Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15194] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is somewhat of a disappointment to me to have to speak on the title debate knowing that this bill will be passed. The National Party said from the outset that there were three major reasons why we opposed this bill. That has now become four major reasons. 
The first reason is that we saw the absurdity of applying the quota management system to tuna fisheries and to the fisheries of other highly migratory species that were outside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone on the high seas and inside the Chinese Fijian and Madagascan—and everyone else’s—exclusive economic zones. It is absolutely absurd to try to manage fisheries in other countries’ economic zones. Members will recall that I mentioned the Ministry of Fisheries publication called  
The Bite 
. It states: “One country can’t sit out on its own pretending to manage a stock that only spends a small portion of its life in its fisheries waters.” National opposes that part of the bill and we also oppose the absurdity of Maori receiving 20 percent of quota that is caught in another country’s fishing zone on the other side of the Pacific or the world. That is absurd to us. 
The second reason concerns the issue of mussel spat. Mussel spat has no sustainability issue whatsoever but for some reason the Labour Party sees the need to put it into the quota management system. If mussel spat washes up on the beach it dies so we may as well utilise it for our aquaculture industry which just wants to grow. National opposes the bill for putting mussel spat into the quota management system. 
The third reason concerns schedule 4C whereby this Minister is looking to ride roughshod over property rights and put a whole lot of species into the quota management system by catch history—which is fine by us—and put in a whole lot of other species also not by catch history at all but by straight tendering. There has been an expectation that species would be put into the quota management system only with a catch history allocation. That has been the property right expectation. This bill rides roughshod across that after no consultation at all with the Seafood Industry Council Te Ohu Kai Moana or anyone else in the industry. 
The fourth and worst reason is that this Minister sees fit to put kahawai in the quota management system so that the catch of recreational fishers will be cut back severely and so that commercial fishers who do not consider that particular species to be of any value at all except for bait and cat food will reap an extended property right. Having kahawai in the quota management system is fine by National but not with those total allowable catches and total allowable commercial catches. We would like to see kahawai go into the quota management system but certainly not under those conditions. 
We have been surprised throughout the whole debate on this bill by New Zealand First’s approach to the scampi inquiry. Members will remember that the scampi sections of this bill were lifted out and put into the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). New Zealand First’s wavering over that whole scampi issue raised eyebrows but over the kahawai issue the situation was worse. New Zealand First abstained over the kahawai issue. But it is not the New Zealand First Party; it is the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—“If I am in trouble I will abstain.” That is New Zealand First’s answer now to being in trouble. It will do an Ashraf Choudhary—it will not go one way or the other. It will not offend commercial fishers and it will not offend recreational fishers. New Zealand First members knocked on Ashraf Choudhary’s door and asked: “What will we do? What would you do in this situation?” and Mr Choudhary told Winston Peters to abstain. That is the answer—abstain. That is what Winston Peters and New Zealand First—now the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—decided to do over the kahawai issue. 
National is voting against this bill because of the tuna issue and the absurdity of introducing tuna fisheries into the quota management system when the fisheries are in other countries’ zones and because of the mussel spat issue and the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system when there is no sustainability issue. We are voting against this bill because it rides roughshod over property rights when it comes to the future entry of many species into the quota management system and of course because the legislation is a vote against kahawai fishers.