Cosgrove Clayton: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14692] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I suspect after that less than lucid contribution that all members of the Primary Production Committee—including the chair Mr David Carter I suspect but I will not put him on the spot to make a public admission—are thankful that Mr Connell never set foot in that committee at all. I thank the Lord above that he was not a member of that committee. If he had been he would know that we are not rushing this bill through the House with undue haste. If Mr Connell could read past the large title and the large print of the bill he would know that the reason the bill has to be enacted by 1 October is simply that it is being gazetted for scampi to go into the quota management system by that due date. 
So instead of these sorts of crocodile tears and puffery to try to pad out a speech as Mr Connell does I suggest that he talk to Mr Carter. I agree with one thing that Mr Connell said: I believe that Mr Carter did make a very sound contribution as chair. I suggest that Mr Connell takes a lesson from a senior colleague and has a wee chat before he stands up and makes a complete fool—I could use another word but that word will do—of himself. 
Before I get into the bill I will also say to Mr Shirley that one thing about this committee—and I said it last week—is that it is a non-partisan committee where there is a high degree of cooperation between Opposition and Government parties and between cross-bench parties. There was a high degree of cooperation over this whole report to the point that we were unanimous as a committee in every way except one small way which I will come to in a moment. I acknowledge the contribution made by Mr Eckhoff. However unlike Mr Eckhoff Mr Shirley—and one can always rely on the ACT party to do this—took an opportunity to roll around in the muck like some sort of animal and to play politics with this issue. I will give him the same advice that I gave Mr Connell—and perhaps he may want to talk to his colleague Mr Eckhoff— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very unlike me to time this member’s speeches although they do drag on but he is 3 minutes on and has not mentioned the bill yet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I shall judge relevance. I thank the member for raising that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think I have mentioned the bill. I tell Mr Shirley again that this very non-partisan and very important inquiry should not be trivialised. The truth about the inquiry as it pertained to the bill was that there were a number of sideshows. Again I congratulate members on both sides who managed to navigate through those sideshows and through the muck to get on with the business. 
I endorse the bill bringing scampi into the quota management system. If we look at how it links with the scampi report there are some very heavy-duty correlations. As has been mentioned these events happened over 10 years ago and I endorse Mr Carter’s point when he said that we should not play politics with this issue because it happened over a number of administrations. The question of the lack of or level of ministerial oversight by whoever was the Minister at the time in all those administrations does arise in respect of how the issues of mismanagement and incompetence were dealt with. The then Ministers officials and others were questioned over 10 years ago and they were pretty balanced in their view. However the thing the committee did struggle with was that if the then Ministers sitting in the chair over 10 years ago received representations and letters one would have thought that they would perhaps have taken a greater interest in the issue. I recall questioning the officials on that. At one point—and I am sure that the transcript will verify this—they said they had not gone to the then Ministers often because it was all a bit technical. Historically I do not think that was acceptable from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Any politician who keeps getting representations on issues knows that there is a problem. When politicians are told the problem is fixed and they still keep getting representations then obviously the fixtures have not stuck. 
I also say just to correct the record that it is true that the committee was unanimous—and I acknowledge New Zealand First—on its recommendation to compensate. Where the committee was not unanimous and where New Zealand First did support the Government was in respect of naming a dollar amount for compensation. I acknowledge the National Party’s point that we were split on that. I think it was the only issue we were split on. However I tell Mr Heatley who made a pretty silly comment about members throwing their fingers in the air and picking dollar figures that I acknowledge that there was some analysis done to arrive at the figures. The objective was to try to provide some safeguards and give submitters some level of comfort as they negotiated with the ministry officials. Some submitters had been there a decade ago as this happened and some submitters acknowledged that they did not have confidence in some officials. I think the committee supported the naming of dollar amounts to try to lift that level of comfort. 
It is critical that we get scampi into the quota management system through this bill. Had the fishery continued on in the sort of haphazard way it was operating where fishers were just catching ad infinitum we had scientific evidence that suggested that the fishery would be under threat. 
There are some big issues that will be dealt with through this bill. As has been mentioned by members the biggest issue is that of unfairness. I told Mr Ewen-Street last week that I did not accept his view that somehow this Parliament or the committee has continued to perpetrate or somehow compound an injustice. The committee deals with—as Parliament does being the highest court in the land—evidence placed before it. That evidence did not substantiate allegations of corruption either with the ministry or players within the industry. It did not substantiate that. As I said in my previous speech I am sure that it would be accurate to say that members had various gut feelings about particular issues. Unfortunately even though we may agree with gut feelings decisions cannot be made based on gut feelings; they have to be made based on the evidence that is put forward to the committee. So no allegations were substantiated in respect of corruption. But it is an absolute truth that we did establish gross mismanagement gross incompetence and obstruction on the part of the then Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as the scampi fishery was administered. What flowed from that was that certain fishers were advantaged and certain fishers were not. I hope that what comes out of this report is some correction to that. 
I also say that because those unfairnesses and that mismanagement were identified it led to erosion in the confidence the industry showed in the then ministry. If anything is to come out of this inquiry I hope that not only those fishers who were impacted on get some help but secondly that we can somehow build back the integrity and the confidence in the ministry. I quote from the report on the inquiry into the administration and management of the scampi fishery which states: “We”—that is the select committee—“consider that there are real lessons in all this for any government agency that is responsible for the management of a valuable public resource. If a government agency acts in a way that is found to be unfair or unlawful and does not redress the situation transparently and substantively then the honesty and integrity of the organisation is called into question.” I hope that what flows from that report and of course the bill is that we can now right some wrongs and some unfairnesses and also start to build back the integrity and credibility of that ministry. After all the Government did agree to this inquiry and rightly so. The then Minister Pete Hodgson and the committee members did endorse the inquiry. The Opposition parties and Government worked together in the hope that we could clean up a decade of mess. 
I think that this matter goes beyond politics. As I recall some of the submitters to the committee and some of the officials to be tactful it saddens me to say that they were less than helpful at times. I think other committee members would share that view. But I now say as I did in my previous speech that it is time to build back. I acknowledge Mr Carter’s point about litigation in respect of players. I say to the industry that now is the time to get out of the court and back in the boat to start to fish and to continue to invest in and develop the fishery industry. 
To conclude I say to the ministry that now is the time to ensure it builds back the credibility that has been lost through some years of mismanagement. I endorse the bill.