Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14548] 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As this bill is not drafted in parts we begin with clause 1. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The title of any legislation should be designed to give people a fair indication of what the legislation is about. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) will not suggest to many people what this legislation is about whatsoever. But as a member of the Primary Production Committee I can tell members that the committee knows very well what the legislation is all about because we have been working on the issue for years. The issue has been going on for years. The issue is of course the scampi fishery of New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Oh what? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is right the scampi fishery of New Zealand. Members of Parliament suddenly know why we are debating this today because they know that this issue has a huge history and is hugely controversial. I say to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope that we should be honest with the people of New Zealand and call this bill the “Scampi Bill (No 1)”. Let us hope this bill tidies up scampi completely so that we will not have any more legislation. We will not even need the “No 1” because we will not have to have another bill for scampi at all. If it is done properly the scampi issue will be tidied up by Parliament in this legislation. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Is the member supporting the bill? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister will have to wait to find out whether the member is supporting the bill. I know he will be keen to know. 
I say to the Minister that we should seriously think about naming this bill correctly the “Scampi Bill” because all this legislation does is take the opportunity to finalise scampi entering into the quota management system and to allocate finally the quota entitlements to the fishers who were involved in that fishery 12-odd years ago which is how long this scandal and controversy have been going on for. 
Shane Ardern 
: How long? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Twelve long years. It spans a number of different Governments—I accept that. I must say right at the outset that the Primary Production Committee which conducted the scampi inquiry acknowledged that the issue transversed a number of Governments and it worked genuinely through the issues without trying to play party politics. I congratulate all the members of that select committee on coming up with a very detailed and progressive report that has tended to move the issue forward. 
Before us today is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) which will finally—we hope—put the matter to rest so that fishers can get on with the job of catching fish and making money for themselves and for “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call to give us a reason why we should not correctly name the legislation the “Scampi Bill” rather than the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). I think the “Scampi Bill” would give a far better message to people in the industry and to New Zealanders generally interested in the legislative process as to what the legislation is all about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next member I want to remind members that we have been dealing with clause 1 as a wrap-up clause at the end of the debate. The debate on this clause is limited; it is not a wrap-up debate. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just seek clarification on your last statement. Are you saying that this debate at the moment is a wide-ranging debate? Is it just on the title and commencement? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the debate is not being dealt with as a wide-ranging wrap-up debate; it is being dealt with as a limited title debate only. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Superficially I am tempted to agree with the Hon David Carter’s suggestion that this bill be renamed the “Scampi Bill” but I think that is a little too simplistic. Perhaps we should really look behind what the bill actually means. Perhaps it should be called the “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. 
Hon David Carter 
: The what? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
:”. The “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. The scampi industry has a history of mismanagement by the ministry. It has a history of overfishing by some of the major players in the industry. If one looks no further than areas 1 and 2 one will find that there is no mature fishery left in those areas. They have been overfished. Perhaps we could call this bill the “Maybe this isn’t very democratic but hey let’s not worry; it’s only a few scampi fishermen Bill”. 
Janet Mackey 
: That’s a Green title. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: It is a very appropriate title. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s a bit long. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Members may very well laugh at it but people have identified this as being a situation where they have been unfairly treated. They have been to court on several occasions and they have been found to be right. They have instituted two inquiries and again they have been found to be right. But what is happening to them? The Government is just riding roughshod over justice and putting this bill into a permanent quota allocation for the sake of convenience. We members may well laugh but this is the thin end of the wedge. It could be the scampi fishers today but people can bet their bottom dollar that it will be them tomorrow. 
I join David Carter in asking the Minister to take a call and say why this bill should not be called the “Scampi Bill” because that is clearly what it is. The title Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is quite meaningless really to the general public. I do take issue though with what Mr Carter said about putting the scampi issue to bed. I would like to think that this would be the end of it but I rather feel that when the full truth of the matter comes out his National Government—for I presume at some stage National will become the Government—will revisit this issue. Hopefully it will put a fair allocation of scampi quota into place because I think even the most radical the most enthusiastic member of this Parliament who wants this bill to go through would have to concede that the allocation is unfair. We would also have to look at court cases and say that it is not only unfair but also unreasonable and it is unlawful. We are putting into law something that has been shown by the courts to be unreasonable unfair and unlawful and we should not go there. I support David Carter in renaming this bill the “Scampi Bill”. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Having sat through the inquiry and on the Primary Production Committee which reviewed this bill I would like to say in supporting the bill that I do not give a toss what it is called. We can call it the “Chocolate Fish Bill” if members like as long as we get this stock into the quota management system so it can be managed sustainably. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am not sure whether it was Shakespeare who once asked: “But what is in a name?”. I think when it comes to the scampi bill quite a lot is in a name. A member of the public listening to this debate might tune in and say: “Oh this is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)—what an innocuous title.” Anybody listening would think that the subject has to be the most boring ever and switch off. In reality as the Hon David Carter mentioned this bill is about one of the biggest commercial—how can I rephrase that? I cannot recall a time when an allocation of any product anywhere has caused so much controversy. It has taken over a year of inquiry—indeed there have been two inquiries—to actually come up with this final bill that we have in front of us the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). 
 In fact the bill should be named the “Scampi Bill” as Mr Ian Ewen-Street and Mr David Carter have quite rightly observed because everybody in this country who has any interest in the fishing industry knows this infamous No. 4 bill as the “Scampi Bill”. It is entirely appropriate to give it a name that describes it exactly. It is important that the title should reflect accurately what this bill is really about. The bill is about huge controversy. There has been enormous controversy. It is about allegations of incompetence. It is all about allegations of corruption. It is about ineptitude. It is about all of those things yet nothing in the title actually or accurately reflects exactly what this bill contains. 
I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope will take a call. I guess he is embarrassed about this whole business around the scampi issue as indeed the whole of Parliament is. Certainly the ministry must be embarrassed about it. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and to explain to us why this innocuous title the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) was used instead of a title that accurately reflects what this has been about. In fact I would go further and call it the “Scampi Debacle Bill” which might even more accurately reflect what it is about. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for the players in this industry as indeed it has been for the members of the select committee in trying to come up with reasonable outcomes which I hope and believe we have done. 
I come back to my first question: what is in a name? I think there is an awful lot and I would much prefer to call the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) the “Fisheries Debacle Bill”. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As I wandered down to the Chamber to take a call on this legislation I was bemused at the title of this bill. Along with a number of other speakers I wondered what the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” tells us and what issue the bill addressed. When I started to flick through the legislation it became very clear as other speakers have pointed out that this is really the “Scampi Bill”. That is what it is about amongst other things. So I propose along with the Hon David Carter that the appropriate title for the bill is the “Scampi Bill”. 
However I have had the opportunity to reflect on a couple of alternative titles. As I flicked through some of the other contents of the bill I thought that the “Change of Boundaries Bill” or the “Change of Line Bill” may also be appropriate titles. I have only just thought of that. I am in an arbitrary mood and it occurred to me that changing the boundaries as theMinister has done has been quite arbitrary as well. So those titles may be appropriate. Another title that comes to mind is the “Quota Management Bill”. When one picks up this bill and looks through it one finds in essence that that is what it is about. Essentially we are saying—and National agrees with this component of the bill—that we want to see the scampi fishery come into the quota management system. So that title would be reasonable. However I could be a little more controversial and call it the “Scam Bill” because first it rhymes with scampi and second it also makes me think of some of the things that have foreshadowed the creation of this legislation. We have had two inquiries and we are now getting to a point where we will have legislation that is still surrounded in controversy. 
Another possible title that comes to mind is the “Mismanagement Bill” a title that resonates with me somewhat. 
Hon David Carter 
: What about the “Scampi Scandal Bill”? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is another title that comes to mind. Both those titles resonate with me a bit because when I look through the bill I see the contribution that the Ministry of Fisheries has made to its drafting. Even the best friends of the Ministry of Fisheries cannot really say it did a good job. The ministry has been found wanting by a number of different parties and I do not mean just political parties. The Primary Production Committee went through the legislation and was very critical of the ministry and the State Services Commission inquiry also pointed the stick at the ministry as well. The “Mismanagement by the Ministry of Fisheries Bill” could be a reasonable title. It probably does not serve the fishery industry very well. Maybe that is one suggested title that we will not pursue when I think about it. However we cannot have a debate around this legislation without at least saying to the ministry that it will have to lift its game. It was a pretty hard critique of the ministry’s performance when an independent body said that the ministry was unprofessional ad hoc and inconsistent. Those are the sort of things that we need to take into consideration. 
The contribution of the Labour member Janet Mackey was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to come back to the title. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was about to. I am sure that Janet Mackey’s suggested title of the “Chocolate Fish Bill” was not a particularly serious suggestion but I did think that it was of some interest. It talked about fishing a little more than the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” does. It occurs to me to ask why the bill is titledthe “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)”. What went before it? 
Shane Ardern 
: Three before it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I assume that three bills went before it but why should we call it that? Who cares? 
Hon David Carter 
: No that’s wrong. No. 3 hasn’t gone before it. No. 3 is still before the select committee. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the Minister can take a call to explain why this is the No. 4 bill when there has not been a No. 3. I am struggling with that and I see that the Minister is also struggling with it because he has neither rhyme nor reason for the title. He is struggling to get past No. 1 probably. However that is a dilemma that we find ourselves in at the moment as well. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title debate and to support my colleague David Carter in putting forward the proposal to change the name of the bill to the “Scampi Bill”. Clearly Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) tells no one except those seared by the pain of the scampi inquiry what the bill is about. But before I do that I would like to address Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I know that Ministry of Fisheries’ officials are very keen to put every fish species they can find into the quota management system. They want to put in highly migratory species tuna mussel spat—anything that moves. I bet that a working-party will be produced to look at Janet Mackey’s suggestion of “Chocolate Fish Bill”. I put it to the officials that they should slow down and hold their horses as they will not get any support on this side of the House for that suggestion. 
I refer to Brian Connell’s question about this legislation being the No. 4 bill and what in the world were the No. 1 No. 2 and No. 3 bills. I shall address those titles briefly. The No. 1 bill was passed well before I was a member of Parliament taking an interest in fisheries but I can tell members that the No. 2 bill was about the conservation levies paid indirectly to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Department of Conservation which were overcharged during a 4 or 5-year period. The Labour Government had to give back $16 million or $17 million to the fishing industry because of that overcharging and that bill was sorted out before the committee. 
The No. 3 bill relates to highly migratory species and tuna going into the quota management system which everyone is up in arms about including the member Ian Ewen-Street. He is concerned about that too. He is not just up in arms because of line dancing; he is up in arms genuinely because of highly migratory species going into the quota management system. The No. 3 bill is also about mussel spat going into the quota management system and of course about a whole lot of species going in without catch history being recognised through the allocation of quota. 
However the No 4 bill is clearly about scampi. I support David Carter’s change of the bill’s name to “Scampi Bill”. If he wanted to be more technical he could call it the “ 
Metanephrops 
Challengeri 
Scampi Bill” the reason being that that is the Latin name for scampi. Interestingly the French call it langoustine Italy also calls it scampi but Spain calls it cigala. They smoke scampi in Spain. They call it cigala. I understand that the Greens also smoke scampi although that has not been confirmed. So that is the “Scampi Bill”. 
This bill is strictly about scampi. Clearly the title should include scampi in its name. Members of the public constantly come to me when they discover that I am the National Party spokesperson on fisheries and they say two things. Firstly they ask: “What’s the story about scampi because that’s all we hear about when it comes to fisheries and I think it’s hurting the industry.” The second thing they say is: “My you’re a jolly good spokesperson. Are you the one the officials go to for advice?”. That is what they say to me. 
I put it to the Committee that there is tremendous interest in what David Carter and I call the “scampi” legislation. Unfortunately the whole seafood and commercial fishing industry has been tarnished because of what has happened in the fishing industry over the years and that is hugely disappointing. We as a National Party team are keen to put all those problems behind us and resolve them through the passing of this legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(2)In this Act the Fisheries Act 1996 is called “the principal Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1A Commencement 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 This is an aspect of the legislation that I support. The bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I think most members have acknowledged that it is critical that scampi be brought into the quota management system as quickly as possible. This issue has gone on for too long. I hope the Minister will assist the Committee by taking a call immediately to advise us when he expects the legislation to receive the royal assent. That is an important question that we need to know the answer to. 
In answer to a question raised in the House during question time today the Minister clearly implied that the Primary Production Committee had asked for information that the ministry had supplied to it under pressure. I accept that there was some of that but what the Minister failed to tell the House was that the pressure imposed on the select committee was from the Minister demanding that the legislation be returned very very quickly to the House. The committee undertook that work on the understanding that the legislation would progress through the House quickly so that it would receive the royal assent and so the process of allocating quota and the appeal process could then take place. We know now that that did not happen. For some reason which I have not been able to fathom the legislation was not progressed as we were told it would be. We are now progressing it with some haste and agreeing that it should be enacted on the day after it receives the royal assent but we ask the Minister to tell us when he expects that it will receive the royal assent. 
There is a whole raft of processes that occur once the legislation is passed. The quota is allocated the 20 working days of the allocation process are then notified and those fishers who disagree with the allocations as designated by the ministry have the opportunity to have their appeals heard by the Catch History Review Committee. The point I make is that the timing between now and 1 October is making the process almost impossible to complete. 
I see that the Minister is shaking his head and that is good. Let the Minister take the next call—and save us asking question after question all around the same issue—and tell us when we can expect the royal assent. Then we can clearly understand the process that will occur from now on and make sure that anybody allocated quota who then disagrees with the allocation has a fair and reasonable opportunity for his or her concerns to be heard before the final quota allocation is manifested on 1 October. If the Minister will take a call to explain that to the Committee then at this stage I will yield my turn and accept that—reserving of course the right to come back if I am not happy with the answer that is so given. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in response to the questions asked by Mr Carter. I can assure him that the timing of the royal assent after the third reading of this bill still enables us to meet the 1 October introduction date. Depending on how long the Committee busies itself with this stage I am informed by Dr Cullen that the bill is scheduled for the third reading this week. That will enable the royal assent to be given later this week or early next week. In terms of the Catch History Review Committee process that is not compromised because it can happen after 1 October so there is no issue. Once the lodgment has happened the hearings can take place after the introduction date without any difficulty. 
I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee and Mr Carter in particular for their cooperation. A great deal of work has had to be done and it has been good to address an issue that has long needed tidying up as one would acknowledge. I am sorry that this legislation was not considered in the last sitting of Parliament; that was because of events beyond my control but I am pleased to have it on the floor of the House now for immediate progress. 
I also want to thank members for the very fulsome level of support—to have 109 votes to 9 in the first debate was pretty impressive. Although anyone listening to the debate would have found it hard to fathom whether National and ACT members did in fact support the bill clearly we are progressing it because along with other recommendations the select committee requested we do just that. We also took to heart the recommendations of the select committee in terms of ex gratia payments to and negotiations with some adversely affected parties. 
I guess this debate will proceed apace because the fact that most of these issues took place in the 1990s when National was in Government is not lost on anyone. I am delighted that we are finally making such good progress on this matter. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I oppose the imposition of 1 October as the commencement date. This fishery has been fished in a competitive way for about 12 to 14 years. Although simply for ecological reasons I am the last person to say that fishing should continue in a competitive way I feel that the Committee is being pushed into a corner by the Government to say it has to get this issue out of the way. There are no real reasons at all why this measure could not wait for another year. Yes we need to put controls on the fishery; there are no two ways about that. We have to put catch limits on scampi but we do not have to rush like this into making an allocation that we know and everybody in this Committee knows is grossly unfair. It has been shown by the courts to be illegal and unreasonable. Two inquiries have both shown there to be serial incompetence in the Ministry of Fisheries yet members of this Committee are continuing to follow the advice of the same people in the ministry who have shown that incompetence. Why on earth do we need to push this measure through right now? It is crazy. 
Jill Pettis 
: There’s no time like the present. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: A stitch in time saves nine as well but if we make a mistake in a hurry then we have a long time to regret it. 
I sincerely hope that when National Party members finally realise the mistake they are making in supporting this bill they will revisit this matter when eventually I presume at some stage in the future they become the Government. This is really bad legislation. There is absolutely no reason for this measure to be pushed through in a hurry except that the Government wants to get it out of the way. We have to ask why the Government wants to get it out of the way. It is not because it is fair to the fisher people. There is a political reason here that I can only speculate upon and I am not prepared to do that speculation publicly. However I can see some nods from Opposition members. They agree that there is a political motive behind this bill that really needs to see the light of day. I suspect that motivation will see the light of day sometime in the next year and maybe if we put off the commencement date until 2005 then those revelations would become public and we would say it was lucky that we did not put scampi into the quota management system as of 2004. 
I strongly oppose the idea that this bill should be put into place in such a hurry. A lot is still to be learnt about scampi and we need to get into that over the next year. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on the comment of the Minister who I am very pleased to say took a call in answer to Mr Carter’s question. He of course thanked the Primary Production Committee and the House for what I think he took as a vote of confidence. I tell the Minister that he should take absolutely no comfort at all from the fact that the vote in the Chamber was overwhelming with just the Green Party opposing the progress of the bill. Certainly the members from the ACT party and I assume from National are telling this Government that the overriding factor is the sustainability of the scampi fishery. If it was not for that particular facet I am sure that my party would be voting against the early passage of this bill because a huge number of issues still surround the scampi fishery. Legal proceedings are still swirling around this Government around the Ministry of Fisheries and around the fishers involved in the industry—and so they should. There has been—and I continue to repeat this—a huge amount of unfairness and inappropriate behaviour by the ministry on this particular issue. 
I have a question that maybe the Minister or some members of this Committee may be able to help me with. It is this: when the royal assent is given and this bill becomes law what impact will that have on the ability of the scampi litigants if that is the right word to actually forward their cases? It seems to me that the ministry may take the attitude in dealing with fishers on this issue that once the legislation becomes an Act it is no longer a matter for debate and the ministry could well take a more intransigent attitude than it is perhaps taking at the moment towards those with a genuine grievance. So as I said earlier I think this bill is a matter that the Government can take no comfort from in terms of the extent of the vote in favour of it. 
Is 1 October the appropriate commencement date? Well any date I guess could be described as appropriate but as far as the ACT party is concerned the sooner the quota management system comes into being for all fish and fish stocks that are under threat the better it will be. Quite clearly that is the way to progress the industry. The world recognises that New Zealand is leading the charge on that particular issue. The sustainability of any feral fishery is under threat throughout the world and the quota management system is certainly the way to further that particular issue. 
It is not easy quite frankly for me to stand here and vote with the Government on this issue. But we do so not out of seeking to support the Government but out of seeking to support the sustainability of the fishery. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I and the National Party are certainly not voting to support this Government. The reason we are voting for this particular clause is that we are concerned for the sustainability of the scampi fishery. My understanding is that at the moment because scampi is not in the quota management system fishers have a certain amount of catch that they can fish for in New Zealand waters. The difficulty is that they are racing against each other to get that catch on board. Consequently they are bringing up a lot of juvenile fish. They are competing against each other out on the water— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member speaking to the commencement? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Absolutely. There is a lot of tension out on the water because fishers are competing against each other and there is a concern for the fishery. That is why the National Party believes that scampi should come into the quota management system on 1 October this year. Hence the requirement of the commencement date whereby: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
I was intrigued by the Green member— 
Janet Mackey 
: Why? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I tell Janet Mackey I was intrigued by the Green member Ian Ewen-Street who left the Primary Production Committee because of by-catch. He suggested that it would be a better idea to have scampi come into the quota management system in 2005 and therefore to pass this legislation at a later date a year from now I assume. Yet his minority view is there in the select committee report on the bill. Do members know what he really says about scampi coming into the quota management system next year—in 2005—thereby putting the commencement date a year out? He states this: “The Green Party opposes this legislation. The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to scampi fishing …”. In other words the member does not want scampi fishing to occur next year at all! So his proposal to this Committee that we put it off for 1 year is simply a stalking horse to put off commercial fishing in New Zealand forever. In other words the only New Zealander who can collect by-catch in the scampi fishery is Ian Ewen-Street at the select committee. The National Party exposes that to members. 
We do support the commencement date. The National Party certainly does want scampi to come into the quota management system as soon as possible. I recall saying to the Minister last week during the second reading debate that in terms of this particular issue—the issue of when scampi should come into the quota management system when the bill should be passed and what the commencement date should be—that as long as we resolved the boundary issues National would support this bill. I am not going to resile from that at all. We support this commencement date—that this part and schedule 2 come into force on the day on which this Act receives the royal assent. I know that David Carter has been a strong supporter of scampi coming into the quota management system as soon as possible because of the sustainability issues. Janet Mackey has also been a supporter of that. I know that that has been the argument that has twisted Gerrard Eckhoff’s arm because he has had a principled approach to this matter. Certainly Doug Woolerton and other members on the select committee have thought the same as that. We are concerned for the scampi fishery and the scampi fishers. We are not concerned as Mr Ewen-Street seems to be to hurt the fishing industry further or to right some perceived wrong and at the same time create another wrong—to right one injustice by causing another injustice. Mr Ewen Street ought to consider that point. We support this part. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the commencement date of this legislation. I say “well done” to David Carter. He set a cunning trap for the Minister got him on his feet and flushed out the real agenda which is that the Minister wants this legislation in force by 1 October. I ask the Minister what the urgency is now. Good on David Carter because we got the true agenda out. 
