Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14996] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
:  
I tell the member who has just resumed her seat Dianne Yates that I am familiar with fisheries legislation and I say to her that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is thoroughly bad legislation advanced by an absolutely incompetent Minister of Fisheries who was totally captured by his officials. The House should accept what the Primary Production Committee said and that is that the bill does not proceed. 
I have listened to the debate so far and I am bitterly disappointed with the contribution from the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. He was a valuable member of the select committee who worked with the rest of the members of that committee and contributed to a report presented to the Parliament following the select committee process in which he representing the Green Party voted for this legislation not to proceed further. I am bitterly disappointed to find in the House today as we debate this legislation that he has now had a change of heart and is saying to the House that he thinks the Minister will look after his concerns by means of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
We then had the contribution from Larry Baldock of the United Future party who true to form as a member of that party simply supports the Government and has made no attempt at all to find out what the issues are. Mr Baldock said that he understood the Minister was to be taken at his word with regard to the content of the Supplementary Order Paper because the Minister is an honourable member. 
Well I have to say after reading Supplementary Order Paper 246 which was dropped into the House earlier today that I cannot be convinced that Ian Ewen-Street and Larry Baldock are correct and that this Supplementary Order Paper addresses the concerns raised by either of those members or more important raised by the select committee. I have had the opportunity of talking to some of the other members in the House tonight and to be honest none of the select committee members whom I have spoken to completely understand the content of this very sizable Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore on that basis I will be putting a notice of motion for the Order Paper tomorrow suggesting that Supplementary Order Paper 246 goes back to the select committee so that the select committee can analyse this legislation in depth and find out what the Supplementary Order Paper does. 
It is important when we go through the select committee process and have the opportunity to hear the numerous submissions that are put before it that we then have the opportunity as a select committee to analyse consider and deliberate on those submissions. It is very very significant when a select committee by majority concludes that legislation is so bad that it should not proceed. Yet we have the feeble signing on to the Government policy by both the Green member and the United Future member both of whom have the gall to come into the House tonight and acknowledge that they do not understand the content of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Now I am not critical of the fact that they do not understand its content. As the person who chaired the select committee and as a person who studied this legislation in detail I also do not understand the content of that Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the Government allow the opportunity for that Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee so the members can have a look at the content and find out what it does. Then I will accept Ian Ewen-Street’s position if after that education process he is inclined to change his mind. I will fully accept that process. But I find it galling in the extreme for Mr Ian Ewen-Street to be changing his mind now on the basis of the Supplementary Order Paper which he himself acknowledges he does not understand. 
The third point I want to make with regard to the Supplementary Order Paper is that there is a time constraint. If this legislation is to proceed it must be enacted before the new fishing season 1 October 2004. I therefore propose that any examination of the Supplementary Order Paper be done speedily and reported back to the House by 6 September. That gives every opportunity for this legislation to then be passed if that be the intention of the House. 
It is of major significance for legislation advanced by the Government to be lost at a select committee. I sympathise with the position the Government members found themselves in. They heard the submissions. They were uneasy with the submissions. They were not comfortable with the bill proceeding. But as loyal members of the Government they found themselves in an invidious position and I respect the position they were in. 
I want to talk now about what the legislation proposes to do. The first thing it proposes to do is change the quota allocation system and move to a tendering system. I have no problem with the principle of that but what I strongly object to is that that process was done by a fake consultation process with the industry. We were told by the Ministry of Fisheries officials that they would consult and that they had consulted with the industry. The industry told us that consultation had been a total sham and under cross-examination the ministry officials acknowledged that the process had effectively been a sham because they had set too tight a time limit for the industry to respond. 
The second thing the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) does is move the management of green-lipped mussel spat into the quota management system. We saw no submissions that gave us the heart to agree that that was a sensible move. The quota management system is designed to ensure sustainability. Species are introduced into the quota management system because there is a sustainability problem. The select committee learnt through the process that there is not a sustainability problem with the spat that is harvested off the Ninety Mile Beach area in Northland and we saw no good reason as a select committee why that particular aspect of the bill needed to be advanced. 
I move to the most important part of the bill which is the Government’s attempt to extend the quota management system well beyond the New Zealand economic zone. The significance of that is that all parties acknowledge that when a species comes into the quota management system because of the 1992 deed of settlement legislation Maori are entitled to 20 percent. When that legislation was passed it was always envisaged that that would be for species caught within New Zealand territorial waters. What we now have is an extraordinary attempt by the Government to give allocation to Maori on species caught as far afield as Fiji—and anywhere else in the world. That was never the intention of the deed of settlement in 1992 nor should it be now. 
We had a contribution from my deputy chair Janet Mackey who assured us that the species skipjack tuna and albacore tuna about which there are no sustainability issues are now excluded by the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Minister today. I have gone through that Supplementary Order Paper and I cannot see where that is the case. That is the basis on which the Greens have accepted that they will now vote for the legislation at this stage. 
There should be no attempt by any Parliament of New Zealand to extend the deed of settlement beyond the economic zone of New Zealand. It was inherently designed for the quota management system within our 200-mile zone and should not under any circumstances be extended. 
The final issue I want to raise briefly is the three particular submissions presented to us by Sea-Right Investments Ltd Westhaven Shellfish Ltd and a third one to do with the cockle industry. Those people raised legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. I am far from convinced that the Supplementary Order Paper does that but we should wait until it is recommitted to the select committee so that we can further examine it.