Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15187] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to this part as I did to the earlier parts of this bill on behalf of the National Party. There are a range of reasons why I do so but I will start with the process of what has happened in this Parliament today and last week as we debated the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). First of all there was a Supplementary Order Paper introduced into Parliament that was 17 pages long. Today we find further amendments to that in another Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister which has just been passed. We have to ask the question—and it would be really informative if the Minister would take a call and tell us why this is so—how it is that once a bill has been overwhelmingly rejected by the select committee and has come to Parliament with a major Supplementary Order Paper to which there are further amendments it can go through the parliamentary process and end up in the situation where it is being debated today in the House. That issue is one of the reasons National is not supporting this bill. 
Part 2 of this bill brings mussel spat into the quota management system. That is an interesting issue in itself and I would be very interested in the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope taking a call on this. I simply want to know how a quota can be established for mussel spat. The experts who advised the select committee said that some years there is plenty of spat and it is all over the place and other years it is very scarce. So how is it that the Minister and his officials have decided that it will be scientifically credible or fair—given that there has been a huge amount of unfairness in the whole process so far—to introduce mussel spat into some kind of credible quota management system? 
The National Party supports the concept of a quota management system and has always said so from the word go. But there must be some basis by which this process is brought in. Part 2 introduces mussel spat and green-lipped mussels into the quota management system. If anyone doubts me on that I suggest he or she looks at the appropriate part. The Minister certainly does not doubt me. He is keeping his head down on this issue because he knows exactly what I am talking about exactly what advice he must have been given by the fisheries out there that he is wrong. He knows that the process he is continuing with will be unfair and will bring about an outcome that is not desirable either from a fisheries point of view or a sustainable management point of view. 
It would be very very interesting and enlightening to this Commmittee if the Minister could take a call and explain to me why what I have stated is wrong because I think it is absolutely correct. Furthermore it brings the green-lipped mussels into the whole quota management system process. Here is an interesting point. A member from the Opposition’s side of the House earlier made the interesting comment that those who are in aquaculture are excluded from this process. I am not absolutely sure whether that is what is stated in the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper which is written in a way that ensures it will never be read or understood. So why is it that this Minister has never taken a call in this House to say that what I am suggesting may not be or is not so? The reality is that he cannot. He has had legal opinion on it he says but we have no evidence of that. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The member is confused. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister should take a call. I am not confused at all. It is very clear in the bill and he should have a look to see what it says. It is his bill and he should know what is in it. Of course if he needs a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper to amend it who knows what is going on in this debate? We are supportive of the notion of introducing fish into the quota management system but we need this issue to be cleared up and so do those out there who are involved in this industry. 
This is a substantial industry. It is worth over a billion dollars in export earnings for this country. Why is it that we have this convoluted and very very poorly managed political process with so much ambiguity around a range of questions and nobody within the Government including the Minister himself is willing to take a call to clear up some of these questions that are yet to be answered? The Minister should answer the questions.