The Minister is covering up for an inefficient ministry. This House was in urgency 4 weeks ago and this legislation was not taken up under that urgency motion. The reason it was not taken up was that the Minister could not get all his ducks in a row because of his incompetent ministry. Now we are being put in the position where we are being rushed. 
 I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that I have some sympathy with part of his argument. It is the argument that some of those fishers that do not like their quota will now be forced into a position whereby they will not have enough time to go through an appeal process. That will put them at a very significant disadvantage and will create the suspicion that the whole process is not sufficiently rigorous. 
I believe that rushing this legislation through now with undue haste is simply not fair and will damage the reputation of the fishery even further. Mr Benson-Pope can look down as much as he likes but he knows that this legislation should not be rushed through with this type of undue haste. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The select committee asked us to. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I have just listened to one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who said he did not agree with that and now the Minister is saying the select committee asked him to. He is hiding the incompetence of his own ministry and is now blaming members of the select committee. That is a cheap shot. Why does he not just get his own backyard in order and stop penalising the people who make their livelihood out of this fishing industry? 
I agree that we need to manage the scampi fishery in a sustainable way. We do agree with that component of the bill but the Minister should have come clean in the first place. Thankfully David Carter has exposed him. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1A be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1A agreed to. 
Clause 65 Commencement of Part 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that as the Minister’s amendment clearly signals the Government intends to vote against clause 65. The debate is just on the commencement so members cannot speak about anything else. The Government has signalled that it wants to vote against the clause so I suggest that members may prefer to move on to the clauses they can debate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister’s amendment proposes to remove clause 65 so I assume on that basis we can talk about the rationale for it being in the legislation at the select committee stage and the reasons it is now being removed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is correct. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 My point is the very fact that clause 65 is in the bill in the first place. It is symptomatic of the point I made earlier that the Primary Production Committee was given this legislation with an indecent amount of time to do the work. With the assistance of the ministry officials we presented it back to the House on time as instructed by the Minister but—surprise surprise—when he finally gets to present it to the Committee of the whole House we find he wants to take out a clause that we in the select committee had not been told was unnecessary or contradictory. 
Brian Connell 
: Incompetence. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Brian Connell suggests it is incompetence. The Minister should take a call and explain the rationale because at this stage it appears to me that there has been absolute incompetence on the part of the Minister. The legislation has gone right through the select committee process and has sat on the Order Paper for weeks because the Minister forgot to include it in the urgency motion when the House took urgency in the last sitting block. Now here we are with a matter of days to pass it so that it can receive the royal assent as quickly as possible in order to meet the 1 October deadline and we find that clause 65 when we re-read it appears to contradict clause 1A “Commencement” which we have just debated. Because it appears to contradict that clause the Minister has an instant answer which is that we will just take it out altogether. How sloppy is that? 
This is legislation that has been presented to the House. It is not a big bill. I know that the member is a new Minister but he should have been able to get this right. He should have been able to get an 11-page bill together. He has known about this scampi issue for a long time. Did he not watch the  
Assignment 
 programme in October 2002? He has had months and months to get the legislation right. He gave it to the Primary Production Committee hurrying the committee along so that it could not do its job then we get the bill back into the House and lo and behold there is a mistake in it. 
So he has proposed an amendment—I had trouble finding it I must admit but it has finally been pointed out to me—that states: “Clause 65To omit this clause.” It is time for an explanation. The Minister should stand straightaway accept his responsibilities as the Minister of Fisheries and explain this. Then we can move on because there are other important parts to discuss. We are not even at the gutsy part yet. We have not even reached the part where all the controversy is. Harry Duynhoven is rushing to get there. He wants to take a call. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Wasn’t this about having two commencement clauses? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Harry Duynhoven is right. We have two commencement clauses. I reckon that member would have made a wonderful Minister of Fisheries. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Why are you waffling on? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because I want to know why the legislation was not right in the first place. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Oh boy as if this is the biggest mistake ever made! Let’s get on with it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is not the biggest mistake; it is just another one. It is symptomatic of the problem that this particular species has had since the late 1980s. 
John Carter 
: Harry Duynhoven should have been the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I reckon Mr Duynhoven should be the Minister. Here we are asking questions and David Benson-Pope is just sitting there dumbstruck. He is not sure how to answer them. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I’ll take a call. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I reckon that is the best offer we have had all day. I am happy to yield to the Minister so that he can explain why clause 65 is being omitted. Again I take the opportunity to say that if the answer is not satisfactory I am sure members on this side of the Chamber will ask a lot more questions. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am delighted to help the member who is clearly having a senior moment or two. The need to remove clause 65 has arisen because of the wording of the split-out motion adopted by the Primary Production Committee which he seems to have forgotten he chairs. It was the inclusion of the new clause 1A in the select committee’s motion that led to the duplication that this removal corrects. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to speak on clause 65 because it worries me that when legislation comes back to the House that has been through the select committee process taken a huge amount of time attracted a huge amount of public interest been quite controversial—there have been all sorts of television programmes and documentaries about it and all sorts of newspaper publicity—and had a huge number of submissions— 
Hon David Carter 
: There’s been a lawsuit. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There has been a suggestion of lawsuits I understand. On top of all of that I get really worried when the Minister of Fisheries comes to this Committee and tells us that there is a bit in the bill we do not need or want. I have to ask how we got into that dilemma. Why had his advisers not pointed it out to him? I am the first to acknowledge that this Minister does not know everything. He is a relatively new Minister. Prior to his getting this portfolio he was a Government whip. As a whip fish is not something that one deals with a lot. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Usually comes with chips. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes fish and chips on a late night is about as close as one gets. I accept that the Minister has a big learning curve. He actually needs to take advice from his officials. 
Shane Ardern 
: That’s what he did. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the very point and that is the important point about this issue. I have noted on the way through the issues of concern that have been expressed in the public domain by the media and by the committee members—their worries about the advice they have been getting. Indeed part of the inquiry around this issue was whether the advice that the committee was getting was good advice. When the bill was reported back our caucus was told that things seemed to be starting to come right that they were starting to get there. Then I come down to the Chamber and lo and behold I find that the third clause in the bill clause 65 is a mistake. Indeed the advice I am getting now is that we have to vote the clause down. 
Hon David Carter 
: Leave it in. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I do not think we will leave it in because this National Party always tries to make things right. We will support voting it down. But this issue is very serious. The people of this country have a right to expect this Parliament to put through legislation that is accurate. When we end up with legislation that has two commencement dates—a new one in clause 1A which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” and the one in the very next clause clause 65 which states: “on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”—what are the public to think? They know there has been huge controversy around this bill. They have been told time and time again that there are a whole lot of issues that the officials are not sure about. Indeed later on we will be debating the fact that suddenly there are some boundary changes I understand. Again we will expect quite a lot of advice from the Minister and from the officials—or I assume we will. I certainly want that advice. Again it makes one wonder what sort of advice we will be getting. We in Parliament have to make decisions based on that advice because not every one of us is totally au fait with the fishing industry not every one of us knows about scampi not every one of us knows about the Chatham Rise and the fishing that happens out there. How am I a member of Parliament from Northland who is sitting here listening to this debate to believe— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Do you enjoy fishing? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I do enjoy fishing in the Bay of Islands. It is the best fishing place. But how am I to be absolutely certain that the advice we are getting is correct? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I ask this question of the Committee: why should we be surprised that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) has two commencement dates? It has been a comedy. Well it has not really been a comedy; it has been a chapter of errors right through. Here we are in August 2004 in the Committee of the whole House at 5.45 p.m. still picking up on the errors of this Minister and the ministry. I ask again: why should we be surprised? I make this observation: if Gilbert and Sullivan were alive today and sitting in the gallery they would have the makings of a brilliant comic opera. We are still playing it out on the floor of this Chamber in 2004 a year or so after the bill was introduced and we have two commencement dates. 
I ask a further question: which date is the right commencement date? Clause 1A states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” and clause 65 states: “This Part and Schedule 2 come into force on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” So potentially we have the Act coming into force 1 day early or 1 day late. I would like to ask the Minister how he determined which of the two clauses—clause 1A or clause 65—to omit. 
Shane Ardern 
: Or the Minister. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is a good point. Did he toss a coin? Did he draw a short straw? How did he determine which clause was the appropriate one to omit? Why is there a discrepancy? Why does one clause have the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and the other “on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent”? Some might suggest that this is a rather trifling matter but it indicates to me very clearly that the required amount of thought has not gone into even the most simple of tasks of getting the day right. It is perfectly appropriate to stand in this Chamber and ask the ministry what day it is. Does the ministry know what day it is? Does the Minister know that this is— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What day is it? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is Tuesday. I had to announce that to the “Minister of Lord High Everything Else” over there the Minister of Arts Culture and Heritage. I guess she had a hand in this bill too. One would almost have to think so. However as I said earlier this really is a serious matter. It has caused huge angst. Here we have just a symptom of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of a new Minister. Everybody is giving him a little leeway because of the fact that he is a new Minister but he has yet to put his seal of approval his stamp on the ministry. 
It is with some bemusement that we stand here just prior to the dinner break debating the question of whether the bill should have two commencement dates. Of course there should be only one. But the question for the Minister is: which is the right one? I yield the floor to the Minister and expect a reply to my good question. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Members may recall the television programme  
Yes Minister 
. In Britain that programme was a comedy. In Australia it was a tragedy. But in New Zealand I am afraid it was a documentary. One of the reasons I oppose the commencement date being this year is that there are so many errors that have been carried out over so long a period that I am certain the ministry has not got it right. I will give another example. What day is the commencement date? That is a very good question. Why do we have two commencement dates in the bill? It is pretty simple stuff. 
Another example of “What day is it?” was on 17 June when the ministry officials in response to a written request from the Primary Production Committee on how the allocations would change with boundary changes to the quota management areas came back with a form that was largely blank. We refused to accept it. Within an hour they came back and said: “Oh yes we remember now. We do have some figures there.” Then another couple of hours later they came back and said: “Oh sorry—oops those figures are wrong. These are the new figures.” Which figures do we actually believe? Is it the last ones? If it is the last figures then they do not add up. I tell the Minister to take my word for it. He should look at them. What day is the commencement day? Is it the day of the royal assent or the day after the royal assent? 
