Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14487] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This whole scampi issue and the subsequent two inquiries are possibly the most damning indictments on a Government ministry on Government officials and on a Minister that this country has ever seen. Indeed successive Ministers have presided over continuing abuse unfairness and arrogance from this Ministry of Fisheries. One could almost say that this Government ministry in its entirety should be towed outside our exclusive economic zone and dumped. That is probably the best solution for it. 
The cost to this country in round figures has been $10 million—that is $10 million of taxpayers’ money. For the record I want to quote from the commentary on the bill so that it is in  
Hansard 
 forever. I shall quote what Helen Cull QC has had to say about this ministry: “The findings of the report”—that is the select committee’s report—“mirror those of our inquiry. In particular the report is severely critical of the former Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for its unfair and inconsistent policies and procedures and for inappropriate unprofessional relationships that compromised the impartiality and integrity of its management of the scampi fishery. The report however found there are no grounds for further investigation of potential criminality on the part of either officials or fishers.” 
It continues: “The report also recommended to the Ministry of Fisheries that: ‘if the legislation policy and process for the allocation of scampi quota finally adopted allows administrative discretion then to the extent such discretion allows those exercising it consider when coming to an over-all view of the relevant public interest the exercise of the discretion be informed by the findings of this Inquiry.’ ” Those words especially that first paragraph amplify the thoughts of all members of the Primary Production Committee who sat for a year listening to the “incompetence” of that ministry. That is the only word that can be fairly attributed to it. 
I stand here in a rather difficult position in that although there can be no question that the fishing community in this country has been treated abominably by this ministry on the other side of the coin there has been allocation. Both committees of inquiry in fact found that there was no corruption so I suspect that to redistribute now would cause more problems and more grievances. Therefore the real question for me I guess and for the ACT party—indeed for members of the House—is whether we vote to progress the passage of and pass this legislation or vote to stop this scampi fishery going into the quota management system. 
I have to go back to what I would call first principles—that is to consider the fishery itself and its sustainability. There is no doubt at all that the quota management system is far and away the best method of ensuring the sustainability and sensible management of that fishery. It is with some real regret I have recommended and my party has accepted that we vote for the passage of this scampi fishery into the quota management system. But I say yet again that it is only on that principle—that it is in the best interests of the fishery itself. 
I think my comments in my opening remarks make clear enough what I actually think of this Government ministry and the oversight given to it by Ministers. It seems to me that the most important thing that Mr Benson-Pope can do during his stewardship of this ministry is to clean up the mess immediately. He should be charged with nothing else by the Prime Minister than to sort this whole ministry out so that the public can have some confidence in its future. I know there will be a huge number of fishers terribly disappointed possibly in the ACT party and possibly in others for their accepting that this bill will progress—although it is up to members of this House to determine whether it will. 
I refer again to United Fisheries which was one of the first companies to enter the scampi fishery. In fact that company was wrongfully denied access to the scampi fishery during the 1988-89 1989-90 and 1990-91 seasons. It was denied access by the Dunedin office which had a policy of not issuing scampi permits through the late 1980s. How can it be possible that a ministry could have a policy that surely reflected its views yet the Dunedin office could makde a unilateral decision that was at variance with the national policy statement and with the requirements of the Minister and that department? 
Perhaps one of the worst aspects of this whole business is that we had a Government ministry ignoring High Court directives. That is outrageous for a High Court in relation to redress. Mr Ewen-Street is quite right to say that Parliament is possibly the last venue for redress. But when we have a situation where business people fishers go to the High Court believing there has been unfairness proving their case before a High Court judge and receiving a verdict—as United Fisheries did—that states they have been unfairly treated to any reasonable person it seems to me that is a directive to a Minister with any sort of integrity to say “My ministry will accept that directive of the High Court and ensure that this situation is put right.” 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: And the Court of Appeal. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: And the Court of Appeal. But on far too many occasions and in far too many examples the ministry decided that it knew best and knew more than the High Court. It decided to ignore that advice because—well goodness knows why. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why are you voting for it? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I tell the member I am voting for it because scampi ultimately has to go into the quota management system and I am voting for it because there is nothing to stop continuing litigation against this Government ministry whether it is inside the quota management system or outside it. I would certainly encourage those who have justifiable claims to continue them because they have the sympathy of the entire Primary Productions Committee. 
As I said earlier this is an exceedingly difficult decision to have to make but on reflection I see that I have little option but to follow through with the bill’s passage and vote for its second reading—albeit with the greatest amount of regret.