Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11770] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of my National Party colleagues— 
Hon David Carter 
: And friends. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
:—and friends and I support the Minister in his statement regarding this bill. As the Minister said the bill ensures full and final settlement of historic under and over-recovery of levies under-spent by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation over a large number of years—I might add an unacceptably large number of years. It also seeks to ensure that any reference to “Act” in the Fisheries Act 1996 includes both the Act and any regulations and rules made under it. We encountered some time ago a number of poachers who could not be prosecuted under regulations that were inadequate at that time. So we are fixing that and anyone who plunders our seas now will not have that loophole as a means of escape. 
The cost recovery regime was introduced into fisheries legislation in 1994—members will recall that. That allowed the Crown to recover the cost of fisheries and conservation services associated with commercial fishing. The Minister of Fisheries must have regard under those provisions in the Act to any under-recovery and over-recovery of costs in a previous year when setting a new levy order. The interesting issue that came about with this legislation was that up until now Ministers of Fisheries have considered the previous year when setting the future year’s levies. In this particular case the Minister now has to consider a series of years when setting a new levy order. However there was a recent recognition of a failure to consider historic under-recovery and over-recovery levies of previous years when setting the 1997-98 and 2001-02 levy orders. It was recognised in 2002 when Parliament passed the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. That Act came about because a couple of fisheries companies were smart enough and determined enough to challenge the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation on the levies that they had charged up until that time. 
Since 1999 the Ministry of Fisheries has worked in a joint working-group which recommended the settlement of $24.1 million and a few extra thousand dollars of interest as a rebate to future levy payers. We as the National Party have supported this bill all the way through and we certainly recommend that the entire House support this bill tonight in its third reading. This is for three reasons: firstly it fulfils the agreement coming out of the passing of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act; secondly it supports an agreement that came out of the joint working-group that included representatives of the Seafood Industry Council which represents the lion’s share of the commercial fishing industry and so it has wide industry support; and thirdly when considering the opposition to the bill and the reasons for it we find that although they are fair enough we believe that on balance those parties do not put up a strong enough case for us to oppose this bill. 
 Opposition to the bill comes from those who believe that the distribution of the $24 million as a reduction of future levies is unfair to those who paid cost recovery levies in earlier years and who have since left the industry. They argue of course that they should also be beneficiaries of a cash refund even though they sold their quota and their businesses. Usually one would find that if someone sold his or her business he or she would sell all bills and all income with the business. Those people are arguing that although they have sold the business they should have access to the refund. However the settlement is consistent with the cost recovery regime where under-recovery is to be debited and over-recovery to be credited in a future period to the same general group of levy payers but not to a specific levy payer. The bill takes a holistic view. It is concerned with the benefit that services deliver to the industry not to individual fishers. With that in mind the National Party happily supports this bill and we would like to see it pass its third reading this evening.