I think it is appropriate for the Minister to get up and take a call. I am really concerned about the advice he is getting and the fact that he is taking it at face value. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 My understanding is that clause 65 was from the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) which included the highly migratory species the mussel spat and at that time scampi—hence clause 65 in a bill with only seven or eight clauses. When scampi was part of that greater bill clause 65 contained the commencement date for when the part that dealt with scampi would come into force which was “on the day on which the Act receives the Royal assent”. We split the bill and this present bill deals specifically and only with scampi. Hence there is a new commencement clause—clause 1A which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
In other words the first clause clause 1A is correct for the purposes of this bill. Clause 65 is the old commencement clause in the part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that dealt with scampi. That is my understanding of the Minister’s explanation. Could the Minister confirm that is the case. If it is I assume that the National Party will vote against clause 65 just as the Government has proposed. Could the Minister confirm that is the case. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I explained before the Minister’s amendment signals the Government’s intention to vote against this clause being agreed to. 
Clause 65 not agreed to. 
Clause 66 Interpretation 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Clause 66 the interpretation clause is an interesting little clause that was slipped in at the last minute when the bill was tabled in the House for the first reading. I will read it out for members who may have forgotten their glasses: “Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the definition of scallop spat the following definition: “scampi” means any fish of the species  
Metanephrops 
challengeri 
”. That is Latin and only those like myself who know Latin will recognise it. I will interpret it for members. It means “scampi”. 
This is an important clause because if one mentions scampi to the average punter walking up Queen Street— 
Shane Ardern 
: Or Lambton Quay. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —or Lambton Quay for that matter—all that he or she will think about is corruption and mismanagement. People will think of commercial fishing in bad terms sadly and of all sorts of issues including free lunches. But scampi is a commercially fished species caught mainly off the east coast of New Zealand so it is clearly important to put the definition of scampi in this bill given that the fishery is coming into the quota management system. 
I have a picture of a scampi here should members like to come over and chat to me. I know that Judith Tizard wants any excuse to sidle up to me and chat. [ 
Interruption 
] She has one. She can come over to this side of the Chamber to see a scampi picture that I have here. Interestingly enough a scampi is not a prawn; it is a lobster and it looks more like a lobster. When people ask me what a scampi is I generally say that it is a fish species that is halfway between a prawn and a rock lobster. It roughly is in size. It is about a foot long and is part of the lobster family strictly speaking. It has the Latin name  
Metanephrops 
challengeri 
. I was quite intrigued by the last part of the name “ 
challengeri 
”. I thought it might indicate where scampi was originally found which is in the Challenger Area fishery—area 7 as members will know. Apparently it is not particularly prevalent there but interestingly that is part of its scientific name. 
National will be supporting the Minister on this clause simply because it is important to put a definition of scampi into the bill—certainly into a bill that is about that specific fishery. It is intriguing to me that the Minister has seen fit to put the definition “scampi” after the definition “scallop spat” given that alphabetically “scampi” comes after the term “scallop spat”. That will help members his Labour Party colleagues librarians and others to find it quickly. We support that definition. I mentioned before in Italy it is also called scampi. In Spain it is called cigala and in Germany it is called the kaisergranat. Here in New Zealand we call it scampi. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I feel compelled after listening to that member to take a call to say that if National became the Government he could be the Minister of Fisheries. I would imagine that anybody from the fishing industry who has just heard that speech would now be walking on water quickly in the other direction. Because for somebody who spent so many weeks on the Primary Production Committee that member’s knowledge has some huge gaps in it. It is like a fishing net with none of the knots tied together. I suggest that he now reads the bill again and all the submissions that were received on this very very important legislation—and he should reconsider before making a speech after the dinner break. 
This is a bill that has significant importance to the fishing industry and a huge amount of debate has preceded it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to stick to the clause. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes. I am surprised at the level of that member’s contribution. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I was not on the Primary Production Committee but I do like fish and I do like scampi. It is interesting to see the different pictures of scampi that that my colleague Phil Heatley has with him. There are some very good ones and they clearly identify what we are talking about here. As he said they have different names in different countries. There is another name here that I cannot pronounce because it is in Japanese. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We are debating clause 66 “Interpretation” and over the dinner break I did some research and made a remarkable discovery about the word “scampi” in my trusty  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 ninth edition. The dictionary states that it is the foremost authority on current English so I thought there would be no better place to find out about scampi. I looked up “scampi” on page 1231 and I found that “scamp” has a number of derivatives. As mentioned earlier there is a Latin name for scampi and going back to the days when I learnt Latin many years ago—[ 
Interruption 
] I learnt “amoamasamatamamusamatisamantmoneomonesmonetmonemusmonetismonent”. I found in the dictionary that a “scamp” is a rascal or a rogue. Further on it states that “scamper” is to run or skip impulsively or playfully. Then we come to “scampi”. As we go from “scamp” to “scamper” to “scampi”—those are the Latin derivatives—we find that a scampi is a Norway lobster. 
Hon Members 
: What? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a Norway lobster. There is no better reference than this dictionary. A scampi is a Norway lobster. 
The work I have here the  
Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species 
 which I quoted from earlier—Phil Heatley was the instigator of this—has in it some very glossy pictures showing what scampi look like. I like fish—although I cannot tell the difference between a scampi and a prawn—so long as they taste nice. That is indicative is it not? I am not interested in what the cover of a book looks like; it is whatever is inside it that is the main thing. And so it is when I look at scampi and prawns. I note that other names for scampi are mentioned in the book. I did not have time to catch up on my Japanese during the dinner break but in Italy and the UK they are also known as scampi. I think it is significant that the explanatory note states that scampi has an average size of 25 to 30 centimetres overall that from the end of the tail to the tip of the rostrum—I do not know what that means—it is about 16 to 21 centimetres that the abdomen is about 3 centimetres in diameter and that large scampi weigh over 100 grams. In the interpretation— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Has the member ever eaten scampi? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I have eaten lobster. In Norway it is called lobster. The book states that scampi is a lobster not a prawn. So that is clear and it corresponds with Norway lobster or Dublin Bay—I thought that was a wine—prawn. 
The book describes scampi as being whitish or pinkish with darker orange strips at the joints that the rostrum is long and upward curved with a strong spine and that it has large eyes. I am sure that clearly identifies it. It states that scampi are widely dispersed around New Zealand that experimental fishing has been conducted from the Bay of Plenty northwards using specialised deepwater trawlers and that the largest prawn-like species in New Zealand waters are likely to be the main species of any possible future fishery for prawns. This is a very good book. It refers to other fish but I will not go into that because it is not part of the debate. 
It is interesting to note that the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 does not refer to those other areas. It states that scampi are from Norway. So what I found out over the dinner break was interesting. As I said earlier I was not on the Primary Production Committee. Gathering this information has been a steep learning curve for me. I have certainly learnt a lot by going through the  
Guidebook to New Zealand Commercial Fish Species 
 and also by going back to the dictionary. 
With those few thoughts I will finish. Suffice it to say I appreciate what scampi are compared with prawns. All the different interpretations and names here are significant but I am aware now of what the issue is. When we discuss the other clauses and especially the schedules we will talk about those who will actually fish the zones. I think that will highlight the issues we face and the reasons National is supporting the bill. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I normally agree with your rulings Mr Chairman but on this occasion I am not so sure. I was not going to take a call on clause 66 “Interpretation” but having listened to the very learned contribution of my colleague Lindsay Tisch I felt I would rise to state that without any question at all I support this interpretation clause. 
Having listened to Lindsay Tisch’s superb dissertation on scampi its various descriptions and its definitions in his well-worn  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 I think it is absolutely vital that we have a clear concise definition. I was struck by Lindsay Tisch’s explanation that at some stage scampi is called Norwegian lobster. That raises a concern that I think has not been addressed in the debate so far. We have been talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and we know that before the Primary Production Committee was a Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill was about Maori obtaining 20 percent of the quota of tuna caught anywhere around the world it seems. I wonder then whether the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope needs to clarify for us whether there is any claim by Maori on scampi caught in Norway. 
Brian Connell 
: Was that in their quota management system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to my learned colleague Mr Connell that I am not sure whether the Norwegians have a quota management system. Maybe the Minister could answer that for us as well. I do not think it matters whether they have a quota management system because the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries has decided that we will impose our quota system on fish caught just about anywhere around the world. 
Shane Ardern 
: Chocolate fish. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There was a suggestion of chocolate fish but I think the Labour Party was just showing a zealous enthusiasm when it was thinking of putting even chocolate fish into the quota management system. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to allay our fears that there is any claim at all in the interpretation as to whether the scampi claim for 20 percent will extend well beyond New Zealand waters maybe as far as Norway. 
Clause 66 agreed to. 
Clause 67 Qualifying years 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am very enthusiastic about commenting on clause 67 which refers to the particular fishers who are being allocated scampi quota—or who are not being allocated scampi quota as the case may be. I am intrigued. I am sure that the member Ian Ewen-Street will comment on his amendment to that particular clause. I see that his amendment which is not small seeks to address as he states the unfairness unreasonableness and unlawfulness that he sees in the scampi fishery. I commend him for that attempt. 
Of course we in the National Party are concerned and I know other parties are also concerned that by fixing and repairing one perceived grievance we will then create another perceived grievance. What the member Ian Ewen-Street has done through his amendment is that with his limited judgment he has made a line call that a whole lot of fishers will not get scampi quota or will get less scampi quota and a whole lot of other fishers will get scampi quota or will get more scampi quota. For instance I note that he wants to take out the catch history related to the vessels the  
Drysdale 
 and the  
Petersen 
. I believe they were Simunovich vessels fishing for scampi during a particular period. 
The member Ian Ewen-Street might like to take account of the fact that the select committee and the State Services Commission’s commission of inquiry clearly said that during those years the  
Drysdale 
 and the  
Petersen 
 caught fish that should have gone towards the quota allocation. Although they did it in a sense outside the permit at the time the reality is it was the mistake of the Ministry of Fisheries or the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries that they were allowed to fish during that time and rack up catch history. 
So we looked at it seriously. Should we take out their history during that period which is indicated here? We decided that on balance the reality is they did catch the fish they were under the clear impression that they were allowed to catch the fish and they certainly spent money on diesel and labour to catch the fish so why penalise them for a mistake that was not their own? That is why we are happy for the catch history of the  
Drysdale 
 and the  
Peterson 
 to be included and not taken out as the member Ian Ewen-Street suggests. 
