ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill)
: This is certainly a long speech—I started it about a fortnight ago. For those members who were not here or need a wee bit of refreshing due to the elapsed time, I say that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill adds a level of caution to the process of setting the total allowable catch. It gives the Minister of Fisheries the authority to act cautiously in the absence of information.
When I introduced this topic in my speech the last time the House sat, I was talking about the purposes and principles, why this Act was a world first, and why it is regarded as a very, very useful tool and the best in the world for managing a very imprecise kind of science. I will make just a couple of points before I conclude.
The first one is that the Primary Production Committee has largely been non-partisan in dealing with matters about fishing. In 1996, for example, it was not very often that the Government representatives on the select committee even had equity in numbers, let alone a majority, yet the committee was able to come up with what is regarded as very fine legislation. That is the first point.
The Minister Jim Anderton introduced the bill the other evening with the aplomb of someone who had been to the Clint
Rickards charm school. He said he was introducing the bill and that it had to be reported back in an abbreviated time, without giving us any reason for that. If the Minister wants our support, he has to be a little bit more forthcoming in the information he gives us, because I have a bit of concern about a couple of issues around that.
If one looks at the bill, one sees about five pages of notes and only five clauses. By the time one takes out the title, commencement, principal Act amended, and information principles clauses, there is not a lot that the bill does. I want to draw clause 5 to the attention of the House. In relation to consultation, it states: “Any consultation carried out in respect of decisions that require consultation under the principal Act and that are to be made after the commencement of this Act is to be treated as complying with the consultation requirements …”.
So, in effect, this is retrospective legislation. Why is it retrospective? If the Minister is facing actions over some decisions he made, then he ought to share with us his
particular problems. I do not know whether I am surmising things that are not correct, but the retrospective part of this bill draws to my attention that this legislation might be being passed in just a little bit of unseemly haste, given that we will be voting on having a shortened time to report back.
In principle, we need as much information as we can get, and there are a lot of things that this bill could do. It could, for example, encourage people to be much more accurate in reporting. It could actually bring on to the table an issue that some recreational fishers have some concerns about—that is, the issue of reporting exactly what catch customary and recreational fishers get, so that the Minister has that information when determining total allowable catch. A whole lot of things could permeate out from what is quite a brief bill. In principle, National wants the fishery to be managed in the best possible way. To do that, a cautious approach needs to be taken. But there are some issues that could arise that we have some concerns over.
National will support this bill going to the select committee. We are interested in getting a more full explanation from the Minister, and we are interested in hearing what the various sectors say about the whole process of this bill, bearing in mind that currently out there for consultation at the same time is a document called
Shared Fisheries. One has to say that sectors of the industry, particularly the
Māori interest, are expressing real concern over what that sharing might mean. I just wonder whether there is any connection, in tandem or otherwise, implied or accidental, with the retrospective nature of clause 5, and what that might mean for the whole of fisheries management.
So I just alert the House to those matters, and conclude by saying that we will certainly support this bill going to the select committee.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National)
: I will make just a brief contribution so that we can tidy this matter up at 10 o’clock.
Hon Member: It will be a good one.
Hon DAVID CARTER: It will be a good one. It is certainly great to have an opportunity to speak to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill, and the first thing I want to say is that it is great to actually have some legislation coming before the Primary Production Committee.
Eric Roy: It’s quite novel.
Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, we do have one other piece of legislation there, but I think we are like many of the other select committees around Parliament at the moment: we are not busy enough, because this Government is bereft of new ideas, does not have any policy that it actually wants to pass into law, and is now whimpering into its final stages of decline. We will see this Labour-led Government limp towards the election of 2008, but at least that will bring satisfaction to most New Zealanders.
The issue with regard to this legislation is a matter of defining more clearly the issue of assessing stock, so that once a total allowable catch is set by officials—and therefore, ultimately by the Minister—there is less room for challenge from the industry. I do sympathise with the people charged with doing stock assessment in the fisheries area, because it is a very inexact science. It is not like other aspects of primary production where one can go on to a farm and count the number of sheep and see their condition. In this case, if one goes into Cook Strait, it is very difficult to actually estimate the number of hoki or blue cod, and the size and age of those species. But the very essence of this legislation is that those stock assessments must be arrived at to ensure sustainability of a species. Because there is a certain amount of guesswork in making those assessments as to the stock available, it leads to some difficulty as to whether the figures finally assessed by the officials are in fact open to challenge from the industry.
So National looks forward to hearing submissions from those involved in the industry. I am certainly sure we will receive good, powerful submissions from the
commercial sector, because it is renowned for making good, powerful submissions to the Primary Production Committee. I also share the concern raised in the debate earlier by Phil Heatley when he acknowledged that if we are to become too precautionary in our approach, then we do not want that precautionary approach to be so extensive that we are not prepared to make decisions that allow this valuable resource to be used and maximised for the benefit of the New Zealand economy. So with those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I bid you farewell and goodnight.
