Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12394] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In speaking to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) I reiterate the comment of my colleague Phil Heatley the National Party spokesperson on fishing that the National Party will support this bill going to the Primary Production Committee. 
I start my contribution by taking this opportunity to thank the new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope and also and probably more appropriately the Leader of the House for ensuring that this legislation will go to the Primary Production Committee. We are aware of other fisheries legislation essentially associated with Maori fishing that recently has gone to a special select committee. The Primary Production Committee over many years has been the select committee that has examined fisheries legislation. I think that over the time I have been a member of Parliament that select committee—and I have sat on it for a considerable period during my term as a member—has handled a lot of fisheries legislation. I think it is dangerous and risky to see increasingly legislation deemed to be special or somewhat risky from a political point of view being chugged off to a specially formed select committee. I know that the members of that committee will do their best to examine the issues but the institutional knowledge around the table of a select committee that has dealt with fisheries legislation over a long period of time and the institutional knowledge amongst that select committee’s support staff are factors that this House must continue to recognise. So I am pleased to see this bill go before the Primary Production Committee; I only wish the earlier legislation associated with Maori fishing was also there. 
I want to speak initially about Part 3 which is associated specifically with ensuring that the scampi fishery resource comes into the quota management system by 1 October this year. I understand that the Minister is instructing the select committee to split this parcel of the bill off into separate legislation in order to progress it very rapidly to ensure it is referred back in time for it to proceed through the House so that scampi can come under the quota management system by 1 October this year. I accept that as we are debating this bill in April of 2004 there does need to be a rushed process. I find that somewhat sad. If the Minister had been prepared to devote his energies to ensuring the legislation was before the House somewhat earlier there would have been every opportunity for submissioners to be involved in a genuine process without that rush. I hasten to add that that is not a criticism of the new Minister David Benson-Pope but a criticism of his predecessor Pete Hodgson. There is little doubt in my mind that he was relieved of that portfolio in a recent Cabinet reshuffle. 
It is necessary to have scampi in the quota management system as quickly as possible. That fish species has been the subject of huge controversy for a long period of time and it is important for the sustainability of that species that it comes in the quota management system as quickly as possible. There is little doubt that the select committee will receive many many submissions from people with whom we have become quite well acquainted over recent times. I am referring to the Primary Production Committee’s work on the scampi fishery investigation which began in October 2002. The report was released late last year in December 2003. That inquiry was a massive undertaking by the select committee. The report tabled in the House totalled 226 pages and there were 43 hours of hard work. I do not blame some submissioners for wanting to relitigate the issues that were discussed and investigated during that select committee inquiry; it is only natural that they would take the opportunity to do so. 
The select committee unanimously reported in that particular inquiry as to aspects of unfairness. As the member of Parliament who chaired that select committee I have no doubt that that unfairness occurred. What we collectively need to do as members of this Parliament and as members of the industry is now find a way forward so that the issues of unfairness in the past are put behind us and the industry can focus on trying to sustainably manage and profitably fish that particular resource. Having made those comments I acknowledge that the solution is harder than just uttering those words. 
The other thing the select committee will want to know during the examination process is how effectively the Minister of Fisheries and his ministry officials have tackled the recommendations of that scampi select committee inquiry. The unanimous result of the report was the finding of issues of unfairness that went back over a decade but more important the select committee then identified seven fishers who had appeared before the select committee with a genuine grievance that required the ministry and therefore the Minister to sit with those particular identified fishers to find a solution to their grievances. Where the select committee was not able to maintain a unanimous stance was on the issue of our giving a signal to the Minister on how best those grievances might be settled. It is well documented in the select committee report that a majority of the select committee members—namely the New Zealand First representative and the Labour Party members—recommended that six of those fishers receive quite substantial compensation. The actual compensation figures were detailed in the report and ranged from a $900000 minimum to a $400000 minimum. 
The question that I think also needs to be asked is why the select committee by a majority saw fit to agree that one company Sealord’s which is substantially based in Nelson should be identified as an aggrieved party but not be mentioned in terms of a specific figure for compensation. That question has been puzzling members of the National Party caucus. Phil Heatley recently asked the Minister whether Sealord’s having been identified as having a justified grievance he felt that the company should be receiving any form of payment. The Minister David Benson-Pope answered by saying simply that Sealord’s as a company had not been identified as requiring a specific payment. Mr Heatley knew that; Mr Heatley was a member of the Primary Production Committee. He then asked a further question and that was whether the select committee report that was presented to the Minister prevented the Minister from recognising an injustice to Sealord’s as a company and negotiating a similar payment. The response from David Benson-Pope was: “I refer the member to my earlier response.” That is not an answer and I assure the Minister and ministry officials that that issue will not go away. 
In the closing minutes I want to comment on the State Services Commission which initiated an inquiry contemporaneous to the select committee inquiry into that very issue. Now quite some time on we have not seen the results of the State Services Commission inquiry. The inquiry is being conducted by a Queen’s Counsel Helen Cull. I rang the State Services Commission office this morning to ascertain when a result might be expected. It was unable to supply that information in time for me to deliver it to the House today although I note that the Greens stated that the report would be through by the end of this calendar month—namely April. Until that report is also finalised the select committee is presented with difficulties in finalising this legislation.