Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14678] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As members will be quite aware there is quite a history in this House with regard to the scampi debacle if one likes. The unfortunate activities in the scampi fishery over the last decade culminated in a parliamentary select committee inquiry whereby myself my colleague David Carter Janet Mackey Clayton Cosgrove Doug Woolerton who was replaced by the Hon Winston Peters and others spent considerable time looking into those issues. We became—more than most I think—educated in the greater overview of what went on during that decade both out on the water in the different scampi management areas and behind closed doors in the business rooms of the fishing industry. 
 We also gained huge insight into what the Ministry of Fisheries—previously the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—was up to during that time. It is interesting to note that the unfortunate incidents that unravelled in the ministry happened under a number of Governments—the Labour Government in the late 1980s the National Government in the 1990s then a Labour Government again. Fortunately we were able to form a select committee that did not have a political agenda if one likes. There were members on that committee who certainly had personal agendas but no particular party had a party political agenda. That is why that particular select committee made a whole lot of progress and we were pleased with that. 
At the same time and roughly in parallel the State Services Commission also had an inquiry into the management of the scampi fishery. It was looking at allegations of corruption against State-employed officials and it too spent a considerable amount of time looking at the management of scampi. Interestingly the two inquiries came back with similar findings although I would have to say that the State Services Commission inquiry was a lot harsher on Ministry of Fisheries officials than we were. The State Services Commission said that the Ministry of Fisheries officials had been unprofessional ad hoc and inconsistent and had little regard for fairness. That was a sad indictment on those officials at that time. We can only hope—and I am sure Mr Ewen-Street will comment on this—that they have learnt something from that. 
We also heard from a number of aggrieved fishers who had been effectively locked out of the fishery. Their names are Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and A G Cave; a third party United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company No 14; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and Sealord Group—seven aggrieved fishers that we were able to identify had just cause to be in some way compensated. The committee recommended that they should receive ex gratia payments. Some members of the committee by putting their fingers in the wind came up with figures of $400000 for most of them and $900000 for Mr Trevor Goodship. Committee members said that those payments should be a minimum payment to those particular aggrieved fishers. The Government came back and said that they would be a maximum payment to those aggrieved fishers. 
The Sealord Group was left out of that list for two reasons. I gather that one was that the Labour Government felt it was too big a company to receive compensation which would be just a drop in the ocean to it so it ignored justice. Winston Peters from New Zealand First opposed it because the Sealord Group is half-owned by Asians and of course he wanted to take a racist approach. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would you sit that junior member down and tell him he cannot use the word “racist” in this House. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw—