Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15196] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to back up the very sound contribution that has been made to this debate by National’s fisheries spokesperson Phil Heatley. He has done the job of highlighting the arrogance and foolishness of the Minister of Fisheries who has been quite happy to interject in this debate but despite having had to table the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper 246— 
Brian Connell 
: How many? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Seventeen pages. Despite that the Minister has not been prepared to contribute to the debate. As we see over on the Government side of the Chamber all Ministers get a bit arrogant after 6 years. That Minister has become incredibly arrogant after just 6 months in the role. I know of no Minister who has made as many botch-ups in such a short period as David Benson-Pope. I particularly want to highlight what the Labour Party said to the electorate on the issue of kahawai. Labour stated to recreational fishers in its 1999 to 2002 election policy that kahawai is 10 times more valuable to them than it would be to commercial fishers. David Benson-Pope has ripped up the Labour Party manifesto and sold out the recreational fishers. 
Then there is the New Zealand First effort. I loved what Phil Heatley said about New Zealand First’s abstention on this issue. New Zealand First has become the “Ashraf Choudhary party”. How often I have gone to recreational fishing conferences where Winston Peters has stood up as the champion of recreational fishers. He is a lion before recreational fishers and a lamb when it comes to Parliament. Winston Peters cannot even work out which way he will vote on an issue as significant as this. That is truly remarkable although I think most members of the Committee know that New Zealand First blew any credibility it had on fisheries issues with the scam that occurred over scampi. It is a great difficulty that this Government— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The other day the member was called to order on this issue and he has raised it again. I challenge him to take himself out of Parliament and say what he believes is the truth— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:I say to the member that it is a point of order while I am raising it OK? I am entitled to be heard in silence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that points of order are to be heard in silence and in recognition of someone being given a point of order it is known that it is not to be controversial. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:The member has been called to order before and he should not have to be called to order again. Just in case he has to be Mr Chairperson I think you should either tell him to say that outside Parliament or throw him outside because if he cannot keep to the Standing Orders— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:There he is again. I have not finished my point of order yet. He will not listen in silence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:I am entitled to make my point of order in silence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will allow the member to do that provided he is terse and to the point and is not controversial. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:The point of order is terse and to the point. The inference the member has made is an inference that finds five parties now in front of a court for defamation proceedings. He has been ruled out on a number of times when he has made some inferences yet he seeks to repeat that one. All I am saying is that he should be invited by you to do one of two things: either to leave this Chamber until the debate is over or to go outside this Chamber and repeat it. He can put his money where his big mouth is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will allow the member to respond. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I point out that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order is effectively that he is saying the matter is sub judice because there are defamation proceedings so no member may comment. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a defamation action brought by Mr Selwyn Cushing associated with the wine-box affair in which Winston Peters argued very strenuously that that did not in any way limit his capacity to debate those issues before Parliament. Exactly the same principle applies in this matter. I did not make any reference to the defamation proceedings and Mr Peters’ point is not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. The issue that is being discussed by both members has nothing to do with this bill. I ask the member now to return to the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is your ruling on this point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issues that were raised by both members are not within the scope of the bill. I ask the member to come to order and debate the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The New Zealand First Party has absolutely no credibility on this bill or on fisheries matters given the fiasco that we have seen from Winston Peters over scampi and now his party is abstaining from voting. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What action was that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Peters ran into Parliament and made all sorts of allegations about the scampi industry. Six months later he did a complete U-turn and he has never explained to this Parliament what that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member come to the bill please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am simply responding to the interjection from the member. The New Zealand First Party chose to abstain from voting. I just find it extraordinary that the New Zealand First Party does not know where it stands. It has done an “Ashraf Choudhary” on an important fisheries issue. It sold out on the most important recreational species and has joined the Labour Party in ratting on recreational fishers. I simply say that is not good enough. 
The kahawai species means far more to New Zealand and has far more value as a recreational than as a commercial species. Labour has gone back on its word that it gave to recreational fishers. It has short-changed New Zealand in terms of the proper management of that species which would provide for the overall interest in it and the New Zealand First Party has sold out on recreational fishers when it had the opportunity to show some backing for that important recreational fish. 
I also strongly endorse the concerns that were expressed by Phil Heatley about the shambolic way that this fisheries legislation has advanced. This should be labelled the “Fisheries (David Benson-Pope Stuff-up) Bill (No 3)” because if we look at David Benson-Pope’s brief holding of the recreational fishing portfolio we see that the way he has managed the portfolio is an absolute mess. The ideas that one can apply the quota management system outside the economic zone and that Maori should somehow be given an entitlement to quota outside that zone are a nonsense. A Minister who was on top of his or her portfolio would not have advanced a bill of this sort. We should not have seen a bill be rejected by the Primary Production Committee. The Government lost the numbers there; it has made a hash of this law. We should in fact title this bill far more appropriately in order to reflect the mess that it is. National simply says that the quota management system cannot apply outside the economic zone.