Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996, as well as the Fisheries Act 1983 and the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2) 2004. Part 3 of the bill was reported back separately, and received royal assent on Thursday, 12 August 2004 as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4).

It is essential to progress the matters in this bill. The Supplementary Order Paper 246 reflects many of the concerns raised by the Primary Production Committee in its report back to this House. This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the 1996 Fisheries Act so that it can better achieve its purpose, which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. These improvements include providing more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries, improving the way quota is allocated when a species is brought into the quota management system, revising the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries, removing the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of our fisheries resources, extending coverage of the quota management system to provide for improved management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries waters, and enabling the introduction into the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area GLM9 on 1 October 2004.

This bill provides for improvements in the way fisheries resources will be managed, so that the purpose of the 1996 Fisheries Act can be better achieved. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House.

The National Party will not be voting for this bill. It is not because we are short of information; indeed, we had submission after submission telling us of the holes in this legislation. But we should be lacking information, because during the Committee stage yesterday and last week the Minister took only one call over 3 hours of debate, and just now he spoke for a total of 93 seconds of what should have been a 10-minute speech. It is absolutely appalling to see a Minister of Fisheries in the chair during the Committee stage not take more than one call, and then give only a 93-second speech in the third reading. That was made worse by the fact that a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper, drafted by the Minister’s officials, was presented during the Committee stage. The bill as introduced was substantially only 32 pages long. In other words, the amendments were half again the length of the bill. So I am disappointed in the Minister in respect of addressing questions about the bill.

National opposes the third reading and we have four substantive concerns. The first is the Minister’s intention to manage fisheries outside New Zealand waters. This Minister intends to manage highly migratory species—in particular, tuna species—in the seas of Fiji, the seas of China and Madagascar, the Indian Ocean, and off the coast of South America. It is absolutely nuts. When I received the consultation papers in the Primary Production Committee, I saw no submission from the Chinese Government. I saw no input from the Fijian people. Those living in India seem to have no say on the matter. I would like to put to the House that this Minister of Fisheries wants to manage fish species in territorial waters of other countries, and the people do not even know about it.

Worse than that, he intends to give 20 percent of quota caught in those fishing zones—in the territorial seas of other countries and in the high seas—to Māori. I do not know whether Māori historically had any intention of catching tuna off the coast of Madagascar, Fiji, or any other country in the South Pacific or throughout the rest of the world. I cannot see why Māori should be given 20 percent of that quota.

We were misinformed in the Parliament yesterday, I think by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and others, who said that National signed the 1992 Māori fisheries settlement and intended at that time that Māori would receive a proportion of fish quota caught in the territorial waters of other countries. That is not the case. We signed an agreement that would see Māori receive 20 percent of quota that enters the quota management system. We agree they should receive 20 percent of any species that go into the quota management system. But it was never the intention that a Labour Government in the future could shift the quota management system to include the territorial waters of other countries, or that it would shift the quota management system to include species in the high seas. In that case, Māori would be on the tail end of that and receive 20 percent of the fish caught in the seas around Fiji, China, India, South America, and Madagascar. That is one major reason why we oppose this bill.

A number of fishing companies have come to us and said they are simply going to fish under another country’s flag—in other words, income generation through catching highly migratory species in the waters of other countries, and the benefits will go to other countries, not return to New Zealand. We are very comfortable about voting against those aspects of this bill in relation to highly migratory species.

The second reason we oppose this bill is the absurdity of putting mussel spat collected on Ninety Mile Beach, into the quota management system. We know the Ministry of Fisheries, and certainly the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, have no idea where the mussel spat comes from or where it goes to. All they know is that it moves around the oceans and washes up on Ninety Mile Beach in great volumes. Most of what is not collected lays there and dies in the sun. The amounts that are collected are distributed to the marine farming industry throughout New Zealand as seed stock. Clearly, the mussel farming industry is able to build a significant business for this country with that seed stock. Yet this Government wants to put that mussel spat, which would die anyway, into the quota management system; thereby restricting the catch, ratcheting up the price, providing a monopoly supplier to the marine farming industry, and in that way, again holding back the aquaculture industry in relation to mussel farming. That is the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system, and certainly National opposes that move.

The third reason we oppose this bill is our concern about the schedules, and I refer members to new schedule 4C in particular. New schedule 4C lists the fish species that will go into the quota management system in the near future, based on catch history records, presumably those between 1990 and 1992. The expectation of commercial fishers is that all fish species will go into the quota management system, based on catch history between 90 and 92 years. Yet the Labour Government has decided that it will restrict what species will go in and what species will not. Those species listed in new schedule 4C will come under the quota management system with that expectation, but species left out will not. Many, many species have been left out of that schedule. The Seafood Industry Council, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, and a large number of submitters across the country told the ministry what species should be included in that schedule, but they were completely ignored. I do not know how that Minister can ride roughshod over an expectation of property right, in the way that he has.

