Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I rise in opposition to this part as I did to the earlier parts of this bill on behalf of the National Party. There are a range of reasons why I do so, but I will start with the process of what has happened in this Parliament today and last week as we debated the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). First of all, there was a Supplementary Order Paper introduced into Parliament that was 17 pages long. Today we find further amendments to that in another Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister, which has just been passed. We have to ask the question—and it would be really informative if the Minister would take a call and tell us why this is so—how it is that once a bill has been overwhelmingly rejected by the select committee and has come to Parliament with a major Supplementary Order Paper to which there are further amendments, it can go through the parliamentary process and end up in the situation where it is being debated today in the House. That issue is one of the reasons National is not supporting this bill.

Part 2 of this bill brings mussel spat into the quota management system. That is an interesting issue in itself, and I would be very interested in the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, taking a call on this. I simply want to know how a quota can be established for mussel spat. The experts who advised the select committee said that some years there is plenty of spat and it is all over the place, and other years it is very scarce. So how is it that the Minister and his officials have decided that it will be scientifically credible or fair—given that there has been a huge amount of unfairness in the whole process so far—to introduce mussel spat into some kind of credible quota management system?

The National Party supports the concept of a quota management system and has always said so from the word go. But there must be some basis by which this process is brought in. Part 2 introduces mussel spat and green-lipped mussels into the quota management system. If anyone doubts me on that, I suggest he or she looks at the appropriate part. The Minister certainly does not doubt me. He is keeping his head down on this issue because he knows exactly what I am talking about, exactly what advice he must have been given by the fisheries out there, that he is wrong. He knows that the process he is continuing with will be unfair and will bring about an outcome that is not desirable either from a fisheries point of view or a sustainable management point of view.

It would be very, very interesting and enlightening to this Commmittee if the Minister could take a call and explain to me why what I have stated is wrong, because I think it is absolutely correct. Furthermore, it brings the green-lipped mussels into the whole quota management system process. Here is an interesting point. A member from the Opposition’s side of the House earlier made the interesting comment that those who are in aquaculture are excluded from this process. I am not absolutely sure whether that is what is stated in the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper, which is written in a way that ensures it will never be read or understood. So why is it that this Minister has never taken a call in this House to say that what I am suggesting may not be, or is not, so? The reality is that he cannot. He has had legal opinion on it, he says, but we have no evidence of that.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: The member is confused.

The Minister should take a call. I am not confused at all. It is very clear in the bill and he should have a look to see what it says. It is his bill and he should know what is in it. Of course, if he needs a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper to amend it, who knows what is going on in this debate? We are supportive of the notion of introducing fish into the quota management system, but we need this issue to be cleared up and so do those out there who are involved in this industry.

This is a substantial industry. It is worth over a billion dollars in export earnings for this country. Why is it that we have this convoluted and very, very poorly managed political process, with so much ambiguity around a range of questions, and nobody within the Government, including the Minister himself, is willing to take a call to clear up some of these questions that are yet to be answered? The Minister should answer the questions.

I am delighted to rise in order to answer the three questions that Mr Ardern posed. In the first case, in terms of the select committee, he asked how we got to where we are. I remind Mr Ardern that the Primary Production Committee was chaired by a National Party member—one of his colleagues—as he will be aware, and that the Government does not have a majority on that committee. If Mr Ardern had been a member of that select committee he would know how the Labour members voted. So it is no surprise that the committee did not support the direction of the bill.

In answer to Mr Ardern’s second question, the reason for the extensive Supplementary Order Paper was nothing other than to meet the concerns expressed by the select committee in order to reach appropriate compromises to make progress on the issue—for which the bleating member feigns support.

In terms of mussel introduction to the quota management system, the member will be aware of the progress that has been made towards the removal of the moratorium on aquaculture development. With that happening at the end of the year, most rational people agree that it is entirely essential that there is a good management regime in place for the most important source of spat.

💬 Shane Ardern: How are you going to do it?

I would encourage Mr Ardern to actually listen to the arguments so he can inform himself and not continue to embarrass himself and his party with his ignorance.

