Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15134] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will just take a quick moment to address a couple of small points brought up by Mr Ewen-Street about how bad the quota management system and rights in perpetuity are. I guess we should tell Mr Ewen-Street and his family that they should not have their freehold property in Christchurch—or wherever it is—in perpetuity. They should just lease it and give it back to the public every 20 or 30 years. We know what happens throughout the world when the security of property rights is ignored or constantly threatened by Governments. They dissolve people do not care about them and they do not look after them. The same applies to a property right under the quota management system. The fishers who have a property right under the quota management system are far more likely—it does not guarantee it; there are no guarantees for anything—to care for and ensure sustainability in the industry in which they have a major stake. It has been recognised worldwide—and I do not know how many times I have to say this—as the best system for ensuring sustainability. It is not about sustainability of the fishermen—or the fishers as the politically correct people like to call them—it is about sustaining the fish stock. That is the important point. 
Is it perfect? No of course it is not perfect but it is sure better than anything else. Until Mr Ewen-Street and the Greens come up with something better it will continue. 
I want to get on to the Committee stage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). It is without question the job of a select committee to tidy up a bill when it comes from the Minister and his ministry. I say again as I have said many times the Primary Production Committee is well known for working collaboratively to make sure that there is a sensible outcome. It took about 2 minutes or even less to look at this bill and realise that it was yet another dog’s breakfast from this ministry. It was an absolute disaster. 
So the bill was essentially lost at sea. It was a case of “bill overboard”—the bill and the nonsense of 20 percent of migratory species going to Maori was tossed overboard into the South China Sea where it belongs. How on earth could the select committee countenance such abject nonsense that came from this Government? We have just debated the Aquaculture Reform Bill where 20 percent of the resource is going to Maori. That is bad. It was wrong to do that. But this is just arrant nonsense. I suspect that Trevor Mallard had something to do with this. Has he not been appointed the Minister who ensures that things that might embarrass the Government do not get through? I suspect he had a little hand in this and said “Nod nod wink wink toss it overboard. Get rid of it as it will say to the public of this country that we are pandering to Maori again. It is the cargo cult again so we will stop it.” So out it went. 
But when the Supplementary Order Paper came in that effectively cancelled the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) the Primary Production Committee members had about 10 minutes to absorb it. It is a technical adjustment but it is 17 pages long. Other members have talked about this already. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of 17 pages when the entire bill was about 38 pages. Along with my colleague the chairman of the committee David Carter I sought leave of this House to send the Supplementary Order Paper back to the committee. That leave was denied—surprise surprise. The Labour Government does not want to do the job properly. It just wants to flick it through get it on the way and never mind proper public consultation—just get it out of the way. Well we are having to go through the Committee stage of this bill now and I suspect that the bill will end up as yet another embarrassment for the Government. There will be more amendments.