Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14570] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Clause 68 has been particularly intriguing for the National Party because one of the aspects it talks about is the boundary changes between quota management area 3 which is just off the Canterbury Bight and the east coast of the South Island and quota management area 4 which is roughly around the Chatham Rise. What happens under clause 68 is that the boundary that is the dividing line between those two areas after a decade and a half of fishing scampi is to be shifted eastward. That was of huge concern to National members because we knew that shifting the boundary would change the quota management allocations to each of the fishers the amount of surplus Crown quota available for tendering to the market in general and also and more important affect the management and sustainability of the fishery. 
 We did not get sufficient information from the Ministry of Fisheries at the select committee to understand clearly why the boundary change was necessary. We were quite concerned that in shifting the boundary what may happen is that firstly the fishery would not be managed sustainably and secondly a number of fishers would be locked out of the scampi fishery forever and we did not want to see that happen. However I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries and I would like to extend some gratitude to him today because in the House he answered clearly my question and the question from United Future MP Larry Baldock about why the move of the line was necessary. 
Two issues came out of that. Firstly in moving the line there would be more surplus Crown quota to be tendered. It would seem strange that if an internal line were moved suddenly there would be more fish to catch. However as we understand it when the line is shifted people are able to lift the amount of fish that can be caught in area 4. If the line were back where it was the amount of fish that could be caught could not be lifted because there would be no guarantee that fish in that particular area 4 would be targeted. I understand the reasoning there. So more quota will be available for tendering and we are pleased about the maximum utilisation with sustainability. That of course is a Fisheries Act goal. 
The second issue—and one raised by Larry Baldock—is the issue of sustainability: whether it was sustainable in the Ministry’s view. Again the Minister gave a positive answer in the House today. We are pleased to say that we understood his reasoning. He was saying quite simply that by shifting the line more fish would be available to be caught the fish would be utilised better in a sustainable manner and secondly more Crown quota would be available for tendering. So we are pleased about that. 
With regard to that I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the National Party suggestion in the select committee report back that where there is excess Crown quota the Minister could consider giving the aggrieved fishers listed in our inquiry the right of first refusal to each buy an equal proportion of the surplus Crown quota in the quota management allocations they historically indicated they wished to fish. 
We are not saying that that is something the Minister should definitely do but it is something that ministry officials ought to consider to put the issues of the seven aggrieved fishers we listed behind them so that they can fish for scampi put those issues behind the ministry so that the ministry can get on and manage the scampi fishery properly and certainly put the scampi issues behind the whole seafood industry which at the moment is being hamstrung by the bad press of that fishery.