Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19010. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and it is particular to section 13 of that Act. The provisions of the bill address an issue pointed out by the High Court in February 2008 in a case reviewing decisions on total allowable catch for the area 1 stock of orange roughy. The court pointed out that the practice of the past two decades in the management of many of New Zealand’s fisheries has been inconsistent with the current wording of the Act. This effectively disabled the key management measure for the majority of our fisheries—that is the setting of total allowable catches under section 13 of the Act.  
This short bill addresses the problem identified by the court and restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set catch limits for all quota management system fish stocks. It introduces new subsection 2A into section 13 of the Act. This new subsection will enable catch limit decisions to be made for quota management stocks where full quantitative estimates are not available for the current biomass of the stock and the biomass that would enable the maximum sustainable yield to be taken. It is intended to preserve the balance of consideration in setting total allowable catches under the Act that has prevailed in recent years providing for the utilisation of fisheries while ensuring sustainability. It replicates as much as possible the language and concepts of the existing provisions as they have been applied to date.  
The new provision will not only be used where quantitative estimates of biomass as required by the existing provision are not available at reasonable cost effort or time; it also requires that decisions must not be inconsistent with the objective of managing fish stocks at or above a level that can produce a maximum sustainable yield. In short the new provision restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set sustainable catch limits for all fish stocks and allows the management of fishing to continue as it has in the past.  
The Primary Production Committee reported this bill back to the House with minor amendment only to cross-references under clause 4(2) that correct a drafting oversight. Essentially the committee agrees that this bill does what it sets out to do and that it is important to focus on this task alone. Submissions made to the committee asked for a variety of additions and alterations to be made to the bill. However anything that departs from the simple task of restoring the ability of the Minister to set total allowable catches for all stocks with the best available information will inevitably be controversial and delay this important bill and it is important that this bill is passed into law this week.  
The Minister of Fisheries has total allowable catch advice put before him at this very time every year and in March so that fisheries may be managed sustainably. The current decisions need to be finalised and gazetted by 1 October if they are to have effect in the coming fishing year. The need to expedite this bill is not to deny the work of many of the submissions made to the select committee. The Fisheries Act could of course be improved and a forthcoming review of the Act has already been signalled by the Ministry of Fisheries. The ideas for new approaches put forward in submissions will be taken forward into that wider view of legislation.  
This bill contains provisions that will correct the deficiencies in the Fisheries Act 1996 that were identified recently by the High Court and it will allow our most important fisheries management decisions to be made in a timely manner consistent with practice in recent years. This will restore the ability of the management system to fulfil the purpose of the Act which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party supported the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) going to the select committee because we believed the ministry Crown Law the Minister and the industry when they came to us and said that the law needed clarification. There was no will on the part of the National Party to change the law; what we wanted to do was clarify the intent of the law and we believe that the legislation does that.  
This bill amends section 13 of the Act to allow the continuation of what has always been done—that is to use a range of methods and management strategies in the setting of a total allowable catch. The ministry claimed that clarification was necessary following a recent court case decision where the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch settings of orange roughy were successfully challenged. Although there was at that time dispute over whether it was the interpretation of the law that led to the judgment against the Ministry of Fisheries rather than poor advice from the ministry the fact is that since the judgment commercial fishers the ministry and Crown Law agree that the intent of the law needs to be clarified. We welcomed that into the select committee. We understand that the industry the ministry and others agreed on wording that does not extend the current law and does not curtail the current law. It does not extend current practice when measuring fish stocks and it does not curtail current practice in measuring fish stocks; it simply endorses both.  
Current law and current practice allows the Minister to set the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch based on a maximum sustainable yield that has been estimated using a range of methods not just a single method. The law as it currently stands could be interpreted to say that there is only one way to estimate the maximum sustainable yield. We would not like to see the Ministry of Fisheries restricted to using only one method to estimate the maximum sustainable yield simply because that would mean that the vast majority of fish stocks would not be able to be measured in this way and certainly the resources to do so are limited so it would just not be practically possible.  
This amendment has no relationship we should add to the section 10 fisheries amendment bill that was languishing on the Order Paper with no political or industry support. We saw that in the mid-year. The section 10 legislation was to clarify the law that the Minister must take a cautious approach where there was inadequate information on fish stock health. I have to say again that this legislation here has no relationship to that section 10 legislation; this legislation deals with section 13 only.  
