Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take my first of what I hope will be many calls in this very important Committee stage. I endorse the question that was put to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith by my colleague and I also look forward to the Minister engaging in this debate. We appreciate the engagement that the Minister shows the Committee in this debate. 
I will raise one issue first because it is an issue about which we had a number of questions at the select committee. It might be seen to concern one of the less high-profile matters within this emissions trading scheme amendment bill but it is about the changes for allocations to the fisheries sector. Members who were involved during the last Parliament in the emissions trading scheme that the previous Labour Government put through will remember—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right; for some of us this is the third iteration of this debate. At the select committee we were swayed by arguments from the fisheries sector that despite the fact that no other sector would be compensated for liquid fossil fuel use and because of the trade-exposed nature of the industry and the situation it was in the industry was looking for the kind of assistance that other industries were receiving. The select committee listened to that argument; when the bill was eventually passed there was provision for the fisheries sector. 
Under the existing emissions trading scheme legislation which the Labour Government passed that allocation was given to vessel operators. That is to say the allocation was given to the people who ran the fishing vessels the fishermen and fisherwomen who were facing up front the costs of liquid fossil fuels and any increases that an emissions trading scheme might be imposing upon them. That seemed to be sensible. Indeed from my recollection—and I could stand to be corrected—that is what most of the sector were arguing for. It seemed to be the easiest and most sensible way to arrange it. No one came to us or lobbied us after the fact to say that they believed that to be a bad way or the wrong way to do things. So we went ahead and did that. 
Under the deal with the Maori Party we note that the allocation to the fisheries sector has increased. But the big change—and this is the matter on which I would really appreciate some response from the Minister—is that the allocation now no longer goes to the vessel operators; it goes to the quota holders. That is a significant change for a number of reasons. I know there are pros and cons on both sides but I am concerned about this change for a number of reasons. Firstly not every person who fishes in New Zealand waters is under the quota management system. That means that if someone is fishing a stock that exists outside the quota management system that fisher now gets nothing. 
Hon David Carter 
: What’s this got to do with the emissions trading scheme? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: David Carter has just asked what this has to do with the emissions trading scheme. That is unbelievable. The Minister of Agriculture does not know that we are changing under this legislation the way we provide free allocation to the fishing sector. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s not what you’re talking about. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is what I am talking about. I ask Mr Carter please to listen. 
Hon David Carter 
: Well make it plain and clear. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh dear Lord! Someone who did not even realise that this provision is part of the emissions trading scheme might do well to listen rather than yell at me across the Chamber. 
The fact is that under the legislation there is a change by which the free allocation goes from the vessel operator to the quota holder. If fishers fish a stock that is not in the quota management system they now get nothing. Under the previous legislation they did get compensation. I ask Mr Carter whether that is fair. That is fair? So if someone fishes a stock— 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s fairer for the big end of town. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. For the big end of town it is fair I say to Mr Carter. Fishers who are fishing something that is not in the quota management system face the same emissions trading scheme cost on their liquid fossil fuels as someone who fishes inside the quota management system but they get nothing. Yet the person working inside the quota management system gets free allocation. 
It is not only that but aquaculture gets nothing. I ask Mr Carter whether that is fair. There we go—Mr Carter thinks that is fair. Not only that— 
Hon David Carter 
: Aquaculture got nothing out of that Government. You did nothing about it. Nine years of nothing. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I ask Mr Carter to listen because this is an important fact. Quota holders do not have even to fish their quotas to get the free allocation. So here is a free allocation that has been given to compensate those operators for an upfront cost of liquid fossil fuels but if that quota is not fished and that cost is not even incurred they still get the money. Oh members opposite have gone very quiet now—Mr Carter is now reading a very important document that he has in front of him—because that is indefensible. If we believe that the fisheries sector needs free allocation is trade-exposed and deserves that free allocation why would we not give it to the vessel operator the person who is facing the upfront costs? 
The argument we heard was that it damages the quota value. That was the reason to give it to the quota holder. But we can also address that by giving that subsidy for the liquid fossil fuel up front and thereby protecting the quota value. We can do that either way and the officials told us that—that it was one way or the other. But the way the Government has chosen excludes people who fish outside the quota management system including those in aquaculture. I do not understand why the Government is giving it to people regardless of whether they fish their quota. They are not facing a cost yet they get the money. I really want an explanation from the Minister on this matter. I believe it is much fairer to give that money to the person who is facing that cost because that it is what it is for. It is there to compensate for any increase in liquid fossil fuels that the vessel operator may face so why is it not given to them? It can be said that it will be passed on but there is no guarantee that it will be passed on. I know a whole lot of people in the fishing industry who would say: “You’re dreaming if you think this is going to be passed on to us.” 
In some cases the quota holder and the fishing vessel operator are the same person so that will not be such a big issue. But if this is a deal that the Minister had to do just to get support then he should just tell us that and I will sit down and never mention it again because I know that this is not about defending one argument or another. I do give that promise; I say to Mr Carter that I will not mention it again. But if that is what it was he should just tell me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yeah right—that is probably true. I cannot understand why the free allocation would not be given to the people facing the upfront costs which also protects that quota value. We do everything that the officials told us they were trying to achieve in giving it to the quota holder but it seems to me that this protects the big end of town; this does not protect the little single-operator fisherman who is trying to keep afloat and who was facing a cost with the emissions trading scheme under the previous bill— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Leasing of quota. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes that is right—leasing of quota. He thought he was going to get some help under the previous bill. To be fair that was put in late in the piece and we acknowledge that. We were very much swayed by the very good submissions we heard at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and the Minister responded. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No we were. Why would it not be given to them? We heard some very impassioned submissions at the select committee from people who could just not understand. Everything the Minister wants to achieve could be achieved by giving the free allocation to vessel operators and then everyone would be included. Then we would not shut out aquaculture and we would not shut out people fishing non - quota management system stocks. More than that it would be given to people who are facing the upfront costs. We are actually paying for a cost as opposed to just handing over a cheque for millions of dollars with absolutely no requirement for quota holders even to fish those quotas. This is a genuine question and I would appreciate the Minister’s response.