Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15138] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It has been interesting to listen to the contribution from a number of members today. One thing that has been absolutely fascinating to note is that even though we have the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope we have not heard a single peep from the Minister. The document is so thick in so many different ways that that ensures it will never be read—that is for sure. By virtue of the very eloquence of that Supplementary Order Paper in terms of how thick it is and what it is trying to achieve it will never ever be read. That is one thing we can be sure of. 
It has also been interesting to listen to a number of the other speakers who have made a contribution. I refer in particular to the Green member who absolutely opposed the process right through the select committee stage in the Primary Production Committee and who has come to the Chamber now and been bought off. I have gone through the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper 246 and I cannot find the bit that is so particularly good for the Green member. I hope somebody will take a call and explain why the Green member has been bought off with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for that is bound to be in there somewhere. The chairman of the select committee cannot find it. Someone will know where it is but I cannot find it in that Supplementary Order Paper at all. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It’s not there. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I agree that that is probably so. The Green member also touched a bit on the issue of by-catch. We know that the member himself became a victim of by-catch in the select committee and we all hoped that that might help to eliminate the migratory species that are going up his tie and frightening most people in the Chamber. But that has not worked; even that has failed. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and answer some of the very important questions that have been put to him by a number of speakers. The last speaker the Rt Hon Winston Peters put a range of questions to the Minister and not one of them has been answered. I want to know how a migratory species can be introduced into the quota management system and how that will be managed off the coast of Brazil by a New Zealand Minister called David Benson-Pope. How will that happen? Somebody needs to explain that. The previous member spoke about how 20 percent of the quota for those species once it has been established can then be allocated to Maori. National wants to know how that will work. The Minister needs to answer those questions today because a lot of other people want to know the answers to them as well. 
I also want the Minister to answer this basic question: given that a number of people right at this moment are contemplating making an investment in what is an up to $1.5 billion export industry in this country how can they make that investment with any degree of certainty whatsoever? The Minister is basically saying to those people that they simply cannot do that. He does not consider the industry to be important enough to be given the proper amount of time through the proper parliamentary process so that those people can go out and risk their capital and their lives—as is often the case out on the fishing boats. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that he should go out on a fishing boat one day and look at the physical kind of environment that those people work in. Why can the Minister not show the decency towards those people of putting this legislation through the correct select committee process? He is just abusing the process. Many people have sought leave to send Supplementary Order Paper 246 back to the select committee so that the very people who are involved in this industry and risking their capital can come to Parliament and tell the Minister what they find wrong with the process on this legislation. Will he do that? Not at all. It is absolutely amazing. 
We have a minority Labour Government that is propped up by a few lackeys— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
SHANE ARDERN 
:—and it will not support the very people it purports to represent. It will not support them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. In the interests of parliamentary decorum whilst one may call certain parties “doormats” “carpetbags” and what have you I think the word “lackey” has been ruled out. Therefore I think the member should choose his words carefully and not persist in that line. But to say “doormat” is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. I did call for order but the speaker did not turn back to the Chair. I ask Mr Ardern to please withdraw that comment; it is not acceptable in the Chamber. 
Simon Power 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters raises an interesting dilemma for members. If the word “lackey” is to be ruled out could the Chair confirm as Mr Peters asserts that the word “doormat” is fine? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If anyone uses either “lackey” or “doormat” in reference to either a member or a party I will rule it out. It depends on the context that those words are used in. 
Phil Heatley 
: What about “lapdog”? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: With regard to anything like that it will be a matter of my judgment. Mr Ardern used “lackey” and he will withdraw that. I ask him to please withdraw. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I withdraw. I was saying to those parties in the Chamber whose support is very cheap and can be bought without very much substance at all that they should stop for a moment and think about what is being done to the very people they purport to represent in this Parliament. Those people will definitely not be happy with the process on this legislation and those parties should just think about that. 
I also say to the Government members who are supporting this parliamentary process that they are abusing it.