Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12384] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 First of all I would like to indicate that the National Party will certainly support the referral of this bill to the Primary Production Committee. We believe there are matters in the bill that deserve a public airing and certainly an airing within the fishing industry. There are some very significant changes to be made in the fisheries legislation not the least of them being a movement from the 1990-91 and 1991-92 catch-history years and from that arrangement in terms of handover quota to an arrangement whereby the quota is tendered right across the board. The legislating of scampi into the quota management system from 1 October 2004 is also significant. 
However I would like to indicate to the Minister that we find it unacceptable that there is a request that we sit on Fridays to consider this bill. The Minister may like to take into consideration that a select committee is already sitting on Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays and Fridays right across the country on the Maori Fisheries Bill. That bill under this Minister’s auspices again is before another select committee set up to consider the seabed and foreshore legislation and other special fisheries matters. I indicate to the Minister that he may recall that that is a separate select committee and it could very well be sitting at the same time as the Primary Production Committee which is soon to consider this bill. We will oppose the suggestion that we meet on Fridays firstly because we should not meet on Fridays as that is a time for MPs to be in their constituencies serving their electorates and secondly because we already have major fisheries legislation—the Maori Fisheries Bill—before another select committee that is meeting at that time. How the spokespersons for the various parties are to attend those meetings without experiencing a conflict is beyond me. 
This bill creates a transitional list of fish species that will enter the quota management system under the current system where there is handover quota based on catch-history years. It will provide for non-established commercial species to enter the quota management system with quota being tendered off without handover quota from catch history years. There is a big shift there. We understand that that is the most significant policy change in this legislation. It is recognised that the catch history years for quota allocation the 1990-92 years are becoming outdated. It is 12 years on since those dates now that we are in 2004. Commercial fisheries newly discovered in the interim have little catch history in those particular years. 
Last year I recall dealing with the paddle crab issue the pilchards issue and the butterfish issue when we had a march on Parliament from various fishers involved in those commercial fisheries. They said that it was very unfair that under the legislation the catch history would be divvied up on the basis of the 1990-92 years when the fishers had actually established and committed to those particular fisheries—in particular paddle crabs—during the mid-1990s. In effect they would get no quota handed over to them because they were not involved with those species in those particular years. It was unfair to them that they would have to bid on the open market for quota when in effect they had built those fisheries up from zero to become a substantial resource. This bill will address that issue and it is well worth debating it. I do not think the issues have been resolved about whether that is fair or unfair or whether the legislation should be changed but it is well worth having that debate. 
I concede the fairness of the Minister’s argument that there are few species left to go into the quota management system that have a significant commercial potential so not many will be affected. In fact scampi and kahawai are the only two that come to mind that are substantial exceptions. The transitional list that we see at the back of the bill covers most of the commercial fisheries with any potential that anyone can envisage—they are covered off. The National Party supports the exploration of the straight tendering concept but we will pay very close attention to the proposed tendering regime. We do not know whether there will be a preferential tendering regime whether it will be at market value at perceived market value or what the regime will be but we will explore that. 
In relation to scampi being legislated into the quota management system before 1 October 2004 we certainly encourage the goal of having scampi in the quota management system as soon as possible . At the moment there is a race on at sea to fish as quickly as possible thecommercial catch available to scampi fishers. At the moment all the boats are going out and fishing like crazy for scampi and hurting undersized resources and so on which is actually damaging that particular fishery. We encourage the idea of scampi going to the quota management system as soon possible. But there are some concerns if that measure is to be considered and reported back to this House on 22 June this year. 
Our first concern of course is that the State Services Commission inquiry into the scampi fiasco has not yet been concluded or reported on. Who knows what that State Services Commission inquiry may come up with? It may come up with new information that the select committee did not come up with because the scope for the State Services Commission to look at the scampi issues is different from that of the select committee and furthermore the State Services Commission was able to cross-examine witnesses in a manner not unlike a court system which the select committee was unable to do. So we reserve our approach on scampi because we have not yet heard from the State Services Commission inquiry. 
 Secondly we have not yet seen whether the fishers named in the Primary Production Committee’s report are satisfied with the settlement. We do not know whether there is a negotiated settlement with any of the six named fishers whether that settlement has been satisfactory in the Ministry of Fisheries’ view or how far down the process settlements are. We will hear from those fishers no doubt at the select committee. They will be reporting progress to us I am sure so we reserve judgment on that issue in view of the scampi provisions of this bill. 
There are also issues in the bill surrounding the highly migratory tuna species being put into the quota management system. That is highly contentious because tuna is a migratory fish. Tuna pass through New Zealand waters for only a short time having gone through the waters of a large number of other fishing nations and having been hammered by a large number of those countries. To argue that New Zealand can effectively manage tuna species as they pass through our waters is somewhat absurd given the reality of them passing through our waters being here only a brief time and having been hammered by other countries. So we will listen to the arguments about tuna species being put in the quota management system and this bill gives us the opportunity to debate that issue. 
In summary we do support this bill going to the select committee. The National Party is intrigued at the idea of changing the fisheries legislation to see species come into the quota management system solely through a tendering regime and not through a catch history regime. We support the idea of scampi going into the quota management system as soon as possible but we reserve judgment because of the State Services Commission’s inquiry and the Primary Production Committee’s suggestion that a settlement be made with the fishers concerned. We do understand the need to report the bill back in June and again in July with the bill to be split. But we oppose the idea of the select committee meeting on a Friday when the other select committee that is considering the Maori fisheries legislation is also meeting on that day.