Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15182] 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 26 August. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I follow on from the debate last week when Larry Baldock from the United Future party put before us his amendment to clause 58 to omit kahawai from the quota management system from 1 October this year. Currently it is gazetted to enter that system then. National believes that kahawai should go into the quota management system eventually and in fact we would like to see it go in as soon as possible. The quota management system would be the best way to manage that fishery; there is no doubt about that. However we have always said that that is dependent on the Minister’s allocation of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch. I must say that we were quite surprised by the Minister’s call on the total allowable commercial catch and by his restriction on recreational fishers up and down the country who see the kahawai fishery as their main target species. 
Why were we surprised by that? We were surprised because the Labour Party’s election policy on recreational fishing states—and Tony Ryall will be surprised to hear this because it affects the Bay of Plenty area where there are kahawai fishers and other members will be interested in this as well. Labour stated that it recognised the value of recreational fishing to New Zealand’s tourism industry and that a kahawai or trout caught by an overseas visitor and cooked or smoked by that visitor’s host may be worth 10 times more to the economy than one caught commercially and sold in the market. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely! The Labour Party and the Minister admitted that the recreational fishing of kahawai may be worth 10 times more to the economy than the commercial fishing process would be. Yet that Minister has seen fit to give an allocation to commercial fishers that will completely undermine that fishery for recreational fishers. The National Opposition certainly supports kahawai going into the quota management system but definitely not under those conditions in terms of the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch. 
Kahawai is a very very small potato for commercial fishers. It used to be used for bait. I know that it is sent to Australia and put in cat food cans. Yet for recreational fishers kahawai is a No. 1 sports fish. The Minister should have taken that into account when he gave his economic analysis and he should have also taken Labour Party policy into account which states that Labour sees the recreational fishing of kahawai as being 10 times more valuable than the commercial fishing of that species. He should have taken that into account when he did his analysis. If this amendment is passed now it would be a good thing for the Minister because if it is not passed he will find himself in court. Recreational fishing groups are funded they are ready and they have the ammunition to take the Minister to court. The Minister will have to go through a long drawn-out process which he will lose and we will be back to square one whereby he will have to go through the allocation process again. By that time many many months will have passed. It will be well past the 1 October 2004 date and we will have to start at the beginning point again anyway. 
I say the Minister should encourage his Green Party lackeys to vote for Larry Baldock’s amendment. He should vote for it himself and he should sharpen his pencil and start again. He should make sure that the allocation that is made to the recreational fishers of kahawai truly reflects their interest and history in the fishery their passion for the fishery and the economic value to New Zealand of their involvement in that fishery. I tell members and people who live in Hawke’s Bay and those who fish from Napier and other cities and towns off the coast of Hawke’s Bay and off the coast down to Wellington that commercial fishers will now be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers. Commercial fishers in Auckland off the Coromandel coast and off the Northland coast will be able to take almost more kahawai than recreational fishers. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First I rise to acknowledge Phil Heatley’s speech before me and his clear explanation of the situation. I clarify too on behalf of United Future that Supplementary Order Paper 247 which I have put forward in my name will not in any way take kahawai out of the quota management system permanently. It is simply to provide a pause in order to get our facts straight and set the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels appropriately. More important it provides a pause in order for the Minister and the Ministry of Fisheries to begin negotiations with the commercial sector on how to deal with the problem that has occurred by allowing purse seine fishing methods to be used to target kahawai. That is really the problem. There is no way to solve that problem unless we enter into negotiation with and possibly compensate the commercial fishers for the rights that may be taken away from them or for the rights that they expect to have. The problem will not be resolved by putting kahawai into the quota management system under the current levels because there will always be an opportunity for the purse-seiners to catch their quota before recreational fishers have had an opportunity or a fair go to exercise their right to catch kahawai. 
In answer to some questions today in the House the Minister gave the excuse that there would be no controls on the commercial sector if my Supplementary Order Paper was passed in the Committee today. I find that incredibly hard to accept or even to believe because controls have been exercised over the commercial sector prior to kahawai going into the quota management system. There are ways to set catch limits prior to quotas being issued and the Minister would need to exercise those controls albeit voluntarily as he may have intimated in his answers today. But nevertheless there is a way forward if we can put a stop to the total allowable commercial catch level going in as is recommended by the Minister’s  
Gazette 
 notice. 
However that problem is not the only issue for recreational fishers. They have always said they have no objections to kahawai going into the quota management system. They know there are fishers who catch kahawai as a by-catch and who do not target it. The recreational fishing interests are not selfish. They have always acknowledged that when that occurs and kahawai are caught as a by-catch it is entirely appropriate that fishers can take them home smoke them and provide them on the roadside for New Zealanders to enjoy. That is something the recreational fishers can live with. They do not want to see a situation where commercial fishers are faced with deemed value penalties because they are not able to get sufficient quota for that by-catch and therefore start to dump the kahawai at sea which is a no-win situation for everybody. The concern of the recreational fishers is that not only do the total allowable commercial catch limits the Minister has put in place by his  
Gazette 
 notice allow for purse seining to continue but they restrict the amount of by-catch quota that regular fishers will be able to get. In the kahawai 1 area over the last 5 years about 500 tonnes of kahawai have been caught as by-catch. Under the levels allocated by the Minister now fishers will be able to get only about 300 tonnes of quota to cover that by-catch. If the Minister intends to reduce the total allowable commercial catch even further next year in order to restrain purse seine fishing it will have the effect of further restricting the regular fishers who need that by-catch in order to cover what they catch incidentally as they go fishing. We do not believe that solution will be satisfactory. 