The final reason we oppose the bill relates to kahawai. There was the opportunity through the amendment put forward by United Future to not introduce kahawai into the quota management system on 1 October this year, as is currently gazetted. National wants kahawai to go into the quota management system, because that is the best system to manage kahawai, but we do not agree that it should be under the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch conditions that the Minister has specified. Now we see that in area 1, which ranges right through the Bay of Plenty, Coromandel, and Northland, the commercial catches can be almost as high as recreational catches. In area 2, the other main area that goes around Hawke’s Bay down to Wellington, commercial fishers can catch more kahawai than recreational fishers. That is absolutely wrong. We are quite concerned and disappointed that United Future’s amendment, which we supported, did not go through.

For those four reasons we unreservedly oppose this bill. They are four substantial concerns, and we certainly do not commend this bill to the House.

The member from, I think, Whangarei, who has just resumed his seat, actually had five issues, not four. I know that it is tough for members in the National caucus to count, particularly when they taking a vote on who will be the boss.

I shall comment on two particular issues before commending the bill to the House. The first concerns jurisdictional issues in terms of the right, under the world’s growing oceans policy, to take wild species—for want of a better term. Kiwis can conduct themselves, as all other nations do, in the international domain of international fisheries. That is what we do, and what everyone else does. The beauty of our quota management system is that it is world-leading edge. It is an unfinished manual that is continuing to be written, and this bill continues to conduct a wonderful process that everyone acknowledges is world leading.

The opportunity Kiwis have to fish in the international domain is beyond repute and beyond reproach. That is why Mr Heatley would not have had a submission from the Chinese, the Taiwanese, or the Fijians. He will have to get his simple, limited mind around the opportunities that we have. He should not come to this House and bleat on like that. [Interruption] The chief whip over there groans like a little bloke all the time when one tries to voice very valid concerns about speeches made by members on the opposite side of the House. The member should grow a bit of a backbone.

My final point is about the 20 percent. In 1992, when Douglas Montrose Graham and Jim Bolger constructed the settlement agreement—also known as the Sealord’s deal—20 percent of the quota management system was put across to Māori. The reality is that a National Government put that in place in 1992. Now the National Party tries to recant, tries to resile from what it put in place. End of story—National put it in place. It is constitutional, it is entwined within it, and that is the way it will stay. The reality, for those members who are really upset about it, is so sad, too bad!

I commend the work of the Minister of Fisheries for bringing this legislation to its conclusion. I commend the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

New Zealand First is unequivocally opposed to the passage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). Unless other parties come to their senses and see the bill’s serious and dramatic flaws, New Zealand and New Zealanders will again be presented with poorly conceived legislation that will have damaging implications for recreational and commercial fishers alike, and will have a detrimental impact on our society and our way of life. At some time very soon in the future this House will be debating new legislation that will be required to address the inequalities that are being established here today. No doubt they will be described as unintended consequences.

It is intended that the expansion of the quota management system will lead to Māori receiving an allocation of 20 percent of highly migratory species. How can businesses conduct their affairs internationally in an environment of such uncertainty when they are from New Zealand? Why would any commercial enterprise invest in the development of a fishery if subsequent legislation is likely to alter the conditions of that fishery? The Crown’s obligation to allocate 20 percent of any fish species that is being included in the quota management system arises from the 12-year-old deed of settlement of 23 September 1992, signed by the previous National Government. It is an obligation that contemplated new species, but not new areas, and I emphasise that. It contemplated new species, but not new areas.

Through the whole debate the Minister of Fisheries has claimed that he had legal opinions. He said he had three of them. Frankly, he had one opinion twice from the same person in Crown Law. He would not, and still has not, produced the third legal opinion. Frankly, on examination of that legal opinion, I do not believe it is worth the academic paper it is written on. Clause 1.3 of the deed makes a specific exclusion in respect of new areas. It states: “This Deed embodies the entire understanding and the whole agreement between the Crown and Māori relative to the subject matter hereof and all previous negotiations, representations, warranties, arrangements and statements (if any) whether expressed or implied (including any collateral agreement or warranty) with reference to the subject matter hereof or the intentions of any of the parties hereto are extinguished and otherwise are hereby excluded and cancelled save the Treaty of Waitangi itself.” That is what the deed states. All fisheries management areas were limited to New Zealand fisheries waters.

It has been argued that to extend the quota management system as proposed would advantage Māori by a side wind, disadvantage the fishers who lose that 20 percent of the quota, and create further uncertainty.

Why should a company go off shore, create a fishery, and lose 20 percent of the quota to Māori, because of an arbitrary, in-house arrangement made by the Labour Government in order to try to save its Māori members? It is not based on any law, or on any matter of equity and fairness. The Government has just decided to do that, even though Māori, through the Māori Fisheries Commission, could themselves be building up that resource off shore and thereby gaining a certain percentage internationally. What is fair about that? It is not fair, and it does the Māori people a grave disservice. Crown Law opinions to the contrary are based on fallacious arguments, and again I challenge the Minister to make those opinions available in their entirety. The least that he can do is to provide some transparency in this exercise.