In this allocation we got confirmation today in the House from the Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope that there will be surplus Crown quota particularly now in area 3. Members will notice in respect of the qualifying years in clause 67 that the National Party makes some comments in the commentary on the bill about surplus Crown quota. I would like to be eloquent with regard to the commentary on the bill but unfortunately my memory evades me. However I have it written down. It states: “It was National’s view that when scampi is placed into the QMS the ministry investigate giving the seven aggrieved fishers identified in the Primary Production Committee Inquiry report … a right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management areas (QMAs) they historically indicated they wished to fish.” 
We are not saying necessarily to do it that way but at least to investigate the possibility of giving them a right of first refusal for that excess Crown quota. I think that is something the Minister ought to look at and with the passing of this bill he can look at. There is no reason why the Government cannot give a preferential right or a right of first refusal. It is a legitimate tendering process approach. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Members will note that I have put forward an amendment to clause 67 and I would like to point out a typographic error in the first line. It should be “section 2(2)” rather than “section 2(20)”. That clause concerns the qualifying years and I make a couple of points about that. 
First of all the idea of having the qualifying years as the years from 1990 to 1992 introduces a considerable unfairness if one takes into account the fact that in the 1990-91 year fishers were allocated individual catch entitlements. If they then went out and fished in the second year using their individual catch entitlement allocation they were effectively double dipping: they could get a double allocation from the one lot of fish they had actually caught—which is an unfairness in itself. 
The second unfairness concerns the boats Simunovich Fisheries had—the  
Drysdale 
and the  
Petersen 
. Mr Heatley says that the company was entitled to have them there and that incorrect information was given by the ministry. 
Phil Heatley 
: Impression. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: OK—an impression was given by them. There was a very clear impression in writing from the ministry in fact to all other fishers to say that those years would not be the catch history years. So my sympathy for Simunovich Fisheries is very very limited. I take Mr Heatley’s point but compared with the other fishers who were actively excluded from the fishery in those years—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have just heard a cellphone. The member will please turn it off. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Is there a doctor in the house! My first suggestion in the amendments I have put forward is that the catch history years of 1990-92 be modified so that in areas 1 and 2 the catch history is based on the first year only not on the individual catch entitlement allocations from the first year that then aggregate into the second year. 
Secondly of course the  
Petersen 
 and the  
Drysdale 
should be taken away because those boats were fishing when improperly permitted. The reason is that Simunovich Fisheries was told it could use five boats at any one time. It used the  
Petersen 
 and the  
Drysdale 
 without taking its other boats out of service and when there was a breakdown it used them in an immediate rollover to replace the ones that had broken down. For argument’s sake that was an opportunity not given to fishers with a single boat. If those fishers had had breakdowns they would simply have had to go without fishing. 
In area 4 west I am suggesting that we use the best 12 consecutive months in the period of 1991-93. In area 4 east—that is the Chatham Rise area—there is an opportunity to provide a “Chatham Islands quota management area” that again uses the 1990-92 catch history years and again excludes the catch history of the  
Drysdale 
 and the  
Petersen 
. 
The whole problem associated with scampi is allocation. If the fishers who were involved in the industry—or who should have been involved in the industry but were not because of mistakes by the ministry—were given a reasonable allocation then I think the whole problem about scampi fisheries would simply disappear. 
The allocation this model gives using the qualifying years of 1990-92 creates enormous injustice. The people who have been dealt with in an unjust way have proved their case over and over again. They have taken it to court and they have won they have taken it to the Court of Appeal and they have won—and I could go on. 
What we need to do is give a fair allocation. If that means taking a little bit away from Simunovich Fisheries that that company should never have had in the first place it is not actually taking anything away from it. It is like a person picking up a $10 note and having the use of it for a year until the person realises it is somebody else’s $10 note and has to give it back. It was not that person’s in the first place so it has not been taken away from him or her. 
It is interesting that the years 1990-92 are used for area 6B because that is an area that Simunovich Fisheries did not fish in. It did not have catch history there. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair. I would like you to take note that this is the substantive part of the bill and I think members may want to take more than one call. 
The issue that Ian Ewen-Street has just spoken about whereby we attempted to change the qualifications of the  
Drysdale 
and the  
Petersen 
 was worthy of investigation. The Primary Production Committee following the report it had done into the scampi issue that concluded in December last year was aware of the injustices that had occurred. The people who had received those injustices inevitably said to us that they wanted a solution not with a monetary payment but with quota and that point was accepted. 
 However we then have to look at the people who fished legitimately according to the law that subsequently allocated the quota years. Those people had rights to what they legitimately obtained. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: But they weren’t legitimate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Ewen-Street interrupts and says that the  
Petersen 
and the  
Drysdale 
 were not legitimate. The operators of those two vessels felt they were legitimate at the time they commenced fishing. I will accept that they were not. They subsequently applied to the Ministry of Fisheries and were retrospectively validated to obtain those catches. 
So I say to Ian Ewen-Street—who I think genuinely put a lot of effort into his amendment and in fairness to him—that the select committee also considered whether his provision would be a means of creating some fairness out of the unfairness. But we resolved by majority that we should not create a further injustice by taking something that had been legitimately obtained—legitimately but also retrospectively I will accept—and I do not think the member really thinks we should do that either. It is not a fair argument to say that we should now just change the allocation of one particular operator—Simunovich Fisheries which happens to operate the  
Petersen 
 and the  
Drysdale 
—simply because it has a lion’s share of the fishery and a little bit taken off it will not matter. 
The reasons why the qualifying years were established in the Fisheries Act of 1996 mean that nobody at the time realised the significance of those years. We found out through the select committee inquiry that the fishers of the time had been quite categorically told by ministry officials that those years would not create catch history but subsequently the law that was passed by Parliament established those years and that is the law of New Zealand. If my memory serves me right it was voted for by the major parties in 1996 and probably by the lot. So the qualifying years do count. 
The issue then becomes a question of whether those extremely large vessels were allowed in. I say having reread the report by the Primary Production Committee and having read in detail the Helen Cull report released by the State Services Commission that there is no doubt that those vessels subsequently were given retrospective approval to operate in those fisheries at the time. There is no doubt in my mind that that was the case. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: That doesn’t make it fair. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Ian Ewen-Street says that that does not make it fair. That is true. I will accept that it does not make it fair and a number of aggrieved fishers were identified. I will pick up shortly on Phil Heatley’s point about a method by which we sought to address that unfairness. But I say to Mr Ewen-Street that it is equally unfair to take catch off somebody else who has legitimately obtained it. 
I come to Phil Heatley’s point. The National Party was of the opinion that those who received unfair treatment should receive if possible more than just monetary compensation. As those fishers kept saying to us it is quota that is important. There was and is headroom available in some of the scampi areas. I do not think that we cannot fairly address the unfairness to them by giving them a discounted price and entry into the quota management system but there is an opportunity to do what we did with the NgaiTahu Claims Settlement Act—to give people whom we recognise as having been aggrieved the opportunity to purchase at a preferential rate. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating clause 67 “Qualifying years”. I want to read to the Committee some correspondence from United Fisheries one of the players in the scampi game and I hope the Committee will reflect on those qualifying years as I do so: “United Fisheries was one of the very first fishing companies to enter the scampi fishery and was the first company to be issued with a commercial permit for scampi fishing. The salient point here is from the late 1980s onwards United Fisheries was unable to obtain any scampi permits. They have always argued that they were wrongfully denied access to the scampi fishery during that crucial time between 1988 and 1992 and thereafter.”  
So that was a company that did qualify. It was trying to fish during that time but it was denied access by the ministry. Is that fair? Absolutely not. But really this issue goes beyond the word “fairness”. We know that what is fair to one person is not necessarily fair to the next. In trying to allocate fairness to everybody I suspect we will end up with nothing but a huge amount of unfairness. I personally have always believed that the word “fairness” should be struck from the English language. What should happen is that ministries or allocations should do what is right. I repeat that. We should always do what is right. Ultimately I think these things will become fair after a period of time. 
Certainly during the qualifying years United Fisheries and others were treated very very unfairly especially those down in the far South. The Dunedin office of the ministry had a policy of not issuing scampi permits during that time. That was a method of excluding that particular company. Others were allocated potting devices by which scampi crawled into the pot. That was just a waste of time. The time effort and amount of catch was just not relevant. One could not catch commercially. Those that were involved in potting to establish some sort of catch history during those qualifying years were again not treated as they should have been. 
I have to wonder why we have qualifying years—why we have that arbitrary figure. Some would argue that in any of these things one needs to have a definitive time frame of 1 2 or 3 years. It seems to me that when a company or a fisher can show that there has been effort—their boat might have been laid up for some reason or another such as a broken crankshaft or the fisherman himself might have had a broken leg and been out of action for 6 months or so—an arbitrary ruling in legislation that something has to happen during particular times or in particular years can be very very unfair. 
Again I come back to the point I made earlier. We will always have unfairness surrounding every fishery that we have ever allocated quota to. I guess that goes back to the days of blue cod orange roughy or hoki or—it does not really matter. I suspect the question of fairness during the qualifying years was a difficult one to determine. While there is every sympathy and understanding for those particular companies especially in the scampi fishery it is fair to say that we are hopeful that ultimately what is right will occur and that the ministry will understand and recognise that the unfairness that has gone on should be rectified. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I have been seeking a call on this bill for some time and I need to say at the outset that this bill is probably the most unfair thing I have seen in my time in Parliament. I am reminded of the words of none other than Albert Einstein. He said that some of the things we do count are not worth counting and some of the things we can count do not count—and that is exactly what we have here with this legislation tonight and with this proposal here. We have an arbitrary decision made by a Minister at a point in time based on the technology that is available today which ultimately demonstrates a huge amount of what should one say discretionary decision-making based on the advice that he has been given and it is unfair. 
At the end of the day there is no other way to sum it up but to say it is unfair. If one looks at the list of people who submitted to the Primary Production Committee and at the extensive process that that very very able select committee went through particularly in relation to this part of the bill which was the time issue around quota or the fish that went into quota one cannot help but conclude that the very very good select committee did the best it could with what was available but was often given bad advice. There was a huge amount of unfairness in the process that took place leading up to that point in time. 
