised by either of those members or, more important, raised by the select committee. I have had the opportunity of talking to some of the other members in the House tonight and, to be honest, none of the select committee members whom I have spoken to completely understand the content of this very sizable Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore, on that basis, I will be putting a notice of motion for the Order Paper tomorrow suggesting that Supplementary Order Paper 246 goes back to the select committee so that the select committee can analyse this legislation in depth and find out what the Supplementary Order Paper does.

It is important, when we go through the select committee process and have the opportunity to hear the numerous submissions that are put before it, that we then have the opportunity, as a select committee, to analyse, consider, and deliberate on those submissions. It is very, very significant when a select committee, by majority, concludes that legislation is so bad that it should not proceed. Yet we have the feeble signing on to the Government policy by both the Green member and the United Future member, both of whom have the gall to come into the House tonight and acknowledge that they do not understand the content of the Supplementary Order Paper.

Now I am not critical of the fact that they do not understand its content. As the person who chaired the select committee and as a person who studied this legislation in detail, I also do not understand the content of that Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that the Government allow the opportunity for that Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee so the members can have a look at the content and find out what it does. Then I will accept Ian Ewen-Street’s position if, after that education process, he is inclined to change his mind. I will fully accept that process. But I find it galling in the extreme for Mr Ian Ewen-Street to be changing his mind now on the basis of the Supplementary Order Paper, which he himself acknowledges he does not understand.

The third point I want to make with regard to the Supplementary Order Paper is that there is a time constraint. If this legislation is to proceed it must be enacted before the new fishing season, 1 October 2004. I therefore propose that any examination of the Supplementary Order Paper be done speedily and reported back to the House by 6 September. That gives every opportunity for this legislation to then be passed if that be the intention of the House.

It is of major significance for legislation advanced by the Government to be lost at a select committee. I sympathise with the position the Government members found themselves in. They heard the submissions. They were uneasy with the submissions. They were not comfortable with the bill proceeding. But as loyal members of the Government they found themselves in an invidious position, and I respect the position they were in.

I want to talk now about what the legislation proposes to do. The first thing it proposes to do is change the quota allocation system and move to a tendering system. I have no problem with the principle of that, but what I strongly object to is that that process was done by a fake consultation process with the industry. We were told by the Ministry of Fisheries officials that they would consult, and that they had consulted, with the industry. The industry told us that consultation had been a total sham, and under cross-examination the ministry officials acknowledged that the process had effectively been a sham because they had set too tight a time limit for the industry to respond.

The second thing the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) does is move the management of green-lipped mussel spat into the quota management system. We saw no submissions that gave us the heart to agree that that was a sensible move. The quota management system is designed to ensure sustainability. Species are introduced into the quota management system because there is a sustainability problem. The select committee learnt, through the process, that there is not a sustainability problem with the spat that is harvested off the Ninety Mile Beach area in Northland, and we saw no good reason, as a select committee, why that particular aspect of the bill needed to be advanced.

I move to the most important part of the bill, which is the Government’s attempt to extend the quota management system well beyond the New Zealand economic zone. The significance of that is that all parties acknowledge that when a species comes into the quota management system, because of the 1992 deed of settlement legislation, Māori are entitled to 20 percent. When that legislation was passed it was always envisaged that that would be for species caught within New Zealand territorial waters. What we now have is an extraordinary attempt by the Government to give allocation to Māori on species caught as far afield as Fiji—and anywhere else in the world. That was never the intention of the deed of settlement in 1992, nor should it be now.

We had a contribution from my deputy chair, Janet Mackey, who assured us that the species skipjack tuna and albacore tuna, about which there are no sustainability issues, are now excluded by the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Minister today. I have gone through that Supplementary Order Paper, and I cannot see where that is the case. That is the basis on which the Greens have accepted that they will now vote for the legislation at this stage.

There should be no attempt by any Parliament of New Zealand to extend the deed of settlement beyond the economic zone of New Zealand. It was inherently designed for the quota management system within our 200-mile zone and should not, under any circumstances, be extended.

The final issue I want to raise briefly is the three particular submissions presented to us by Sea-Right Investments Ltd, Westhaven Shellfish Ltd, and a third one to do with the cockle industry. Those people raised legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. I am far from convinced that the Supplementary Order Paper does that, but we should wait until it is recommitted to the select committee so that we can further examine it.

