Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14993] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) where we debate the report of the Primary Production Committee which has recommended to the House that this bill be discharged. The honourable member Janet Mackey commented earlier that it is a good select committee and that its members have often enjoyed very good working relationships but clearly something has gone wrong on this occasion. The committee became convinced that enough was enough and that it would simply recommend that this bill be discharged. I do not have any criticism of the select committee. As I look at the task and at the long journey it has had working with the scampi issue and then the issues in this bill I can certainly understand its frustration. What seems to have occurred is a breakdown of trust in the Ministry of Fisheries officials who have been giving it advice amongst other things. So in what I have to say here there is no criticism of the select committee having arrived at this point. 
United Future does not have a member on the committee so we have not had to go through that arduous process but we were asked by the Government for help when the committee made the decision to recommend that the bill be discharged. As United Future members are not lapdogs but guide dogs we were prepared to lend our assistance and give some guidance on this occasion. I had to ask myself whether the industry wanted this bill to proceed. I had discussions with the Seafood Industry Council and other players in the industry and the answer that I received was that yes there were things in this legislation that needed to be passed. I also asked whether everything would be OK if this bill were discharged and the answer was that no there would be things left unresolved and that some things in the bill that were being complained about would actually continue. For example mussel spat entering the quota management system would continue regardless except it would be in a form that was not acceptable to those involved in the industry. 
So we began discussions to resolve the committee’s concerns because we take seriously the deliberations of the committee and the things it has mentioned in its report. I began to work through those issues and I am grateful to the Minister’s adviser Steve Hurring who has worked very hard throughout this process in giving us assistance and answering the questions we had and also to the Ministry of Fisheries although I have to say that every time we met with the ministry we met a different person. That may well be part of the problem here—the lines of accountability and who is covering what. It is difficult to have to face someone new every time one has a new question to ask. 
We believe that the issues in the committee’s report have been addressed by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 which he has alluded to tonight and by other undertakings that he has given. I can confirm that some of the undertakings that Ian Ewen-Street has referred to are part of our giving our support for the second reading at least at this point. As I said earlier they relate to the things that the select committee has raised in its report such as the changing of the quota allocation system and the shifting to a tendering process which we believe is a worthwhile transition. In fact in hindsight I think some of us might look back at the way that quota was allocated in 1991 and 1992 and think it should have been tendered right from the very beginning because people have been given a right in perpetuity that perhaps they no longer deserve. If they have completely ended fishing and simply are living on the proceeds of leasing out their quota I hardly think that is a fair system. However that is the one we have to deal with. 
The issues that the Seafood Industry Council and Te Ohu Kai Moana raised about some of the property rights being allocated for by-catch or catch history are now being addressed in a new schedule 4D and we will debate those in the Committee stage as the bill proceeds. 
 With regard to the issue with green-lipped mussel spat as I said earlier it is going to enter the quota management system anyway. I have had discussions with different players in the industry and had different responses from them. Some welcome it coming in and some believe all of that species should come in because the quota management system works more effectively when everything is in it. Others are concerned about the level of total allowable commercial catch that will be set when the green-lipped mussel spat comes in and I believe there is room for the Government to make a very generous allocation there. It may involve the Crown holding some of that quota for future tendering which would offset any move from those who have the quota to operate a monopoly in any way or to push up the prices. I think there is room for those concerns to be addressed. 
The issue with the highly migratory species is being dealt with by the exclusion of those not yet under international agreements from the quota management system on the high seas until those international agreements are passed. In particular skipjack which is the species of greatest concern because we want to build up a good catch history of it will not come into even the inshore quota management system. In respect of albacore I have had representations from a number of people in the industry who want to see it now come in within our 200-mile zone. I think that will address their concerns. 
I understand that the issue of by-catch which many people feel left out of because the years do not line up for the allocation of bluefin will be addressed by a preferential tendering process. We will be watching very carefully to see how that eventuates but we have had an undertaking that that will be the case so that the by-catch can be made available to those who need it in order to carry on with the bluefin quota that they will be allocated. With regard to Westhaven Shellfish Ltd which Ian Ewen-Street referred to we take the Minister at his word that he will act honourably on it and respect the wish of the court which has already made some deliberations on that issue. With regard to the cockle fishery and issues that relate to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora I think we will find some amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper that address those concerns. 
I want to conclude my remarks by addressing an issue that relates to kahawai which we will put into this bill. We have an opportunity here to address something that I believe is very serious. Another injustice may be perpetrated in the fishing industry if we do not address it. Some may say that kahawai is not part of this bill as it has already been gazetted to enter the quota management system and the Minister has already allocated the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch for it. But with the Clerk’s confirmation to us today that my Supplementary Order Paper 247 is within the scope of this bill I say to those who would say that kahawai is not in the bill that it is now. I will table a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House to revoke effectively the  
Gazette 
 notice bringing kahawai in with the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels that the Minister has publicly communicated because it ignores the concerns of the recreational fishing groups in this country that have lobbied long and hard to convince the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister that kahawai is no longer available for them as a recreational fish to catch. 
I acknowledge that the Green Party has also campaigned long and hard for the removal of purse seine fishing with regard to kahawai and we look forward to Green Party support for this Supplementary Order Paper and I believe the support of other members in this House. I know that Winston Peters is a great fisherman and many of the members in New Zealand First will have a concern about this issue. I am sure people in the National Party and ACT will know many people who are very concerned about it. We had an email campaign of nearly 2000 emails from people around this country. I have received more emails on kahawai than I did on the Civil Union Bill. People were saying they can no longer find kahawai to catch. It has been stolen from them by a mistake made by the Ministry of Fisheries when it allowed purse seine fishing to target kahawai. It has always been accepted that it could be a by-catch but its being targeted by spotter planes and purse seine vessels is an injustice to the recreational fishermen of New Zealand and we want to see that issue addressed in this legislation. 
We really do hope for the support of all the parties in this House for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have made it very clear to the Minister that our support for this legislation is only for its second reading. If we do not see that Supplementary Order Paper pass through the Committee stage we will not support this bill’s third reading. This issue is another injustice that needs to be prevented and this bill deals with many issues like that. I believe that the members on the select committee will be very sympathetic and supportive because of the number of times the Ministry of Fisheries has made mistakes and been unable or unwilling to correct them.