van de Molen Tim; Sage Eugenie; Parker DavidTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I will just start by reiterating my request for a response to my first comments. The Minister David Parker still has not addressed those with regards to his Supplementary Order Paper put forward at the last minute removing the pre-set decision rules and why that suddenly came to be only a couple of hours ago why it was not signalled at all in his second reading contribution just 24 hours ago and why he thinks that is now appropriate. But specifically within that and I think that this speaks to some of the ridiculousness of the process that we're going through here—this is really shoddy process. Part 1: we're looking at clause 5 which inserts new section 11AAA where it is talking about the pre-set decision rules for sustainability measures. So in the first instance the Minister put forward the following: The Minister may (a) make rules that specify an approved range or limits within which any sustainability measure for 1 or more stocks or areas may be set or varied (the pre-set decision rules):". Then during the select committee process that got taken out again because that wasn't deemed to be appropriate apparently. I'm interested in why the Minister has gone through this process and where he sees it sitting. Then he put back in "The Minister may make rules within which any sustainability measure for 1 or more stocks or areas may be set or varied". Now he's taken it out again. So we're seeing something getting put in getting taken out then put it back in getting taken out again. I mean this is absolutely shonky decision-making—shonky legislation-making—from the Minister and I'm interested in why he thinks that was appropriate and then wasn't and then was and then wasn't and if he's confident now that he has actually made the right decision on that.Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a quick question. In terms of clause 16 and clause 23 and the fact that there can be an alternative method of disposal—and I'm thinking I wish we'd been able to change that word because it does suggest that fish that are landed can end up as waste. The Minister has said it could go to fish meal or it could go to landfill but nobody wants that. But in terms of clause 23 and the regulations which the chief executive of Fisheries New Zealand or the Ministry for Primary Industries can make what monitoring will be done by Fisheries New Zealand of fish that have landed that don't go to a licensed receiver and are somehow disposed of in another way? Will there be monitoring of quantities? Will there have to be detailed reporting on that and will there be a mechanism to respond if a lot of it is going to landfill? We've seen a lot of salmon go to the Blenheim landfill because of increased sea temperatures in the Marlborough Sounds—different reason but what monitoring is going to be done in relation to alternative methods of disposal other than going to a licensed fish receiver?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): As clause 23 which inserts new section 297(1)(a)(xiiv)(D) says the chief executive will prescribe the requirements relating to the disposal of fish and those requirements at new section 297(1)(a)(xiiv)(E) can include requirements relating to verification so that will be prescribed at the time by the chief executive."