As has been said earlier in the debate, this bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 Act and the Fisheries Act 1983, and it has some very positive aspects to it. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system, and it corrects some problems that have occurred previously with the current quota allocation mechanisms that were identified—in particular, during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system.

This bill is important. It provides for revisions to the Fisheries Act 1996. Some of those very positive aspects are the reinforcement of the quota management system as the most preferred framework for managing our very valuable fisheries resources. It provides more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries, it revises the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries, and it removes the permit moratorium that is quite unnecessarily impeding the use of fisheries resources.

But, overall, one of the aspects of this bill that is important to the ongoing management of this incredibly valuable resource is the sustainability aspect of it. We all know of fishery resources throughout the world that have been absolutely depleted when poor management has come to a crisis point. Hundreds of jobs are lost, and the economy of regions is decimated. Our system here in New Zealand is highly regarded internationally for its forward management aspects. That is why this bill is a good bill. It provides for the utilisation of fisheries while still ensuring that important element of sustainability. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Like the rest of my National colleagues, I rise in opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). [Interruption] I know that that will come as a surprise to my colleagues over there. There are a number of reasons, and if they just hold their horses for a moment, I shall explain those reasons to them.

It was interesting to note earlier on that the member from United Future Larry Baldock said that he was the “guide dog”. As far as I can tell, instead of leading the Government members out of the dark, he has led them right into the dark—and I base that on the contribution of the member for Wanganui. Clearly, she is not absolutely au fait with this bill. There are a number of reasons why the fishing industry in New Zealand is a very important industry. Primarily, it is because it is a major export industry. It employs about 25,000 people, and last year its exports were worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. It is a substantial industry. We have to wonder, then, why we are here tonight, in such a mess over legislation that went to a very good select committee, which recommended that the bill not proceed. Yet we are here tonight debating the bill—or at least we are debating a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that has just been introduced by a Minister in the eleventh hour of this process.

So there are a number of reasons why I stand here tonight in opposition to this bill. One reason is that the legislation is an absolute abuse of parliamentary process. We have a major industry—[Interruption] It is interesting that the member over there interjects. Clayton Cosgrove is a senior member of the Primary Production Committee. He has been on that select committee for a long, long time—he was there when I was first on it—and he has not taken a call on this bill tonight. With such an important industry as the fishing industry being debated, we have not had a single peep out of that senior Government member other than interjections. I invite him to take a call. That would be the way to clear up some of the misunderstanding the member says that I may have about this legislation.

Let us come back to the bill for a moment—or, more important, all 17 pages of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is not often that we come to the House and pick up a Supplementary Order Paper that is 17 pages long. That does not happen very often. Further, it is not often that a Supplementary Order Paper is introduced into the House a few hours before we are due to debate the bill. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process.

This legislation is supposed to put a cap on the highly migratory fish species. On the surface, that would sound fair enough to someone who has not been close to the process. However, if one talked to select committee members and read the submissions, one would find out that that means that we are now going to introduce fish that are caught off the coast of Fiji, or Bangladesh, or somewhere else like that; North America, South America, or anywhere one can imagine in the world, into the—

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Switzerland.

That is a very good point! Earlier, a member took a call and said that she had come from a landlocked electorate like Switzerland. I would suggest that my electorate is bigger than Switzerland. It has a longer area of coast than Israel or Switzerland. The member would be surprised to hear that. In fact, it is bigger than Israel and sometimes just as hostile, but that has nothing to do with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That was a nice diversion.

This bill is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary system. It is also interesting to note that the Green Party has done a complete U-turn. It has been bought out, and I do not think that it was for some loaves and fishes, either. I think it was for something more substantial than that. We have not found out what it was for, but we know that the Green members have been bought off, because they have done a U-turn. That is not unusual. There are many, many occasions in this House when they talk tough on a range of issues and then come to the House with a completely different approach from the one that they had taken during the select committee process.

The select committee process is the correct place for the detail of this debate to take place. That is why my very good colleague, the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, the Hon David Carter, has suggested that the Supplementary Order Paper be resubmitted to that select committee—all 17 pages of it that virtually rewrite what was intended in the bill that was voted down by majority in the select committee. I think that would be a very good way forward for the Supplementary Order Paper. Members could then look at the detail, talk to the officials again and sort out some of the loose issues that exist.