The second issue I raised today in the House is that there is a requirement in the Minister’s advice and his published statement for there to be a 15 percent reduction in the recreational catch. That is absurd. In order to achieve a 15 percent reduction in the actual figures there would need to be a reduction in the bag limit from 20 down to four kahawai. I do not understand how the Minister can expect recreational fishers in New Zealand to accept that their bag limit is to be cut from 20 to four while they watch the purse seiners continue to catch exactly the same amount of fish they have been catching on average in the last 5 years. I do not see how he can ever expect the average New Zealander to accept that as a reasonable and just solution to the problem. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It would be very nice to be able to support this amendment and curry favour with the recreational fishing lobby. We know that Outdoor Recreation NZ has thrown its weight behind United Future and is expecting results from them. We have seen Mr Baldock come to the first hurdle and fall and he will fall. He says there is no principle attached to this and that it does not really matter if we take some quota away from one entity and give it to another. He thinks that that is perfectly acceptable. If Mr Baldock has learnt anything in the House he surely must have learnt that the fishing industry is hugely litigious. That would happen at the first sign of the Minister overstepping his boundaries and taking from one and giving to another. Goodness knows we have just gone through the scampi inquiry over the past year or so on issues different but having some similarities in respect of inappropriate allocations. 
Mr Baldock was saying that purse-seine fishers go out there and grab their 3000 tonnes and they are destroying the fishery. But United Future does not seem to grasp the point that fishers can take only 3000 tonnes whether by the purse-seine method circling a huge school of fish and taking out 3000 tonnes in one fell swoop shall we say or over 10 or 20 attempts. It does not matter. The purse-seine fishers can do it one fish at a time if they wish. They are allowed only 3000 tonnes. Finish! End of story! That is it! I cannot understand why United Future does not seem to grasp that very simple point. 
I know that the recreational fishing lobby says those fishers are sending up spotter planes and grabbing all the fish out of the sea. But they are taking only the entitlement they are allowed under law. They are not taking any more or any less than that. So what does Mr Baldock not understand about that? It is quite simple. 
I am sure most members agree that clearly the fishery has to be managed and clearly the quota management system is far and away the best system. But things can go wrong when politicians climb into this debate and favour one section over another. This whole matter of kahawai—the “people’s fish” as it is called—could be solved relatively quickly. All the Government would have to do is approach the purse-seine fishers and buy their 3000 tonnes from them and give it to the recreational people if they so wish. But that is a matter for the Government. I cannot do it Mr Baldock cannot do it and the Opposition cannot do it. But the Minister can if he so chooses. 
That is a bit of a challenge to the Minister. If he really wants to ensure that kahawai remains the fish of the people then he will buy the allocation from those commercial purse-seine fishers if that is what is troubling him so very much. It is quite a simple concept a freely negotiated concept. He can do it if he chooses. That is the nub of the issue. 
I am told there is no sustainability issue around kahawai. I know that recreational fishers say that kahawai are nowhere as big as they used to be but that is the same whether it is deer or any other recreational resource. The same applies to trout in the streams. The days of getting the big ones are almost long gone because of fishing pressures. That is nothing new. But in this important recreational fishery we cannot have the situation whereby the Government steps in and creates new grievances amongst various fishers be they commercial or recreational. The rights of Maori fishers are recognised because they get 20 percent of everything that goes into the quota management system. The rights of the commercial guys are recognised but the real problem is that recreational fishers are not. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very serious issue. It is a very important resource and I think you should allow some members to make a speech about it. [ 
Interruption 
] It may not concern those Government members down in Auckland but up there and around the coast and the Bay of Plenty and all the way to Kaitaia it is a big big issue. I think you are premature in allowing people who do not take part in the debate who clearly do not want to be part of the debate and have clearly never read the bill and clearly are under marching orders to rise here and say nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever and just move that the debate be shut down. You have to admit that that is a bit premature particularly when one party has not had a chance to say anything on this Supplementary Order Paper whatsoever. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. He is a senior member of the House and I recognise the points he made. There have already been four closure motions and 18 speakers. I had heard what I considered to be sufficient debate on the issue and the proportionality was in keeping with the Parliament’s overall membership. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of Larry Baldock to Part 1 be agreed to 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being cast. It can be seen as intimidation and could ultimately amount to a breach of privilege. I am cautioning members on my left. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I think you have not gone nearly far enough. When I sit in this Parliament and hear a member of Parliament behind me making the cackling sounds of a hen not once but frequently I wonder about one of two things: firstly whether he is compos mentis—[ 
Interruption 
]. There has to be a range of explanations. Secondly he is sitting upon a pitchfork and refuses to move himself or thirdly he is a silly juvenile incompetent and has no place in this Chamber. In that sense he should be removed for the rest of the day. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member but that is not a point of order. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is correct there was a noise from this side during the casting of the vote but I draw your attention to the fact that there was also one most inappropriately made from the Government side only a few words earlier. I think that if you are going to warn members on this side you should be warning members opposite. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The warning goes to all members in the Chamber—both sides. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Abstentions 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendments to clause 40 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of proposed new section 153(3A) the word “not”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 as amended and the following amendment to clause 28(2) in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) of proposed new section 68(2A) the word “regional” and substitute the word “international”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Fisheries Act 1983 in respect of spat catching permits 
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. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in order to answer the three questions that Mr Ardern posed. In the first case in terms of the select committee he asked how we got to where we are. I remind Mr Ardern that the Primary Production Committee was chaired by a National Party member—one of his colleagues—as he will be aware and that the Government does not have a majority on that committee. If Mr Ardern had been a member of that select committee he would know how the Labour members voted. So it is no surprise that the committee did not support the direction of the bill. 
