Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14573] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Like my colleague Phil Heatley I was somewhat mollified by the Minister’s answers in question time today because I have been quite strongly opposed to the idea that the boundary changes should take place. However like David Carter I am still puzzled as to how one can change the boundaries for sustainability reasons and yet allow more fish to be caught. It seems like a paradox that only the Ministry of Fisheries could come up with—logic it away in some magic way. I do not really understand the process that the ministry went through to get to that point. It is clear that there was some consultation with the industry over a period of time and I commend the ministry for that; but it is also clear that not everybody was consulted. 
Why is it that the ministry waited until the very last minute after the two inquiries were over and after the Primary Production Committee was just about done with its consideration of the bill before it announced that it would change these boundaries? The ministry claimed to have all sorts of scientific evidence and it may be right but why did it leave it so long? My main opposition to it apart from my puzzlement over the sustainability issue is why it is that every time the ministry makes a mistake or makes a line-ball call it favours one fisher over everybody else—and this is another example of Simunovich Fisheries being favoured over everybody else. 
First of all as Mr Carter said when the ministry came in it gave us what effectively was a blank sheet of paper. I do not think I am saying things out of school by saying that we were utterly outraged that the ministry could come to us and give us a blank sheet of paper as if we would not know what the heck was going on. 
Phil Heatley 
: Fill it in yourself. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes. When the ministry realised that we were on to it it suddenly came back with another sheet of paper that stated that Simunovich Fisheries would get 129 tonnes extra which was more than the total allocation for any other fisher. Let me say that again: the increase for Simunovich was greater than the total allocation for any other fisher. When we rejected that as being as equally outrageous as being given a blank sheet of paper the ministry came back about an hour later with a third sheet of paper. This time the sheet of paper stated that Simunovich Fisheries was to get—oh gosh—only 64 tonnes extra. Again that was more than any fisher in the industry except Sanford Ltd. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is Sanford here? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes I think that Sanford Ltd was to get 89 tonnes. If we look at the figures we see that the ministry has increased the headroom by 200 tonnes. Do those figures add up to 200 tonnes? Does that third sheet of paper actually make sense? Maybe it does but I need a bit more explanation from the ministry to actually agree with it. It is a mishmash. If I felt confident that the ministry was operating on the basis of scientific evidence it would not have come up with three different versions of this event in the one day. Why should we have confidence in the third sheet of paper any more than in the blank one? It seems like a whole series of guesses. 
I have to admire the ministry though. It has got to this point by steadfastly believing that allocation on the basis of the 1990-1992 catch history years was the way to go. The ministry lost in the court case in the High Court. It told the Regulations Review Committee that if its new regulations were struck down by the court it would go back and start afresh. It did lose in court but did it go back and start afresh? No it did not—“Our policy is to allocate on the 1990-1992 catch history years.” Two inquiries have slammed the ministry in the strongest terms possible yet it has carried on and to its credit is getting this through Parliament. It has conned the Government. Why are we doing this? It has been shown over and over again to be wrong and unfair.