The problem with this bill is that it has some very, very serious mistakes in it, and that is one of them. The problem with the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, is that having just arrived in the job a few months ago, he has very quickly become a prisoner of his staff. Whatever they say, despite the fact that they were subject to two major inquiries—one by the State Services Commission and one by a select committee of Parliament itself—he has to agree with it. One of the most ridiculous things in this bill, and one of the most ridiculous things I have heard, is the argument now being made by the Minister. He says: “We must put the quota management system in control of spat, because the moratorium is coming off.” That is what he said—that the moratorium is coming off; therefore, mussel spat must be controlled under the quota management system.

The first thing members should ask themselves is whether, when we started the mussel farms in the late 1970s and the 1980s, there was a quota management system controlling spat. No, there was not. Is the only place in the world where one finds spat Ninety Mile Beach or up north near Kaitāia? Of course it is not. So why on earth are we giving nine people the enormous monopoly and privilege from now until perpetuity, it would seem, to have a giant influence on the future of an industry that has now been going for more than two decades? If the industry did not need it then, why is it needed now? Where is the scientific evidence underscoring the Minister’s belief, and the belief of his ministry, that it should be—

💬 Brian Connell: There is none.

Of course there is none. Even his own colleagues on the select committee recognise that. Such is the clobbering machine of the “no conscience but ours”—the collective conscience. There is one rule—Helen’s rule. Government members are lions back in the electorate but lambs down in the caucus. Such is the persuasion and the coercion of the Government at the moment that no matter what makes sense, it can be abandoned with the greatest of ease for something that is directed from on high.

Now, I do not know where the influence is in the matter, and why the Government should be arguing this. But I come from a place called Whananaki. Whananaki has acres of spat—all over the beach and all over the pipis. In fact, so much spat is probably killing the pipis. The reality is that the uniqueness of the resource complained of by the ministry simply is not true. I want to know why the Minister would ignore his select committee, which is helping him as it is meant to do, and ignore his colleagues while going along with his officials, who have not made out any scientific case whatsoever.

💬 Shane Ardern: He’s a doormat to the officials.

It is worse than that. The trouble with the fishing industry is that for far too long, Minister after Minister has given it the most apathetic concern or interest of all their portfolios. Almost from the start, that has been the case. They have regarded it as an ancillary matter in respect of their operations. They do not understand that a country like Norway—a very wealthy country, whose per capita income is about 2½ times ours—receives 70 percent of its wealth from fishing and marine farming. That is the potential of this country, as well.

💬 Mark Peck: What about Newfoundland?

It is probably about 90 percent.

💬 Mark Peck: What about Newfoundland?

What about Newfoundland, apart from Newfoundland dogs, which can swim under the water—the only dog in the world that can.

💬 Mark Peck: They used to have a fishing industry, which no longer exists.

I appreciate that, but the member cannot tell me that there is such a scarcity of spat around New Zealand’s coasts that we have to control it under the quota management system. It is a nonsense. It does not make sense. Anyone who has spent some time on New Zealand beaches knows what I am saying. Of course there is variable supply, depending on the season and the year. Obviously that is the case. But why on earth, before one knows what one is talking about and without the scientific evidence to make a judgment, would one nevertheless make that judgment? In short, the ministry has panicked the Minister into doing a most alarming thing and acting against the instincts and beliefs of his informed colleagues, who spent months studying the matter, purely to conform, as a good Minister, to his ministry.

Part 2, as previous speakers have alluded, is all about mussel spat. One of the most interesting aspects of sitting on the Primary Production Committee, which I did with my colleagues, was asking the ministry officials why mussel spat should come into the quota management system. Everybody knows that the ACT party is totally in favour of the quota management system. Well, we found out that the ministry has no idea where mussel spat comes from, that it has no idea about the volumes of spat, and that it has no idea about the breeding cycles of the stuff.