In answer to Mr Ardern’s second question the reason for the extensive Supplementary Order Paper was nothing other than to meet the concerns expressed by the select committee in order to reach appropriate compromises to make progress on the issue—for which the bleating member feigns support. 
In terms of mussel introduction to the quota management system the member will be aware of the progress that has been made towards the removal of the moratorium on aquaculture development. With that happening at the end of the year most rational people agree that it is entirely essential that there is a good management regime in place for the most important source of spat. 
Shane Ardern 
: How are you going to do it? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would encourage Mr Ardern to actually listen to the arguments so he can inform himself and not continue to embarrass himself and his party with his ignorance. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The problem with this bill is that it has some very very serious mistakes in it and that is one of them. The problem with the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope is that having just arrived in the job a few months ago he has very quickly become a prisoner of his staff. Whatever they say despite the fact that they were subject to two major inquiries—one by the State Services Commission and one by a select committee of Parliament itself—he has to agree with it. One of the most ridiculous things in this bill and one of the most ridiculous things I have heard is the argument now being made by the Minister. He says: “We must put the quota management system in control of spat because the moratorium is coming off.” That is what he said—that the moratorium is coming off; therefore mussel spat must be controlled under the quota management system. 
The first thing members should ask themselves is whether when we started the mussel farms in the late 1970s and the 1980s there was a quota management system controlling spat. No there was not. Is the only place in the world where one finds spat Ninety Mile Beach or up north near Kaitaia? Of course it is not. So why on earth are we giving nine people the enormous monopoly and privilege from now until perpetuity it would seem to have a giant influence on the future of an industry that has now been going for more than two decades? If the industry did not need it then why is it needed now? Where is the scientific evidence underscoring the Minister’s belief and the belief of his ministry that it should be— 
Brian Connell 
: There is none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of course there is none. Even his own colleagues on the select committee recognise that. Such is the clobbering machine of the “no conscience but ours”—the collective conscience. There is one rule—Helen’s rule. Government members are lions back in the electorate but lambs down in the caucus. Such is the persuasion and the coercion of the Government at the moment that no matter what makes sense it can be abandoned with the greatest of ease for something that is directed from on high. 
Now I do not know where the influence is in the matter and why the Government should be arguing this. But I come from a place called Whananaki. Whananaki has acres of spat—all over the beach and all over the pipis. In fact so much spat is probably killing the pipis. The reality is that the uniqueness of the resource complained of by the ministry simply is not true. I want to know why the Minister would ignore his select committee which is helping him as it is meant to do and ignore his colleagues while going along with his officials who have not made out any scientific case whatsoever. 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s a doormat to the officials. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is worse than that. The trouble with the fishing industry is that for far too long Minister after Minister has given it the most apathetic concern or interest of all their portfolios. Almost from the start that has been the case. They have regarded it as an ancillary matter in respect of their operations. They do not understand that a country like Norway—a very wealthy country whose per capita income is about 2½ times ours—receives 70 percent of its wealth from fishing and marine farming. That is the potential of this country as well. 
Mark Peck 
: What about Newfoundland? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is probably about 90 percent. 
Mark Peck 
: What about Newfoundland? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What about Newfoundland apart from Newfoundland dogs which can swim under the water—the only dog in the world that can. 
Mark Peck 
: They used to have a fishing industry which no longer exists. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I appreciate that but the member cannot tell me that there is such a scarcity of spat around New Zealand’s coasts that we have to control it under the quota management system. It is a nonsense. It does not make sense. Anyone who has spent some time on New Zealand beaches knows what I am saying. Of course there is variable supply depending on the season and the year. Obviously that is the case. But why on earth before one knows what one is talking about and without the scientific evidence to make a judgment would one nevertheless make that judgment? In short the ministry has panicked the Minister into doing a most alarming thing and acting against the instincts and beliefs of his informed colleagues who spent months studying the matter purely to conform as a good Minister to his ministry. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 as previous speakers have alluded is all about mussel spat. One of the most interesting aspects of sitting on the Primary Production Committee which I did with my colleagues was asking the ministry officials why mussel spat should come into the quota management system. Everybody knows that the ACT party is totally in favour of the quota management system. Well we found out that the ministry has no idea where mussel spat comes from that it has no idea about the volumes of spat and that it has no idea about the breeding cycles of the stuff. 
