Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15202] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Once again I rise to speak against the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). There are a number of reasons for that and I will start with one. The first reason I can think of which must be mentioned here is that there has never been a Minister of Fisheries in the history of New Zealand I think who has floundered as much as this Minister. In this debate on the title this Minister should be renamed the “Yes Minister”. If ever there was an example of the television satire called  
Yes Minister 
 it has to be the example right here. I am not sure though who we should call Sir Humphrey—whether it should be the Minister or his officials—but clearly someone in this administration needs to take responsibility for what has happened. 
Let us have a look at what has happened since the beginning of this process. First of all the bill was introduced to the Primary Production Committee. The select committee rejected it sent it back to Parliament and said that the bill was not suitable and would not represent the wishes of that major industry—that $1 billion – plus export industry—so the Minister should sort it out. The Minister then looked at it and said that he would fix it by introducing a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. But that was not enough. He then introduced a further Supplementary Order Paper to amend the original Supplementary Order Paper or a clause in the bill. 
Brian Connell 
: To be sure to be sure. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Absolutely! That is for sure—and certainly he was not sure at any stage during that process that is for sure. 
Brian Connell 
: Unsure. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The most unsure Minister who has ever been in this Parliament! So then what happened? The Minister because of severe questioning—I guess that is the way to describe it—and certainly under pressure from Opposition members in the House decided that he would stand up once and try to explain the mess he had got himself— 
Hon Member 
: Once? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: We managed to provoke him to get up once when he challenged Opposition members to substantiate their arguments. Well he said that he had answers to the questions that had been asked but not one question was answered—not one. So I put the questions to the Minister again. I said that the Minister should get on his feet and explain to us what kind of science or evidence—any kind of science or evidence—was brought before him his officials members of the select committee or any others in the parliamentary process that said he could introduce mussel spat into the quota management system in a sustainable way or in any kind of sensible way at all. What science or what evidence was presented that suggested that could be done? 
Further what evidence did the Minister have— 
Brian Connell 
: Talk to him slowly. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Absolutely; I am going very slowly through these questions. What evidence did the Minister have that green-lipped mussels which are of course going to be farmed substantially once the moratorium is lifted—which is about to happen—will be at risk and therefore will have to be in the quota management system? What evidence does the Minister have for that? 
We are not opposed to the quota management system. We think it is very good. In fact I congratulate those who submitted to the select committee and substantially backed up their arguments with science—unlike this Government or this Minister. So we are in favour of the quota management system but what science does the Minister have to say that mussel spat can be introduced into that system and introduced in any kind of sensible way? 
I agree that some of this stuff is difficult but this is the most important question: where in any of the evidence that was submitted to anybody was there a degree of fairness introduced into the notion that seven or eight—or somebody said up to nine—individuals will be most able to acquire that quota management for mussel spat? Where is the evidence that that will be fair either to them or to anybody else? Where is the evidence for that? There is absolutely none. The Minister needs to take a call to explain that to the fisheries industry. 
Further when will this Minister explain to the fishing industry how it is that he will administer a quota management system for the migratory species of fish that can be caught off the coast of Brazil? How will he do that? 
Phil Heatley 
: Has he asked the Brazilians? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I wonder whether he has asked the Brazilians or any other peoples—the Fijians or the Niueans. The Prime Minister travels around the world; perhaps she is out there at the moment. I am pleased to see that she has recently included New Zealand back on her international flight plan—[ 
Interruption 
] Some would say it is a bit of a nuisance but I am pleased that it is a fact.