van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the instruction to the committee of the whole House moved by Mr Muller. The reason we have taken this unusual path is because of the particularly unusual nature of what we see before us here today proposed by the Minister the Hon David Parker before this motion was put in place to debate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 in the name of the Minister.Now it's an SOP that significantly changes the construct of the bill that we would otherwise have been debating. On that basis we are very much concerned that the intent the goodwill and the submitters' efforts have all been undermined by this very last-minute change. We've seen actually through the process firstly the pre-set decision rules put in place and then amendments made to take them out further amendments to put aspects back in or change the wording and now finally looking to strike that out altogether. Ultimately it is a significant chunk of the bill that had been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee and had been reported back to the House as the proposed legislation that until that point was part of the Minister's intent and indeed it had its second reading only just last sitting day which actually concluded this morning. At that point even still only just a few hours ago it was the Minister's intent apparently that this would be part of the bill. And now here we are some short time later seeing an SOP tabled at the very last minute looking to strike out a significant part of the bill.So we were considering whether or not to move an instruction on this basis and thought that actually it warranted it because it is such a fundamental change to the legislation that had been put forward. Under Speaker's ruling 78/7 It is competent for a member to move an instruction the subject matter of which is neither 'irrelevant nor foreign nor contradictory to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and second reading of the bill'". That's the thing here we're not looking to change something significantly because that would be outside the scope of what can be moved by an instruction. What we're looking to do actually is to maintain the integrity of the process we have taken so far with this piece of legislation—through its first reading through the select committee and through its second reading which finished just a couple of hours ago. Now suddenly we're seeing a massive shift in where this legislation is decided best to sit by the Minister.We believe that is so fundamentally out of line with what was agreed through the previous stages through the collegial nature of the select committee. It is at such odds with all the efforts of the submitters and is quite frankly disrespectful to the time and effort put in by the submitters going through the select committee process on the expectation that their voice would be considered and heard and would maybe influence some of the outcome. We went through that; we saw some massaging of that—as put forward in the report from the select committee. The Primary Production Committee reported back to the House with some changes to the proposed wording of those pre-set decision rules such that it was presumably—and presumably at the Minister's confidence as well—a more appropriate fit for what the legislation should look like. Now here we are with that totally scratched off the page and we're rewriting it again.So on that basis we don't believe that this SOP 257 in the name of the Minister should be considered by the committee because as I say it is so fundamentally different to that view. The intent of the bill was to improve the sustainability of our fisheries. It is my claim and our moving of this instruction that actually as put forward it is deviating significantly from the previous stages. I think the key part here is that it wasn't just that someone has moved an amendment an SOP in the committee of the whole House stage—of course every member is entitled—Mark Cameron: They've rewritten the legislation.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —to do that—but actually it is a massive rewrite Mr Cameron absolutely of the fundamental intent of the legislation and specifically as reported back from a select committee that whilst it is generally bipartisan still the Government influence is very clear; it has the majority. On that basis you would expect that it has a very clear mandate a very clear understanding of following the Minister's intent going through the process looking to make some improvements from all of those submitters we heard from and then coming to this House.So that was the case: it was reported back; there were some amendments to it. We see that in the report back from the select committee: pages of them numerous strike-outs or add-ins as the clauses may be under the pre-set aspects—you know the 11AAAs the 5s the 6 the 7s all those aspects that had some wording tweaked to apparently make it more fit for purpose. Yet here we are now just a short time later having ratified all of that in the second reading. So it wasn't like the select committee reported back something that the Minister thought was inappropriate because it still passed its second reading with no concerns raised at all—even this morning a couple of hours ago—about any aspects of these pre-set decision rules that may or may not be fit for purpose any longer. This is just blind-siding the committee and the industry.On that basis we have moved this instruction and we would ask for the support of members across the House to advise the committee—when it does go into committee of the whole House—to take this instruction and its consideration and strike out any further consideration of SOP 257 in the name of the Minister."