I asked what the concern was. The concern was about the eight or nine people who have a permit rushing down the beach in their vehicles once the spat is running. The ministry was concerned about the impact on the sand—on the environment. That came directly from Ken Smith of the Minister of Conservation’s office. The Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand put in a submission to the ministry stating it was very concerned about that. Pardon me but do buses not roar down Ninety Mile Beach? Do motorbikes and four-wheel drives of all shapes sizes and descriptions not do that? Yet we had ministry officials concerned about a handful of people—eight people—jumping into a vehicle when the spat is running and popping out to get whatever spat they can. That was the rationale I picked up for the bringing of mussel spat into the quota management system. 
I share some of the concern expressed by Mr Peters a moment or two ago about handing over the allocation of spat to a very very small number of people—eight entities if one likes. I flag that as the mussel spat industry burgeons such a situation could potentially enable the capture of the industry and price-jack it. It could well end up with some sort of cartel amongst the eight individuals who have an exclusive right to that public resource—nobody else is allowed to go out there and capture it—deciding to jack up the price. 
 Or it could be that the mussel companies will make an offer that the catchers of mussel spat cannot refuse. Those companies would then get exclusive use of the mussel spat and could potentially jack up the price to all new entrants into the mussel industry. So there are some very real concerns that I have around the availability of mussel spat and around what might happen in the future. 
As I said earlier when it comes to the issue of the sustainability of a species there is no doubt whatsoever that the quota management system is the appropriate mechanism and vehicle to manage it with. But because of eight people rushing down Ninety Mile Beach the ministry thought that no it had to bring muscle spat into the quota management system. There is one more reason: according to the deed of settlement 20 percent of any fish stock brought into the quota management system will go to Maori. That I think has to be the main reason. So those with existing permits will lose 20 percent which will go to something called the Maori Fisheries Commission and that commission will decide on what will happen to it. I am opposed to that as I am sure are most members of the Opposition. This is a very small industry and there is absolutely no need for that. According to the ministry there are no concerns around the issue of sustainability which according to everybody these days is the huge issue. 
So if there are no concerns surrounding the viability and continuance of the mussel spat doing its thing where is the problem? Why bring it in? I would like the Minister to address the question about the impact on the environment and the effect that has on mussel spat. I wonder whether the Minister might take a call—just a brief one. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say that members on this side of the Chamber are disappointed that the Minister has taken only one call on this issue considering that the bill comprising 38 pages including the schedules was won on the first reading and then lost in the Primary Production Committee after which a Supplementary Order Paper half the length of the substantive bill—in order words there is a 50 percent increase in the number of provisions—was presented by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister. We would like the Minister to take a call particularly on the mussel spat issue. 
I have been tracking the mussel spat issue for about 12 months now. It was first brought to my attention because of marine farmers concerns that the ministry was going to include in the quota management system mussel spat caught on marine farming structures. That is where a marine farmer is farming mussels with spat produced by the mussels on the farm caught and collected on the structures because they are obviously nearby—and where the ministry takes into account the spat collected there. Well common sense prevailed and we are delighted to see that spat caught on structures will not be included which is the only good news about this part. 
We understand from the Fisheries Act that there are two reasons for putting a fishery into the quota management system. The first reason is to do with sustainability—to ensure that a fishery whether the species is a crustacean a fin fish or a shellfish is managed sustainably for generation upon generation—or any threat to that. The second reason a fishery would be put into the quota management system is to do with utilisation—that is to say that New Zealand incorporated gets the best out of the fishery as it is utilised whether by market or recreational concerns. However we were told by ministry officials that there is no sustainability issue with mussel spat. It swirls around the ocean and what washes up on the beach but is not collected dies. Sure sometimes the tide comes in collects it and washes it back out to sea but substantially it is washed up on the beach and dies. If it is not collected therefore it dies and cannot be used. 
We asked the officials about the amount of mussel spat that is washed up or that swirls around the ocean each year. As the ACT member said they had no idea where the spat came from no idea where it went and no idea where it was tracked around the country. In other words they had no idea of the general tracking of mussel spat. But they did say that the only sustainability issues they could see were those caused by environmental conditions—warm seasons and cold seasons warm currents and cold currents or anything like that caused by the environment. In other words fishing for mussel spat has no impact on sustainability so why should it go into the quota management system for that reason. 
Then there is the utilisation issue. We too are concerned about the idea that there would be eight or nine people who would have control of the quota in future years. But it is worse than that because not only are there just eight or nine people but those eight or nine people belong to three main families. There are Anthony and Diane Wedding and Patrick Hugh Wedding; Robert Denison and Kirk Denison who are numbers four and five; and there is another family as well a number of whose members will get quota for spat. So the number of individuals who will control this resource is low and some of them belong to the same family. That is OK on the face of it but with mussel spat because there is no sustainability issue and because there appears to be no utilisation issue we are concerned that the quota will be restricted to a few people who have a common interest and common link. 