The non-Government parties must act as Opposition parties, and oppose this bad legislation. Unfortunately, in some ways they have been seen to lose their way. What those parties seem to fail to realise is that the application of the 20 percent Māori share of the stock to the new area means that catch history ceases to be the basis for quota allocation. In other words, it brings into question the very legitimacy of the quota management system. Our quota management system, which has been touted as one of the most successful in the world, will lose its legitimacy, and thus our conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. Future generations will not thank us for once again being so careless with our assets.

We in New Zealand First cannot stand by and watch that happen. What sort of message is the Government sending to business in this country? I will tell members what the message is. It is that businesses should not take the risk of making new investments and should not put their capital and technology into a new enterprise, because if they do, one-fifth will be given to somebody else who made no investment in the first place. It is a modern-day confiscation of property rights, and it is anti-business. I repeat the comments I made in previous speeches regarding mussel spat—it has no place in this legislation. But its inclusion is consistent with the madness that is embodied in other clauses of the bill.

Lastly, I want to say that it is terribly unfortunate that the inexperienced and politically naive Mr Baldock put forward Supplementary Order Paper 247, and expected people to back it. In fact, he told me that he had the backing of all Opposition parties except New Zealand First, and he asked for our position. When I made some enquiries, I found out that was not true. It was not true of the Greens or of ACT, so what on earth was Mr Baldock talking about? More important, putting such an inappropriate Supplementary Order Paper in a badly drafted bill—which this bill is—is not something that New Zealand First can support, although we support the sentiments behind the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why we abstained. But let me make this very clear to Mr Baldock, who seems not to understand this: if New Zealand First opposed all aspects of this bill and every part of it, and opposed the second reading and the Committee stage, how can it be said to have supported anything other than kahawai not being in the legislation or in the quota management system? Mr Baldock seems to have a problem with logic. But then again, naivety is what United Future and Mr Baldock, in particular, are famous for. Where was this issue, for example, in the 2002 manifesto of United Future? It was not there, at all. Did the United Future leader mention it in his discussions with Labour about the coalition and United Future’s support of the Government arrangements? In the 1½ pages of motherhood and apple pie, can we find anything about this issue? No, we cannot.

Mr Baldock is just a naive, silly, inexperienced politician, who will be gone before the 1 year of grace that he asked for in his Supplementary Order Paper is over. He will be gone from Parliament by then. Mr Baldock had the temerity to put out a press statement at 9.30 this morning that is blatantly defamatory. I emailed him just a short while ago to say that if he does not withdraw the penultimate paragraph within 24 hours, I will sue him—and we will. We will not allow people to go outside this Parliament, make defamatory statements, and get away with it.

💬 Hon Member: Another one on the rack!

Another one on the rack? Well, we used to have an understanding here in this Parliament about what was defamatory and what was not—but not that clown. He put out a statement attacking all and sundry: the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First—

💬 Simon Power: What did he say?

I cannot read it to members because it is utter drivel, but he threw in a paragraph that is defamatory. I think I am getting pretty good at dealing with that, so let us see what Larry Baldock’s lawyer is like, and let us see what his bank account is like. Let him put his money where his mouth is. If I were the United Future leader, I would say to Larry Baldock that unless he withdraws that statement, I will fire him. He cannot go around doing that, but the problem with United Future is that it has no leadership. How can a party leader allow members who are as naive as Mr Baldock to make such silly statements, and then to slag off every other party?

Here is the point: had Mr Baldock got kahawai in, he and his colleagues were going to back the bill, were they not? Oh yes, they were. There is not a mutter, not a syllable, not a sound, and not a murmur from the United Future members. They were going to back the bill if they had got kahawai in. For how long was kahawai going to be outside the quota management system? For 1 year, by which time Larry Baldock will be gone from this House. He will no longer be here. I say to Mr Baldock that he should withdraw the penultimate paragraph of his press statement, or I will sue him—that message is on his email right now.

💬 Larry Baldock: You sue everyone.

And I am suing that member. He cannot go around telling a tissue of porkies, and get away with it. He will not get away with telling porkies inside this House or outside it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot accuse another member of telling porkies. He will withdraw that comment.

OK. I withdraw and apologise. But the member should know that he cannot go around being a mendacious sybarite and get away with it. He cannot go on being a mendacious sybarite inside and outside Parliament, and get away with it. That is why, if we do not see the withdrawal of that paragraph within 24 hours, we will start legal action, and we will see what that member’s defence is.

What New Zealand First said was that we did not believe that kahawai should be in the quota management system at this point in time. We made that statement—and Supplementary Order Paper 247 stated that it should be in that system, but a year from now. That is what it states. So who is telling fibs to the recreational fishers? If someone shows those guys in United Future a gun, they get carried away. The gun lobby will back them to get totally carried away, and show just how demonstrably inexperienced they are. Thank God New Zealand First does not have any members like that!

