Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15199] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 There are many aspects of this bill that the ACT party does not support but we do support kahawai going into the quota management system. That has been a long time coming. We believe in the quota management system. It is a property right and the ACT party believes in clear property rights. 
Indeed the problem with the management of this species and other non-quota species has been the fact that they are not in the quota management system. It is an administrative allocation that inevitably is a politicised process and all the arguments and problems that we have seen with scampi and other species that have not been on the quota system are manifest in that. That is why we say the sooner we can get allocation on to a clear property-right basis the better so we support that part of the bill. 
 I cannot understand the National Party position or Mr Baldock’s amendment. The real nonsense of their thinking is shown by the fact that if we did not put kahawai into the quota then the commercial sector would be unrestrained. It could virtually take as much as it liked by whatever technique it preferred and the impact of that on the recreational fishery would be infinite. We believe that recreational fishers’ property rights have not been adequately provided for; certainly under the Fisheries Act there is a very clear property right for the commercial take under the quota management system. We have in our legislation very clear property rights for customary take—Maori fishing—but the recreational fishers have not been adequately provided for. But that is a separate issue to that of whether kahawai should come into the quota management system and we say that it should. 
What we hear from “Mr Baldrick” just reflects his new coalition grouping—those who have joined with that party and sort of captured them. We always find that new groups in politics reflect the views of the last person they spoke to and I think that that is the case with United Future members. They got a heavy lobby and they succumbed to it. Someone told them that something would be a good idea so they rushed down to Parliament as champions of that good idea but it was not a good idea at all. 
Brian Connell 
: What about mussel spat? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We will come to mussel spat but before I do I must say that I cannot understand the position of the New Zealand First Party. It came to Parliament—and abstained. What a waste of space! We are elected representatives here and we are meant to hold views. To actually come to Parliament to fill a seat and sit here like some sort of maturing cheese and then abstain—I mean if one does not have views or opinions— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. It is a clear Standing Order that members may not refer to a prior debate. The particular thing that New Zealand First wishes members to be very clear about is that we are opposed to this bill in total. So how can that member get away with the effrontery of that nonsense he is spilling out now? Members should look at the 
 Hansard 
 record when voting is completed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I should not have to draw this to your attention but it is the second time tonight that you have indulged a non – point of order from the right honourable abstaining gentleman and you have not mentioned a thing. You were very quick to call the Hon Nick Smith to heel when he briefly transgressed but it seems you have been inconsistent. I do call for consistency.