Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14579] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I think I may have an answer to the question the Minister of Fisheries will not answer. He has been asked to answer this question on many occasions. In fact we thought he was going to answer it just a few moments ago when he rose to take a call. Instead he made a mistake in trying to blame the select committee members for the haste with which this bill was dealt with. I refer to the arbitrary decision to shift the boundaries. How will shifting the boundaries of area 3 and area 4 allowing more fish to be caught enhance the sustainability of the fishery? That is a very perplexing question for us on this side. 
I have before me two maps. I have been looking at them and I think I have concluded how that may be possible. The Minister may take a call to confirm whether I am right or wrong. By shifting the internal boundary between area 3 and area 4 we have now driven the fishers further off shore where they may not have otherwise gone. Therefore we have expanded the amount of fish that has traditionally been harvested. We have sent the boats further out to sea and by doing that have developed a larger area of the fishery. I say to the Minister that maybe that is wrong but it is the only logical conclusion when looking at these maps that anybody could come to. It is just purely nuts as a proposal to suggest that by changing the boundaries we create more fish. That does not happen. The only way we can make the fishery larger is by increasing the area to include parts where fish have not historically been caught. I presume that is the correct answer. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley has a view on that and he may think it is the answer too but the Committee would dearly love to hear from the Minister and have that confirmed. At this point in time we are still in a vacuum; so are the scampi and the fishermen. The fishermen do not know whether that is the answer as well. 
This whole debate tonight around the allocation of scampi and scampi entering into the quota management system has been very interesting. A number of things have been canvassed by a number of members but none more so than the whole debate about whether this process is fair. Overwhelmingly one can only conclude that the answer is no. This process is not fair and this Minister has compounded the problem. I do not think it is fair to blame him entirely for the problem because it has been going on for a long time and he is a new Minister. But it is just a pityhe did not take advice from some more senior Ministers and perhaps even some former Ministers as to why we had got ourselves into this muddle. Instead he has listened to the officials who have over a number of years given bad advice to a succession of Governments and Ministers and once again he is here tonight making an arbitrary decision about a boundary and he will not tell us why. He will not say tonight why this boundary is being shifted which effectively is what is happening in this bill. 
This proposal did not go to the select committee. It has happened since the select committee process. The officials came back and said the boundaries should be shifted because there would be more fish. On the surface how do they work that out? But if we look at the map we see that maybe it is possible. I say to the Minister that if we go all the way to Australia well beyond our economic zone maybe we will have more fish. Somebody suggested earlier tonight that if we go to Norway where these fish hail from we will have more fish. That may well be so. Maybe the ministry’s advisers have told the Minister that we should implement a quota management system in Norway. I am not sure because he will not answer the question. The bottom line is that we cannot make more fish by shifting the line on the map. The only conclusion we can come to tonight is that the Minister has decided that with the area going further out to sea there will be more head space for those who feel aggrieved. Maybe the Minister will take a call and clear that up once and for all. The Committee and anybody who is listening tonight must be in a huge vacuum as to why he has made that decision. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this component of the bill but then the Minister of Fisheries rose and had the audacity to blame the members of the Primary Production Committee and other members of this House who have come down to the Chamber tonight to debate this legislation who have said that there is something wrong with the advice that he has been getting and that some of that advice has come from the ministry. The ministry has been fingered by independent inquiries as being ad hoc inconsistent and unprofessional and this Minister had the audacity to get up and blame the members of the select committee. How pathetic is he? Well I tell members that he is hopeless and that is why he will not stay in the job for very long at all. The Minister should set the tone for how he wants his ministry to perform. He should not stand up and blame others for his own poor performance. 
Having said that I will turn my attention to the issues of the schedules and why United Fisheries in particular must feel highly aggrieved with the process that this Minister is proposing as a solution. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Bring back Jenny. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I hear Mr Mallard calling out—the man who is so dense that light bends around him— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that members should be referred to by their correct name. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thought I had pronounced his name correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No you did not. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I have been referred to as Brian Bryn and Brain tonight and I have not heard anyone objecting about that but when this Minister and Mr Mallard get similar treatment they do not like it. Well he has run into someone who is just a little bit harder in the head than he is. We will not worry about what Mr Mallard thinks because he is a guy who when the brains were given out was not exactly home. All that he has ever done with his life is be a teacher then come to this House—and he cannot even manage that particularly well. He wants to protect the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope because he knows he is hopeless. The Minister has demonstrated that to all the people who have been listening tonight. 
I had started to refer to the schedules before I was rudely interrupted by Mr Mallard. I was beginning to say that I think United Fisheries and the other fishers who miss out somewhat under what this Government is proposing as a fair and equitable solution have cause to be totally despondent and to feel they have had no justice whatsoever under this process. The National Party in the spirit of cooperation and using the benefit of our business experience lent a perfectly workable solution to the Minister of Fisheries. But he is naive and inexperienced and because he could not listen to those who knew better he will not be in the job for long. He could not take advice or see past party lines. United Fisheries and those other six fishers are the ones who are missing out as a consequence. It is not just and it is not fair. The solution that was offered was entirely reasonable: give those fishers the first right of refusal. It could not be much fairer than that—provided they make a financial contribution. But what they are saying is that money is only part of the solution. This Minister did not have the capacity to get his head around that simple commercial issue and that is the great tragedy. 
So what happens? We have the courage to say that the way he is leading the ministry and some of the performance from his officials are not satisfactory. He then attacks the messenger. The Minister can mumble and grumble under his breath as much as he likes—that is all he is really good for. He has been invited on numerous occasions to get to his feet and answer some of these questions but he has not had the conviction to do that. He is tough when he is sitting in his chair mumbling to the Chairman but when he needs to get up and demonstrate that he has the capacity to get his head around this issue he is not at home. It is no wonder that those fishers listening out there who have reason to be aggrieved have no confidence in him whatsoever.