Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11688] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution on Part 1 in support of my colleague Phil Heatley and the wise words he has spoken and also to make some complementary remarks to those of Ian Ewen-Street about the sorry state of both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries in respect of the history associated with these provisions. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when money is collected from private individuals for a particular stated purpose and then it is found out that it has not been used for that. It is an indictment on both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries that this bill is even needed let alone that it contains some provisions that will result in substantial compensation being paid out to the fishing industry. When I look at the schedules I note that those who hold quota for yellow-eyed mullet will receive a full dollar of compensation to share amongst themselves—I hope they do not spend it all at once—but that is not to belittle some of the larger sums that are involved in some parts of the fisheries in terms of the compensation arising from the sorry history of this matter. 
There are a couple of quite specific points that I want to make in respect of the Department of Conservation. Specific agreements were met in respect of the conservation service’s levies. They were quite specifically for a purpose. I remember well that at the time the fishing industry expressed concern that the Department of Conservation did not have the programmes in place nor the researchers in place to use that expenditure for the intended purpose. The Department of Conservation hand on heart said we should trust it. Members in both the previous National Government and the Labour Government did trust the department but it was not worthy of that trust. It breached that agreement. The department made Ministers and more important made officials look stupid and that is a lesson that must be learnt. I am concerned that there is still a culture in agencies like the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries whereby if someone else is doing the paying not enough careful thought is given either to the quality of the programmes or to the expense levied on an industry. If we look today at the state of the fishing industry we see it is in a pretty difficult position. I hope some lessons have been learnt from this bill. 
I think there needs to be a far greater degree of scrutiny by this Parliament of the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries. It is something of a disgrace that the levies system was going wrong from as early as 1994 but as has been pointed out by Ian Ewen-Street that did not come through until 2002. That says that this Parliament must bear some responsibility for not providing the level of scrutiny alongside agencies like Audit New Zealand that we rely on for advice to ensure that the moneys were used for the purposes for which they were intended. 
So we have ended up with this bill a pragmatic bill that in Part 1 sets up the framework for the agreement that was struck to resolve this issue. National supports the core of that as a pragmatic way out of the hole but is still concerned about the culture that remains within the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries. We are not yet satisfied that those agencies have clearly in their minds the responsibilities that go with imposing such levies. When I look at the raft of extra taxes and levies that have been introduced under this Government at a whim I do not have very much confidence that things will improve in future. We need to be vigilant in making sure that money taken for the purpose of important research is spent exactly in those areas. I think we have a challenge to ensure that the reporting standard from both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries is tightened up so that those who do the paying receive a lot more feedback on the quality of the research that is undertaken. 
Finally I say that if money is to be taken compulsorily in this way it relies on trust. This bill is about that trust being broken. Neither the Department of Conservation nor the Ministry of Fisheries should be under any doubt that parliamentarians want to see a greater degree of scrutiny around these issues in future.