Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14483] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As the Minister said this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) legislates scampi into the quota management system on 1 October this year. I have to say that that was never soon enough. Certainly scampi has to come into the quota management system as soon as possible. With fishers not having quota allocated currently there is a race for catch out in our scampi fishing grounds. Through the system that operates at the moment fishers are encouraged to catch as much scampi as soon as possible. Subsequently juvenile fish are being brought up out of the water unnecessarily. When scampi goes to the quota management system scampi fishers will have all season to make their catch. They will not be under pressure to make their catch before anyone else. They will target older scampi and fishing grounds that can sustain that intensive fishing. 
National supports scampi coming into the quota management system. We are very concerned though that there have been boundary changes to traditional scampi fishing zones off the coast of the South Island. In fact National will not support this bill in its third reading unless during the Committee stage the Government either moves amendments to change back the boundaries of quota management areas 3 and 4 off the coast of the South Island or gives us reasons why those particular boundaries have been changed. We believe that the Government has shifted the goalposts affecting the fair allocation of scampi quota in that lucrative fishing area and that is of concern to us. The original boundaries which have been in place for well over a decade will change overnight through this legislation so we want to hear from the Minister during the Committee stage—which we look forward to probably next week—why that is the case and how it benefits the fisheries or we want to see amendments that will change back those fishing zones. 
However I do reiterate that National sees the need to introduce scampi into the quota management system as soon as possible. Interestingly the Primary Production Committee was pushed quite heavily by both the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to see this bill come into the House. We were quite astounded that it did not come in during the urgency motion of 3 weeks’ ago soon after that pressure was applied and after the committee reported back to this House. That was of concern to us. Given the pressure we were under I would have to say that not introducing the bill in that urgency motion raised eyebrows across the industry and also across this House. 
Members will be well aware of the work of the Primary Production Committee particularly of our inquiry into the scampi fishery. On behalf of the National Party I am bound to say we acknowledge that those fishing companies accused of unlawful behaviour such as Simunovich Fisheries Ltd had no such allegations proved against them at the select committee. No evidence was brought before us at the select committee that convinced me of supposedly flagrant illegal behaviour on their part. 
In addition the State Services Commission inquiry which ran roughly parallel to our own inquiry came back with similar findings. What was interesting though was that our comments—our quite harsh comments—on the Ministry of Fisheries for being inconsistent unfair and unprofessional were reflected in the State Services Commission’s findings but the commission was much more scathing of the Ministry of Fisheries. It called the ministry inconsistent ad hoc unprofessional—and on it went. I have to say— and I am sure the member Ian Ewen-Street will comment on this as well— that the select committee was quite disappointed in the media statement of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries made soon after the State Services Commission inquiry when he said that his ministry had nothing to answer for and that it was completely professional at all times. We thought it would have been better if the ministry had acknowledged its deficiencies and promised an improvement. 
There were also outstanding issues from the Primary Production Committee report. Firstly all but one named fisher have not had an accepted settlement in that report. Members will recall that the select committee named seven fishers: Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and Mr H G Cave; United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and the Sealord Group. Those were the seven named fishers in the inquiry who we believed were justifiably aggrieved. Only one of them has accepted a settlement; six more need to receive one. That is the first outstanding issue. 
The second outstanding issue was that the select committee recommended minimum payments. The National Party did not support that. We did not believe we could pick what the minimum ought to be but Labour Party members and New Zealand First decided to allocate $400000 to most fishers as a minimum payment and $900000 to Mr Trevor Goodship. Interestingly since that went to Cabinet those minimum payments became maximum payments by a statement through the Minister. We see that as unfair and not along the lines of the select committee report. 
Thirdly in terms of outstanding issues the Sealord Group was a named fisher that the Government and New Zealand First did not see as being worthy of a settlement. Labour Party members felt that the Sealord Group did not deserve a settlement because it was too big a company and because that amount of money was just a drop in the ocean—in other words justice did not matter. New Zealand First members did not want to support a settlement to the Sealord Group because it was half owned by an Asian—that is by a Japanese company. I believe that that is an appalling position to take on both fronts: firstly a race-based objection from New Zealand First that the company is half Japanese; and secondly an objection from the Labour Party simply because the company is too big. However these are not our prime concerns and they will not stop us voting for scampi to go into the quota management system. 
Our prime concern about this bill is the shifting of the goalposts once again in the scampi fishery. The original boundaries which have been in place for over a decade will change overnight. Quota management area 3 an accessible area off the Canterbury Bight and the East Coast of the South Island and quota management area 4 which includes the Chatham rise will change in area. I cannot understand that. Quota management areas can be changed only by an Act of Parliament; they are integral to the quota management system. 
Even the report of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research stated there was no justifiable reason why one would change the quota management areas off the Southland coast. The institute’s report stated there were “no important differences” between the two main scampi areas. It stated that where there were “indications of differences” it might be appropriate to shift the boundaries but that if that were done it would be “to some extent arbitrary”. The institute believed that if the boundaries were shifted the shift would be somewhere to the west that the shift might be appropriate but that there was “insufficient data” to assess whether scampi would benefit from the shift. 
Given the report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research tThe National Party’s concern is that quota management area boundaries should not be changed adt hoc. We need a reason for those changes of boundaries. We would like to see from the Minister during the Committee stage amendments to change the boundaries back to what they have been for over a decade or to hear a justifiable reason given to us why they should remain where they are with the changes in place. 
I reiterate that National supports scampi going into the quota management system on 1 October of this year but cannot and will not support the bill in its third reading if the Ministry of Fisheries has not changed the boundaries of the scampi fishing zones back to where they traditionally were or given us a reason why they should remain as changed.