Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12386] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Likewise New Zealand First will be supporting the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the Primary Production Committee and we look forward to hearing the debate upon it. I would like to put a few of these issues into simple language that a lot of people who may be listening or indeed want to read the  
Hansard  
can understand. Tendering for quota which is after all a property right is of concern to New Zealand First and we look forward to the debate around that. But one would have to assume as these measures have turned out in other sectors of society that it would favour those fishers who are somewhat larger than others. This is not always so but it is something that is a logical conclusion and it is something that has proved to be in other sectors of society—those with the deepest pockets are able to secure the quota. Once having secured it of course it is a property right and that right is there for some considerable time or in fact until that person or that firm gives up fishing. 
In the past securing a quota for fishing has been somewhat like the old West in America. We have read the history books about riders or proposed claimants to the land being sent out on a horse and told: “OK sunshine whatever you can get around in the day and as long as you return to this spot at nightfall that is yours.” It has been a little similar with quota in this country because it has relied on the fishers going out and fishing as hard as they can—and this is what Mr Heatley referred to—to get a catch entitlement and to make sure that that becomes their quota by a system that has been outlined in previous bills. 
We are concerned that there were inequities in that which also favoured the bigger fishers. There have been numerous court cases and challenges back and forth to establish the correctness of that model. 
Now because it did have flaws we are entering into another model that is straight-out tendering. It is perhaps not much cruder but I am not so sure that it will be much more sophisticated and we in New Zealand First are concerned about that and will be watching the submissions with interest. I think that perhaps they will fall into two quite distinct groups—those who think they will gain advantage and have deep pockets will say: “Yay this is us; we want this.” Those who are entering or those with smaller pockets will have some hesitation. I think we will very quickly see the differences. 
When it comes to the highly migratory species or “HMS”—and one could be forgiven for thinking that that is a ship of the Royal Navy—such as tuna which Mr Heatley said briefly pass our shores— 
Hon David Carter 
: They grab a hook on the way through! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Yes they grab a hook on the way through. These people who chase these fish—the tuna boats—are quite entrepreneurial and have in the main come from the United States of America. They have had spotter planes and they have had huge operations to track these fish by all sorts of electronic means. They go out and—“plunder” is not quite the right word—grab as many as they can on the way through. 
This bill proposes that the process be brought into line and there be quotas in accordance with agreements surrounding these migratory species. And of course the question that common folk will ask is: how is this to be implemented? Mr Heatley said that the National Party has some reservations and likewise so does New Zealand First but not of the same nature. We worry in many cases that being fair-minded New Zealanders—law-abiding New Zealanders—we may be left somewhat on the back foot in this situation. How will we monitor people in other countries who may be more rapacious than we are and who perhaps have a lesser understanding of the sea or a lesser feeling for the plundering of the oceans? 
 That is what this whole quota management system is about. It is about ensuring that those fish and that resource is there for future generations. We care about that a whole lot and so do our fishers—to give them credit—although they do take a wee bit of bringing into line with some of those new innovations as they may be called. We care about the sea and the sustainability of our oceans and it is sad but it is true that other countries do not. 
We do not want the tuna business to end up like the Rio Grande as it flows through America with various people taking water. By the time it gets to the country of Mexico there is 5 percent of darn-all left. We do not want the tuna or migratory species fishery to be like that. As well as monitoring our own fisherman New Zealand First is concerned that a solid regime is put in place. I look forward to hearing the details of this at the select committee to see that we are not being the good people while other people are plundering the resource that we care for. So that is a concern we have. 
Likewise we are happy to see the scampi part of this bill split off and put through a bit of a fast track—if one wants to put it that way. We agree that this should come under the quota management system. Dare I say it there is some evidence already that in the rush to have this catch entitlement or pre-quota catch as high as possible in some quarters there is overfishing of the scampi fishery which has been relatively newly discovered in this country. 
We need to understand and speak more about the property right that has been created as each species of fish comes into the quota management system. Years and years ago before I entered Parliament the view of many and a view that I hold was that perhaps rather than create a property right we should have a lease-type system. After all and I know that some announcement will be made later this week as far as foreshore and seabeds go we are in a situation where people are fishing the commons as it were. It is the ocean that is open to everybody and I would have thought that perhaps it would be more appropriate that those things should be done by lease rather than by an ownership title. 
However that day has passed but I do not think it would hurt to revisit it now and again to remind people that it is ownership we are talking about. It is hugely valuable to have this quota. It is completely understandable that fishers to protect their livelihoods henceforth and to protect that of some very big companies they have established will go all out to establish their right to as much quota as possible. I do not believe that the past system was perfect in that regard and I do not believe that a tender system will be perfect. I look forward hopefully to people convincing me that it is otherwise.