Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14986] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This is the kind of situation that comes only once in a career I would have thought. The Government put a bill before the Primary Production Committee with all the numbers in the world and most parties supported the bill because they believed it deserved some scrutiny. Then when the Government bill was scrutinised by the select committee one by one the committee members have fallen away. The support for the bill has dropped off. National New Zealand First and ACT have dropped off supporting the Government bill. The Greens who love those guys on the Government side of the House have dropped off and no longer support the bill. A vote in the select committee on this bill was lost by a majority and that was reported back to the House. What did the Government members on that committee say in meek quiet voices? They said they would not write a minority report. That is what they said to us; they said they would not write a minority report. They have not written one for 5 years—not since they were last in Opposition. They have forgotten how to write a minority report because they did not think that situation would come up so they said they would not write one. The sad thing is that members will not hear a speech—certainly not a passionate one—about this bill from the Labour Party members who were on that select committee. 
The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is absolutely absurd and the National Party opposes it. We oppose it for lots of reasons but we have three main ones. The first reason is that we do not believe that the majority of highly migratory species should come into the quota management system. The second reason is that we do not think the Government has thought long and hard enough about tendering off the rest of the rats-and-mice species that swim around in our seas. Thirdly we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat which drifts around the ocean minding its own business into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island. That is why we do not support this bill. 
I have heard a little rumour. I want to tell David Carter about it because I do not think he has heard it yet. He will laugh because he was the chairman of the select committee. We had a lot of assistance in drafting our majority report against this bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: From the Labour members? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We had assistance from the Labour members and more assistance from the Green member. The Green member opposed this bill vehemently. 
Hon David Carter 
: He lost his head. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: He did. He wrote pages—screeds—for the majority report recommending that the bill not pass but I have heard a little rumour that he will support the Government and vote for this bill. At the last minute he did a little deal and he will vote for the bill in its last readings even though he wrote the majority report that stated that the bill should not proceed. That is a sad sad thing indeed. 
National supports the quota management system as the best system to sustainably utilise most of the fisheries stocks in the New Zealand economic zone. That is sensible. But tuna and other highly migratory species are in New Zealand waters for a very short time. They are targeted by lots of countries on the high seas and in other countries’ fisheries waters. They are being hammered by many of those nations and we pick up 2 or 3 percent of the catch of those species in our fisheries waters. To argue that New Zealand can effectively manage a fish stock that spends only a short portion of its life in our fisheries waters is absolutely absurd. It is important to note also that neither albacore nor skipjack tuna is under fishing pressure from any nation let alone from New Zealand which means that capping New Zealand’s catch for sustainability reasons is entirely unnecessary. 
We are particularly concerned that the legislation will allow highly migratory species to be brought into the quota management system prematurely. If they are brought into the quota management system it means that skipjack and albacore tuna and every other highly migratory species will have a cap on its catch by New Zealand fishers only. That means that when we make an international agreement about how many tonnes of a fish species can be caught all the other countries will point to New Zealand and say that we only caught 500 tonnes. All our fishers will say that that is because the Government stopped them from catching any more than that but the other countries will say that is too bad. They will say that that is our quota figure because that is all we have ever caught and that is all we will ever catch under the agreement. I say and National says that that is wrong. Why should we cap New Zealand’s catch when other nations are fishing highly migratory species all over the world and particularly in the Pacific region with no limit at all? If those species are brought into the quota management system before an agreement is signed New Zealand’s fishing industry will lose an opportunity to build up a more realistic catch history. That is absolutely absurd and unfair. 
That is not the only issue. We are also concerned about the by-catch quota—moonfish shark and broadbill swordfish. The catch history years for by-catch species do not line up with the catch history years for the target species. That means that someone who catches by-catch species will not proportionally catch target species at the same volumes. I do not think the Government or the Ministry of Fisheries has looked at that matter particularly well at all. 
The requirement that 20 percent of the tuna caught in New Zealand waters be given over to Maori is absolutely inconsistent with the intent of the deed of settlement. We completely agree with the statement in the deed of settlement that 20 percent of all fish species as yet unknown should be passed to Maori when they are entered into the quota management system. National absolutely supports that; Maori should get 20 percent when such a fish species goes into the quota management system. However the infinite intent of including species still unknown did not encompass the infinite spatial jurisdiction. In other words it was never intended that the quota management system go outside New Zealand’s economic zone and that therefore Maori would get 20 percent of such fish when they are caught in the territorial waters of Fiji Australia or China. That was never considered and it is absurd that the Government is considering doing that. 
The Minister should resign. I am quite disappointed that given the job straight up the Minister put the bill before our select committee. The bill had all the support in the world. The support then shrank away. It was lost at the select committee. Not even the Labour Party members had the heart to convince us or even the Greens to vote for the bill at that stage and it came back into the House with a recommendation that it should fail. 
I can only say as a final concluding remark that I am disappointed at the Green member who drafted that report back. The Green member has been bought off in some way. I do not know what it is but he was bought off in some way and he is looking to support the passage of this bill through the House even though he opposed it at the select committee. I do not know what kind of dirty deal has been done but I never thought I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles. 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s going to be the ambassador for London. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not know whether he is to be an ambassador for London but I did not think I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles.