Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14690] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I came to the House to speak on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) but I am a little shell-shocked. In fact I was not in the country when most of the discussions and controversy around the scampi fishery took place so I find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage. I might have to confine myself to speaking about the bill—which will be quite a novel experience for members given the contributions I have heard today. The exception of course is Janet Mackey. I thought she gave good counsel to the House which was that we should concentrate on the matters in hand. 
I also have to declare that I was not a member of the Primary Production Committee so I find myself very much at a disadvantage. But as my whips indicated that I should request the call I will attempt to do my best. 
I note that the bill legislates scampi—which as I have now learnt is Norwegian lobster—into the quota management system by 1 October 2004. National supports this legislation. Notwithstanding some of the allegations that have been made we have supported the bill right from the outset—through the first and the second readings and through the Committee stage in which I did take an active part. I wonder now having listened to the discussion that I see has raged for over 2 years why we have had to rush this bill through the House at the last moment. Barely 9 sitting days ago the House was in urgency yet it was not included in the urgency motion. 
Now there is a rush to have the bill enacted by 1 October. In my judgment that will cause some procedural problems for those fishers who when they receive their quota do not agree with it and want to appeal. They will have only 20 working days to do that and given that this is 5 August and the legislation has not yet received its royal assent it appears that the process is procedurally unsound and unfair. 
Through the Committee stage I raised those questions with the Minister and he seemed unwilling or unable to give me any answers. I suspect that it was probably that he was unable given his nervous twitch and his floundering around when looking for advice from his officials—who as is their wont left him to squiggle like a scampi out of water. 
Throughout the protracted negotiation and controversy that has surrounded this legislation there has been immense pressure applied to members of the select committee. If it were not for the outstanding chairmanship of David Carter who was ably supported by Phil Heatley I do not think that we would have divined a path through the legislation as well as we have. To be fair I am also told that significant contributions were made by Janet Mackey and Clayton Cosgrove but I did not hear any positive affirmations on behalf of New Zealand First members. 
In fact given the current circumstances I reflect that it was strange that through the whole Committee stage New Zealand First members took not two not one but no calls whatsoever. It appears to me that someone must have thought there would be cameras in the House today though because they have come to the House and preened and talked. They have made a lot of noise but there has not appeared to be a lot of substance. I observed Mr Assistant Speaker Simich that during some of those discussions you were trying to draw the members’ attention back to the narrow subject of the debate. I think you did an outstanding job on that basis. 
In reflecting on my favourite subject of this fisheries Minister I have to say that the work of the select committee was made much harder pretty much by his inexperience—and to be fair by his limited commercial ability. Here is a man who through no fault of his own—he is new to the job and inexperienced—is driven by his officials who are only too willing to give him advice in order for him to try to pick up some lost ground. But again the committee owes a great debt to Mr Carter’s experience because he saw to their divining a path through what was otherwise a very tricky process. 
One of the sticking points for National related to the boundary changes to quota management areas 3 and 4. We wanted to know what was driving that decision. I hate to harp on it again but—I am sorry—I think it is probably the inexperience of the Minister that caused some of those problems. He really did not know why those changes were being suggested and steadfastly refused to take a call in the Committee stage to answer my questions. I have to say that at one stage he did call out that the reason was that his officials had told him so and that we should get off his back and accept that what he was being told was legitimate. But he was asking us to accept advice from a ministry that had been exposed by a State Services Commission inquiry as inadequate inconsistent ad hoc and unprofessional. The best thing he could do by way of answer to my questions was to mumble under his breath that we should just listen to his officials. 
Now I take no great pleasure at all in exposing this Minister’s limitations and to prove that I am not gilding the lily with regard to the Minister and his ministry’s performance I tell members that none other than a former Prime Minister of this country Sir Geoffrey Palmer wrote to me expressing his concern about the ministry. Among other things— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I got a letter too. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is amazing. He must have sorted out a couple of people who he thought would be prepared to stand up and tell the truth because amongst other things he said this to me— 
Hon David Carter 
: He sent that letter to everyone because he gets paid per letter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not believe that for a moment. I am sure he just sorted me out—and Mr Shirley. Now this is what he had to say: “Under the bill scampi fishers will be allocated quota on the basis of how much they caught in the ‘quota-earning years’ beginning 1 October 1990 and ending 30 September 1992.” There is no great difficulty with that. “Since the bill was introduced the report of the reviewers appointed by the State Services Commission on an inquiry into the fisheries management of the scampi fishery has been made available. The state of public affairs reported by the inquiry should be of grave concern to every MP. The State Services Commission report confirms there was mismanagement by the ministry and there was unfair and unreasonable treatment of the fishers.” 
I do not want to read out all this letter but the other pertinent point is this: “The injustice that was the subject of the report to the State Services Commissioner has also been dealt with by the courts which found that the actions of the ministry have been unlawful but so far there has been no disposition to re-examine the basis upon which the quota will be allocated. When it comes to injustice”—and this is the important part—“it is the putting right that counts.” 
 So we are getting conflicting opinions. For example the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has been saying there is no justifiable reason why we should change the quota management areas off the Southland coast or words to that effect. It stated: “Moving boundaries will in fact be arbitrary.” 
I will allow that new information can come to hand. Thankfully through the outstanding efforts of Phil Heatley new information was enticed out of that tight-lipped Minister. The tragedy of it all is that had he made that advice available earlier we would not have had to sit through a protracted select committee stage. Again I suppose it goes back to inexperience or a lack of capability. 
I conclude by saying that had it not been for that tight-lipped Minister the select committee process would not have been protracted. We did not take any pleasure in having to drag the process out until we got the answers we all required.