Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14989] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 There is no question that this bill was a very flawed piece of legislation when it came to the Primary Production Committee and we were very concerned at a lot of the things that were in it and a lot of the things that were not in it. We applied to the Business Committee for an extension of time so that we could make amendments to the bill to make it a reasonable piece of legislation but leave to do that was declined by the Minister. We had no option at that point but to report back officially as a majority—and I say “officially” in inverted commas—so that we could make amendments in the House. 
I still believe that this is very poor legislation. We have the opportunity in this House to put some of the wrongs in the bill right during the Committee stage. If the bill does not get to the Committee stage then we cannot put it right. So what members have to do is support this bill to the Committee stage but I want to stress very clearly to the Minister that I am not supporting the bill per se as it stands but on the basis firstly that the Supplementary Order Paper will address some of the wrongs and secondly on the basis of undertakings that the Minister has made to me personally. Members have to recognise that this bill is deeply flawed and that we do have to change it. 
The move to open tendering is something that I applaud. It should have happened a long time ago. Obviously the catch history years have been a deeply flawed method of allocation. I just wish the Government had had the courage to introduce open tendering for scampi as well in this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The word “courage” is out of order. The member must not challenge the Government’s courage. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The word’s “boldness”. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I thank Mr Prebble. I wish the Government had had the boldness to do it for scampi but it did not for this one. 
It is very interesting to look at the catch history for other species that are introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper and I noted with some mirth the presence of prawn killers. I am sure my select committee colleagues will remember the case of prawn killers. It was discovered in the scampi inquiry that Simunovich Fisheries had landed some hundred-odd tonnes of prawn killers allegedly as by-catch for scampi. Scampi of course are trawled from the bottom of the ocean at depths of around 300 to 500 metres and prawn killers are not only tropical shallow water dwellers but they also live solitary existences and have never been caught in commercial quantities anywhere in the world—except for Simunovich’s catch. 
I have to agree with Mr Heatley on the green-lipped mussels. Why do we have to bring them into the quota management system at this stage? It is simply does not make sense. I do not think I can add much to the arguments that particularly Mr Heatley has put forward about the highly migratory species though I do take exception to his idea that Maori should not be entitled to quota caught outside the economic zone of New Zealand. The deed of settlement in 1992 quite clearly says that Maori are entitled to 20 percent of all new species that are brought into the quota management system—full stop. I do not think there is any kind of argument that we can have there. 
The issues that I would like to focus on are the geoducks and whelks to start off with and cockles and pipi. Geoducks and whelks do not really come into this bill per se but they suffer a consequence of the bill being passed. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is this an issue you caved in on? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: This is an issue that the Minister has given me an assurance will be addressed by him—and this is exactly what I was getting to—[ 
Interruption 
] I wish the Minister were here. It is not in the Supplementary Order Paper and what we are doing here is discussing the second reading. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Where is the Minister? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I wish the Minister were present. I daresay he will be listening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Member 
: He is busy running the country somewhere. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes he is busy running the country somewhere. 
 Westhaven Shellfish is a company from Golden Bay at the top of the South Island that has been farming geoducks and whelks for some years. Because of the incompetence—some would say the deliberate obstruction—of the ministry it was not given the catch history it was entitled to in the catch history years of 1990 to 1992. Westhaven Shellfish went to court and won its case. It proved beyond any doubt that the ministry was wrong and it was right. The consequence of this bill for Westhaven Shellfish is that without the intervention of the Primary Production Committee it would basically have gone back to square one. The ministry said that it would allow Westhaven Shellfish to apply for a permit—that is fine but everybody else can also apply for a permit. Westhaven Shellfish has been through the ropes done the hard yards and proved its case so it is incumbent on the ministry to do the right thing. 
I would like to quote a paragraph from the select committee report because I think it is really relevant to the whole way that the ministry has dealt with small fishers. “As previously stated we accept that departments can make mistakes. Once recognised however the focus should be on rectifying the mistake rather than on defending a questionable past decision. Rather than simply moving from one management regime to another the ministry could more constructively use its resources and energy in focusing on rectifying errors and injustices especially where these have been found by the courts to be unlawful and unfair.” That is particularly true in the case of Westhaven Shellfish. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why are you voting for it? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I tell Mr Heatley that the Minister has undertaken with me that Westhaven Shellfish will be given its allocation for both— 
Phil Heatley 
: Where is the Minister? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: —I am not answerable for the Minister—geoducks and whelks. 
I want to move on to the subject of cockles because that is a classic case of unbelievable incompetence by the ministry. [ 
Interruption 
] Everybody agrees that it was a cock-up that was exacerbated by the 1996 fisheries amendment bill. I think the Minister agrees that it was a cock-up. Basically what happened was that eight people were farming cockles. One of those eight decided he wanted to buy out some of the others and five of the others decided that they were prepared to sell. But because they were fishing under an exploratory permit they could not sell their personal shares but they could convert their personal allocation into a legal entity that was a company. Then the shares in that company could be sold. So that one operator bought five other shares so he had six shares and two other operators had one each. Subsequently they found that the 1996 Act said that both the original share in the private holding and the subsequent share in the company holding were entitled to a quota allocation so instead of eight there were 13. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why are you voting for it then? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Mr Heatley is clearly a very slow learner. We cannot rectify this situation unless the bill reaches the Committee stage where we can move amendments. [ 
Interruption 
] It could go back to the select committee. That is a possibility too. 
The cockle allocation can be resolved in exactly the same way as the pipi allocation foreshadowed in the Supplementary Order Paper. One can simply say that rather than take away something from the people who got a double-dipping allocation the three parties that missed out on the double-dipping can be given an increased allocation. Everybody knows that that is fair even the people who got the double dipping. What did the ministry say? It said: “We can’t be unfair to those guys because they have been double-dipping for 2 years now and they’ve got a business case going and therefore we can’t take it away from them.” Well I am sorry but the ministry’s job is to be fair and to administer the fishery and I do not think it is doing it in a reasonable way in this particular case. 
I was shocked during the select committee hearing to realise that the bill included three species that are on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora list—they are endangered species. The ministry was proposing to put three endangered species into the quota management system. What sort of signal does that send to other countries?