We will be voting against this part because it is our view that mussel spat should not be brought into the quota management system and certainly not so soon. I know that the Mussel Industry Council agrees and that it will back us on that. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Like my colleagues I would also like to speak on clause 64 which deals with mussel spat. But before I do so I think we need to have some contextual statements. There is a certain amount of disquiet about the way this bill has been managed through the House and the select committee. In order to understand that we need to reflect on the fact that we have had a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper come into the Committee. Today further Supplementary Order Papers have been put forward yet at this stage the Minister has got to his feet and taken only one call on an issue that deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I do not want to overplay that but the issue around this fishery and mussel spat is of such significance that in time there will be an industry that is a billion-dollar – plus earner. That industry deserves to have confidence in the Minister who is running this portfolio. The confusion that has arisen out of the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper and the steadfast refusal of the Minister other than on one occasion to get to his feet and answer reasonable questions are disturbing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 2. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you for your direction. I want now to turn my attention to the question of mussel spat. It was raised in the select committee and I understand that the Green members were very concerned about it—I mean these are people who kiss green-lipped mussels for goodness’ sake! When the bill went to the Primary Production Committee the Minister had the full support of all the parties but when it came out from the committee that goodwill had been lost. We have to ask the question: what needs to be done to lose the goodwill of the Green Party? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Before the dinner break I was telling the Committee that there is a crisis of confidence in this Minister and nowhere is it more evident than in his determination—in fact it is not his determination; it is his officials’ determination—to put mussel spat into the quota management system. 
Simon Power 
: What is mussel spat? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mussel spat gets washed up on to the shores of our local beaches. The problem is that it gets washed out again when the tide comes in. So what we do not know is whether we are counting it once twice or the number of times the tide brings it back in. The question that I need the Minister to stand up and take a call on is how he establishes a quota system for mussel spat. In fact I note that the Minister will not stand up and take a call so maybe he could answer this question: what does he need to do to establish a fair quota system? What science has he—or the Minister’s officials—relied on to say that this is how he has established a mussel spat quota? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh the Minister has done that. I notice that the Minister still will not stand up and answer that question but I will put this to him: science that cannot prove a fact is bad science. 
Can it be that the real reason mussel spat is going into the quota management system is that it is a sop to Maori with regard to the foreshore and seabed issue? Is that the real reason? I suspect that it probably is because there is no scientific basis at all for mussel spat to go into the quota management system. That is the only reason I can think of for this Minister to allow it to happen. I suspect that is the real reason. I do not want to be unkind to the Minister. 
Simon Power 
: Why not? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well to be fair to him if he were a fish we would throw him back in respect of his management of this ministry and at this stage he is struggling. But one would expect that he could rely on his officials. 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s floundering. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is floundering. He can rely on his officials to give him his advice but the problem is that he is held captive by them because he cannot or does not seem to have the capacity to stand up and take a call and explain his position. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my duty to inform members that the Committee now moves directly to the question on schedule 1. The provisions of Part 3 and schedule 2 are not before the Committee. Those provisions have been divided out to form the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and passed. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify that with regard to the debate on the schedules. I am sorry but I did not catch your advice to the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no debate on the schedules at this stage as a result of the new Standing Orders that came into effect recently; the schedules are debated during the debate on the parts of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is somewhat of a disappointment to me to have to speak on the title debate knowing that this bill will be passed. The National Party said from the outset that there were three major reasons why we opposed this bill. That has now become four major reasons. 
The first reason is that we saw the absurdity of applying the quota management system to tuna fisheries and to the fisheries of other highly migratory species that were outside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone on the high seas and inside the Chinese Fijian and Madagascan—and everyone else’s—exclusive economic zones. It is absolutely absurd to try to manage fisheries in other countries’ economic zones. Members will recall that I mentioned the Ministry of Fisheries publication called  
The Bite 
. It states: “One country can’t sit out on its own pretending to manage a stock that only spends a small portion of its life in its fisheries waters.” National opposes that part of the bill and we also oppose the absurdity of Maori receiving 20 percent of quota that is caught in another country’s fishing zone on the other side of the Pacific or the world. That is absurd to us. 
The second reason concerns the issue of mussel spat. Mussel spat has no sustainability issue whatsoever but for some reason the Labour Party sees the need to put it into the quota management system. If mussel spat washes up on the beach it dies so we may as well utilise it for our aquaculture industry which just wants to grow. National opposes the bill for putting mussel spat into the quota management system. 
The third reason concerns schedule 4C whereby this Minister is looking to ride roughshod over property rights and put a whole lot of species into the quota management system by catch history—which is fine by us—and put in a whole lot of other species also not by catch history at all but by straight tendering. There has been an expectation that species would be put into the quota management system only with a catch history allocation. That has been the property right expectation. This bill rides roughshod across that after no consultation at all with the Seafood Industry Council Te Ohu Kai Moana or anyone else in the industry. 
The fourth and worst reason is that this Minister sees fit to put kahawai in the quota management system so that the catch of recreational fishers will be cut back severely and so that commercial fishers who do not consider that particular species to be of any value at all except for bait and cat food will reap an extended property right. Having kahawai in the quota management system is fine by National but not with those total allowable catches and total allowable commercial catches. We would like to see kahawai go into the quota management system but certainly not under those conditions. 
We have been surprised throughout the whole debate on this bill by New Zealand First’s approach to the scampi inquiry. Members will remember that the scampi sections of this bill were lifted out and put into the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). New Zealand First’s wavering over that whole scampi issue raised eyebrows but over the kahawai issue the situation was worse. New Zealand First abstained over the kahawai issue. But it is not the New Zealand First Party; it is the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—“If I am in trouble I will abstain.” That is New Zealand First’s answer now to being in trouble. It will do an Ashraf Choudhary—it will not go one way or the other. It will not offend commercial fishers and it will not offend recreational fishers. New Zealand First members knocked on Ashraf Choudhary’s door and asked: “What will we do? What would you do in this situation?” and Mr Choudhary told Winston Peters to abstain. That is the answer—abstain. That is what Winston Peters and New Zealand First—now the “Ashraf Choudhary party”—decided to do over the kahawai issue. 
