Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15139] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The point raised now by the Hon Winston Peters raises in my mind a very serious constitutional issue about the way in which this Minister of Fisheries has treated the Primary Production Committee. I refer to the issue of the legality of our requiring 20 percent of the quota for species caught outside New Zealand to go to Maori. One of the first things the select committee asked for was a legal opinion. From memory we asked the Minister through his ministry officials for legal opinions. We got one legal opinion dated 9 May 2003— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: From Crown Law. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister interjects so he is still awake. The opinion is from Crown Law. It is signed by a Mr Craig Linkhorn Crown counsel but what Mr Peters may not be aware of and what the Committee needs to know is that the Minister and his officials deleted great portions throughout it. In other words the actual legal opinion was not given to the select committee and to this day that has not been done. That is absolutely outrageous. For the Minister then to say he is sitting on two other legal opinions that he was not prepared to give to the select committee so that it could examine the legality of the issue leaves me with only one conclusion: the other two legal opinions probably have a very contrary view to the very shallow partially deleted legal opinion from the Crown Law Office. That is the only possible conclusion as to why the Minister and his officials clearly tried to pervert the select committee process and did not give the members the opportunity to consider legal advice as to the legality of this issue. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: We’re being kept in the dark! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely. The select committee was kept in the dark. We now know from the Minister’s interjection—he is not prepared to take a proper call but he chips in—that there are three legal opinions in existence. Yet all that the select committee was given was one legal opinion with a number of large deletions throughout it so we could not form an opinion as to the legality of this issue. It is an absolute outrage that the Minister suggests that Parliament pass legislation that gives Maori 20 percent of species caught outside New Zealand territorial limits by New Zealand fishers but he is not prepared to let us have a look at the legal opinion that justifies that. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It says the same thing. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now he says the second and third legal opinions say the same thing. If that is so he should give them to the select committee. Why hide them? I might add that the first opinion had so many heavy deletions in it that the select committee was unable to form a view as to what the opinion stated. The Minister should take a call and allow the Committee of the whole House to have a look at those opinions. 
 I can only assume he is hiding those legal opinions for one reason and one reason only—that is he knows that this measure has no legality. It is another sop to Maori an attempt to settle the issue around the seabed and foreshore. That is what is going on here. New Zealand fishers who catch tuna and albacore on the high seas are now being asked to pay up and front up with 20 percent of their hard work to be given to Maori so that the Labour Government can buy favour with Maori. The Minister shakes his head and denies it. He should take a call. He should not sit there like a dork. He should take a call and answer the questions that have been raised. 
I want to move to another point. The select committee was concerned at three specific submissions one from Westhaven Shellfish one from Sea-Right Investments and one from the cockle industry. I know that Mr Ian Ewen-Street said in his contribution earlier this week that the Minister had given his word that those issues which were of concern to the whole of the select committee would be addressed by his Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Minister that I cannot see where that happens in the Supplementary Order Paper and therefore I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us how it addresses the issue of Westhaven Shellfish which has had an argument with the ministry for years has won in court and claims that this bill overrides its rights. I ask the Minister to tell us how the case of Sea-Right Investments which is in the same situation is fixed by this law.