Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee, that the committee present its report to the House on or before 25 August 2008, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

The Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) will amend the Act to address a serious problem identified by the High Court in February 2008 in relation to setting the total allowable catch. The ruling of the High Court has made an amendment to the Act inevitable. The ruling the court made concerns setting the total allowable catches, or TACs. The total allowable catch is the main instrument we use in determining how much fish can be taken sustainably from the sea, under our quota management system. The court found that before the Minister of Fisheries can set a total allowable catch under section 13 of the Act for any fishery, he or she must have received estimates of the current stock level of the fishery, as well as its target stock level. The target stock level is the level of biomass that can produce the maximum sustainable yield for that fishery.

The court’s requirement sounds straightforward, but it is not. The information needed to produce such estimates is available for very few of our fisheries. Fisheries research is very expensive. To get the information would in many cases be unreasonably costly in terms of time and other resources. Consequently, since the Act came into force a number of management strategies, all consistent with the concept of maximum sustainable yield, have been pursued. Some of these strategies have used modelled estimates of biomass levels and others have used alternative indicators of the relative state of the stocks. Some of the alternative indicators have direct links to maximum sustainable yield; in other cases the links are implied. In all cases the management strategies aim to manage fish stocks towards achieving the maximum sustainable yield.

It is a sensible method. In the absence of an enormous and probably uneconomic level of research, we do not have the information the court has required. This is the case for the majority of New Zealand’s 629 quota management stocks. It is particularly relevant to the New Zealand fishery because research costs are recovered from the industry itself. If the court ruling was strictly applied, it would almost certainly put most fishing companies out of business. The approach used in New Zealand is the way other countries manage fisheries similar to ours. It is the approach used in Australia, the United States, and Canada, for example.

The finding of the High Court prevents the Minister of Fisheries from using established practices when making catch-limit decisions for fisheries in the quota management system. In the absence of estimates of the current and target stock level, fisheries Ministers should be able to make decisions on the total allowable catch using the best information available from a range of sources. Catch limits should be set using the best information available, without requiring the level of research that involves unreasonable cost, time, and effort.

The amendment bill will enable the total allowable catch to continue to be set under section 13 using existing management approaches, even where the current stock level of a fishery, and the biomass that can produce maximum sustainable yield, are not able to be estimated reliably. The amendment will not change the general approach of the Fisheries Act 1996. It will not alter the balance between the objectives of sustainability and utilisation, and it will not alter the balance of interest between stakeholder groups.

Without this amendment the total allowable catch could not be set for many fish stocks in New Zealand and, at the same time, the rulings set by the court could not be met. In other words, the High Court’s finding this year prevents the use of established practices in making catch-limit decisions for fisheries in the quota management system.

The next fishing year starts on 1 October 2008. It is important that the Fisheries Act be amended so that I can make decisions on new catch limits before 1 October. I will therefore be requesting that the Primary Production Committee report the bill back to the House by 25 August so that it can be enacted by mid-September. I would appreciate the cooperation of the select committee in this regard. Needless to say, the relevant stakeholders have been consulted. Although the committee will have a shortened consideration period, it is important to note that the bill does not seek to alter the approach taken to setting catch limits in New Zealand; it merely seeks to make the current practice, which was passed by this Parliament, lawful. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like the various parties in the House to know, and the various fishing interests—commercial, customary, and recreational—that are no doubt listening in, that the National Party will be voting for this legislation. We see it as important legislation to be going through the House at this time. The bill essentially amends section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996 to allow the continuation of what has always been done in practice—that is, the use of a range of methods and management strategies in the setting of the total allowable catch.

I thank the Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton, for keeping the National Party informed of progress in the development of this legislation because, like him, we would be very concerned indeed if, come 1 October, the Minister was not able to make total allowable catch decisions. The making of those decisions is a very important job—in fact, the top job of the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister therefore makes recreational allocations for fish stocks right across the country, makes customary allocations, decides on mortality rates, and, ultimately, decides the total allowable commercial catch. So in establishing that the current legislation is unclear—and certainly the courts have interpreted that and Crown Law supports that view—I and the National Party are very keen to ensure that we endorse what was always intended in the legislation; that is, the continuation of what has always been done. In practice, a range of methods have been used to establish the maximum sustainable yield in every fish stock, and to ensure that the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch are set appropriately.

We agree with the Minister of Fisheries that it is illogical and unreasonable to expect research on fish stocks to find out exactly what is going on in every fish stock. There are hundreds of types of fish species, and an awful lot of fishing goes on with recreational, customary, and commercial fishing. The Ministry of Fisheries, and certainly New Zealand’s resources, could not possibly measure fish stocks in every case.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.