Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14686] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 In speaking to this third reading debate I can advise the House that the ACT party will be supporting this bill which brings scampi on to the quota management system. It is with some concern that we have come to that position and I would like to share with the House our reasoning for it. 
We have had a very untidy situation with regard to scampi allocation and the management of it and moving it on to quota. We fervently believe in property rights. Indeed that is why back in 1986 the individual transferable quota system was legislated—to bring fisheries on to a quota management system whereby there was a clear property right that was transferable. We moved away from the administrative allocation model based on permitting and all the problems associated with that—the politicisation and the lobbying that goes with it. We had had decades of that and that has been the experience of countries all around the world that base fisheries management on administrative allocations and permitting. So in principle the individual transferable quota system is very good and I believe that the big picture is that it has worked very well in this country relative to other jurisdictions. 
The problem is that it took too long to bring scampi on to the quota management system. I well recall that when I was the Minister of Fisheries scampi was a new fishery. It was in a discovery mode. I always envisaged that within a very short space of time—perhaps 1 or 2 years at most—it would be brought on to the quota management system. In fact a decade or more ticked by and we have seen—and indeed the reports on this fishery have shown—the failures of the administrative allocation model. 
All the inequities and arguments around the margins are a function of this Government’s trying to do this sort of thing through Government departments and administrative allocation rather than giving a clear property right. ACT feels there have been gross injustices and with the effluxion of time those injustices have been greatly exacerbated as they always are. There is always a debate in fisheries allocation as to whether it should be done on open tender or on catch history and if it is done on catch history what years should be selected as the base. There are always those at the margin those who are disadvantaged those who had a broken leg in the year that was retrospectively chosen to be the catch history reference point so gross injustices occur. But I think it would be fair to say in respect of scampi that there was gross mismanagement—though no corruption as alleged by Mr Peters. A major investigation showed no corruption but rather incompetence and mismanagement. I do not want to overstate that because I know the enormous difficulty associated with trying year after year to run a permitting system. There are regional variations inconsistent policies and personnel changes. That is one of the inherent difficulties of doing an administrative allocation with a property right such as the right to harvest. 
Here we are finally bringing scampi into the quota management system and ACT supports that. We argued at the Committee stage for the introduction of a mechanism that could within the legislation address some of the injustices inherent in the system. We regret that they really have not been provided for in an adequate way. 
Mr Carter made some interesting comments. He referred to the allegations of corruption made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in this House way back in April 2002. But did he produce any evidence? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I did. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not a jot. He was going to bring voluminous evidence as at the wine-box inquiry. This was to be the “fish box”—it was to have been bigger than the wine box. Did we see anything? No. Mr Carter rightly chaired a select committee. Parliament did the responsible thing and set up a select committee inquiry under the Hon David Carter’s chairmanship. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member is required to remain somewhat within the debate. I took the evidence to the select committee. I have tabled it twice today— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will continue. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The promised fish box did not contain even a spotty. There was nothing in it absolutely nothing. Not even one scampi or shrimp was in that great fish box of voluminous evidence that was to be brought to the select committee inquiry. The New Zealand First spokesperson on fisheries Mr Woolerton was that party’s representative on the committee. 
Edwin Perry 
: Good man! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Well he is a quiet man. I understand that he is the president of the party also. He is very quiet in that role too. All of a sudden Mr Peters put himself on that committee because he wanted the opportunity to present that fish box of evidence. But did he do that? Not a bit of it. What did he first concentrate on? I am informed that his first efforts went into narrowing the terms of reference. He argued to get them as minimal as possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not the report back from the select committee the second reading debate or the Committee stage of the bill; it is the third reading. The member is required to give a third reading speech and he is inviting us to spend 10 minutes listening to his ignorance about the issues. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but Mr Shirley is dealing with the exact same issues that he did in his speech. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I can certainly understand the member’s discomfort on this issue. I think it is evident to all. Having narrowed the terms of reference we still did not see the fish box of voluminous evidence. It simply was not presented. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Shirley was not a member of the committee—[ 
Interruption 
] The member was never there. He is never at any committee. He is not even sitting down while I am making a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think these are debating matters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am trying to make a point of order Mr Speaker so I ask that you request Mr Shirley to sit down. Thank you very much. As quickly as possible— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am trying to decide whether there is a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that no member of the select committee will allege that I narrowed down its terms of reference. It was never in my powers and it was never in my authority. The member is talking absolute drivel that has no part in a third reading debate. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a point of order under way. There will be no cross-chat. That was not a point of order; it is a debating matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I have just been corrected— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. As a member who sat on that committee I say that it would appear that Mr Shirley may be transgressing into issues that were deliberated on and are therefore confidential to that committee. I just ask you to be mindful of that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think even Mr Cosgrove knows that it is all out in the open now. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am grateful to Mr Heatley who did sit on that committee and play a very active role on it because he has just corrected me. It was not a fish box of voluminous evidence at all; it was a brown paper bag I am told. Anyway having made all those allegations— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now the very objection that Mr Shirley raised in respect of a matter he said was sub judice he has gone to the heart of and it is the reason why I am suing him for millions. So Mr Shirley should tell the jury and not come here and tell lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That also is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly did not refer to any court case but the member just has and I draw your attention to Standing Order 111—as I did earlier—which specifically states that a member may not refer to a matter that is before a court. I drew it to your attention earlier. We have just seen an absolute breach of that Standing Order and I certainly made no reference to any action in any court. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member may raise that but it is for me to decide whether those issues can be raised or discussed. I am quite happy that they were discussed or raised in the way they were. I see no danger whatsoever of those words prejudicing the trial or whatever is under way. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is quite right I did not serve on that select committee; the ACT member Gerry Eckhoff did. However unlike the New Zealand First Party ACT members liaise closely with each other. We caucus and tell each other what is happening at select committees. We know what the others are doing particularly on key issues and numerous parties have referred me to the fact Mr Peters put a lot of effort into narrowing the terms of reference of that select committee. It focused his mind. He was almost obsessed with narrowing the terms of reference. Then we learnt that he had engaged one Ross Meurant who is a former member of Parliament and a former colleague of Mr Peters. He actually engaged him and paid for him out of the Parliamentary Service’s taxpayers’ money to have him as an adviser and consultant in his office here in Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sorry you’re wrong there! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I checked on that. What we also found was that at the same time Mr Meurant was in the employ and commission of Simunovich Fisheries. Now there is nothing wrong with that in itself but it does start to raise various questions does it not? We know that various other things have been alleged such as when Mr Meurant’s former partner Yvonne Dossetter made all sorts of allegations about brown paper bags. I am not sure whether she was referring to the voluminous evidence in the brown paper bags—or perhaps something else was in the brown paper bags. Whatever was in those bags perhaps Mr Peters is in the best position to know. Perhaps he knows what was in the brown paper bags. Was it this missing voluminous evidence that has never been brought to the House and never been before the select committee? It is an extraordinary saga and the House wants an answer. 
The key thing is that finally scampi is moving into the quota management system. It is appropriate that it does so and the ACT party will be supporting that.