A further issue that needs to be debated here is the issue of mussel spat. I was fortunate enough to spend a few hours at the select committee one day filling in for somebody, and I became very informed on the mussel spat issue. Apparently, mussel spat is in plentiful supply some years and in other years it is very hard to find. It seems to me that it will be very difficult, firstly, to establish a quota for that, and secondly, even if a quota is established, how will it be managed? That seems a perfectly reasonable question. I wish that the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Who knows? Maybe he will during the Committee stage. Maybe the senior member Clayton Cosgrove from the Government side will take a call and explain to this House how that will happen. Those who discussed this at the select committee said that it would not be physically possible, particularly if one was chasing that mussel spat right over to Fiji. Further, the fisheries season starts on 1 October. Therefore it is important that these regulations are in place for the beginning of the new season. Given the mess that that Minister has left this legislation in, and the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper he has introduced, there is no way that this can be carried out in a timely, sensible, normal parliamentary process.

I ask the members opposite—the Ministers, whoever; somebody over there—to please take a call and explain to us why it is that they have allowed this process to get to this point, as it has, in such a mess. The only conclusion we can come to on this side of the House is that the Minister himself has made an absolute mess of it and has not managed the process. He is a new Minister—we will give him credit for that—and probably a very short-lived Minister by the sound of it. His time surely must have expired given the mess he has made over this legislation.

The other issue that has been discussed tonight is that of the green-lipped mussel. I do not think there is any reference here to the Green Party—but there could be. I think it is a fish species. There has been some reference to that tonight. Further, how do we introduce—and this was a fair enough question from someone who genuinely does not know—the aquafarming part of that business into the quota management system? One does not have to. [Interruption] Well, I want to know how it can happen. Who here knows? Does the chairman know?

💬 Hon David Carter: Farmed seafoods will effectively be excluded.

That answers that question. The member says that farmed seafoods, or aquaculture, is excluded. But, then, the chair of the select committee himself said that he does not know or does not understand what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. So can he be sure of that? Can he be sure that the Minister and his incompetent management have not included aquaculture into this 17-page Supplementary Order Paper so that now the green-lipped mussels are actually caught up in this process?

💬 Phil Heatley: What about chocolate fish?

Chocolate fish were certainly debated in the earlier part of it, and certainly they are a migratory species in our house. They move around fairly quickly, and the quota management system does not work well, either.

I wonder how fair this process has been when I look at the fact that we are here tonight with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that nobody understands or has had time to read. I am sure the Minister has not, simply because he has not made any reference to it, at all, during this debate, or tried to clear up some of the questions. I know that the select committee members who sat through the submission process on this bill have no idea what is in this Supplementary Order Paper and do not understand it. Therefore this whole Supplementary Order Paper should go back to the select committee so that the committee can have a look at it.

There is another interesting breed here, which I think needs to be touched on again tonight, and that is whole concept of being able to introduce the like of geoduck into the quota management system. Our spokesperson on fisheries tells me that there is such a thing as a geoduck, and I know that the member Ian Ewen-Street is very passionate about geoduck, because I have heard him talk about them ad nauseam tonight. I am curious to know how we are going to manage geoduck that are caught off the coast of Brazil in the quota management system. I want someone in the Government to explain to me how that will be so.

I am really interested to follow on from that member. I was told that he was supposed to be the person to chair the Primary Production Committee but he was overtaken by Mr David Carter. I am not surprised now, because when a member boasts that his electorate of Taranaki has a longer coastline than Switzerland, one has to wonder about the intellectual rigour of his argument.

The second thing the member made reference to was migratory species, and he talked about fish off Bangladesh, fish in Fiji, and so on, as though fish recognise national boundaries. They simply do not, and that is the point I make to the member. If we are going to preserve our fish stocks in the ocean, then we have to look at the fish as part of that great entity, the ocean. It will not be possible to have a quota management system that looks after some, and simply says that some people can take some here, somebody can take some there, and other countries can take some somewhere else, etc. New Zealand has to play a part in that. Simply to ignore the issue—

💬 Hon Member: So are you voting against the bill as well?

That is why this issue is going to be in the bill and in the Supplementary Order Paper. Members over there apparently cannot get their heads around 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper. The member preceding me, Mr Ardern, claimed that no one understands it, and I think I can take from that that he means he cannot understand it. I think he should get his researchers to give him some better speaking notes. This is a good piece of legislation that has been well managed through the House by an excellent Minister, and I look forward to supporting it all the way.

I seek leave of the House to move that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 be referred back to the Primary Production Committee for further consideration.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.