I want to pick up on the theme of Mr Peters’ speech. It does seem to me that what United Future said to the ACT party was that if we supported its amendment, United Future would support the Government. I ask Mr Baldock to run that by me again. If we, the ACT party, supported his amendment, United Future would support the Government—is that not a good deal! I ask Mr Baldock whether I have “Stupid” written across my forehead. No, I do not want him to answer that, but I think the reaction from the members on the Opposition side of the House actually told him something about the logic behind his proposed amendment, which got what it deserved.

I do not disagree with the sentiment that was behind the amendment. Of course we want to preserve kahawai or any other fish stock for the recreational lobby, but the reality is that this Labour Government has decided to ignore the recreational fishers in this country and their rights. The Government is protecting the rights of Māori—their so-called rights—with 20 percent of the allocation, under the deed of settlement. It protects those rights and it protects, of course, the rights of commercial fishers, who have a property right—and rightly so, too. But what about the recreational fishers? I have asked in the House on past occasions why, if the Government—and, I suppose, successive Governments—are genuinely concerned about the lack of fishing opportunity and the lack of quota for recreational fishers, that issue is not mentioned in this bill. The Government could have bought on the open market the property right that the purse-seiners have—that 3,000 tonnes. The Government could have bought that right; it could have gone to those people and said it was making an offer they could not refuse. The Government has done that on a number of other occasions. When it wants to settle a land deal or whatever else it wants to settle, it can do that. On other occasions it opens the chequebook and does that, but it did not do so this time.

I want to move on to the substance of this No. 3 bill, and I think I speak on this bill more in sorrow than in anger. The prime focus surely should be to get the important fishing industry out of acrimonious debate and out of the litigious situations that seem to dog it constantly, and get it into a secure property right concept, which the quota management system does give. I will not stand here and say that the quota management system is perfect in every way, shape, or form. Nor, I think, could anybody stand in this House and say that democracy is fantastic in every way, shape, and form. But the alternatives—and that is really what we are talking about—are a darn sight worse. As other members who have spoken have indicated, the quota management system is by far and away the best system that we, the human species, have come up with. We are moving forward under that system, and certainly it is a concept that has been picked up internationally.

When mentioning the word “internationally”, I think it is fair to say that the Primary Production Committee, which studied this bill at great length, tossed it out of the boat, figuratively speaking, because it was seen to be so bad. There may be an international agreement. Hopefully, maybe, we could or may—those are the sorts of words that surround the language of this proposal of the Minister—have some sort of international agreement surrounding migratory species. It may be in 1 year, in 5 years, in 10 years, or in 20 years—goodness knows! But the Minister required New Zealand fishers to control their catch effort while the process of negotiation was being carried out. That is an absolute nonsense, which was pointed out and, I think, accepted by all members of the select committee, including of course the Labour Government members. They saw that it was totally ridiculous for New Zealand fishers to restrict their catch effort, while the Taiwanese and the Venezuelans—it does not matter who the fishers were—went for dear life in the South China Sea, catching the fish that they wanted to. Back home we would be standing out in the cold and saying that we were wonderful, because we were so tremendously concerned about sustaining the fish stocks that we were not going to try to catch any while those guys did their damnedest out there. That was an absolute nonsense argument, so the select committee came to the conclusion that this bill should not proceed. That was the expectation of the committee.

The purpose, I am sure, of a select committee is to determine whether a bill that is sent to it should advance. In most cases a bill does advance, with some minor adjustments and with a lot of help from Opposition members, as well. That is the proper process, and so it should be. But when a bill comes back to the House with a recommendation from a select committee that it not proceed, surely that is what should happen. Yet the Minister came up with Supplementary Order Paper 246 literally 5 minutes before the bill was due to be read, and tried to change the thinking of everybody. It was, as has been mentioned, a very, very substantial technical amendment. There were 17 pages—it was half the size of the original bill—and members of this House were expected to absorb it in 3 or 4 minutes. The reality is that Supplementary Order Paper 246 should have gone back to the select committee for further consideration.

💬 Hon David Carter: Hear, hear!

I know that Mr David Carter, the chair of the committee, promoted that concept, as I did. That would have been the sensible thing for a sensible Government to do. What did this Government do? It just ignored that. It is part of the arrogance that we find from this Government from time to time. Well, it is not just from time to time; increasingly it is all the time.

I have dealt with the migratory species, but one of the issues that concerned me the most was what appears to be the capture of the ministry, even by an organisation like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. On the subject of mussel spat, the rationale for bringing it into the quota management system was to stop people from driving down Ninety Mile Beach in a rush once the spat was running, or whatever they do. The concern was expressed that vehicles would be pouring down the beach as everybody rushed out to catch the spat, and that is why the society wanted to bring it into the quota management system. That was a concern of the society, and it was picked up by the Minister. Gracious me! If that does not show the naivety of the whole process and the capture of the ministry by an outside organisation, then I will go he.

