Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the spirit of the debate I want to respond to the points raised by Moana Mackey. The first thing that is amusing is the sudden love Labour has for the fishing industry. Let us just remember when Labour introduced its emissions trading scheme bill how much support it provided for the fishing industry. It was absolutely zip; absolutely zero—not for the quota holders not for the vessel operators. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Where did the 50 percent come from? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a very good question. The news release from New Zealand First said that in its negotiations with Labour it secured 50 percent allocation for the fishing industry. Is not that interesting? When Labour does agreements with other parties as it did with New Zealand First to provide the 50 percent for the fishing industry that is just what one does in Government! But now Labour is in Opposition there have been all sorts of quite appalling accusations and that illustrates the double standards. 
We now come to the second question. My colleagues and I campaigned on a policy of increasing the allocation to 90 percent. The debate is whether it should go to quota holders or to vessel operators. The advice we had is that it is a relatively balanced call. Let me tell members the strong view of the Maori Party. The Maori Party did contribute to the debate. They said that in New Zealand about 50 percent of the fish are caught by foreign fishing vessels. The Maori Party had a strong nationalistic view—I think that would be a fair way to express it I say to Mr Te Ururoa Flavell—that to give half of this allocation to fishers who come and catch that fish mainly annual catch entitlement coming in was not the support that the Maori Party wanted to provide and it did make that strong submission. 
There is also quite a strong and more principled argument beyond just that issue. The compensation for fishers is around a loss of asset value. I will tell members why. There is no choice about whether the fish is caught in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. It is not like an issue like aluminium which might be manufactured offshore. It is not like the issue of New Zealand Steel where it might be offshore and there are competitive at-risk issues. What we have here is an issue where the fish can be caught only in New Zealand areas. It is a loss of that property right so in my view that is quite a sensible provision in this bill. But I just say again that it is a bit rich of Labour to be arguing about the level of support to the fishing industry— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You can’t argue it both ways. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —when the record I say to Mr Cunliffe is that Labour was proposing in its bill to provide absolutely zip zero for the fishing industry.