National is voting against this bill because of the tuna issue and the absurdity of introducing tuna fisheries into the quota management system when the fisheries are in other countries’ zones and because of the mussel spat issue and the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system when there is no sustainability issue. We are voting against this bill because it rides roughshod over property rights when it comes to the future entry of many species into the quota management system and of course because the legislation is a vote against kahawai fishers. 
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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Is it not typical of the National Party that it would attack someone when he is not here—not when he is here but when he is not here. Let me tell members about Mr Heatley at the recreational fishing conference at Onerahi up north recently. He got up—[ 
Interruption 
]—no it is in the bill. He said at the meeting that kahawai should be in the quota management system. That is what he said. He also said something else. He said to all these fishermen: “If you’ve got any problems see me.”—like he was going to be the next Minister. Do not make me laugh! He will never be a Minister of anything. We do not have boys becoming Ministers. As for the attack from Nick Smith well he is a resounding success of course in that he does not understand the law. He does not understand for example that the commitment made by the United Future party is not part of the law and cannot now be anything other than a usurping of rights already given. And they are rights given by his leader over there Mr Dunne and the National Party over here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. That is not true. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is true. Of course it is true. Who wrote the 1996 Act? Who was in power in 1996? Nick Smith cannot even remember yesterday. That is why of course he was done over when he went to court. He made a fool of himself. He tried to sell himself as a paragon of virtue when it comes to free speech. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He would not know what free speech was and he showed it when he was beaten in court. Then he pleaded: “Would everybody come to my aid?”. Well have I ever done that? I have had more court cases than he has had hot dinners but I have never had the lack of fortitude to plead to poor Joe Bloggs to help me out. As for the Selwyn Cushing case which he did raise I ask who won in the High Court. Well I did. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who is about to lose? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The guy over there called Ken Shirley who cannot even afford a lawyer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a point of order on the floor and I was just about to indicate to the member that he should speak to the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I find it somewhat extraordinary that only 5 minutes ago Mr Peters was saying that I could not talk about such matters because they were outside the Standing Orders and now he is including them in his speech. I just ask for a little bit of consistency from the member for Tauranga. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The difference between my case and Mr Nick Smith’s case is my case has barely started and I will win. His is over and he lost. Therefore it is no longer sub judice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have all had our fun. I am asking the member to come to the bill please. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I tell the Committee that taking on the National Party is like taking candy from a baby. The reality is they cannot make these attacks. I tell members what the trouble was and I will give the answer in respect of this bill. Some of us can recall the background to this bill back in 1992 with the Sealord’s deal and the arrangement with Maori. Every member of the National Party supported that bill but one. They have tied up every other Minister of Fisheries ever since and they have the effrontery and arrogance and absolute stupidity to take on the one National member who said: “I will not sign out that bill.” 
Brian Connell 
: Who was that person? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That was me. Winston Peters member for Tauranga. That was me. If members look at the  
Hansard 
 they will see it there. I want to ask the young member from Ashburton whether he feels ashamed to have around him people who cannot remember yesterday whose DNA blood and culpability are written all over the legislation yet they have the audacity to come along here and of all things attack the one and only innocent party. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 There are many aspects of this bill that the ACT party does not support but we do support kahawai going into the quota management system. That has been a long time coming. We believe in the quota management system. It is a property right and the ACT party believes in clear property rights. 
Indeed the problem with the management of this species and other non-quota species has been the fact that they are not in the quota management system. It is an administrative allocation that inevitably is a politicised process and all the arguments and problems that we have seen with scampi and other species that have not been on the quota system are manifest in that. That is why we say the sooner we can get allocation on to a clear property-right basis the better so we support that part of the bill. 
 I cannot understand the National Party position or Mr Baldock’s amendment. The real nonsense of their thinking is shown by the fact that if we did not put kahawai into the quota then the commercial sector would be unrestrained. It could virtually take as much as it liked by whatever technique it preferred and the impact of that on the recreational fishery would be infinite. We believe that recreational fishers’ property rights have not been adequately provided for; certainly under the Fisheries Act there is a very clear property right for the commercial take under the quota management system. We have in our legislation very clear property rights for customary take—Maori fishing—but the recreational fishers have not been adequately provided for. But that is a separate issue to that of whether kahawai should come into the quota management system and we say that it should. 
What we hear from “Mr Baldrick” just reflects his new coalition grouping—those who have joined with that party and sort of captured them. We always find that new groups in politics reflect the views of the last person they spoke to and I think that that is the case with United Future members. They got a heavy lobby and they succumbed to it. Someone told them that something would be a good idea so they rushed down to Parliament as champions of that good idea but it was not a good idea at all. 
