Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14999] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Like the rest of my National colleagues I rise in opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). [ 
Interruption 
] I know that that will come as a surprise to my colleagues over there. There are a number of reasons and if they just hold their horses for a moment I shall explain those reasons to them. 
It was interesting to note earlier on that the member from United Future Larry Baldock said that he was the “guide dog”. As far as I can tell instead of leading the Government members out of the dark he has led them right into the dark—and I base that on the contribution of the member for Wanganui. Clearly she is not absolutely au fait with this bill. There are a number of reasons why the fishing industry in New Zealand is a very important industry. Primarily it is because it is a major export industry. It employs about 25000 people and last year its exports were worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. It is a substantial industry. We have to wonder then why we are here tonight in such a mess over legislation that went to a very good select committee which recommended that the bill not proceed. Yet we are here tonight debating the bill—or at least we are debating a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that has just been introduced by a Minister in the eleventh hour of this process. 
So there are a number of reasons why I stand here tonight in opposition to this bill. One reason is that the legislation is an absolute abuse of parliamentary process. We have a major industry—[ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting that the member over there interjects. Clayton Cosgrove is a senior member of the Primary Production Committee. He has been on that select committee for a long long time—he was there when I was first on it—and he has not taken a call on this bill tonight. With such an important industry as the fishing industry being debated we have not had a single peep out of that senior Government member other than interjections. I invite him to take a call. That would be the way to clear up some of the misunderstanding the member says that I may have about this legislation. 
Let us come back to the bill for a moment—or more important all 17 pages of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is not often that we come to the House and pick up a Supplementary Order Paper that is 17 pages long. That does not happen very often. Further it is not often that a Supplementary Order Paper is introduced into the House a few hours before we are due to debate the bill. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process. 
This legislation is supposed to put a cap on the highly migratory fish species. On the surface that would sound fair enough to someone who has not been close to the process. However if one talked to select committee members and read the submissions one would find out that that means that we are now going to introduce fish that are caught off the coast of Fiji or Bangladesh or somewhere else like that; North America South America or anywhere one can imagine in the world into the— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Switzerland. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is a very good point! Earlier a member took a call and said that she had come from a landlocked electorate like Switzerland. I would suggest that my electorate is bigger than Switzerland. It has a longer area of coast than Israel or Switzerland. The member would be surprised to hear that. In fact it is bigger than Israel and sometimes just as hostile but that has nothing to do with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That was a nice diversion. 
This bill is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary system. It is also interesting to note that the Green Party has done a complete U-turn. It has been bought out and I do not think that it was for some loaves and fishes either. I think it was for something more substantial than that. We have not found out what it was for but we know that the Green members have been bought off because they have done a U-turn. That is not unusual. There are many many occasions in this House when they talk tough on a range of issues and then come to the House with a completely different approach from the one that they had taken during the select committee process. 
The select committee process is the correct place for the detail of this debate to take place. That is why my very good colleague the chairman of the Primary Production Committee the Hon David Carter has suggested that the Supplementary Order Paper be resubmitted to that select committee—all 17 pages of it that virtually rewrite what was intended in the bill that was voted down by majority in the select committee. I think that would be a very good way forward for the Supplementary Order Paper. Members could then look at the detail talk to the officials again and sort out some of the loose issues that exist. 
A further issue that needs to be debated here is the issue of mussel spat. I was fortunate enough to spend a few hours at the select committee one day filling in for somebody and I became very informed on the mussel spat issue. Apparently mussel spat is in plentiful supply some years and in other years it is very hard to find. It seems to me that it will be very difficult firstly to establish a quota for that and secondly even if a quota is established how will it be managed? That seems a perfectly reasonable question. I wish that the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Who knows? Maybe he will during the Committee stage. Maybe the senior member Clayton Cosgrove from the Government side will take a call and explain to this House how that will happen. Those who discussed this at the select committee said that it would not be physically possible particularly if one was chasing that mussel spat right over to Fiji. Further the fisheries season starts on 1 October. Therefore it is important that these regulations are in place for the beginning of the new season. Given the mess that that Minister has left this legislation in and the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper he has introduced there is no way that this can be carried out in a timely sensible normal parliamentary process. 
 I ask the members opposite—the Ministers whoever; somebody over there—to please take a call and explain to us why it is that they have allowed this process to get to this point as it has in such a mess. The only conclusion we can come to on this side of the House is that the Minister himselfhas made an absolute mess of it and has not managed the process. He is a new Minister—we will give him credit for that—and probably a very short-lived Minister by the sound of it. His time surely must have expired given the mess he has made over this legislation. 
The other issue that has been discussed tonight is that of the green-lipped mussel. I do not think there is any reference here to the Green Party—but there could be. I think it is a fish species. There has been some reference to that tonight. Further how do we introduce—and this was a fair enough question from someone who genuinely does not know—the aquafarming part of that business into the quota management system? One does not have to. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I want to know how it can happen. Who here knows? Does the chairman know? 
Hon David Carter 
: Farmed seafoods will effectively be excluded. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That answers that question. The member says that farmed seafoods or aquaculture is excluded. But then the chair of the select committee himself said that he does not know or does not understand what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. So can he be sure of that? Can he be sure that the Minister and his incompetent management have not included aquaculture into this 17-page Supplementary Order Paper so that now the green-lipped mussels are actually caught up in this process? 
Phil Heatley 
: What about chocolate fish? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Chocolate fish were certainly debated in the earlier part of it and certainly they are a migratory species in our house. They move around fairly quickly and the quota management system does not work well either. 
I wonder how fair this process has been when I look at the fact that we are here tonight with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that nobody understands or has had time to read. I am sure the Minister has not simply because he has not made any reference to it at all during this debate or tried to clear up some of the questions. I know that the select committee members who sat through the submission process on this bill have no idea what is in this Supplementary Order Paper and do not understand it. Therefore this whole Supplementary Order Paper should go back to the select committee so that the committee can have a look at it. 
There is another interesting breed here which I think needs to be touched on again tonight and that is whole concept of being able to introduce the like of geoduck into the quota management system. Our spokesperson on fisheries tells me that there is such a thing as a geoduck and I know that the member Ian Ewen-Street is very passionate about geoduck because I have heard him talk about them ad nauseam tonight. I am curious to know how we are going to manage geoduck that are caught off the coast of Brazil in the quota management system. I want someone in the Government to explain to me how that will be so.