Roy Eric: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5277] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is a rare opportunity for me to speak on legislation. I do so on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill for two reasons. One is that I am a conservationist and I think most people in the House know the position I take as a conservationist. The second is that having chaired for 20 months the total rewrite of the Fisheries Act 1996 I probably know as much or more about fisheries law and how it works as any other person in this House. I will desist from picking up on some of the politics and criticisms of various people or sections within parties that have been thrown out here tonight because I think this issue is too important. 
The bill has a laudable aim which is to protect marine animals creatures birds or whatever. All of us want that to happen. I have read the purpose of the bill; I have read the whole bill. My issue is to ask what is actually broken. What is now not working? Yes there is mortality but the Minister of Fisheries has at his disposal some significant steps he can take. Let us consider the issue of the Maui’s dolphin. Yes we are seriously concerned about a unique dolphin but the Minister put in place some measures that many sections of the community would say were Draconian or more than were actually necessary and applied them not only to the Maui’s dolphin but also to the Hector’s dolphin when the science around the endangerment of that species is far from proven. In fact according to all anecdotal evidence the Hector’s dolphin species is in pretty good shape.  
The impacts of the bill are quite far-reaching. There are rig fishers out of many of our coastal ports near where Hector’s dolphins and Maui’s dolphins are who have a quota they now cannot fish. It is as simple as that. The Minister has some very very strong options in terms of dealing with issues that need to be addressed. This bill shifts the approach from an effects-based approach to a prescriptive generic approach. The difficulties about that are that it will substantially increase the cost of compliance. When we look at this bill and ask why it would be a difficulty it is simply for this reason: when putting in place fisheries legislation there needs to be what I call equity of influence. The fishing industry is a very polarised industry; if one tips the scales any one way one increases the rate of litigation. There is no Minister in any Cabinet who faces more litigation legal challenges or development of jurisprudence around the area of his or her portfolio than the Minister of Fisheries. That is the nature of the industry. The bill shifts influence in such a way that we will simply end up with Ministers of Fisheries simply not able to make a decision.  
If members care to have a look at clause 20 they will see that it sets out quite clearly a change to the Fisheries Act that requires robust scientific information. How do we get robust scientific information? If we take the number of species of fish there are in New Zealand and divide it by the quota we get 712 different fishing licences or annual catch entitlements to fish. How do we actually work out the biomass of each one of those 712 licences in order to have a robust decision? The Minister when signing off what is the total allowable commercial catch has no robust science to be able to pursue that. It is just impossible to do. What is the corollary of that situation? The corollary is simply that at any stage in the future any individual any member of this House any member of any lobby group or any eco-group or any fisher can go to the Minister and say that because the Minister does not have robust scientific information as prescribed in clause 20 of the bill he or she has made rules that are ultra vires. So we end up with a hamstrung industry because the Minister cannot make the decisions. We need to have what I call equity of influence. Some people call it equal screaming when no one is happy but where there is a balance whereby things can be worked out. This bill just shifts the balance totally. I seek leave for a further 2 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to extend the speech by a further 2 minutes. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
ERIC ROY 
: I thank the House; I really believe in this stuff. We are all consumed by the desire to protect species but we have to do so within the realm of what is a workable solution. 
The next question that could be raised—and I look forward to some members further developing this issue—concerns what robust science is and how we actually get it. I have mentioned only one part of that. The next situation that comes forward would be the fact that the select committee can sort it out and with members’ bills that is a good approach but because this bill shifts the whole nature of the process of decision making so dramatically I believe this bill has to be rewritten. Yes there are some elements of the law that this bill modifies. We have the Wildlife Act of 1953 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978 and they may well be out of date but we should bear in mind that the 1996 Act picked up a number of those issues in its principles and purposes. So unfortunately I will have to vote against this bill.