Brian Connell 
: What about mussel spat? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We will come to mussel spat but before I do I must say that I cannot understand the position of the New Zealand First Party. It came to Parliament—and abstained. What a waste of space! We are elected representatives here and we are meant to hold views. To actually come to Parliament to fill a seat and sit here like some sort of maturing cheese and then abstain—I mean if one does not have views or opinions— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. It is a clear Standing Order that members may not refer to a prior debate. The particular thing that New Zealand First wishes members to be very clear about is that we are opposed to this bill in total. So how can that member get away with the effrontery of that nonsense he is spilling out now? Members should look at the 
 Hansard 
 record when voting is completed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I should not have to draw this to your attention but it is the second time tonight that you have indulged a non – point of order from the right honourable abstaining gentleman and you have not mentioned a thing. You were very quick to call the Hon Nick Smith to heel when he briefly transgressed but it seems you have been inconsistent. I do call for consistency. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I do have to hear points of order. That is part of the rules of the House. However frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are out of order. Such tactics lead to disorder and are unacceptable to the progress of business through the House. Members should consider Speaker’s ruling 19/8 a ruling from Speaker Steward in 1891. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I want to support what my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley said because although I understand there is an unwritten convention in respect of seniority in the House—and I certainly acknowledge that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has that—you are required to rule when points of order are out of order and all we ask on this side— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. 
Simon Power 
: I have not finished yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. Too many points of order are being raised after the Chair has dealt with the issue—and this issue has been dealt with. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. By your interruption of a point of order being raised by the chief Opposition whip we have just seen exactly the situation of the point of order I raised with you before. You totally indulged the Rt Hon Winston Peters on about three occasions and never brought him to heel. The chief Opposition whip raised a very valid point just now and you interrupted him and then would not let him continue because you said that you were on your feet. Why do you not get on your feet when other people make non – points of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated! I had to give the member the opportunity to respond. I had indicated to the Committee that frivolous interjections designed to break up speeches were out of order. They lead to disorder and the member knows that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. The point is not your ruling; the point is that you are applying two standards for frivolous points of order. You shut down and jumped on Mr Power—and I was sitting here very quietly as I do—yet you indulged at length the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Now it might be that Mr Peters intimidates you more than Mr Power or some such thing but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: May I finish my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member had better come to the point of order because I have already ruled on it and Mr Peters has been reprimanded. 
Rodney Hide 
: I appreciate that. I ask that on your ruling of what is a frivolous and a not-frivolous point of order could we please have consistency right across the board? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and say to him that I am not intimated in any way by any member in the Committee. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The issue of the extra-boundary migratory species is the real nonsense of this bill. While ACT may well support kahawai coming into the quota management system it cannot support the lunacy that this Government has brought to the legislation by suggesting that populations of fish up in Micronesia in the North Pacific off Madagascar or wherever somehow should be bound by New Zealand fisheries law which right from its commencement was always confined to management within our exclusive economic zone. That suggestion really invites ridicule—and I think that plenty of that has been associated with this bill. The reason why the Government was so eager to do that was its anxiousness to give 20 percent of that quota to Maori and it could only do so by bringing those fish into this system. There seems to be no other explanation. Why would one possibly do it? The Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope has certainly been unable to give a satisfactory explanation for that. 
The other aspect in this bill is the scampi issue. That has perhaps had the most sordid history of any species coming into the quota. We have had all sorts of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Scampi is not in the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Scampi is in the schedule Mr Chairman. We would certainly like to see scampi in the quota management system. It has had a very sordid history thus far. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I want to make it quite plain to listeners that I heard you interject that scampi was not in the bill yet I have read quite explicitly in Part 3: “Introduction of scampi into quota management system …”. I think you owe the member an apology— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 3 is not being debated. It is being held over to form the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) so it is not in the part we are debating at the present time. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a short call to address the title of the bill. Given the amount of discussion around the subject of kahawai perhaps the title should be changed to “Kahawai Fisheries Bill” because kahawai has certainly become a focal point of our debate this evening. Some members suggested that kahawai was not covered in this bill at all. It certainly is now and that fact will be remembered for a long time. Another appropriate title could be “End Of Recreational Fishing Interests In Kahawai Bill”. Given the defeat of my Supplementary Order Paper which was a last-ditch attempt to roll back the total allowable commercial catch levels set by the Minister I know that recreational fishing people all over this country will be very very upset and disturbed. We will see court action against the Minister and the ministry to try to overturn those decisions. 
 The Hon Ken Shirley said that ACT had opposed the Supplementary Order Paper because it was about property rights. Well there are also property rights for recreational fishermen in this country and their rights have been ignored by the parties that voted against that Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. Section 21(2) of the principal Act clearly tells the Minister that he must first take account of recreational and customary interests and then allocate commercial interests but in this regard commercial interests have been allocated first and foremost. Unfortunately that will be the situation. 
Much has been said about the Onerahi recreational fishing council annual general meeting. I was present at that meeting when the Hon Winston Peters made a “seagull” appearance. By that I mean he sort of flew in squawked all around the place dropped on everybody and then left very suddenly after taking exception to someone else being given an opportunity to speak. I am sure that recreational fishing people throughout New Zealand will remember for a very long time that New Zealand First dropped on them in terms of its abstention on the vote on that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The Primary Production Committee made many amendments to this amendment bill sorting out difficulties that have arisen from decisions made in the past by the Ministry of Fisheries. That is why it was important for us to try to resolve the difficulty regarding kahawai. I spent a great deal of time at the invitation of the Minister trying to work through some of the issues the select committee had raised during the long and arduous process. It is rather unfortunate that United Future has to oppose this legislation even though we negotiated to make a great number of beneficial changes to it. Unfortunately that is the way the situation must be. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Once again I rise to speak against the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). There are a number of reasons for that and I will start with one. The first reason I can think of which must be mentioned here is that there has never been a Minister of Fisheries in the history of New Zealand I think who has floundered as much as this Minister. In this debate on the title this Minister should be renamed the “Yes Minister”. If ever there was an example of the television satire called  
Yes Minister 
 it has to be the example right here. I am not sure though who we should call Sir Humphrey—whether it should be the Minister or his officials—but clearly someone in this administration needs to take responsibility for what has happened. 
