Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14988] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Difficult as it is I will try to rise to the challenge and give an impassioned speech on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). One of the first pieces of advice I ever got from the  
Gisborne Herald  
was: “Don’t ever write your column on fishing legislation.” so I will give it my best shot. 
This is one bill that did cause a flurry in the normally very tranquil Primary Production Committee. It is normally a committee of peace and reconciliation but on this occasion there were very strong differences of opinion and that is what the select committee process is about. The bill came back to the House with the recommendation that it not proceed in its current form but it also came back with a commentary that suggested ways in which this legislation could meet some of the concerns of the select committee. 
I have a little bit of advice for the National members opposite. Before they take any more calls they should read Supplementary Order Paper 246 because it does not reconcile with Mr Phil Heatley’s speech at all. It is a shame that Mr Heatley may have read the briefing notes that were handed to him by officials in the select committee but has not actually read the Supplementary Order Paper and he has given a speech on the bill as it was reported back rather than taking into account the amendments that have been made. 
One of the main changes that has been made is that the committee accepted absolutely that the bill as it was presented to the committee provided a huge disincentive for New Zealand fishers to increase our catch of the migratory species on the high seas prior to the agreement on the high seas being agreed to and ratified. There is now a trigger clause in the legislation that enables New Zealand fishers to get out there and compete for those species on the same terms as other countries. For me that removes a significant concern that the committee had when it looked at this bill. 
The second issue Mr Heatley raised was the fact that Maori will get 20 percent of the fish caught off Fiji and that is a very shallow and somewhat misleading way of representing what actually happens. Maori will get the fish that they catch. They will not get other people’s fish; they will get the fish that they get out there and fish for. What they will get is 20 percent of the quota because there is an agreement in this country between tangata whenua and other New Zealanders that says Maori get 20 percent of any fishery that goes into the quota management system. So I would suggest that that be presented in an honest light. Let us not pretend to New Zealanders that some hard-working fisherman will go out there in 20 years’ time catch 20 fish and will then have to give a couple of them to Maori because that is not the way it is. 
Hon Member 
: Four of them. 
JANET MACKEY 
: Four of them—sorry! That is why I am not the Minister of Finance. But I would like to think that this House was mature enough to present that situation accurately responsibly and in a proper light. I also recommend to Mr Heatley that he check to see whether skipjack and albacore are still there because I think he needs to just check it. I still think he has an opportunity to go away and read that Supplementary Order Paper and if he wants a little bit of help he can come over to this side of the House and we will give him some assistance. 
The bill has come back to the House with a number of recommendations and a number of changes and as a Government member I am very comfortable with supporting this legislation.