van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm interested with some of the conversation that we've been having so far on the committee stage here of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I think there are a couple of points that I just want to start on actually. I just want to touch on the Green member Eugenie Sage's contribution because for me that just shows a total disregard for the reality of what actually happened and an intent to disguise what actually played out. It says quite clearly that amendments were unanimously recommended. So for her to try to suggest otherwise is totally misrepresenting the situation.Now in terms of the Minister's comment that he is trying to do the right thing by putting in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 to remove those pre-set decision rules it's just flabbergasting quite frankly. Here we are only a few hours after the second reading of this bill. The Minister is a senior member of this House. He would be quite aware that the second reading is the time to foreshadow any potential SOPs that may come forward at the committee of the whole House stage and there was absolutely no mention whatsoever of his decision or his intent to introduce that SOP at the second reading which occurred only 24 hours ago with his first speech of it—the final speech of it being only late this morning.So on that basis how can we now be in a position less than 24 hours later where we have such a massive U-turn from the Minister on his position with regard to those pre-set decision rules? Or is it that he actually knew 24 hours ago and simply failed to inform the House of his intention to introduce an SOP? It would be disappointing to think that was the case. I'm not suggesting he would do that of course. But I'm also really interested to hear from Labour members of the Primary Production Committee because they also sat through all of those submissions they heard the different views they helped to amend this bill and to report it back unanimously to the House and I am sure they are equally as surprised to note now that we are striking out a massive chunk of this bill around those pre-set decision rules.Actually I thought that was an area that was quite good. There was a good opportunity there to demonstrate an ability to be responsive to changing needs within the quota management system because we have seen over time that we have particularly large fluctuations at times of fish stock assessments because they may not be done on a particularly frequent basis. And so once we roll around from one to the next for a particular fish stock you can see a significant change in the total allowable catch recommended and subsequently implemented off the back of those fish stock assessments. And of course a drastic change—well over 100 percent in some instances; increase or decrease—can have of course a massive impact on the commercial operators trying to go about conducting their business if they're suddenly finding that the fish stock they're allowed to catch has been slashed by half or by 80 percent in some cases. That's simply not great practice.So the ability to have some flexibility through the pre-set decision rules would have enabled in my mind anyway the Minister to make some assessments in between those formal fish stock assessments. And yes I accept that those decision points happen twice a year but not for the same fish stock each time. I think that's the key aspect here: we can be talking years between fish stock assessments for the same stock. So on that basis having the flexibility through a range of data feedback anecdotal information from commercial fishers for example suggesting that actually a fish stock is more depleted or more abundant than might have been the case when the total allowable catch was last reviewed would be an appropriate time for the Minister to exercise his right and say Well hey is there some flexibility? Do we need to drop this limit back down to ensure that the biomass remains sustainable or not?" That's where I see there was great flexibility in that.So I'm really interested to understand exactly why—when this change suddenly came about. It's a piece of legislation that's been in the pipeline for a long time now lots of consultation so why are we just finding ourselves right now at the point where this is suddenly changing? I think I'll leave it at that and get into my other points after the Minister responds to that question."