Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14991] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I came down to the House this evening to debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That is the one I have in my hand. In fact what we are discussing this evening is not the bill but the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246 which was brought down to the House and given to members at the eleventh hour. He is expecting this House— 
Phil Heatley 
: 17 pages. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It has 17 pages. We are not debating the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) in any real sense; we are debating a Supplementary Order Paper with amendments that the Minister says are minor and technical adjustments. Well that is just not correct. 
I heard Janet Mackey try in some rather—I would not call it pathetic—small way to justify the treatment this bill received from our Primary Production Committee. She was quite right; our select committee generally speaking because there are no Government subsidies involved in agriculture or fishing passes the legislation that comes before it. There is a lot of unanimity amongst the members and we generally find a sensible solution. But as soon as we turned the pages of this bill we found that it was fit for the round filing cabinet and it was into the bin with it. It was an appalling piece as befits I guess this new Minister of Fisheries. He has been in the job long enough to know that he should not put an outrageous bill before the committee. 
But the real reason the Minister wants the bill withdrawn has not been discussed at any length this evening. The real reason he is withdrawing it is because it allocates to Maori 20 percent of quota of migratory species caught—not in our territorial waters and not within our exclusive zone of up to 200 kilometres—in the South China Sea. How many people in this country would tolerate for one second quota caught in the South China Sea or off Kiribati going to Maori? The Minister has recognised that there would be huge political embarrassment over this bill and his colleague Trevor Mallard who is responsible for trying to keep the Government’s credibility on racial matters half-reasonable— 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s losing that battle. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: —he is losing that battle as Mr Ardern says—has told him that the bill must be changed. 
Hon Member 
: He’s changed it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Yes he has changed it but not totally. The Government has tried to buy time. It has said that when it gets some agreement to a regional plan for the South China Sea and right down to the South Pacific down to New Zealand—maybe in 5 or 10 years’ time—it will bring it into the quota management system. Nobody I am sure—well perhaps the Greens might be a bit diffident about it—would disagree that the quota management system is far and away the best fisheries management tool. There is no dissension on that issue at all. But we strongly disagree that migratory species like tuna caught in those faraway places should be brought into the quota management system. 
 I got the Parliamentary Library to check thoroughly for me whether in fact the deed of settlement—the Waitangi Fisheries claim—had any relevance or reference to fish caught in international waters. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever in the deed of settlement to fish caught outside the exclusive economic zone in international waters—none. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In the South China Sea. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well quite rightly there was no reference to that but what is referred to is— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Well Winston says Maoris come from China. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well some say they come from the coast of Taiwan and I just have this visual picture of Parekura Horomia paddling his canoe out in the South China Sea dropping a hook overboard and hauling in a lovely 200 kilogram tuna. It is stretching the issue is it not? 
Under this legislation fish caught in the South China Sea can be brought into the quota management system and automatically there is a 20 percent allocation to Maori. That was never intended under the deed of settlement yet under this bill it would happen. But because there is huge political sensitivity around this matter at this time the Government has decided it will delay it. It will still come in ultimately but the Government will delay it. 
This bill is also about buying votes. It is about taking 20 percent of the mussel spat catch which is owned essentially or controlled by a handful of people who once this spat goes into the quota management system will have to hand over 20 percent of their allocation of their expertise and of their knowledge. It will have to be handed over immediately to Maori as soon as this bill gets the royal assent. I say and the ACT party says that this is wrong. That is why we oppose mussel spat going into the quota management system. It is not because we are opposed to sensible management at all; in fact we are highly in favour of such matters but it is totally and utterly inappropriate to take 20 percent of what is essentially a property right away from the present catchers of mussel spat and place it into the quota management system. That really is what this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper are about. 
I would like the Minister to take another call on this if he can and explain to us why this Supplementary Order Paper came down at the 11th hour because what should happen with it—and many have said it is a complex—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is twice that a very senior member of the Opposition the Hon Murray McCully has referred to the absence of a member. Everyone in this House knows that is not allowed under the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is actually Speaker’s ruling 23/7. If the member did that then he knows that he should not have done so. I ask him to desist. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The Minister has studiously avoided the embarrassing questions around this bill. He just refuses to address the questions that people listening in to this debate really want to hear answered. The bill was examined at length it was discussed at length it was dissected and it was recommended that it not proceed. That was almost unheard of. Certainly in my time in this House I have never been a member of a select committee where the so-called Opposition actually won the debate. That embarrassed the members of this Government enormously so the Minister and his ministry have scuttled down at the 11th hour with this complex Supplementary Order Paper and they expect the members of this House to absorb it in 5 minutes then pass it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It should go back to the select committee. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Mr Prebble is absolutely right—it should go to the Primary Production Committee where we could examine it properly. Issues have been raised by Ian Ewen-Street. I very rarely agree with the man but on this occasion he has raised one or two issues that should be addressed properly by the select committee. I believe that that should happen and I am hoping that that will be the case. 
 Government members are hugely embarrassed by their Minister. This measure is about buying votes and buying time so that the Government can retain some vestige of credibility in the eyes of the fishing industry. But those who understand this issue will recognise that this measure is nothing more than a barefaced attempt at buying votes into the future. The ACT party will be listening with bated breath in the Committee stage to see how it finally pans out but the bill should not proceed at this time.