National agrees that the current Act is not explicitly clear. We agreed to clarification not change. We can say particularly to recreational fishers who are concerned that this legislation makes a change that favours the commercial fishing industry that members of the select committee—members from Labour National and other parties across the debating Chamber—were very careful to ensure that this legislative change that we are debating today made no change at all to the intent of the Act or to how the Act currently works. There is no shift of the goalposts at all; we have been very careful to make sure of that. We agree that the current Act is not explicitly clear. We agree to clarification we do not agree to change and we believe that this is what this legislation does achieve. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party believes that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) is a necessary fix to one of the many flaws in the Fisheries Act 1996. Given that for many if not most fish stocks we have very limited actual biomass data let alone good enough data to accurately estimate what sustainable yields are it is an unacceptable situation for the Minister to not be able to set or change the total allowable catch for those fish stocks. A number of alternative methods for guesstimating maximum sustainable yields are required for fish stocks without good biomass data. As a result of a High Court decision those are unavailable to the Minister. The bill amends section 13 of the Act to use the best available information to estimate the maximum sustainable yield.  
The Green Party believes that fisheries management in New Zealand is fundamentally unsustainable with fish stocks continuously being depleted and that deep quota cuts are required. Orange roughy is the classic example of that having been fished almost to death by bottom-trawling. Since quotas were reduced in some areas in the 1990s the state of the fish stock has hardly even begun to recover. The hoki fishery despite recent recertification by the Marine Stewardship Council is heading in the same direction as are many of our other fish stocks. The Minister may describe the New Zealand quota management system as a world leader but the sad fact is that it is not. It could be a world leader if the Fisheries Act was based on a precautionary principle if the sustainability of fish stocks in the wider marine ecosystem was paramount if customary and recreational interests came before commercial interests if the Minister mandated best-practice fishing and by-catch avoidance methods and if foreign fishing vessels were restricted in New Zealand waters.  
The fish in New Zealand waters are a natural resource that belongs to all New Zealanders yet since 1992 the commercial fishing industry gets to catch them for free provided that it owns quota. The public of New Zealand get no return on the use of that resource. If commercial fishing was required to pay resource rentals for the fish it profits from our fisheries management would be better and fairer. When total allowable catches are based on treating biomass maximum sustainable yields as targets we regularly overfish the stocks. The biomass maximum sustainable yield should be treated as an absolute maximum in setting the total allowable catch not a target. I have learnt that only 24 of the 629 fish stocks managed under the quota management system have quantitative estimates of current biomass and maximum sustainable yield. By number that is just 3.5 percent of all fish stocks but due to many major fish species being in the 24 by volume it is actually 24 percent.  
In addition to general concern about the inadequate precautionary and sustainability principles in the current fisheries legislation this bill raises a more specific issue about research. We can estimate fish stocks in ways other than quantitative estimates but we must not rely on them. There are woefully insufficient incentives for the fishing industry to do the necessary research to obtain hard evidence of the sustainability of fish stock and catch levels. I am advised that we invest less today on stock assessment research than we did 15 years ago. Taking inflation into account it is under half what was spent in the early 1990s. The investment dropped drastically during the period when the National Government was in charge and the Hon John Luxton was the Minister. Those were dire days for fisheries management. The current Government has improved things somewhat but it is still a fact that we invest significantly less in research than we used to. That has to be addressed.  
The Green Party amendment to this bill would help. It says that if the Minister has to set a total allowable catch under new section 13(2A) inserted by clause 4 of the bill he cannot increase the total allowable catch. In order to increase the total allowable catch the Minister would need to be satisfied that there is sufficient information on the stock. Where there is uncertainty then the precautionary principle would apply and the total allowable catch would not be increased. It could be reset at current levels or reduced depending on what the limited information available suggested was prudent. The incentive should be that if one does more research one gets estimates of sustainable yield that comply with section 13(2) of the Act and then one can increase the total allowable catch if the reliable estimate can sustain that. The second part of the Green Party amendment simply ensures that the broader purpose and principles of the Act are taken into account when setting a total allowable catch using the new section 13(2A) and section 13(3). We commend this amendment to the House as a way of ensuring that the bill does not have the perverse outcome of allowing catches to be increased in the face of uncertainty.  
