Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11692] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will start my contribution to Part 1 of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) by taking this opportunity to congratulate the Minister. Earlier this evening the Minister made his maiden ministerial contribution to fisheries legislation in the Committee of the whole House. Now that he has made his contribution for the first time—we noted that he did not bother to stand through the earlier fisheries legislation this afternoon—I have a very important question for him to answer as to whether he has confidence that once this legislation is passed both Ministry of Fisheries officials and Department of Conservation officials will manage to set levies correctly into the future. 
Here we are again passing fisheries legislation—and I tell the Minister that I have forgotten the number of occasions on which I have been involved in discussing fisheries legislation in this House—because the original Act has not been operated as envisioned by Parliament. So I take this opportunity of asking the Minister to please take a call at the end of my contribution and take the opportunity to assure this Committee and more important the industry that he has absolute confidence in the officials who will set the levies. I want to know from the Minister that we will not be back in 3 or 4 years’ time contemplating another fisheries amendment bill that establishes that levies were not collected correctly. In this case there is a negotiated settlement by industry members and by officials from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation. 
In hindsight one of my regrets as we discuss this legislation is that many fishers wrote to members of Parliament through the 1990s and earlier saying they did not feel there was fairness in the levy-setting process. Those people complained bitterly that levies were set at a level that would drive fishers out of business and in many cases those fishers were driven out of business. I will not be so bold as to say that was entirely because of the levies set but clearly the levies were set at a level that was too high. I think that as members of Parliament and as my colleague Nick Smith referred to we had faith in the officials who established the levies because the correspondence would have gone to them for assistance with answering. We probably in many cases sent letters back to those fishers saying: “No we think the levies are fair and reasonable.” 
Now here we are some years later having to agree to a settlement process negotiated by officials and by industry representatives which acknowledges that the levies were not correctly set and that hardship has been incurred by a lot of fishers. In my mind the most important words in the commentary are in a very brief paragraph stating that the select committee accepts “that the Fisheries Act 1996 was not implemented as contemplated by Parliament in relation to cost recovery.” That is the essence of this legislation. Parliament passed that Act back in 1996 and we had every right to express confidence then that bureaucracy would have the means and the will to establish levies that were fair and reasonable. Yet here we are 8 years on acknowledging in Parliament tonight that that did not occur. 
I congratulate the industry and I congratulate the lead officials on at least presenting us with a mature response that has been negotiated and that is a means by which the industry can move forward. That is at least something because time and time again in this industry we have seen a less mature response that has involved solicitors barristers and many thousands—in fact millions—of dollars being involved in the court system. So at least on this occasion there is a response that in my mind is more pragmatic. But I still think the Minister should take this opportunity to assure me as a member of the Opposition that he has confidence we will not see this sort of problem having to be rectified in another 8 years’ time. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert before subclause (1) the following new subclause (1A): 
(1A)This Act acknowledges the discrepancies in conservation and fisheries services levies collected for the period 1 October 1994 to 30 September 2002.