Heatley Phil: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Heatley Phil: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13225] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). Doug Woolerton contacted me about this legislation. I tell members that Doug can read contrary to some opinions in the House. He asked me to give him a brief particularly on the fisheries issues in respect of this legislation. 
Members of the House will know that in schedule 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996 there are levies and conservation orders that need to be addressed in this legislation. I recall that some years ago when I first took over the spokesmanship of the National Party in respect of commercial customary and recreational fisheries we had a massive problem with regard to the levy orders that Labour had overseen which the select committee at that time had to unwind. I recall that between $18 million and $20 million of extra levies had been collected unlawfully by the ministry and had not been spent on what they were collected for. A return of those levies had to be passed through this Parliament so that commercial fishers were not left short in the pocket in terms of unlawfully collected levies. We oversaw that legislation and we made sure that that money was returned in kind to the commercial industry. It was returned not by way of a cheque written out to the industry but by ensuring that that money was spent going forward in terms of levies not being collected that needed to be and of the unlawfully collected money being used to fill the gap. 
Here we have the Government again slipping into subordinate legislation a section to do with the Fisheries Act 1996— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s an outrage! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I say to Mr Williamson that the Fisheries (Schedules 2 5 6 and 8) Order 2007 is confirmed in this legislation. 
 I would like to go over the specific schedules so that members are aware of what the House is doing this late afternoon. In terms of the Commodity Levies (Fish) Amendment Order 2006 orders Nos 1 to 3 were made under the Commodity Levies Act 1990. Section 12 of that Act states that the levy orders made under it must be confirmed by an Act of Parliament and that is what we see before us today. Otherwise the orders are deemed to be revoked. We do not want to see them deemed to be revoked; that is why we are passing this bill today. 
Order No. 1 extends for 5 years the existing order relating to fish. It was made at the request of the Seafood Industry Council the body that represents commercial fishers across the board and to which the levy is payable. The levy finances work on policy issues research promotion and administration for the seafood industry. Members need to be aware that this levy is not collected for the promotion of Labour Party policy during next year’s campaign. I know that the Labour Party is looking at spending taxpayers’ money and at spending all sorts of levies collected to promote party policy during next year’s campaign in order to get around the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill. But in the case of the seafood levy that levy is collected for the seafood industry to use for its own research and promotion. It is not to be used for the promotion of Labour Party policies during next year’s election campaign. This is one avenue where the Labour Party and the Labour Government cannot use taxpayers’ money or industry levies in order to promote themselves and put themselves back on the Treasury benches. That would be illegal. We will be watching closely to ensure that the Labour Party does not use this funding to pursue its own political purposes. 
Order No. 2 replaces the existing levy order relating to southern scallops which expired in July 2007. Just then my voice cracked; it does that occasionally—a sort of second wave of puberty. The member from Kapiti has just gone through the first wave of puberty; other members like myself are going through the second wave. Order No. 2 changes the way that the southern scallops levy is calculated. In this case the levy is payable to Challenger Scallop Enhancement Co. Ltd not to the Seafood Industry Council. The company may spend the moneys collected from the levies for the purposes of enhancing and managing scallops and scallop harvesting rights in the southern scallop fishery. Over a number of years now we have seen how that enhancement company has evolved and boosted scallop production and the harvest not only for commercial fishers in the commercial fishing industry but also for recreational and customary fishers. It is a very successful fishery. During question time in the House tomorrow Metiria Turei will probably promote the southern scallop fishery as a success story in New Zealand fisheries. I look forward to hearing her do that. 
Order No. 3 imposes a single levy on farmed green-lipped mussels Pacific oysters and salmon. It replaces two existing levies on farmed green-lipped mussels and Pacific oysters. Members should get out their pen and paper and note that the levy is a voluntary levy paid on farmed salmon. It is a compulsory levy on farmed green-lipped mussels and a compulsory levy on Pacific oysters but it is a voluntary levy on farmed salmon. For the benefit of those members who are writing this down and for the benefit of Doug Woolerton who is struggling to get this down I say they should note that it is a voluntary levy on farmed salmon and a compulsory levy on the other species. It is payable to the recently established industry organisation New Zealand Aquaculture Ltd. 
So we have the situation where the levies paid in the commercial sector are not paid just to one group. The first levy I spoke about is payable to the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. I pointed out that the levy on southern scallops goes to Challenger Scallop Enhancement Co. Ltd but this levy to do with aquaculture is paid to New Zealand Aquaculture Ltd. This will be the first time that that particular company set up only recently will be administering that levy for a full year. It will be interesting to see the company go through the process of making sure that the use of that levy is correct and that there is accountability for it. I remind the company and the House that the levy finances the work aimed at developing and managing the aquaculture industry including promotion and research. 
Once again I say that the levy is not to be used for the promotion of the Labour Party during the election campaign next year. It is to be used for the promotion of aquaculture and aquaculture research. Should we see either Helen Clark or Michael Cullen dipping into those funds or putting some sort of political pressure on Aquaculture New Zealand to use those moneys to promote Labour Party policy one day out from next year’s election then that will be illegal. Harry Duynhoven may have plans for that use. Harry Duynhoven may be the shifty character who wants to do that before next year’s election day but we will not allow that. This legislation says this money is not for the Labour Party and not for Harry Duynhoven; it is for the aquaculture industry to spend. Harry Duynhoven may very well blush because he knows that I have caught him out in this House today. He knows that I can read his mind and he may be embarrassed. The National Party will not see the use of that money by Labour happen. That money is not to be used to promote the Labour Party; it is to be used to promote aquaculture and aquaculture research only.