Finally I say the test of this legislation will come when the Minister sets the total allowable catch allocations for the major bluenose stocks which have one stock with a quantitative estimate that has not been updated since 1991 and no estimates for other areas. Limited evidence suggests that this fishery is actually unsustainable. This legislation should allow those total allowable catch allocations to be reduced. For that reason the Green Party will support this bill even if the House does not accept the Green Party amendment. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Well we know only 44 days are left until an election when suddenly everyone wants to consult “the Maori”. Curiously this bill the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) is being debated at the same time the Ministry of Fisheries is consulting tangata whenua about ways of improving the processes for working together on fisheries management—interesting! Some 12 years after the Act was introduced the ministry now deems it appropriate to talk with Maori about ways to implement the requirements of the Act. The Ministry of Fisheries is going around the country between now and 31 October asking Maori what participation looks like. Twelve years later the ministry is asking the people what the Act means when it allows the Minister of Fisheries to approve measures “to better recognise the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu over their non-commercial customary fisheries.” We are not criticising the fact that there is consultation; quite the contrary. Engaging with Maori before making sustainability decisions such as changes to catch limits and amendments to regulations is absolutely fundamental and consistent with the Fisheries Act. But we are concerned about why it has taken until now to willingly involve tangata whenua in fisheries management—and I take this time to commend the Minister of Fisheries the Hon Jim Anderton for taking particular care to ensure that tangata whenua are consulted.  
This bill was always inevitable. The problem identified by the High Court in relation to setting the total allowable catch had to be rectified and there is a particular reason why we have supported the section 13 amendment coming up under urgency. That is of course the fact that this time next week—1 October—signals the start of the new fishing year and so the amendment is needed to establish new catch limits. We acknowledge the pressure that a tight time frame has placed upon the sector with literally the whole process being tied up within the space of 8 weeks. The amendment will enable the Minister of Fisheries to determine the catch limit decisions for fisheries in the quota management system according to established practice and using the best available information. The emphasis on established practice and best available information is of particular interest to the Maori Party. The Fisheries Act requires that the Minister must provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua and additionally have regard for their kaitiakitanga in matters such as changes to catch limits.  
We are pleased that the Minister has initiated a more robust consultative process with Maori fisheries. We are aware however that not all parties are satisfied and that non-commercial fishing representatives both amateur and customary are concerned that the amendment was reached without sufficient input from them. Demands were also made at a recent hui of the Hokianga Accord the mid-north iwi fisheries forum for a more open and democratic process before making such a significant change to the Act. The concerns from the Hokianga Accord the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council option4 and other non-commercial fishing representatives spoke of the vital need to work together to ensure sustainability and to avoid international condemnation of fisheries management in New Zealand.  
In thinking about an international context I want just to mention a recent announcement from the United Nations that has confirmed New Zealand’s rights over seabeds outside the country’s exclusive economic zone. It is a fascinating irony that a Government that was hell-bent on taking the foreshore and seabed off Maori has at the same time been negotiating for 10 years to extend the outer limits of the continental shelf. And it is with even more irony that we learn that the new continental shelf boundary will enable what the Prime Minister describes as “New Zealand” to exercise its rights to resources such as minerals and petroleum. I cannot help contrasting this new-found enthusiasm for rights to petroleum with statements back in 2000 in response to the claims by nga hapu o Nga Ruahine o Taranaki and by Ngati Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa in relation to their interests in the petroleum resource. In that significant finding the tribunal concluded that the claimants had a subsisting Treaty interest in the petroleum resource and that they were accordingly entitled to redress beyond that to which their historical land-loss grievances entitled them. But of course it is history now—that the Government briskly moved to reject the findings and to ignore the conclusion that this was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to quickly rule that oil and gas were public assets.  
As I have found in this place political intelligence is all about connecting the dots pointing out the inconsistencies and addressing the anomalies. It would appear that the fisheries area has more than its fair share of loopholes and fishhooks trapped within the sector. This bill we believe is an honest attempt to untangle one of the more recent issues impacting on quota management stocks and we welcome that. We do not believe that it will create major change for the general approach of the Fisheries Act and we do as I said earlier have the concern that we do not want to delay decisions on catch limits before the start of the new season. We are very aware that the current status for the majority of the 629 fish stocks in the quota management system is such that the information threshold can simply not be met. So we hope that this amendment will enable due process to occur with best practice and robust information to set catch limits without incurring unreasonable cost effort or time across the sector. The warning is there however that effective progress in fisheries management will come only with full frank and informed consultation with all parties.  
I end with a concern that the Hauraki Maori Trust Board’s spokesperson John McEnteer has raised regarding the seabed decision I referred to earlier. His comment was that with the foreshore and seabed legislation the Government grabbed more than $100 million of assets from Maori and in excluding Maori from the new development—the additional 1.7 kilometres of seabeds—it continues to marginalise and ignore the rights of Maori even further. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board suggested back in 2004 that moves to claim the continental shelf should be done in partnership with Maori but the Government refused to do that. What is worse when Mr McEnteer has gone to officials for robust information they have refused to give it claiming the matter is confidential. All that such action does of course is to further erode the confidence of Maori in the Government and ultimately affect the perceptions around the integrity of the consultation process. The fisheries sector is very familiar with the notion of the precautionary principle—that we should not introduce a new initiative unless we are convinced that it is safe for us and for the environment. The Maori Party recommends that this same precautionary approach is considered of value when thinking about consultation on anything relating to fisheries management. We will support this bill at its final readings and we signal our support for the ministry and the Minister to continue to demonstrate their commitment to consultation. Thank you. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Dr Sharples in his speech but when he was talking about seabed exploration he mentioned an Andrew. Was it a place name or a person’s name? It was Andrew I think and I did not catch the surname. Or did I misinterpret? I am just interested in that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think you might have to settle that out of House time. Is that all right? It is perfectly legitimate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: OK. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I say to the member that the name of the person I heard referred to is John McInteer who I understand is a member of the National Party.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Does the member wish to seek the call?  
PITA PARAONE 
: Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call and to indicate that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill imposes a technical change in regard to section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996 where it provides for the continuance of established practice by the Minister of Fisheries when setting a total allowable catch for a stock covered by the quota management system. It would allow a total allowable catch to be set even where estimates of the current and target biomass of a fish stock were not available. The bill is a response to a recent High Court ruling which found that as the principal Act stands the Minister must be provided with estimates of the current biomass of a stock and of the biomass that can represent the maximum sustainable yield from that stock before setting a total allowable catch. 
Reference has been made by a previous speaker that two particular lobby groups within the industry expressed some concern about the short notice and possibly about the lack of opportunity to be consulted on this bill. I say that around about this time last year I and a number of members of this House attended the quarterly meeting of option4 and the Hokianga Accord. At that particular conference this whole fishing issue was discussed. I extended an invitation for the members of that conference to come and visit New Zealand First to clarify the concerns they might have but I can report that from that day to this day neither I nor any of my caucus colleagues have received a visit from either of those groups. We have heard today that they have been making approaches to some parties complaining about the process this House has adopted but they have not wanted to express their concerns to other parties. 
Suffice to say this bill will certainly give more clarity and dare I say it more authority to the Minister of Fisheries. If I had a personal concern it is that it may become the norm rather than the exception for the Minister to exercise his or her prerogative to issue or not to issue a particular quota for a particular species irrespective of there not being sufficient evidence or documentation to prove that that species is under threat. New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.  
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for it to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that it take the Committee stage of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) as a single debate with the relevant questions put at the end.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to do this. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none that instruction shall be given. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 to 5  
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (2A)(c)(ii) in subclause (1) and substitute: 
(ii) that is consistent with the purpose and environmental principles of the Act; and 
to add to subsection (2A) in subclause (1) the following paragraph: 
the Minister may not increase a total allowable catch under subsection (2A). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3A)Section 13(3) is amended by omitting “the Minister shall have regard to such social cultural and economic factors as he or she considers relevant” and substituting “the Minister shall consistently with the purpose and environmental principles of the Act have regard to such social cultural and economic factors as he or she considers relevant”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.