This was a really bad bill. It should not have been introduced, and it should not have been debated. We should be back at the select committee, tidying up this Government’s mess yet again. It will come as no surprise that the ACT party will not support this bill. There were some aspects that could have been tidied up, but because the bill is such a dog’s breakfast we will let that slide. We will not vote for this bill.

I rise today to voice United Future’s opposition to the third reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is not the position we initially wanted to take but it has been forced on us by a Parliament and a Minister who were either unwilling or unable to assess the big picture accurately and then act in the best interests of New Zealanders. After the Primary Production Committee voted to discharge the bill, United Future, after discussion with industry stakeholders, recognised that it still had some value, and we undertook to work with the Minister to bring this bill into a form that was more acceptable to us, so that we would be able to support it.

We did make several useful changes. We discussed the issue of tuna and the highly migratory species coming into the quota management system within the 200-mile zone, and not on the high seas, as was requested by industry. We addressed the issues of the by-catch for tuna, which was out of sync with the catch history years, and got agreement that that would be addressed through a preferential tender so that fishermen would be able to access the necessary by-catch they needed when they were allocated quota for their tuna.

We dealt with schedule 4C and schedule 4D in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to some of the other species that needed to have their catch history recorded so that property rights would be withheld for those who had catch history in 1991 and 1992. We addressed the whelk and the geoduck issues. We addressed the pipi issue, but cockles was not dealt with because it was retroactive and we could not see any point in dealing with that, but that is something perhaps the Green Party was able to pick up on when it began to enter into negotiations with the Minister. All these agreements were agreed to.

We then moved on to an outstanding issue, that of kahawai, which we had a great deal of discussion about. There was another issue within the bill, around the green-lipped mussel spat. We had a great deal of discussion with industry and found that there were conflicting opinions within industry about whether this should go into the quota management system now, or whether it should go in in a couple of years’ time. Finally, we resolved that there was a majority acceptance that it was going to happen, and that it was not an issue that should delay the other good things in the bill that needed to be passed.

The outstanding issue concerning kahawai was about the recreational species being introduced into the quota management system at a level that makes commercial purse-seine fishing economical. All we asked was that either the level that was made available for commercial fishers was reduced now, and not later, or else its introduction into the quota management system be delayed until more scientific research could be undertaken and a better decision made. It was clear to us that it was impossible to revoke a Gazette notice by the Minister once it had been gazetted, without an Act of Parliament. This bill provided an opportunity for Parliament to express its will over and above the Minister’s intention through the Gazette, which would have freed the Minister from any comeback from the industry, had that occurred. It seemed to us a sensible step to follow, so that time would be bought in order for further discussions to take place.

We clearly are still of the opinion, as Gerry Eckhoff has expressed, that the commercial sector needed to be compensated if it was going to lose out through those negotiations, but it would give an opportunity for the Government to do that prior to the quota being issued, and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer because of that. Once the quota is issued, I believe it would be more expensive to buy it retroactively and then settle for the benefits of the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately the Minister did not agree, and craven political opportunism on the part of the Greens, New Zealand First, and ACT won the day. The support for my Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage, which could have led to the outcome we sought, was defeated.

As this bill approaches the end of the long journey to its third reading, I do not believe that the Ministry of Fisheries can be blamed for everything it has been accused of during the long process of this bill. People or organisations are seldom as black as they are painted. But this bill, and all the controversy that has surrounded it, has highlighted one clear, undeniable fact. The Ministry of Fisheries does need serious attention to improve its management of our fisheries resource. It needs accountability, and it needs a culture change in order to be more responsive and receptive to New Zealanders.

It would be a huge advance for the ministry if it acknowledged that it does not know everything about our fishing stocks, and that those who spend their time out on the sea, day in and day out, both commercially and recreationally, have a very good knowledge of what is going on, and should be listened to more carefully when Ministry of Fisheries officials are making decisions about people’s recreational activities or livelihoods. I have had conversations with frustrated industry participants, even as recently as today, who are giving up and leaving the industry, or even leaving New Zealand, because of the frustrations they experience with ministry officials. Recreational fishers are also incredibly frustrated because they do not want to have to fight for their rights in court, as they did several years ago with snapper. Now, it seems, they have no alternative but to do so for kahawai.

Recent fisheries legislation has been fraught with fall-out from, at best, extraordinarily poor, and, at worst, downright negligent, actions by the Ministry of Fisheries and its predecessors. We do not want to see similar tragic or messy situations emerge with regard to kahawai. For this reason, we want no further part in perpetuating the flawed fisheries policies of this Government and of the Ministry of Fisheries, and as a gesture of support and in an effort to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of recreational fishers throughout New Zealand, United Future opposes the passage of this bill on its third reading.