That being said what should members do now to move forward? There is a recommendation here before the Committee and I yield to my learned colleagues who were in the select committee because it is a hugely complex issue. This is demonstrated by the number of submissions that were put forward and certainly demonstrated by the depth of work that had gone on by some of those people to try to establish how to move forward from this point. I yield to them when they say that this is probably about as good as we can get under the circumstances. But there are a number of people who are still outside of that and they need to be considered. Those who came before the select committee and told the select committee that history had been bad for them included Mr Trevor Goodship and Pranfield Holdings Mr Wayne Howell and H G Cave United Fisheries Vautier Shelf Company and Mr Middleton Mr Noel McLellan and Sealord Group. 
The National Party said in its report in the commentary on the bill that there are a number of others who potentially for whatever reason may come through the system with a proposal that is equally as robust as those that I have mentioned. If that were to happen I would presume that the Minister with the particular legislation that is before Parliament today will take them on board as well if that were to happen. Maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope will take a call and tell us whether that is so. What I do know is that there has been a tremendous amount of I guess parliamentary consideration of this matter and the decision at the end of the day is just an arbitrary decision made by those with the information that was provided to them. 
I have listened with great interest to the concerns put forward by Mr Ewen-Street who was on the select committee for a while and then was absent from the select committee. I think someone said earlier he was a victim of by-catch and potentially that is so I am not sure. But he was absent from the select committee for a while—let us leave it at that. He was affected by by-catch at the select committee that is for sure. That having been said he has some concerns that on the surface sound fairly genuine. 
The problem is we cannot fix one grievance by creating another and that is where the National Party view differs from that of Mr Ewen-Street. I say to Mr Ewen-Street that we cannot take from one group to give to another in an attempt to try to fix a past grievance even though I know the Green Party has an egalitarian approach to these kinds of things and plays a Robin Hood role on a lot of things—that is not going to be fair either quite frankly. So when it comes to this particular clause I think he may be a little bit misguided in his approach to that. The quota management of scampi or getting scampi into the quota management system is clearly the best way to manage this fishery based on the science that is available today. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 40 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 67 be agreed to: 
to delete from paragraph (a) of new section 33 all the words after the words “section 2(2) of the Fisheries Amendment Act 1994” and substitute the following new subparagraphs: 
(i)In area SCI 1 allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel  
Drysdale 
) adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. 
(ii)In area SCI 2 allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel  
Drysdale 
) adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. 
(ii)In area SCI 4W allocate quota based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1993 (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Drysdale 
 and  
Petersen 
) adjusted to reflect errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. Divide unallocated quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(iv)In area SCI 4E reduce size of this area to the area so it becomes a “Chatham Islands quota management area”. Allocate quota to fishers based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1992 (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Drysdale 
 and  
Petersen 
). Allocate remaining quota to Chatham Islands Enterprises Trust. 
(v)In area SCI 4R the residual area of the previous area SCI 4 allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(vi)In areas SCI 5 7 and 9 allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(vii)In area SCI 6A allocate quota based on 1991-92 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Petersen 
 and  
Drysdale 
). 
(viii)In area SCI 6B allocate quota based on the 1992-93 catch history. 
: “Qualifying fishers” is defined to include all existing permit holders plus those who should have been scampi permit holders had the Ministry managed the fishery lawfully reasonably and fairly plus those listed by the Primary Production Committee as having been treated unfairly. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 67 be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 67 agreed to. 
Clause 68 New heading and sections inserted 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Clause 68 has been particularly intriguing for the National Party because one of the aspects it talks about is the boundary changes between quota management area 3 which is just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island and quota management area 4 which is roughly around the Chatham Rise. What happens under clause 68 is that the boundary that is the dividing line between those two areas after a decade and a half of fishing scampi is to be shifted eastward. That was of huge concern to National members because we knew that shifting the boundary would change the quota management allocations to each of the fishers the amount of surplus Crown quota available for tendering to the market in general and also and more important affect the management and sustainability of the fishery. 
 We did not get sufficient information from the Ministry of Fisheries at the select committee to understand clearly why the boundary change was necessary. We were quite concerned that in shifting the boundary what may happen is that firstly the fishery would not be managed sustainably and secondly a number of fishers would be locked out of the scampi fishery forever and we did not want to see that happen. However I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries and I would like to extend some gratitude to him today because in the House he answered clearly my question and the question from United Future MP Larry Baldock about why the move of the line was necessary. 
Two issues came out of that. Firstly in moving the line there would be more surplus Crown quota to be tendered. It would seem strange that if an internal line were moved suddenly there would be more fish to catch. However as we understand it when the line is shifted people are able to lift the amount of fish that can be caught in area 4. If the line were back where it was the amount of fish that could be caught could not be lifted because there would be no guarantee that fish in that particular area 4 would be targeted. I understand the reasoning there. So more quota will be available for tendering and we are pleased about the maximum utilisation with sustainability. That of course is a Fisheries Act goal. 
The second issue—and one raised by Larry Baldock—is the issue of sustainability: whether it was sustainable in the Ministry’s view. Again the Minister gave a positive answer in the House today. We are pleased to say that we understood his reasoning. He was saying quite simply that by shifting the line more fish would be available to be caught the fish would be utilised better in a sustainable manner and secondly more Crown quota would be available for tendering. So we are pleased about that. 
With regard to that I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the National Party suggestion in the select committee report back that where there is excess Crown quota the Minister could consider giving the aggrieved fishers listed in our inquiry the right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management allocations they historically indicated they wished to fish. 
We are not saying that that is something the Minister should definitely do but it is something that ministry officials ought to consider to put the issues of the seven aggrieved fishers we listed behind them so that they can fish for scampi put those issues behind the ministry so that the ministry can get on and manage the scampi fishery properly and certainly put the scampi issues behind the whole seafood industry which at the moment is being hamstrung by the bad press of that fishery. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 68 also and I will address the issue of the boundary change that is now recommended in the bill. On behalf of United Future I shall explain how we have come into this situation not having been on the select committee in the first instance and not having worked through all the issues that other members on the select committee have worked through. The issue of the boundary change really exercised our minds when we were asked to support the legislation. We were prepared to support the recommendation of the committee in terms of the allocation to those aggrieved parties. It seemed to be the best solution possible and we certainly respected all the time and effort that other members had put into coming up with a solution to things that had been mentioned in this debate. 
So far I have not participated in the other clause-by-clause issues. I think they have been covered very well by others. It was the issue of the boundary change that was of most concern to us and mainly that we could understand why it was happening. The member who spoke before me also covered the issue very well and we are grateful as he has been to the Minister and the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries for assisting with our inquiries. The issue was quite complicated and difficult to get our heads around and the additional information that was given to us was gratefully received and enabled us to say today that we supported the boundary being where it is. We also support the bill being passed this week so that it can take effect. United Future is supportive of scampi coming into the quota management system this year and not having to wait. 
Now that we understand that the boundary was changed in order to provide greater sustainable management of the fishery and to create more quota we are very pleased to be able to support this clause and the schedules that will accompany it when the debate gets to that point so that it is the best outcome for all those who have been involved in the process. The more quota that can be created means more whether tendered or allocated for those who have missed out and ultimately the sustainability of our asset in that fishery is managed. 
The fish stock around the Chatham Islands can be utilised to its maximum potential and the fish stock around Mernoo Bank can also be managed without the complication of a boundary line running right through the centre that would lead to the possibility of misreporting if trawlers moved across the imaginary line in the sea. We are now comfortable that that makes very good sense and is the best possible scenario for the future. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The Committee put a lot of time into the rationale for changing the boundaries because we were concerned about any effect it may have on further allocations to the fishers who qualified. Conversely we were concerned about the effect it would then have on the National Party’s solution to try to address some of the unfairness. I shall go back to that issue first because it was not covered well in the earlier debate. 
The committee and those who have followed this issue all accept that unfairness occurred. I do not think that there is any doubt about that in anybody’s mind. The issue is then how we move to address that. The National Party feels that it has advanced a very sensible solution whereby where headroom is available then the identified aggrieved people have a preferential right of tender at the market price. Fiscally it will cost the Government absolutely nothing but it will move to satisfy many of the concerns. 
The issue then regarding the movement of boundaries becomes extremely important if the headroom available changes negatively for the Crown. That is where I have trouble with the information that was then provided to the select committee. We asked for a schedule which was given to the select committee about what effect would occur for the individual fishers. The first information they came back with showed that the largest fisher in the area—Simunovich Fisheries—would receive an additional 129 tonnes of allocation by changing the boundary areas and the Crown conversely would receive 47 tonnes less of headroom available. The select committee then proceeded to deliberate on the legislation only to find at the very eleventh hour—and the eleventh hour was perhaps 10 or 15 minutes later—that a further piece of paper was presented to the select committee that stated lo and behold that the Crown would also be a winner. 
It is certainly fully explicable that the select committee had trouble understanding the effect of the change of boundaries when the officials themselves were not able to state categorically who were the benefactors and who were the losers. Our colleague Phil Heatley has now spent additional time with the Minister and ministry officials and is convinced that by the moving of the boundaries the issue of available headroom actually increases substantially. 
The reasoning for the select committee being advised by the officials that the boundaries needed to be changed was one of sustainability. If that is an issue then that should have been known to us quite some time earlier. The issue of sustainability still remains a question in my mind whereby the suggestion is that the Committee will agree to the change of boundaries tonight yet we are doing that change because we are worried about sustainability but the result will be that it allows an increased amount of fish to be caught. There may be a logical explanation that the Minister can help us with but it is certainly something of a puzzle to me at this stage that the rationale for saying we need to urgently change these boundaries is that the sustainability issues exist—and we are then told that it will allow additional fish to be caught and I look forward to the Minister’s comments. 
The boundary changes certainly allow additional quota to be allocated to those who have been lucky enough to be within the system and lucky enough to have obtained catch history over those vital years that we discussed in regard to the previous clause. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: It wasn’t luck. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I guess that is true and those people were actually out there fishing and doing the job at the time but the issue around the fairness is that there were a large number of other people who also wanted to be out there doing the fishing at the time and for reasons that are now familiar to many people in this Committee they were not given the opportunity to do so. 
Having said that I still think that the National Party’s suggestion which the Government was not prepared to accept at the select committee stage should be given further consideration by the Government. The aggrieved fishers do not simply want a monetary contribution as a means of settling their grievance. They want the opportunity to fish. Many of them had proven track records as fishers but they were certainly not given the opportunity. Somebody mentioned United Fisheries earlier. United Fisheries applied and applied and the ministry kept saying that that company had not applied. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Like my colleague Phil Heatley I was somewhat mollified by the Minister’s answers in question time today because I have been quite strongly opposed to the idea that the boundary changes should take place. However like David Carter I am still puzzled as to how one can change the boundaries for sustainability reasons and yet allow more fish to be caught. It seems like a paradox that only the Ministry of Fisheries could come up with—logic it away in some magic way. I do not really understand the process that the ministry went through to get to that point. It is clear that there was some consultation with the industry over a period of time and I commend the ministry for that; but it is also clear that not everybody was consulted. 
