Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11693] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In Part 2 we refer to what I think was the only issue of contention for the Primary Production Committee and that was the means by which the credit for the levies—the $25 million - odd that had been agreed—would pass back to the industry. People appeared before us—tuna fishermen etc.—who were no longer part of the industry and who in some sad situations still owed the levies originally levied against them but who had been unable to pay because of their financial position. These people presented a compelling case to the select committee and asked what was fair about a negotiated settlement that missed out altogether people who had subsequently left the industry. 
I think that without doubt the committee initially felt strongly for these people but when we further addressed the issue in the cold light of day—again assisted by substantial and very good advice from Ministry of Fisheries officials—it became clear that for two reasons we had difficulty in trying to address this concern. The first reason was that the levy had always been collected on a species-specific basis and not on a fisher-specific basis. Once the committee had come to grips with that issue it became nonsensical to then try to credit back a levy on a different basis to that on which it had originally been collected. 
I think that more compelling for me was the second reason which was that any attempt to pass back this levy credit of $25 million - odd on an individual basis would have huge costs associated—if indeed it was possible. Some of these people were no longer in business some were no longer registered for GST and some were deceased. Ministry officials were able to convince us that the cost of trying to identify and pass back credits to individual fishers would well and truly exceed the value of the credit we are talking about. At that stage the majority of select committee members agreed that the only way forward was to accept what the industry had negotiated with the officials and that was where the matter lay. 
An interesting thing then occurred in this select committee report back involving the position of the Greens. This happened on one of the few occasions when I was not at the select committee. We had an interesting situation whereby a minority report which basically outlined the very issue I have just spoken about was presented by the Greens and accepted by the committee. Surprisingly when we came to vote on the particular legislation the Greens at that stage despite advancing a minority report saw fit to vote with the committee so that the legislation passed from the select committee in a unanimous fashion. I leave it for Mr Ian Ewen-Street to explain quite how that occurred. Many odd things have happened in Parliament but to my mind that would be the very first occasion of a report back with a minority review reflected by a party associated with that select committee but to which that party voted for the legislation as it passed through the select committee. 
So the major issue we struck in Part 2 related to payments to people who were no longer in the industry. There is some fairness associated with trying to find a better way but at the end of the day—and clearly the committee in total agreed because that is what the voting records show—there was no other way to do it though I do acknowledge the hardship that has been incurred by those fishers. I guess that relates to the earlier point I made that we did rely on the ability of the ministry to set the levies correctly in the first place.