Muller ToddFISHERIES AMENDMENT BILLInstruction to CommitteeTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House considering the Fisheries Amendment Bill that the committee may not consider Supplementary Order Paper 257.We have been working on the Fisheries Amendment Bill for the last many months at the Primary Production Committee and we have done that in good faith—as the National Party the ACT Party and the Labour Party; and we have had a very good contribution from Eugenie Sage. As we have worked through that we have worked on a Government bill that itself has been in many years of gestation with many stakeholders—be they recreational custodial or the sector itself. A core component of that bill was the fact that for the first time the industry would have a framework—a new framework—called the pre-set decision rules which would enable some business surety and certainty and common sense for the sector and all the participants to be able to understand how a particular species will be managed within an agreed pre-set decision framework.In good faith we have debated it as a select committee. We have read 500 submissions and we've heard from 50 individual submitters and each one of them reflected around their perspective on the pre-set decision rules. This is the Primary Production Committee which is known for its ability to be bipartisan more than partisan and to work through issues when we are having points of difference. We have worked through that diligently and with an appropriate focus—those of the sector regardless of their perspectives—be they from an iwi-custodial perspective; be they from a recreational perspective; be they from the NGOs who do not want anything taken from our seas; or from the various voices of the commercial sector.What we have in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been dropped on us this afternoon is every single reference to the pre-set decision rules framework—which in good faith was discussed with the sector prior to the Government bill being introduced; which in good faith the select committee reflected on over weeks and weeks and weeks; and which is a core component of the negotiation and the balance that was sought to be struck with respect to fisheries management—being pulled. In this SOP every single reference to that pre-set decision framework—for us to consider in a committee of the whole House stage—has been pulled from this bill.I think—and hence my debatable motion this afternoon—that it is a unique set of circumstances that will require the relatively infrequent use of this request by the Opposition. Frankly it is so substantive to the Government bill that was introduced that for it to be introduced as an SOP in this context fundamentally changes the nature of the bill that we have been deliberating on and reflecting on as parliamentarians in good faith and in a partisan way for weeks and weeks. It simply is not acceptable and that sits at the core of the National Party's—and my—objection to the fact that this SOP has been dropped as it has in this House and has pulled all reference to something that in good faith the sector has been negotiating. It destroys the trust that within a sector is challenging to find at the best of times. From our perspective it is completely unacceptable that we would consider it.