Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14578] 
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.