Why is it that the ministry waited until the very last minute after the two inquiries were over and after the Primary Production Committee was just about done with its consideration of the bill before it announced that it would change these boundaries? The ministry claimed to have all sorts of scientific evidence and it may be right but why did it leave it so long? My main opposition to it apart from my puzzlement over the sustainability issue is why it is that every time the ministry makes a mistake or makes a line-ball call it favours one fisher over everybody else—and this is another example of Simunovich Fisheries being favoured over everybody else. 
First of all as Mr Carter said when the ministry came in it gave us what effectively was a blank sheet of paper. I do not think I am saying things out of school by saying that we were utterly outraged that the ministry could come to us and give us a blank sheet of paper as if we would not know what the heck was going on. 
Phil Heatley 
: Fill it in yourself. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes. When the ministry realised that we were on to it it suddenly came back with another sheet of paper that stated that Simunovich Fisheries would get 129 tonnes extra which was more than the total allocation for any other fisher. Let me say that again: the increase for Simunovich was greater than the total allocation for any other fisher. When we rejected that as being as equally outrageous as being given a blank sheet of paper the ministry came back about an hour later with a third sheet of paper. This time the sheet of paper stated that Simunovich Fisheries was to get—oh gosh—only 64 tonnes extra. Again that was more than any fisher in the industry except Sanford Ltd. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is Sanford here? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes I think that Sanford Ltd was to get 89 tonnes. If we look at the figures we see that the ministry has increased the headroom by 200 tonnes. Do those figures add up to 200 tonnes? Does that third sheet of paper actually make sense? Maybe it does but I need a bit more explanation from the ministry to actually agree with it. It is a mishmash. If I felt confident that the ministry was operating on the basis of scientific evidence it would not have come up with three different versions of this event in the one day. Why should we have confidence in the third sheet of paper any more than in the blank one? It seems like a whole series of guesses. 
I have to admire the ministry though. It has got to this point by steadfastly believing that allocation on the basis of the 1990-1992 catch history years was the way to go. The ministry lost in the court case in the High Court. It told the Regulations Review Committee that if its new regulations were struck down by the court it would go back and start afresh. It did lose in court but did it go back and start afresh? No it did not—“Our policy is to allocate on the 1990-1992 catch history years.” Two inquiries have slammed the ministry in the strongest terms possible yet it has carried on and to its credit is getting this through Parliament. It has conned the Government. Why are we doing this? It has been shown over and over again to be wrong and unfair. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I have an amendment to this particular clause. I am the first to admit it is probably not perfect and I am sure that members of this Committee could word it better perhaps make it a little clearer or whatever. However it is designed—and I am sure Mr Ian Ewen-Street will be delighted to hear this—to achieve what we have been discussing all evening: the question of fairness. We have had continual complaints from fishers that they have been shut out and will be into the future. I will not go through the names again; the ministry knows full well who they are. My amendment offers an opportunity in the future for those who want to go scampi fishing to do so. 
One thing is certain around the fishing industry—that is that quota will be traded regardless of what species is involved. Those who held quota 10 years ago in orange roughy crayfish or whatever fishery it might be have traded. My amendment which I hope will be picked up by the Committee suggests that when quota is legitimately traded between a willing seller and a willing buyer 20 percent of the value of that quota—and the value will be established when two people have a deal to do—should be made available to those who have been adversely affected. My amendment proposes to add subsection (6) to section 369R and states: “(b) The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for ‘scampi’ and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement and mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred.” So this amendment is an attempt to redress the problems that do exist. 
I repeat in the not too distant future the fishing industry will languish. Indeed I am told that it is languishing somewhat right now. The cost of diesel for example is getting to a level where it will make fishing unproductive for a number of individuals or companies. They will no doubt sell their quota in order to survive or move on to some other fishery or into another line of business. Quite clearly scampi quota will be on the market at some stage and I think that if this amendment is accepted there is an opportunity of redress—or to add some redress anyway—for fishers who have been shut out and who want to advance their cause and prospects in the scampi fishery. I hope that the Committee will consider this particular amendment. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 This is a critical part of the debate and I note that my colleague Mr Ardern is also seeking a call. Also my good friends from New Zealand First have not yet had the opportunity to take a call but I am sure they will. Certainly if the Chair allows the debate to range over these issues it will be very worthwhile and it will be to the betterment of the fishery. 
National has provided conditional support thus far with regard to this bill. On my way down to the Chamber I felt very certain in my mind that that support would be withdrawn if we could not get some satisfaction as to why these boundary changes have been made. I am somewhat mollified by the information my colleague Mr Heatley shared with me but I still have some questions for the Minister. I note that other questions have been posed to him as well. I would like him to get to his feet and address some of the issues so that I have a better understanding of how moving these boundaries in such an arbitrary way will enhance the fishery and enable it to be managed on a sustainable basis. I think that is a very fair question. I have heard other members putting that question to the Minister and if we could get some satisfaction around that I think the Minister might get some sense of cooperation from us. I have to say though that in offering his answer to us I would like more advice than his simply saying: “My ministry officials told me so.” I think it only fair and reasonable given the circumstances that surround the ministry’s performance on this legislation that we are given some sense of independence in the advice we receive. I think it is wholly reasonable that the Minister give us an assurance that the advice has been sought. 
There is a significant opinion—maybe it has changed over the last 24 hours—that says that the boundary changes should not be moved and that moving them is simply of little practical use. I note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research says there is no justifiable reason why we should change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. I accept that new information does and can come to hand. If that is the case and if there have been compelling reasons why these changes are not simply arbitrary decisions made by the Minister and his officials then I will listen carefully to what those reasons are. That necessitates the Minister getting to his feet and giving some explanations. I am perfectly happy to yield the balance of my call if he will give me some indication that he will get on his feet and take a call. However it seems he will not. One then wonders why we get suspicious about what is actually driving these changes. We have a Minister who I accept is new to his role. I accept that he takes advice from his officials because he simply does not have the experience to make these decisions himself. But surely instinct would tell him—given the circumstances surrounding the performance of the ministry—to seek independent advice. I can only conclude that he is not getting to his feet to answer the questions because he simply does not have that advice. 
I have to tell the Minister that I am particularly concerned at the way that United Fisheries and the six other fishers that my colleagues named have been treated around this quota issue. It is no fault of theirs that they have no part or a limited part in the scampi catch at the moment. The decision of the Minister’s officials not to bring some sort of closure and justice for them is wholly wrong. I want to quote from part of a letter from Geoffrey Palmer who wrote from Chen Palmer and Partners to every member of Parliament—if I can find it. I cannot find it but he pointed out that getting things wrong is not the essence of the issue but how or whether we put things right is. That essentially is the issue. The Minister is not giving me any confidence that he is prepared to deal with these issues. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerrard Eckhoff to clause 68 be agreed to: 
to add to section 369R the following new subsection: 
(6)Notwithstanding anything else in this section or this Act 
(a)Each quota initially allocated for scampi pursuant to Section 369O must be made subject to an encumbrance requiring the payment of an amount not exceeding 20 percent of the value of the quota at the payment calculation time to the Chief Executive for distribution in accordance of paragraph b of this subsection. The payment calculation time will be a date not later than 31 August 2006. 
(b)The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for “scampi” and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement or mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred. 
(c)In determining a scenario for the purposes of paragraph b the catch history Review Committee may make whatever assumptions it reasonably considers necessary for the purpose. 
(d)The Catch History Review Committee must determine the net effect on affected parties of the difference between the outcome under the scenario and the initial allocations effected by the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4) of 2004 and so far as it may be achieved within the 20 percent of value allowance provided by this subsection make payments funded by parties who have been advantaged in comparison to the scenario to parties who have been disadvantaged in comparison to the scenario. 
(e)On the payment calculation date the advantaged parties must pay the disadvantaged parties the amounts determined by the Catch History Review Committee having been advised of those amounts no less than 50 working days previously. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 68 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 68 agreed to. 
Clause 69 and Schedule 2 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that clause 69 and schedule 2 be one wide-ranging debate but that the question be put separately on the clause and the schedule. We will be canvassing the same arguments in both clause 69 and schedule 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can we have some definition from you about what a wide-ranging debate is. Does the member mean that it is a debate across the clause and the schedule and not back across the bill? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I am talking about a wide-ranging debate on schedule 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? That will occur then. The question is that clause 69 stand part. The debate includes schedule 2 as agreed. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Members will recall that I indicated that the issue of scampi fishing area 3 just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island and the new fishing area scampi 4 around the Chatham Rise caused some anguish in the scampi fishing industry. Certainly it did in the Primary Production Committee and within the National Party because we saw those boundaries being changed. 
Clause 69 states: “The principal Act is amended by adding the Schedules 13 and 14 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act.” Schedule 13 of course is the one that shifts those very boundaries. I should be more specific: it does not affect the outside boundary of areas 3 and 4 but rather the internal dividing line which is moved eastward over some hundreds of kilometres. In other words it expands fishing area 3 well out east of the east coast of the South Island and more towards the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Rise. We wondered why shifting an internal boundary line given that the outside boundary did not change would suddenly make available more and more fish. The response we had is that fishers will be forced to fish specifically around the Chatham Rise as well as off the east coast of the South Island. They cannot move between the two fishing grounds without actually moving from fishing area 3 to fishing area 4 and back. That seems fair enough to me. 
We will support these schedules because we believe that the change in the areas is appropriate for sustainability and utilisation reasons. With the help of the maps and in probably under 1 minute I have been able to explain to a large number of my colleagues why we are doing this yet it has taken weeks and weeks to get answers from the ministry about why it is necessary. Once the ministry gave us the right answer everyone understood it clearly—just like that. It is of concern to us—certainly to those of us on the select committee—why we could not have had that simple answer in the first place. I guess it is a message to the Ministry of Fisheries and to the Minister that when explaining these things they should go back to first principles and not talk about too much detail just the practical aspects. When we see the practical aspects it is easy to understand them and easy to support them. So we support those schedules. 
I will be leaving it to my colleague David Carter to speak about schedule 14 specifically which of course is the scampi provisional catch history allocations to the various companies involved in the scampi fishery historically. We are still concerned that a number of fishers have been left out of the fishery. They are the aggrieved fishers as listed in the select committee scampi inquiry report. There were seven of them. A number of them I see in the schedules still get catch history for those areas where they caught scampi but they are aggrieved fishers because there are other areas where they could have caught scampi or there is more scampi they could have caught adding to their catch history if only they were able to obtain or execute the permits they were granted. 