I have, this afternoon, been given some correspondence and information from a mussel spat farmer in the north of the North Island. He wrote to Phil Heatley.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?

Around about Kaitāia. He wrote to Mr Phil Heatley. I will share it with members. It starts off with a Freudian slip: “Dear Pil. Further to our conversation—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Say that again—that’s no mistake.

“Pil”! He states: “Further to our conversation recently, I have since read comment made by yourself relating to mussel spat during the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3).” He quotes Mr Heatley here: “ ‘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.’ You are obviously referring to myself in those ‘three families’, who, incidentally, not that you seem to care one whit for the truth of the matter, would not be the only recipients of quota, should mussel spat be entered into the quota management system. You would obviously rather tender the quota when it inevitably enters the QMS and hand the property right to big business, against whom we could not financially compete. I find your arrogance and ignorance relating to mussel spat absolutely astounding.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t hear that last bit.

He was concerned about Mr Heatley’s arrogance and ignorance. He goes on to state: “Had I known just how narrow your blinkers were set, I would not have wasted my time talking to you today. I have been an admirer of Mr Brash’s style, but the trash you have been spouting lately will definitely result in a rethink of my position. Mr Brash’s judgment must be brought into question if he chooses to surround himself with people of your calibre.”

I have to say that that is a letter from somebody who really understands the industry, quite unlike Mr Heatley, who is a boy on a man’s errand. What is happening with this bill is that the Government is providing leadership to protect the future of our quality natural environment, and we are working in partnership with the commercial and recreational needs of the sector. Heaven help the oceans and the fish therein if Mr Heatley got anywhere near the decision-making process! But those of us who have been here a year or two know that hell would freeze over before that ever happened, because he is just a mouthpiece for others in that party opposite. We know that Mr Heatley will never, ever be anywhere near any decision-making process, so the fish are safe for a while. I am pleased to participate in this debate.

I will comment on the issue of mussel spat shortly, except I will say that I suspect that if Ms Pettis had given us the name of the person who wrote that letter, we would find that he is one of the persons about to receive a substantial property right via the allocation of mussel spat into the quota management system. That person is about to become a very, very wealthy man.

I start by acknowledging, as we debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), that it would be hard to imagine that the new Minister, David Benson-Pope, could have got himself into a bigger mess if he had deliberately tried to do so. This is the first piece of legislation that the new, inexperienced Minister has had the opportunity of presenting to the House. It was presented to the House and, if my memory serves me right, it was supported by most of the House. It went off to the Primary Production Committee, where we started to examine its content in detail. It became evident very, very quickly that this legislation was a huge mess. The Minister had clearly been totally captured by his officials. He had either not had the ability or had not used his own ability to question the officials’ rationale for putting this legislation before him, so the select committee then had to do the sort of questioning we would have expected the Minister himself to do before presenting such legislation to the House. For the first time that I can recall in the last 5 years, the Government’s legislation was lost at the select committee. The select committee voted for the legislation not to proceed further.

What members need to appreciate is that that select committee is very diverse in its make-up. The National Party, New Zealand First, ACT, Labour, and the Greens are all represented on that committee. We found that the majority of those members voted strongly against the legislation, and said that it was such a dog that it should not proceed any further. During the select committee process I felt a little sorry for the four Labour members, Janet Mackey, Clayton Cosgrove, Harry Duynhoven, and Dover Samuels.

💬 Shane Ardern: They were rolled.

My colleague Shane Ardern says they were rolled. They sat there through the select committee process and realised that the bill was an absolute mess. What was most interesting was that they voted with very weak voices that it should proceed, knowing full well that the select committee had the numbers for it not to proceed.

It is of interest to note that to date Janet Mackey, as the deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee, has not taken a call. Clayton Cosgrove, who normally rushes to the House to speak on legislation, has not yet taken a call. Harry Duynhoven has not yet taken a call. I will guarantee that Dover Samuels does not take a call either.

I want to refer to one other member whom we have not spoken about yet—the Green member, Ian Ewen-Street. I am waiting for the Green member to take a call, because in the select committee he voted for the legislation not to proceed, but I understand there is a little whisper going around Parliament that this legislation will pass today with the support of the Greens. This is the party that runs around the country saying it is the party of integrity. It gets a chance to examine legislation in a select committee and votes against it. Mr Ewen-Street stated at the select committee that the bill was a dog, yet he sits meekly in Parliament, not prepared to take a call. In half an hour’s time when we vote on this legislation it will pass because his political party has changed its mind. How is that for gumption? He sits in a select committee, does the work, votes against it, then realises that that would not be helping his Labour Party mates, so votes for it.

The real issue is not the embarrassing position that the Government is in, or the very embarrassing position that Ian Ewen-Street is in—it is David Benson-Pope. Fancy advancing legislation that tries to extend the quota management system around the rest of the world! The Labour Party members look incredulous and say that it does not do that—but it does. This legislation proposes to put highly migratory species—and what that means in simple language is species that swim all around international waters—

💬 Jill Pettis: Fish can’t read prosecution signs.