I asked what the concern was. The concern was about the eight or nine people who have a permit rushing down the beach in their vehicles once the spat is running. The ministry was concerned about the impact on the sand—on the environment. That came directly from Ken Smith of the Minister of Conservation’s office. The Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand put in a submission to the ministry stating it was very concerned about that. Pardon me, but do buses not roar down Ninety Mile Beach? Do motorbikes and four-wheel drives of all shapes, sizes, and descriptions not do that? Yet we had ministry officials concerned about a handful of people—eight people—jumping into a vehicle when the spat is running and popping out to get whatever spat they can. That was the rationale I picked up for the bringing of mussel spat into the quota management system.

I share some of the concern expressed by Mr Peters a moment or two ago about handing over the allocation of spat to a very, very small number of people—eight entities, if one likes. I flag that as the mussel spat industry burgeons, such a situation could potentially enable the capture of the industry and price-jack it. It could well end up with some sort of cartel amongst the eight individuals who have an exclusive right to that public resource—nobody else is allowed to go out there and capture it—deciding to jack up the price.

Or it could be that the mussel companies will make an offer that the catchers of mussel spat cannot refuse. Those companies would then get exclusive use of the mussel spat and could, potentially, jack up the price to all new entrants into the mussel industry. So there are some very real concerns that I have around the availability of mussel spat and around what might happen in the future.

As I said earlier, when it comes to the issue of the sustainability of a species, there is no doubt whatsoever that the quota management system is the appropriate mechanism and vehicle to manage it with. But because of eight people rushing down Ninety Mile Beach, the ministry thought that, no, it had to bring muscle spat into the quota management system. There is one more reason: according to the deed of settlement, 20 percent of any fish stock brought into the quota management system will go to Māori. That, I think, has to be the main reason. So those with existing permits will lose 20 percent, which will go to something called the Māori Fisheries Commission, and that commission will decide on what will happen to it. I am opposed to that, as, I am sure, are most members of the Opposition. This is a very small industry, and there is absolutely no need for that. According to the ministry, there are no concerns around the issue of sustainability, which, according to everybody these days, is the huge issue.

So if there are no concerns surrounding the viability and continuance of the mussel spat doing its thing, where is the problem? Why bring it in? I would like the Minister to address the question about the impact on the environment and the effect that has on mussel spat. I wonder whether the Minister might take a call—just a brief one.

I must say that members on this side of the Chamber are disappointed that the Minister has taken only one call on this issue, considering that the bill, comprising 38 pages including the schedules, was won on the first reading and then lost in the Primary Production Committee, after which a Supplementary Order Paper half the length of the substantive bill—in order words, there is a 50 percent increase in the number of provisions—was presented by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister. We would like the Minister to take a call, particularly on the mussel spat issue.

I have been tracking the mussel spat issue for about 12 months now. It was first brought to my attention because of marine farmers, concerns that the ministry was going to include in the quota management system mussel spat caught on marine farming structures. That is where a marine farmer is farming mussels, with spat produced by the mussels on the farm caught and collected on the structures, because they are obviously nearby—and where the ministry takes into account the spat collected there. Well, common sense prevailed and we are delighted to see that spat caught on structures will not be included, which is the only good news about this part.

We understand from the Fisheries Act that there are two reasons for putting a fishery into the quota management system. The first reason is to do with sustainability—to ensure that a fishery, whether the species is a crustacean, a fin fish, or a shellfish, is managed sustainably for generation upon generation—or any threat to that. The second reason a fishery would be put into the quota management system is to do with utilisation—that is to say, that New Zealand incorporated gets the best out of the fishery as it is utilised, whether by market or recreational concerns. However, we were told by ministry officials that there is no sustainability issue with mussel spat. It swirls around the ocean, and what washes up on the beach but is not collected, dies. Sure, sometimes the tide comes in, collects it, and washes it back out to sea but, substantially, it is washed up on the beach and dies. If it is not collected, therefore, it dies and cannot be used.

