8. Fisheries—Heron Report on Fish DumpingHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesFisheries—Heron Report on Fish Dumping8. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his statement on 18 May 2016 regarding investigations into illegal fish dumping that There's been no cover-up here. These are internal draft investigations part of which has been unfortunately leaked"; if so does he now also think it is unfortunate that a report by Michael Heron QC released last week found MPI's decision not to prosecute was flawed?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): In relation to the first part of the question yes; in relation to the second part of the question no.Hon David Parker: If there was no cover-up why did it take a leak which he called "unfortunate" to trigger the review of the flawed decision not to prosecute and the release of the Achilles report which had been suppressed for years?Hon NATHAN GUY: I stand by my statement: the way in which the draft internal investigation was released was indeed unfortunate. These reports often contain confidential internal information such as investigative techniques and the details of the fishers involved. These details are normally treated as private and confidential until the subjects are able to defend themselves through the court process.Hon David Parker: Was the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) planning to launch a review prior to the unfortunate leak; if not how can he claim that there was not a cover-up?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member is clearly confused because from memory I announced the operational review last August and that process has been under way. As a result of the Achilles report MPI has learnt a valuable lesson in regard to cameras and electronic monitoring on the Snapper 1 fishing fleet because there is a legally binding memorandum of understanding to ensure that that footage can be used in the court process.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the ministry's Deputy Director-General who said in May: "To be honest we're disappointed that we didn't have enough evidence to do the prosecution."; if so how can he have confidence in his department when the Heron report states that the investigator and the compliance personnel were correct to determine that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and that it was senior managers who overruled it?Hon NATHAN GUY: If you read the Heron report it does say that a flawed process was followed—that there was unclear communication back to the fishers and that there was unclear communication between the fisheries management team and the compliance team. That unfortunately is regrettable—Hon David Parker: You covered that up for years—for years.Hon NATHAN GUY: —and as a result—no that is not correct. As a result the director-general has said there are going to be changes made within MPI and I support those.Hon David Parker: When a fisherman is quoted as saying "I am not denying it I have been a criminal all my life you just haven't caught me." how can the Minister expect the public to come to any conclusion that he is responsible for a ministry that is incompetently putting both New Zealand's fishery and our reputation at risk?Hon NATHAN GUY: It is interesting—if the member wants to have a look at 4.112 on page 11 of the report it says that "the MPI prosecution process is generally robust thorough professional and independent. The people involved are high quality experienced and professional public servants who are making complex and difficult decisions in good faith."Hon David Cunliffe: And they give lots of money to the National Party don't they?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Hon David Cunliffe—I do not want any further interjection from that member for the balance of question time."