There is one person in particular who I would like to mention Trevor Goodship—a man who wanted to go scampi fishing for himself build up his catch history and eventually pass on his business to his family. He has been locked out. He is aggrieved and I would like to hear some assurance from the Minister that negotiations with him are continuing. I know that his compensation package or ex gratia payment was capped at $800000 by Labour Party members on the select committee. We are not sure where they got that capping idea from but we do know that he is not listed in any of these schedules to receive an allocation. He genuinely wanted to go scampi fishing. Everyone agrees including the courts that he should have been able to go scampi fishing and we would like to see that result. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call to respond to the issues that have just been raised again around the boundary recommendation and change which Mr Heatley has just canvassed and which were canvassed earlier. I wish to make it quite clear to the Committee that I am glad that acknowledgment has just been given of the lengths the ministry and my office went to in order to provide the information people asked for. But I find it extraordinarily unfortunate when members of this House such as Mr Ewen-Street and others bag ministry staff for doing what they were asked to do by me very late at night. They worked under extreme pressure with very little notice to provide at my request and that of Mr Carter information for the Primary Production Committee the next day. The fact that it was incomplete is not a criticism of the ministry; it is a compliment to the effort those staff put in that night very late. The meeting that took place between me and Mr Carter was at 9 p.m. or thereabouts. The ministry staff worked late that night and they worked the next morning. I think we see in this bill the results of a good cooperative effort and I am really sad that some of the comments that have been made tonight are so uncharitable and so downright misleading. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on clause 69 but I rise now to comment on the matters just raised by the Minister of Fisheries. The information that was given to the Primary Production Committee was simply not accurate. That is fact. I fully accept that the officials worked into the dead of night to try to get that information. The fault here lies with the Minister himself who gave this bill to the select committee and said he wanted it back in 3 weeks because there was some urgency involved. The select committee went to the Minister and asked for an extension of time. The Minister personally refused to give that select committee an extension of time because he had to get the bill back into the House urgently in order to have it progress—and that was about a month ago! He said he would put it in the urgency motion but it never appeared in the urgency motion. 
So I tell the Minister not to criticise the select committee members at all; they worked hard for that Minister to deliver the information back on time. What the Minister should do is question why a time limit was imposed whereby this legislation was given to us and we were told to get it back to the House within I think—I cannot remember the time—about 3 weeks. I think the Minister should also take the opportunity to acknowledge that all the members of the select committee asked the Minister for 1 more week to finalise this issue. It was the Minister himself who refused to give us that time and then he sat on the legislation. He forgot to put it in the urgency motion. We are now within a matter of weeks of 1 October rushing the bill through the Committee tonight so that it can have its third reading on Thursday and finally the scampi issue may be resolved. 
Having said that I would like to talk briefly to schedule 14 in schedule 2. In my mind that is the finality of this issue. There are some big winners. Simunovich Fisheries which has been mentioned considerably through the debate tonight is a big winner. But it went out there and fished. It went out there and saw the potential of the fishery. 
Shane Ardern 
: It developed it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well Simunovich Fisheries claimed it had developed it solely. I do not think that is entirely true. I think a number of fishers wanted the opportunity of being involved in developing it. But without doubt the big player that took the big investment decisions and operated through those important years was Simunovich Fisheries. 
That is the essence of the legislation that was passed in 1996. It recognised in retrospect that the fishers who had been active in chasing any particular species over the catch history years would ultimately be entitled to quota at the time that the species came into the quota management system. It was never anticipated when the legislation was passed in 1996 that it would take years and years for that finally to happen. I guess that is the history of the scampi fishery. It is the reason for the select committee inquiry and the reason for the State Services Commission inquiry. But at the end of the day the National Party certainly acknowledges that its role is now to finalise this issue so that the fish can continue to be sustainably harvested and to acknowledge that there have been winners and losers but in terms of trying to right the unfairness it is just not possible to undo the issues and the creation of catch history that occurred so many years ago. 
I say finally that it is not fair to blame the select committee members who tonight have been critical of the information provided. There were categoric examples where the information was in conflict. The pressure on the officials was created by the Minister himself who gave the select committee an indecent amount of time to consider the issues. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member there has been a voting error. The voting list is to be corrected. The vote on Gerrard Eckhoff’s amendment to clause 68 was announced as Ayes 13 Noes 102. The correct result is Ayes 14 Noes 102. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I think I may have an answer to the question the Minister of Fisheries will not answer. He has been asked to answer this question on many occasions. In fact we thought he was going to answer it just a few moments ago when he rose to take a call. Instead he made a mistake in trying to blame the select committee members for the haste with which this bill was dealt with. I refer to the arbitrary decision to shift the boundaries. How will shifting the boundaries of area 3 and area 4 allowing more fish to be caught enhance the sustainability of the fishery? That is a very perplexing question for us on this side. 
I have before me two maps. I have been looking at them and I think I have concluded how that may be possible. The Minister may take a call to confirm whether I am right or wrong. By shifting the internal boundary between area 3 and area 4 we have now driven the fishers further off shore where they may not have otherwise gone. Therefore we have expanded the amount of fish that has traditionally been harvested. We have sent the boats further out to sea and by doing that have developed a larger area of the fishery. I say to the Minister that maybe that is wrong but it is the only logical conclusion when looking at these maps that anybody could come to. It is just purely nuts as a proposal to suggest that by changing the boundaries we create more fish. That does not happen. The only way we can make the fishery larger is by increasing the area to include parts where fish have not historically been caught. I presume that is the correct answer. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley has a view on that and he may think it is the answer too but the Committee would dearly love to hear from the Minister and have that confirmed. At this point in time we are still in a vacuum; so are the scampi and the fishermen. The fishermen do not know whether that is the answer as well. 
This whole debate tonight around the allocation of scampi and scampi entering into the quota management system has been very interesting. A number of things have been canvassed by a number of members but none more so than the whole debate about whether this process is fair. Overwhelmingly one can only conclude that the answer is no. This process is not fair and this Minister has compounded the problem. I do not think it is fair to blame him entirely for the problem because it has been going on for a long time and he is a new Minister. But it is just a pityhe did not take advice from some more senior Ministers and perhaps even some former Ministers as to why we had got ourselves into this muddle. Instead he has listened to the officials who have over a number of years given bad advice to a succession of Governments and Ministers and once again he is here tonight making an arbitrary decision about a boundary and he will not tell us why. He will not say tonight why this boundary is being shifted which effectively is what is happening in this bill. 
This proposal did not go to the select committee. It has happened since the select committee process. The officials came back and said the boundaries should be shifted because there would be more fish. On the surface how do they work that out? But if we look at the map we see that maybe it is possible. I say to the Minister that if we go all the way to Australia well beyond our economic zone maybe we will have more fish. Somebody suggested earlier tonight that if we go to Norway where these fish hail from we will have more fish. That may well be so. Maybe the ministry’s advisers have told the Minister that we should implement a quota management system in Norway. I am not sure because he will not answer the question. The bottom line is that we cannot make more fish by shifting the line on the map. The only conclusion we can come to tonight is that the Minister has decided that with the area going further out to sea there will be more head space for those who feel aggrieved. Maybe the Minister will take a call and clear that up once and for all. The Committee and anybody who is listening tonight must be in a huge vacuum as to why he has made that decision. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this component of the bill but then the Minister of Fisheries rose and had the audacity to blame the members of the Primary Production Committee and other members of this House who have come down to the Chamber tonight to debate this legislation who have said that there is something wrong with the advice that he has been getting and that some of that advice has come from the ministry. The ministry has been fingered by independent inquiries as being ad hoc inconsistent and unprofessional and this Minister had the audacity to get up and blame the members of the select committee. How pathetic is he? Well I tell members that he is hopeless and that is why he will not stay in the job for very long at all. The Minister should set the tone for how he wants his ministry to perform. He should not stand up and blame others for his own poor performance. 
Having said that I will turn my attention to the issues of the schedules and why United Fisheries in particular must feel highly aggrieved with the process that this Minister is proposing as a solution. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Bring back Jenny. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I hear Mr Mallard calling out—the man who is so dense that light bends around him— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that members should be referred to by their correct name. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thought I had pronounced his name correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No you did not. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I have been referred to as Brian Bryn and Brain tonight and I have not heard anyone objecting about that but when this Minister and Mr Mallard get similar treatment they do not like it. Well he has run into someone who is just a little bit harder in the head than he is. We will not worry about what Mr Mallard thinks because he is a guy who when the brains were given out was not exactly home. All that he has ever done with his life is be a teacher then come to this House—and he cannot even manage that particularly well. He wants to protect the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope because he knows he is hopeless. The Minister has demonstrated that to all the people who have been listening tonight. 
I had started to refer to the schedules before I was rudely interrupted by Mr Mallard. I was beginning to say that I think United Fisheries and the other fishers who miss out somewhat under what this Government is proposing as a fair and equitable solution have cause to be totally despondent and to feel they have had no justice whatsoever under this process. The National Party in the spirit of cooperation and using the benefit of our business experience lent a perfectly workable solution to the Minister of Fisheries. But he is naive and inexperienced and because he could not listen to those who knew better he will not be in the job for long. He could not take advice or see past party lines. United Fisheries and those other six fishers are the ones who are missing out as a consequence. It is not just and it is not fair. The solution that was offered was entirely reasonable: give those fishers the first right of refusal. It could not be much fairer than that—provided they make a financial contribution. But what they are saying is that money is only part of the solution. This Minister did not have the capacity to get his head around that simple commercial issue and that is the great tragedy. 
So what happens? We have the courage to say that the way he is leading the ministry and some of the performance from his officials are not satisfactory. He then attacks the messenger. The Minister can mumble and grumble under his breath as much as he likes—that is all he is really good for. He has been invited on numerous occasions to get to his feet and answer some of these questions but he has not had the conviction to do that. He is tough when he is sitting in his chair mumbling to the Chairman but when he needs to get up and demonstrate that he has the capacity to get his head around this issue he is not at home. It is no wonder that those fishers listening out there who have reason to be aggrieved have no confidence in him whatsoever. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit schedule 13 and substitute the following new schedule 13: 
Quota management areas will remain unchanged. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have another amendment in the name of the honourable Ian Ewen-Street. It is an amendment to omit and substitute new schedule 14. However I have ruled it out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision made on clause 67. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.