Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15273] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 As I said last night here in New Zealand for the first time in 150 years of this Parliament’s history we have a Minister of Fisheries who has absolutely floundered. He has come a real gutser over this bill. The Prime Minister should put him out of his misery. She was experimenting with this new Minister and the experiment has been a total failure. She should say that occasionally she gets it wrong and that this Minister must go. Because this bill from the beginning to the point we are at now has been a complete litany of failures. I will start with a few points that have been raised in the debate so far. 
Firstly the Minister states in his bill and confirms in the Supplementary Order Paper—although one would not know that because it is written in a way that ensures nobody will ever study it closely but it may be confirmed in there—that we are going to introduce mussel spat into the quota management system. Many times in this House the request has been put to the Minister to take a call and explain where the science is in the notion that a very migratory species in the form of mussel spat which drifts around the coast of New Zealand can be introduced to the quota management system. Some years there is a lot of it other years there is very little of it and there is absolutely no science whatsoever to say what a sustainable management programme for it would be. The Minister has failed so far to answer that question. He has completely failed and we know why—because he cannot. He has even had a legal opinion on it as he said to the House although we have had no evidence of that which I think backs up the fact that that is so. There is no science there is no research there is no knowledge and therefore it cannot be done in a credible way. 
Further one of the bottom lines of a Government—any Government—is to protect citizenship against rorts of property ownership or the theft of property rights. In this bill the Government is doing the reverse. It is giving to I think nine people a windfall that most of us could only ever hope for. 
Hon David Carter 
: It is like winning Lotto. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is like winning Lotto as my colleague says. It was interesting to note that the senior Government whip Jill Pettis read out a letter about one of my colleagues that we could not describe as being complimentary. It is the only letter she has received all year and I have to say to the member that we get hundreds of letters—thousands of letters. I would not bring down to the House and read out some of the letters I have had on her because I am sure they would be unparliamentary and ruled out of order. In kind terms some of the language that is used to describe the member for Whanganui could only be described as “colourful”. There are a few letters in my bottom drawer about that member. 
All I can say to the member—and I say it to the Minister and to Madam Speaker as well—is that no matter how good the strategy may be occasionally one must look at the results and the results of this are not good—they are not good by any measurement. So regardless of the fact that that was the first letter the member has received all year and it is not complementary to one of my colleagues I say to the senior Government whip that she should get one of her colleagues on the select committee to take a call and explain to members what they found out through the process. 
The deputy chair Janet Mackey is a very good member of Parliament. She represents provincial rural New Zealand in a Labour Government which has almost put her in danger. In fact I think it has run her out of Parliament but she represents rural New Zealanders regardless of what the socialists say. She stands up for them and I think she is a very good member but will she take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)? 
Hon David Carter 
: Is she allowed? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I would suggest she would not take a call on this bill and I can understand why. As has been said before the very good and very senior member Clayton Cosgrove who is another member of the select committee and a very outspoken member has kept his head down and has not been heard in this debate and there are very good reasons for that. I am sure he would make a very good fisheries Minister because he listened to the facts and he would change the silliness that is going on in this House. 
Of course Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels were probably wheeled into the select committee to make up the numbers at times. There is no way that I can comment on whether Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels have a handle on this bill because I simply do not know but I suspect not—I substantially suspect not. 
Further this bill introduces migratory species into the quota management system. The system has been recognised internationally as a fine sustainable management system for managing a fishery and I see a couple of Ministers on the other side of the House who would know that. They know that this is so. So introducing migratory species into that system means that our quota management system which now extends to the coast of Brazil or Fiji or Hawaiki—it depends on where the first waka came from; there has been a lot of debate about that but it does not matter—or the system extends around the world and those members know that this will severely damage the international reputation the system has. They know that; yet they are still allowing this bill to proceed. 
I now move to the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street who was on the select committee and is himself a victim of by-catch. There is no question about that. If we study what happened in the select committee process Ian Ewen-Street became a victim of by-catch; there is no doubt about that. I am not sure whether he will be introduced into the quota management system under this bill but he probably will because he is certainly an endangered species and there is no question about that. I sincerely hope that that process and the fact that he became a victim of by-catch will do something about fixing up the migratory species that moves up and down his tie in this House and will save the rest of Parliament from having to constantly be in danger from it but it has not. It has not achieved that and certainly the member Ian Ewen-Street who was a victim of by-catch voted against this bill and spoke strongly against it at length. 
When the chairman would not give him a slot to speak he would take it anyway. He would speak over the chairman to say: “I must make my point in this select committee. I want it recorded. I am very opposed to this approach.” He said that time and time again. He went through the detail he did a lot of work on it he was well informed and he was opposed—vigorously opposed. We come into the House today and we suspect that this bill may pass and we know that United Future New Zealand First and National are voting against it so who is left? 
Phil Heatley 
: ACT is voting against it. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: ACT is voting against it and those members have spoken at length against it. They will not support it. They made a very fine contribution on the select committee and they will not support it. It must have lost—but something has happened. Let us look at the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper and see whether we can find the deal that has “clause for the Green Party” on it but there is not a sign of it. Those members have not been bought by the loaves and fishes—I mean United Future might have been bought with a few loaves and fishes but not the Green Party; I know that—and given that they are victims of the by-catch but— 
Phil Heatley 
: Why the U-turn? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —why the U-turn? It is the question we are all wondering about and maybe a Green member will take a call and explain it. We just do not know why it could have happened but it has happened. That is what we suspect has happened and it is what has happened and the fishing industry will not thank them for it. 
As for sustainability let us go back to the core principles of the Green Party. Sustainable management and environmental protection will not be enhanced by what they are doing—not today. Those members have gone against the basic principles that they campaign for around this country and get 2 percent of the vote from rich and poor alike on the environment and environmental issues. 
Hon David Carter 
: Don’t forget integrity—Green integrity. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I would never use “Green” and “integrity” together in one sentence. I think that would be a highly dangerous approach. But those members campaigned with a bottom line of environmental protection and they have absolutely gone against that basic principle that the misguided 2 percent of New Zealanders around the country—and around the world now of course—who vote for them vote on. I just say to the Green Party that I do not know what deal the Government has done to buy them out on this but whatever that deal was it is misguided. 
Hon David Carter 
: I know it’s about the next ambassador to London. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well it could well be.