Kedgley Sue: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11614] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who is a member of the Primary Production Committee which has heard submissions on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) but is not able to be here right now. 
The Greens unreservedly support one part of this bill but we have reservations about aspects of the other part which I will detail. Primarily the bill is concerned with closing a loophole in the law and resolving the conflict that has arisen between fishers and the Ministry of Fisheries over the collection and use of levies. Frankly it appals the Green Party that all of the careful time-consuming and undoubtedly dangerous work that was undertaken as part of Operation Pacman—the operation into the illegal taking of paua—has come to virtually nothing on account of a single word. That word or course is “benefit”. It baffles us how selling illegally taken paua could be construed as anything other than obtaining a benefit. 
Interpreting the law is obviously the role of others who are expert in these matters not ourselves but we very much doubt that the interpretation that has been made is one that was intended by this Parliament. We fully support the amendments to section 233 of the principal Act. We hope they will ensure that people caught taking paua—or any other resources—illegally and threatening the livelihood of those who observe the law as well as the sustainability of the biological resources themselves will not be able to escape the law in future. 
As for the levies we are greatly aggrieved that any money collected for fisheries research and enforcement has not been used for its intended purposes and Jeanette Fitzsimons will be speaking more on that at a later opportunity. We agree in principle with the agreement between the Government and industry concerning the need to compensate fishers in some way for their overpayment of levies over a period of years but we take issue with the process by which those levies are to be returned to fishers. 
Although the Ministry of Fisheries claimed to have consulted the industry the reality is that this so-called consultation was confined to forming a working-group through the Seafood Industry Council—a body that by and large represents corporate fishing companies rather than small family operations. The net effect is that small fishers were not part of the so-called consultative process—a very narrow consultative process—their voice has not been heard and we consider that to be a real concern. 
The outcome of crediting future levy payments until catch histories equate to credits is a fine one for large fishing companies that have paid their levies and are still around to have them paid back—at least in part. But a number of small fishers are severely disadvantaged by this process. These are the people who have paid their levies and who have for one reason or another now left the industry. They are not eligible for any kind of refund for levies they paid in good faith and which were not fully utilised. In effect these fishers are having their payments refunded to a third party. 
That we believe is not fair. It is analogous to the tenant of a house who on moving out realises that he or she has been overpaying the rent for the last 8 years. The landlord then looks at the accounts agrees that the tenant has been overcharged but instead of repaying that tenant decides to give a rent reduction to the incoming tenant. Most people would agree that that would be a grave injustice and that the money should be returned to the outgoing tenant. We believe that should apply here. 
In respect of this legislation the Ministry of Fisheries does not seem to agree. It has decided that it would be administratively difficult to do that although it does agree that it would be possible. We should not forget that it was the ministry itself that raised the levy and failed to ensure that it was fully spent on the activities it was intended for— despite fishers raising the issue many times. 
There is no question that fisher people were entirely blameless for what can only be described as a stuff-up. In our view it is incumbent on the Ministry of Fisheries to correct the injustice it has perpetrated on fishers—not to perpetuate and exacerbate that injustice. Surely it is not too difficult to work out just how much each fisher is due and ask them whether they want a cash refund or an exemption from future levies while their credit is drawn down. 
The Greens call upon the Government to see that justice is done ensuring that individual fishers who have now left the industry can be refunded in cash the amount of their levies that were not spent rather than having them in effect refunded to a third party. If that is done the Green Party will fully support this bill. Otherwise we will reserve our decision.