Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19017. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and in particular section 13 of that Act. The provisions of the bill address an issue pointed out by the High Court in February 2008 in a case reviewing decisions on total allowable catch for area 1 stock of orange roughy. The court pointed out that the practice of the past two decades in the management of many of New Zealand’s fisheries has been inconsistent with the current wording of the Act. It has effectively disabled the key management measure for the majority of our fisheries—that is the setting of total allowable catches under section 13 of the Act. 
In short the bill addresses the problem identified by the court and restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set catch limits for all quota management system fish stocks. It introduces a new subsection (2A) into section 13 of the Act. The new provision restores the ability of the Minister to set sustainable catch limits for all fish stocks and allows the management of fishing to continue as it has done in the past. 
The Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House. Essentially the committee agrees that the bill does what it set out to do and that it is important to focus on this task alone. I acknowledge the amendments put forward by the Greens but it was the view of the Committee and the House that the bill as reported back achieves what we set out to do—that is to take a precautionary approach but allow enough flexibility for the Minister to set total allowable catches. 
The bill contains provisions that will correct the deficiencies of the Fisheries Act 1996 identified by the High Court ruling and allows the most important fisheries management decisions to be made in a timely manner consistent with practice in recent years. That will restore the ability of the management system to fulfil the purpose of the Act which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National will support the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). We also were happy to grant leave to Dr Cullen 5 or 10 minutes ago to change the Order Paper specifically so that this legislation and others could be enacted by 1 October this year. It is critical that this legislation be dealt with by the Primary Production Committee passed through the House and enacted by 1 October so that we do not have any difficulties—or have fewer difficulties—with the setting of total allowable catches for the coming fishing season. 
The fishing industry is intensely litigious. This legislation is before us today because of a decision made by Justice Miller in February 2008 when Antons Trawling Co. Ltd took a case against the Minister of Fisheries regarding his establishment of a total allowable catch for area 1 orange roughy. Antons Trawling challenged the establishment by the Minister of Fisheries Jim Anderton of a total allowable catch and on the basis of a ruling from Justice Miller that it was necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield the original quota decision of the Minister was overturned. 
We now have about 629 species in the quota management system and those total allowable catches are set annually—in many cases without the information necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield. Although the ruling by Justice Miller is obviously the strict interpretation of the original legislation for a long period of time now the sustainable yield has been established on a variety of information. Clearly the cost and complexity of having to establish total allowable catches based on only full information about the maximum sustainable yield would make it be impractical. National acknowledges that and is happy to support the legislation. 
The Minister of Fisheries should have done a lot better for this industry. The original decision from Justice Miller came out in February of 2008. Mr Anderton sat on his hands aware of that decision and of the difficulty of establishing total allowable catches from October this year. He then rushed legislation into Parliament on 11 August and told the select committee that it had to report it back to the House by 22 August. The select committee did that; it reported it back by 22 August and the bill has sat on the Order Paper for the last month when we have had the ability to get it through Parliament. That is just typical of the Minister of Fisheries. He has been absolutely hopeless for this industry. He has never been interested in the portfolio and consequently it is of little surprise to me that his relationship with the fishing industry is similar to the relationships that he has established with the farming industry and the forestry industry. 
The Primary Production Committee received a number of submissions and many of those submitters made points that were outside the scope of the bill. I am comforted by the fact that the Ministry of Fisheries acknowledged to the select committee that it intends to conduct a wider review of the Fisheries Act 1996. It is very complex legislation; it provides a ground-breaking mechanism for managing fisheries and fishing stock that is well regarded around the world but it is not perfect. It is timely that a review be undertaken and I hope that that review will find ways of addressing some of the submissions that came before the select committee. 
It is with pleasure that National members support the legislation. It needs to be passed by 1 October. I certainly hope that in setting fishing limits for the coming season—which starts on 1 October 2008—we do not then see too much litigation with too many challenges from the industry to the Minister’s decision which after all is about ensuring that we have a sustainable fishery into the future. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. New Zealand First of course supports the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). We are indeed pleased about the fact that it is being passed at this stage because that will then allow the Minister of Fisheries to start the process of issuing the various quotas that are required for the beginning of the fishing season which starts on 1 October.  
One of the things I note about this bill is that it came about because of a court action. Like the previous speaker David Carter I hope that as a consequence of this bill we will not see any further litigation in this regard.  
The bill provides for a precautionary approach to be taken and it is great that it is being passed at this time. This country has a resource that many other nations would like to have—I am not quite sure whether they would like to share it. But certainly we as a nation because of the proximity of the various fish species and the importance they have to our economy should ensure that one we have processes in place to protect that resource and two we are able at the same time to get the maximum return and the maximum benefit from it not only for the people of New Zealand but for ourselves as a nation. With what seems to be the trend of entering into free-trade agreements I suspect that the fishing industry will have a major input into increasing the benefits that such agreements provide for our nation.  
In conclusion I reaffirm that New Zealand First supports this bill. 
Bill read a third time.