Jill Pettis said that fish do not know whether they are swimming into international waters or territorial waters. That is exactly the point. The Labour Party should not try to put those species into the quota management system, which is a very good system that was designed for New Zealand territorial waters. The arrogance of the Minister and the Labour Party in thinking that they will impose the quota management system on the rest of the world, frankly defies belief.

I will speak very briefly on three particular submissions that came before us. I will talk first about Westhaven Shellfish and Sea-Right Investments, because their situations were similar. They had huge problems over permitting issues with the ministry. They went to court, took the Ministry of Fisheries on, and won. This legislation effectively nullifies their win in the courts, and I object to that. Ian Ewen-Street also strongly objected to that throughout the select committee process, but in an interjection a couple of days ago in the House he said that the Minister had given him his word that those matters would be addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Ian Ewen-Street should wake up. Those issues are not addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper—the Green member has been conned.

The other issue regards the cockle fishery. Again, we had a very interesting submission from Mr Brierley speaking on behalf of Westpac Mussel Distributors Ltd. Eight fishers had organised themselves and earned catch history under the 1986 legislation. National’s Minister of Fisheries through the 1990s, Doug Kidd, gave these fishers the opportunity that if the quota was held in their own personal name and they wanted to corporatise and form a company, then they would be allowed to do so. Quite stupidly, in my mind, the officials of the ministry gave them a double allocation—allocation in the fishers’ own names as sole traders, and in the name of the company they then formed. That has resulted in five of those fishers getting a double allocation to the detriment of the other three that have not bothered to corporatise.

That is wrong. The select committee acknowledged that it was wrong, and again Ian Ewen-Street tells me that that grievance is corrected in the Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Green member again, wake up—it has not been addressed. Those people have been dicked by the Labour Government, and the Green member is about to support that.

In the closing minutes of my speech, I want to make sure that the industry finally gets a Minister with some competence. We have had Pete Hodgson as the Minister of Fisheries. He was sacked because he was absolutely incompetent. We now have David Benson-Pope, to whom the industry was prepared to give a chance. His first bill has resulted in the select committee saying it should not proceed, yet the Government is ramming it through with a Supplementary Order Paper.

I rise to take just a short call. It has been a very interesting evening to observe as we head into the third reading of this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). The Opposition has accused the Greens of going soft and voting with the Government. I think the Greens have shown that they have minds of their own that are rather intelligent because they are working with this Government, which has worked with the sector. We have actually worked with the industry—the commercial and recreational fishers of this country. It has been an interesting phenomenon to see the Opposition spokesman for fisheries completely outstripped and outspoken by David Carter on this issue. David Carter, who has been having a spat with Winston Peters over scampi, certainly has not helped the New Zealand First - National Party relationship. That has been immeasurably damaging. I think National needs to look at itself over this. Tonight I am pleased to support this bill. It shows that this Government, yet again, is providing leadership to the industry. I will be thrilled when this bill is passed tonight.

As I said last night, here in New Zealand for the first time in 150 years of this Parliament’s history we have a Minister of Fisheries who has absolutely floundered. He has come a real gutser over this bill. The Prime Minister should put him out of his misery. She was experimenting with this new Minister, and the experiment has been a total failure. She should say that occasionally she gets it wrong and that this Minister must go. Because this bill, from the beginning to the point we are at now, has been a complete litany of failures. I will start with a few points that have been raised in the debate so far.

Firstly, the Minister states in his bill, and confirms in the Supplementary Order Paper—although one would not know that, because it is written in a way that ensures nobody will ever study it closely, but it may be confirmed in there—that we are going to introduce mussel spat into the quota management system. Many times in this House the request has been put to the Minister to take a call and explain where the science is in the notion that a very migratory species in the form of mussel spat, which drifts around the coast of New Zealand, can be introduced to the quota management system. Some years there is a lot of it, other years there is very little of it, and there is absolutely no science whatsoever to say what a sustainable management programme for it would be. The Minister has failed so far to answer that question. He has completely failed, and we know why—because he cannot. He has even had a legal opinion on it, as he said to the House, although we have had no evidence of that, which I think backs up the fact that that is so. There is no science, there is no research, there is no knowledge, and therefore it cannot be done in a credible way.

Further, one of the bottom lines of a Government—any Government—is to protect citizenship against rorts of property ownership or the theft of property rights. In this bill, the Government is doing the reverse. It is giving to, I think, nine people a windfall that most of us could only ever hope for.

💬 Hon David Carter: It is like winning Lotto.

