Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14557] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 My point is the very fact that clause 65 is in the bill in the first place. It is symptomatic of the point I made earlier that the Primary Production Committee was given this legislation with an indecent amount of time to do the work. With the assistance of the ministry officials we presented it back to the House on time as instructed by the Minister but—surprise surprise—when he finally gets to present it to the Committee of the whole House we find he wants to take out a clause that we in the select committee had not been told was unnecessary or contradictory. 
Brian Connell 
: Incompetence. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Brian Connell suggests it is incompetence. The Minister should take a call and explain the rationale because at this stage it appears to me that there has been absolute incompetence on the part of the Minister. The legislation has gone right through the select committee process and has sat on the Order Paper for weeks because the Minister forgot to include it in the urgency motion when the House took urgency in the last sitting block. Now here we are with a matter of days to pass it so that it can receive the royal assent as quickly as possible in order to meet the 1 October deadline and we find that clause 65 when we re-read it appears to contradict clause 1A “Commencement” which we have just debated. Because it appears to contradict that clause the Minister has an instant answer which is that we will just take it out altogether. How sloppy is that? 
This is legislation that has been presented to the House. It is not a big bill. I know that the member is a new Minister but he should have been able to get this right. He should have been able to get an 11-page bill together. He has known about this scampi issue for a long time. Did he not watch the  
Assignment 
 programme in October 2002? He has had months and months to get the legislation right. He gave it to the Primary Production Committee hurrying the committee along so that it could not do its job then we get the bill back into the House and lo and behold there is a mistake in it. 
So he has proposed an amendment—I had trouble finding it I must admit but it has finally been pointed out to me—that states: “Clause 65To omit this clause.” It is time for an explanation. The Minister should stand straightaway accept his responsibilities as the Minister of Fisheries and explain this. Then we can move on because there are other important parts to discuss. We are not even at the gutsy part yet. We have not even reached the part where all the controversy is. Harry Duynhoven is rushing to get there. He wants to take a call. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Wasn’t this about having two commencement clauses? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Harry Duynhoven is right. We have two commencement clauses. I reckon that member would have made a wonderful Minister of Fisheries. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Why are you waffling on? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because I want to know why the legislation was not right in the first place. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Oh boy as if this is the biggest mistake ever made! Let’s get on with it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is not the biggest mistake; it is just another one. It is symptomatic of the problem that this particular species has had since the late 1980s. 
John Carter 
: Harry Duynhoven should have been the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I reckon Mr Duynhoven should be the Minister. Here we are asking questions and David Benson-Pope is just sitting there dumbstruck. He is not sure how to answer them. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I’ll take a call. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I reckon that is the best offer we have had all day. I am happy to yield to the Minister so that he can explain why clause 65 is being omitted. Again I take the opportunity to say that if the answer is not satisfactory I am sure members on this side of the Chamber will ask a lot more questions.