Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14683] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
:  
The day the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) passes is the day that many people will see as the final settlement for what has been a very difficult issue. I fear that members will actually find that this is not the end of the matter at all. The saga of the scampi fishery is a long and sad one. It has been characterised by vicious litigation with fishers contesting the decisions of the ministry and being pitted one against the other as they contest what is obviously a very very valuable resource. I am also saddened to note that the case has now moved to the courts with two members of Parliament—myself being one of them—being sued by another member of Parliament. 
I became significantly involved in this issue in October 2002 when an  
Assignment 
 television programme aired and repeated the allegations that had been made in this House 6 months earlier—allegations of corruption amongst officials in the Ministry of Fisheries. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Who made the allegations? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The allegations were made by none other than the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In the speech he made then he promised to table voluminous amounts of evidence in the following weeks. To my knowledge that evidence has not ever been tabled by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. After the  
Assignment 
 programme aired in October 2002 and highlighted the fact that Mr Peters had made these allegations in Parliament I and a number of other members of Parliament thought it was worthy of the Primary Production Committee instigating a significant inquiry to find our whether the allegations of corruption levelled by that member of Parliament had substance. 
As history now shows the evidence presented to the select committee during the whole of 2003 and the conclusions of that select committee satisfied us that the allegations of corruption against ministry officials had no foundation. I acknowledge the comments that the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope made earlier when he acknowledged the effect that that continual level of allegation against some ministry officials must have had on them and their families. It must have been absolutely demoralising. 
The interesting thing is that in that select committee report we unanimously agreed that the sooner scampi was brought into the quota management system the better—and that is the reason the National Party is supporting this legislation. I might add that Mr Peters earlier said that the National Party had not maintained a consistent position on this. We supported the legislation in its first and second readings and throughout its Committee stage on Tuesday. We support it now in its third reading. I am quite happy with that level of consistency. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about compensation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am happy to move to the issue of compensation. One of the findings of the select committee was to identify a number of aggrieved fishers. The committee recommended that compensation be paid as a means of trying to rebalance some of the unfairness against them. When we called for submissions not surprisingly we received some from a number of those people who had been identified as being aggrieved fishers. They were expressing extreme frustration with the process of negotiation that was occurring with the Government. It is not appropriate for me to comment on the process that those negotiations are going through but I do take this opportunity of imploring the Government to complete this saga and negotiate in good faith. 
I refer specifically to one submission that came before the select committee from Mrs Hazel Lanauze and Mr Tuck. This was a submission that identified information that had not been available to the select committee but that had clearly been made available to the State Services Commission inquiry. The evidence made available to the State Services Commission proved that Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck had very very similar circumstances to most of the other aggrieved fishers we had identified. If the select committee had had the full amount of information at the time it deliberated I am sure that they would have been listed as aggrieved fishers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why weren’t they? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because the information was not presented to us at the time. I take this opportunity to implore the Government to also recognise the submissions of Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck and any others that may come to light now that further information is available. 
 I thank the committee staff whom I see in the gallery for the extreme support they gave the select committee throughout the inquiry. I add in response to an interjection from the Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope that his suggestion that this issue spans but one Government the National Government of the 1990s is not correct. This is a saga that began in the 1980s continued through the 1990s and has continued through the early part of the 2000s. It is interesting to see in the House today the Hon Ken Shirley who was the Minister of Fisheries under the Labour Government in the 1980s. 
The Minister ought to take note that the select committee was mindful of the fact that this saga spread over a number of Governments. There was the opportunity for the select committee members to attempt to play politics with the issue. The select committee members unanimously stood well above that. I say to Mr Benson-Pope that they did not want to play politics with this issue. They worked extremely hard over the period of the select committee hearing and through the deliberations to present a report that the Government has now accepted and which has gone a long way towards getting the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) before the House and this issue towards finality. 
In the closing minutes I will comment on the issue regarding the boundary changes of the quota management areas. The committee was worried at the time about the boundary changes that were proposed to the committee because we were unaware of what the ultimate effect may be on some of the fishers who had catch history and on the headroom that may have then been available to some of those who had not had the ability to enter into the fishery. The information that was provided to the select committee by the officials was contradictory. The first information suggested that the change of boundaries would greatly lessen the amount of headroom available for the Crown. Information that became available after the select committee had completed its work and deliberations now suggests that there will be more headroom available. On that basis the National Party will now accept the boundary changes. 
This has been a long and arduous saga of mismanagement and misjudgment by the ministry. Hopefully by passing this legislation today we will see an end of these issues of unfairness and mismanagement. I sadly think that that will probably not be the case.