Browning Steffan: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: General Debate[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12134. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):We saw some photos before of a couple of streams and one of them showed a very dirty murky stream. I want to talk about some other murky waters and they are around fisheries and around foreign charter vessels and the exemptions that have been put through that have some let us say perceptions of cronyism. We will make it “perceptions” in case some think that joining certain dots of ownership of companies that get the benefits of the exemptions that are put into the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill somehow might be litigious or something. There is certainly a perception of some very very murky waters.One exemption the one for tuna fisheries really looks after just one sole company. That company is the New Zealand Japan Tuna Company which has just a couple of directors. One is CharlesHufflett and the other is EricBarratt the managing director of Sanford. The New Zealand Japan Tuna Company is 53.2 percent owned bySolander fishers of bluefin tuna and 46.7 percent owned by Sanford. We all know that the president of the National Party is essentially the dominant feature of the ownership and certainly a director of Sanford. I am assured by some in National that he has integrity in his dealings regarding policy within National. However that tuna exemption is totally unnecessary and totally goes against the intent of the bill which is to reduce slavery to improve conditions in terms of both the type of boats and quality of boats and the quality of the workspace and to address a number of other issues regarding fishing in the exclusive economic zone. The tuna exemption is not needed. An exemption is not needed. Any exemption goes against the intent of the bill. And when it so clearly advantages so very very few and in fact disadvantages other New Zealand fishers we have to ask these questions.We were shown in the Primary Production Committee that the level of New Zealand domestic fishers who were not relying on foreign charter vessels was increasing year on year. If we rule out any exemptions it is clear that we will see from New Zealand fishers fishing New Zealand waters an improvement for the New Zealand economy and ideally doing it in a sustainable way. This exemption smells fishy it is fishy and it is in very murky waters.The other exemption that is a bit murky is the one around settlements and the annual catch entitlements that go there. That was dropped into the select committee. It is going to be in front of this House. It is totally patchy and murky. It needs kicking out as well. There are some issues around iwi and their justified access to quota and how they might manage that but again if you look into those annual catch entitlements and see who is fishing them Sanford pops up again. That is the nature of how that exemption has been drafted. It needs a total rehash. In fact ideally it needs kicking out.We need no exemptions to this legislation that is coming through which has actually got a fantastic intent—exemplary intent. It also has very good points around increasing observers under the legislation. But these exemptions threaten the viability of this bill. They threaten the actual advantages that the bill intends. Up to one-third of the foreign chartered vessels can theoretically operate it seems under these exemptions—The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.