It is like winning Lotto, as my colleague says. It was interesting to note that the senior Government whip, Jill Pettis read out a letter about one of my colleagues that we could not describe as being complimentary. It is the only letter she has received all year, and I have to say to the member that we get hundreds of letters—thousands of letters. I would not bring down to the House and read out some of the letters I have had on her, because I am sure they would be unparliamentary and ruled out of order. In kind terms, some of the language that is used to describe the member for Whanganui could only be described as “colourful”. There are a few letters in my bottom drawer about that member.

All I can say to the member—and I say it to the Minister and to Madam Speaker, as well—is that no matter how good the strategy may be, occasionally one must look at the results, and the results of this are not good—they are not good by any measurement. So regardless of the fact that that was the first letter the member has received all year and it is not complementary to one of my colleagues, I say to the senior Government whip that she should get one of her colleagues on the select committee to take a call and explain to members what they found out through the process.

The deputy chair, Janet Mackey is a very good member of Parliament. She represents provincial rural New Zealand in a Labour Government, which has almost put her in danger. In fact, I think it has run her out of Parliament, but she represents rural New Zealanders, regardless of what the socialists say. She stands up for them, and I think she is a very good member, but will she take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)?

💬 Hon David Carter: Is she allowed?

Well, I would suggest she would not take a call on this bill, and I can understand why. As has been said before, the very good and very senior member Clayton Cosgrove, who is another member of the select committee and a very outspoken member, has kept his head down and has not been heard in this debate, and there are very good reasons for that. I am sure he would make a very good fisheries Minister, because he listened to the facts and he would change the silliness that is going on in this House.

Of course, Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels were probably wheeled into the select committee to make up the numbers at times. There is no way that I can comment on whether Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels have a handle on this bill, because I simply do not know, but I suspect not—I substantially suspect not.

Further, this bill introduces migratory species into the quota management system. The system has been recognised internationally as a fine, sustainable management system for managing a fishery, and I see a couple of Ministers on the other side of the House who would know that. They know that this is so. So introducing migratory species into that system means that our quota management system, which now extends to the coast of Brazil, or Fiji, or Hawaiki—it depends on where the first waka came from; there has been a lot of debate about that, but it does not matter—or the system extends around the world, and those members know that this will severely damage the international reputation the system has. They know that; yet they are still allowing this bill to proceed.

I now move to the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street, who was on the select committee and is himself a victim of by-catch. There is no question about that. If we study what happened in the select committee process, Ian Ewen-Street became a victim of by-catch; there is no doubt about that. I am not sure whether he will be introduced into the quota management system under this bill, but he probably will, because he is certainly an endangered species, and there is no question about that. I sincerely hope that that process and the fact that he became a victim of by-catch will do something about fixing up the migratory species that moves up and down his tie in this House, and will save the rest of Parliament from having to constantly be in danger from it, but it has not. It has not achieved that, and certainly the member Ian Ewen-Street, who was a victim of by-catch, voted against this bill and spoke strongly against it at length.

When the chairman would not give him a slot to speak, he would take it anyway. He would speak over the chairman to say: “I must make my point in this select committee. I want it recorded. I am very opposed to this approach.” He said that time and time again. He went through the detail, he did a lot of work on it, he was well informed, and he was opposed—vigorously opposed. We come into the House today and we suspect that this bill may pass, and we know that United Future, New Zealand First, and National are voting against it, so who is left?

💬 Phil Heatley: ACT is voting against it.

ACT is voting against it, and those members have spoken at length against it. They will not support it. They made a very fine contribution on the select committee, and they will not support it. It must have lost—but something has happened. Let us look at the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper, and see whether we can find the deal that has “clause for the Green Party” on it, but there is not a sign of it. Those members have not been bought by the loaves and fishes—I mean, United Future might have been bought with a few loaves and fishes, but not the Green Party; I know that—and given that they are victims of the by-catch, but—

💬 Phil Heatley: Why the U-turn?

—why the U-turn? It is the question we are all wondering about, and maybe a Green member will take a call and explain it. We just do not know why it could have happened, but it has happened. That is what we suspect has happened and it is what has happened, and the fishing industry will not thank them for it.

As for sustainability, let us go back to the core principles of the Green Party. Sustainable management and environmental protection will not be enhanced by what they are doing—not today. Those members have gone against the basic principles that they campaign for around this country and get 2 percent of the vote, from rich and poor alike, on the environment and environmental issues.

💬 Hon David Carter: Don’t forget integrity—Green integrity.

I would never use “Green” and “integrity” together in one sentence. I think that would be a highly dangerous approach. But those members campaigned with a bottom line of environmental protection and they have absolutely gone against that basic principle that the misguided 2 percent of New Zealanders around the country—and around the world now, of course—who vote for them vote on. I just say to the Green Party that I do not know what deal the Government has done to buy them out on this, but whatever that deal was, it is misguided.

💬 Hon David Carter: I know, it’s about the next ambassador to London.

Well, it could well be.

What is required is the protection of our quality natural environments for future generations, while working in partnership with the sector to reasonably address its commercial and recreational needs. That is what leadership is about, that is what was required, and that is what this Government has done.