Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14689] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 That speech probably goes some distance to explaining why politicians have the public confidence rating they have—somewhere down below that of used-car salesmen. Having talked about the importance of this valuable fishery coming into the quota management system to then use one’s speech time for petty point-scoring and a number of inaccurate recollections about a committee one never attended seems to me to be extraordinary. Certainly I have no recollection of some of the events Mr Shirley alluded to in his speech and I think it is unfortunate for members to waste the House’s time with personal point-scoring. It is obvious that an election is on the horizon. 
To see scampi finally going into the quota management system is something that brings a great deal of relief to any members of this Parliament or of previous Parliaments who have engaged with the ministry or the industry over this valuable fishery. The quota system is we all accept an effective management tool when looking at issues of the sustainability and management of a fishery. 
Probably the most important thing I would like to say at this stage is that the industry itself has an extraordinary notion about having an absolute right to own and be paid for every fish in the ocean. When the industry starts from the principle that it owns the fish it will always be very very difficult to come up with a fair and just allocation model. In consequence of that when the quota management system was introduced to replace permitting as a preferred management model it was understood that there would be some unfairness. As Mr Shirley pointed out there will always be the fisher who stopped fishing just before the catch history years the fisher who was unwell over those years and the fisher whose wife was sick so took a year off to spend time with his children. There will always be those cases with that management model. 
Having said that I consider that there is perhaps in this scampi industry a greater number of examples of unfairness mismanagement and inconsistency than in any other fishery. I think that in the course of the inquiry into this scampi fishery when allegations were flying quicker than fishhooks about every player in the industry it became very clear that a number of people had suffered irreparable damage as a result of the failure of successive ministries to manage the fishery well and fairly. 
Some comment has been made today about the decision resulting from the inquiry to allocate some reparation to those fishers who we considered had suffered irreparable damage. I notice that Mr Peters is claiming full credit for that and is certainly advising the industry that he was solely responsible for it. That is one of the things about Parliament is it not? There is never much room on the moral high ground; it is always very overcrowded. 
 I commend all members of the Primary Production Committee. They worked quite hard to come up with some way of identifying those fishers who at the hands of the ministry had been deprived of what they should and would have had. We could not give them quota; we would have had to change the Act in order to do that. But in the case of Mr Goodship and a handful of others we were able to ensure that the years they spent fishing—or going into the ministry and filing permits that never got processed—were not entirely wasted. 
With regard to the fishing company that we suggested had been treated unfairly but that had received no financial reparation I say that the reason for that on the part of some members of the committee was not the ownership or management structure of the company but the fact that it is a very big and successful fishing company and shows absolutely no scars from its engagement in the scampi industry. It has gone on to become a very wealthy and successful company whereas others of the smaller fishers never had the opportunity to get on their boats and go out to catch scampi. 
It is with great pleasure therefore that we see scampi going into the quota management system. The fishery industry is a litigious one. There will always be allegations of unfairness flying around when something worth millions of dollars is given away for nothing. People will always perceive that as being unfair. But as a New Zealander who believes that the fish in the ocean belong to New Zealanders and not to people who have been out there fishing I say that I have some confidence as a result of the passing of this legislation that we will see greater fairness in the industry and that we can entrust to the ministry some responsibility for the sustainability of what is a very valuable resource to New Zealanders.