We asked the officials about the amount of mussel spat that is washed up or that swirls around the ocean each year. As the ACT member said, they had no idea where the spat came from, no idea where it went, and no idea where it was tracked around the country. In other words, they had no idea of the general tracking of mussel spat. But they did say that the only sustainability issues they could see were those caused by environmental conditions—warm seasons and cold seasons, warm currents and cold currents, or anything like that caused by the environment. In other words, fishing for mussel spat has no impact on sustainability, so why should it go into the quota management system for that reason.

Then there is the utilisation issue. We too are concerned about the idea that there would be eight or nine people who would have control of the quota in future years. But it is worse than that, because not only are there just eight or nine people but those eight or nine people belong to three main families. There are Anthony and Diane Wedding and Patrick Hugh Wedding; Robert Denison and Kirk Denison, who are numbers four and five; and there is another family as well, a number of whose members will get quota for spat. So the number of individuals who will control this resource is low and some of them belong to the same family. That is OK on the face of it, but with mussel spat, because there is no sustainability issue and because there appears to be no utilisation issue, we are concerned that the quota will be restricted to a few people who have a common interest and common link.

We will be voting against this part, because it is our view that mussel spat should not be brought into the quota management system, and certainly not so soon. I know that the Mussel Industry Council agrees, and that it will back us on that.

I move, That the question be now put.

Like my colleagues, I would also like to speak on clause 64, which deals with mussel spat. But before I do so, I think we need to have some contextual statements. There is a certain amount of disquiet about the way this bill has been managed through the House and the select committee. In order to understand that, we need to reflect on the fact that we have had a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper come into the Committee. Today further Supplementary Order Papers have been put forward, yet at this stage the Minister has got to his feet and taken only one call on an issue that deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I do not want to overplay that, but the issue around this fishery and mussel spat is of such significance that in time there will be an industry that is a billion-dollar – plus earner. That industry deserves to have confidence in the Minister who is running this portfolio. The confusion that has arisen out of the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper and the steadfast refusal of the Minister, other than on one occasion, to get to his feet and answer reasonable questions are disturbing.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 2.

Thank you for your direction. I want now to turn my attention to the question of mussel spat. It was raised in the select committee, and I understand that the Green members were very concerned about it—I mean, these are people who kiss green-lipped mussels, for goodness’ sake! When the bill went to the Primary Production Committee the Minister had the full support of all the parties, but when it came out from the committee that goodwill had been lost. We have to ask the question: what needs to be done to lose the goodwill of the Green Party?

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

Before the dinner break I was telling the Committee that there is a crisis of confidence in this Minister, and nowhere is it more evident than in his determination—in fact, it is not his determination; it is his officials’ determination—to put mussel spat into the quota management system.

💬 Simon Power: What is mussel spat?

Mussel spat gets washed up on to the shores of our local beaches. The problem is that it gets washed out again when the tide comes in. So what we do not know is whether we are counting it once, twice, or the number of times the tide brings it back in. The question that I need the Minister to stand up and take a call on is how he establishes a quota system for mussel spat. In fact, I note that the Minister will not stand up and take a call, so maybe he could answer this question: what does he need to do to establish a fair quota system? What science has he—or the Minister’s officials—relied on to say that this is how he has established a mussel spat quota? [Interruption] Oh, the Minister has done that. I notice that the Minister still will not stand up and answer that question, but I will put this to him: science that cannot prove a fact is bad science.

Can it be that the real reason mussel spat is going into the quota management system is that it is a sop to Māori with regard to the foreshore and seabed issue? Is that the real reason? I suspect that it probably is, because there is no scientific basis at all for mussel spat to go into the quota management system. That is the only reason I can think of for this Minister to allow it to happen. I suspect that is the real reason. I do not want to be unkind to the Minister.

💬 Simon Power: Why not?

Well, to be fair to him, if he were a fish we would throw him back, in respect of his management of this ministry, and, at this stage, he is struggling. But one would expect that he could rely on his officials.

💬 Shane Ardern: He’s floundering.

He is floundering. He can rely on his officials to give him his advice, but the problem is that he is held captive by them, because he cannot, or does not, seem to have the capacity to stand up and take a call and explain his position.

I move, That the question be now put.