Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15262] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will not be voting for this bill. It is not because we are short of information; indeed we had submission after submission telling us of the holes in this legislation. But we should be lacking information because during the Committee stage yesterday and last week the Minister took only one call over 3 hours of debate and just now he spoke for a total of 93 seconds of what should have been a 10-minute speech. It is absolutely appalling to see a Minister of Fisheries in the chair during the Committee stage not take more than one call and then give only a 93-second speech in the third reading. That was made worse by the fact that a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper drafted by the Minister’s officials was presented during the Committee stage. The bill as introduced was substantially only 32 pages long. In other words the amendments were half again the length of the bill. So I am disappointed in the Minister in respect of addressing questions about the bill. 
National opposes the third reading and we have four substantive concerns. The first is the Minister’s intention to manage fisheries outside New Zealand waters. This Minister intends to manage highly migratory species—in particular tuna species—in the seas of Fiji the seas of China and Madagascar the Indian Ocean and off the coast of South America. It is absolutely nuts. When I received the consultation papers in the Primary Production Committee I saw no submission from the Chinese Government. I saw no input from the Fijian people. Those living in India seem to have no say on the matter. I would like to put to the House that this Minister of Fisheries wants to manage fish species in territorial waters of other countries and the people do not even know about it. 
Worse than that he intends to give 20 percent of quota caught in those fishing zones—in the territorial seas of other countries and in the high seas—to Maori. I do not know whether Maori historically had any intention of catching tuna off the coast of Madagascar Fiji or any other country in the South Pacific or throughout the rest of the world. I cannot see why Maori should be given 20 percent of that quota. 
We were misinformed in the Parliament yesterday I think by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and others who said that National signed the 1992 Maori fisheries settlement and intended at that time that Maori would receive a proportion of fish quota caught in the territorial waters of other countries. That is not the case. We signed an agreement that would see Maori receive 20 percent of quota that enters the quota management system. We agree they should receive 20 percent of any species that go into the quota management system. But it was never the intention that a Labour Government in the future could shift the quota management system to include the territorial waters of other countries or that it would shift the quota management system to include species in the high seas. In that case Maori would be on the tail end of that and receive 20 percent of the fish caught in the seas around Fiji China India South America and Madagascar. That is one major reason why we oppose this bill. 
A number of fishing companies have come to us and said they are simply going to fish under another country’s flag—in other words income generation through catching highly migratory species in the waters of other countries and the benefits will go to other countries not return to New Zealand. We are very comfortable about voting against those aspects of this bill in relation to highly migratory species. 
The second reason we oppose this bill is the absurdity of putting mussel spat collected on Ninety Mile Beach into the quota management system. We know the Ministry of Fisheries and certainly the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research have no idea where the mussel spat comes from or where it goes to. All they know is that it moves around the oceans and washes up on Ninety Mile Beach in great volumes. Most of what is not collected lays there and dies in the sun. The amounts that are collected are distributed to the marine farming industry throughout New Zealand as seed stock. Clearly the mussel farming industry is able to build a significant business for this country with that seed stock. Yet this Government wants to put that mussel spat which would die anyway into the quota management system; thereby restricting the catch ratcheting up the price providing a monopoly supplier to the marine farming industry and in that way again holding back the aquaculture industry in relation to mussel farming. That is the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system and certainly National opposes that move. 
The third reason we oppose this bill is our concern about the schedules and I refer members to new schedule 4C in particular. New schedule 4C lists the fish species that will go into the quota management system in the near future based on catch history records presumably those between 1990 and 1992. The expectation of commercial fishers is that all fish species will go into the quota management system based on catch history between 90 and 92 years. Yet the Labour Government has decided that it will restrict what species will go in and what species will not. Those species listed in new schedule 4C will come under the quota management system with that expectation but species left out will not. Many many species have been left out of that schedule. The Seafood Industry Council the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and a large number of submitters across the country told the ministry what species should be included in that schedule but they were completely ignored. I do not know how that Minister can ride roughshod over an expectation of property right in the way that he has. 
The final reason we oppose the bill relates to kahawai. There was the opportunity through the amendment put forward by United Future to not introduce kahawai into the quota management system on 1 October this year as is currently gazetted. National wants kahawai to go into the quota management system because that is the best system to manage kahawai but we do not agree that it should be under the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch conditions that the Minister has specified. Now we see that in area 1 which ranges right through the Bay of Plenty Coromandel and Northland the commercial catches can be almost as high as recreational catches. In area 2 the other main area that goes around Hawke’s Bay down to Wellington commercial fishers can catch more kahawai than recreational fishers. That is absolutely wrong. We are quite concerned and disappointed that United Future’s amendment which we supported did not go through. 
For those four reasons we unreservedly oppose this bill. They are four substantial concerns and we certainly do not commend this bill to the House.