Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12390] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am always delighted to speak on an important bill such as the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). I am also rather delighted to speak after a Green member has just spoken at some length on this very subject. I cannot help but recognise that the problem with the Green Party is that its members always point out the problems that exist. Nobody denies that these problems exist out on the oceans but I listened in vain for an alternative. We do not want to go back to the open slather the plunder the days of Captain Ahab roaming the seas killing whales. We have moved on and found better systems. We are striving to achieve sustainable and sensible use of the world’s resources. It is a little upsetting—although I am getting used to it—to hear the Greens constantly bagging the industry that is striving to achieve a far better outcome than we would have had under open-slather systems. 
The ACT party supports this bill going to the select committee. As previous speakers have pointed out this bill is technical in nature and has technical adjustments that require considerable in-depth analysis by the select committee. The Primary Production Committee under the chairmanship of Mr David Carter is recognised as having good cross-party support and input into this matter. I am sure we will come up with a very sensible outcome. 
I want to spend a moment on the referral motion moved by the Minister. I have forwarded an amendment to his motion recommending that the committee not sit during urgency. It is fine for the major parties but a smaller party like the ACT party with eight members finds it very difficult to achieve its obligations in Parliament when its members are required to front up to a select committee while the House is sitting under urgency. It is a problem for us so I have put forward that amendment which I hope the House will take notice of. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Should have kept Donna in the chair! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well all things are possible. 
The bill does away with catch history and we say that is fine in a technical sense but one of the real questions is how will that transition be managed? That is a very real concern of the fishing industry—how will the catch history of the fishermen be protected until the species goes into the quota management system? 
Based on the past history I suspect that few in the fishing industry will have a great deal of confidence that the ministry will be able to address the concerns of the wider industry. We have just completed a very substantial inquiry into the allocation of scampi. It is fair to say that the ministry is not riding the crest of the credibility wave after that particular inquiry. There will be some very real issues and concerns about the ability of the ministry to meet the demands and requirements of the industry. 
There will be an increased focus in the bill on the quota management system. Despite what the Greens say New Zealand’s initiative is lauded worldwide as the best system we have to date. That does not mean that concepts that better suit the world’s requirements will not come up in the future but at this point in time it is a very substantial and worthwhile process to ensure that our fish stocks continue. 
One of the difficulties in speaking rather late on a bill is that much of it has already been referred to. At the risk of repeating those remarks—sensibly made by many members—I will make some comments about the migratory species aspect of this bill. In New Zealand we have something of a problem in that the migratory species of tuna for example is now being caught off the top end of the North Island. The quota is then taken by those fishermen from the far north area and by the time we get down to the West Coast where the tuna fishing started there is no quota left. 
That is something that the select committee will need to look at. It is the West Coast fishermen who have the catch history if I can put it that way but the migratory nature of tuna indicates that they are being caught before they get down there. So that is an issue I think we will need to address on behalf of those fishing off the West Coast of the South Island. 
Another issue of course is the catch out on the high seas. Until this international quota comes into force there will be something of a boat race to get out there and catch as much species as possible. If there is any constraint on the fishing industry from New Zealand ports it will be taken up by internationally owned boats—vessels out there fishing for the same fish. They will then receive a higher quota than would be the case if New Zealand vessels were out there getting their fair share. So that too is a very real issue. 
The problem alluded to by Mr Doug Woolerton and Jeanette Fitzsimons is to how we best allocate ownership—and that is what has to happen—of a public asset namely fish stocks. We have had that problem just recently with Project Aqua—how to allocate a publicly owned resource such as water—and it is a very real problem. The tender process seems to work extremely well when we come to allocate land. It has always worked that the highest tender receives the prize whether it is for land or artworks or whatever. 
The tender process is a fair one. The fact that somebody else has a far deeper pocket than I have if I wished to purchase a piece of land or an artwork by tender is irrelevant. That is just one of the facts of life we have accept but there is certainly no justification for excluding the tender process just because the bigger companies or those with greater knowledge or technical abilities can win. That is basically what I want to say but I do support the concept. 
As a quick overview I think it is important that bills that come before the House go to a select committee rather than get voted out. It gives the public and the industry a very real chance to have their say on a particular issue and that is as it should be.