Let us have a look at what has happened since the beginning of this process. First of all the bill was introduced to the Primary Production Committee. The select committee rejected it sent it back to Parliament and said that the bill was not suitable and would not represent the wishes of that major industry—that $1 billion – plus export industry—so the Minister should sort it out. The Minister then looked at it and said that he would fix it by introducing a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. But that was not enough. He then introduced a further Supplementary Order Paper to amend the original Supplementary Order Paper or a clause in the bill. 
Brian Connell 
: To be sure to be sure. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Absolutely! That is for sure—and certainly he was not sure at any stage during that process that is for sure. 
Brian Connell 
: Unsure. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The most unsure Minister who has ever been in this Parliament! So then what happened? The Minister because of severe questioning—I guess that is the way to describe it—and certainly under pressure from Opposition members in the House decided that he would stand up once and try to explain the mess he had got himself— 
Hon Member 
: Once? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: We managed to provoke him to get up once when he challenged Opposition members to substantiate their arguments. Well he said that he had answers to the questions that had been asked but not one question was answered—not one. So I put the questions to the Minister again. I said that the Minister should get on his feet and explain to us what kind of science or evidence—any kind of science or evidence—was brought before him his officials members of the select committee or any others in the parliamentary process that said he could introduce mussel spat into the quota management system in a sustainable way or in any kind of sensible way at all. What science or what evidence was presented that suggested that could be done? 
Further what evidence did the Minister have— 
Brian Connell 
: Talk to him slowly. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Absolutely; I am going very slowly through these questions. What evidence did the Minister have that green-lipped mussels which are of course going to be farmed substantially once the moratorium is lifted—which is about to happen—will be at risk and therefore will have to be in the quota management system? What evidence does the Minister have for that? 
We are not opposed to the quota management system. We think it is very good. In fact I congratulate those who submitted to the select committee and substantially backed up their arguments with science—unlike this Government or this Minister. So we are in favour of the quota management system but what science does the Minister have to say that mussel spat can be introduced into that system and introduced in any kind of sensible way? 
I agree that some of this stuff is difficult but this is the most important question: where in any of the evidence that was submitted to anybody was there a degree of fairness introduced into the notion that seven or eight—or somebody said up to nine—individuals will be most able to acquire that quota management for mussel spat? Where is the evidence that that will be fair either to them or to anybody else? Where is the evidence for that? There is absolutely none. The Minister needs to take a call to explain that to the fisheries industry. 
Further when will this Minister explain to the fishing industry how it is that he will administer a quota management system for the migratory species of fish that can be caught off the coast of Brazil? How will he do that? 
Phil Heatley 
: Has he asked the Brazilians? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I wonder whether he has asked the Brazilians or any other peoples—the Fijians or the Niueans. The Prime Minister travels around the world; perhaps she is out there at the moment. I am pleased to see that she has recently included New Zealand back on her international flight plan—[ 
Interruption 
] Some would say it is a bit of a nuisance but I am pleased that it is a fact. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just because the Standing Orders have changed the sequence in respect of the title it does not mean obviously that the Standing Orders have changed. New Zealand First members are still entitled as members of Parliament to four calls on the title clause. What have we had? One call. Now with respect we have been involved with the Primary Production Committee for a long long time and in this case back to 1986 if we talk about the quota management system. I think that one call is totally unfair especially on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand where the member is coming from and I accept his contribution. All I can do because I have already put the motion is to tell the member that he can seek the leave of the Committee. I do not have any problem if the member seeks the leave of the Committee for one more call. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave for one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
Yes because everybody else will want one. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No they will not. I want just one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The senior Government whip is mistaken. I seek leave on behalf of one more member—namely myself—to have one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave for one more speech and that is from the member concerned from New Zealand First. In keeping with proportionality that is not unacceptable but it is not my call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is your call. You have taken a closure motion when a party having had only one call on the title sought a second call. That is extraordinary. It is your call and I think with respect that you should look at the past record. I cannot remember any political party—and after all our party is No 3 in this House in numbers—getting only one call on the title for such an important issue. It cannot be that 5 minutes is good enough for this bill when it comes to an issue that covers the whole ambit of the legislation before we come out of Committee and go to the third reading. I ask you to think again. 
The senior Government whip said that if I got the call they would all want one. It was clear to her that they did not all want one. Even when a concession was made by the whole of the Opposition to that member she would not concede that it was unfair. I think putting it back to you that you should make it very clear you may have made the call prematurely and that New Zealand First should have one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I know that he is a longstanding member in the House and I appreciate the comments he has made. The reality is though that I have accepted the call and under Speakers’ rulings I have to abide by that. The question is that the question be now put. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a separate issue altogether. I think the point of order is very clear. We all knew what was happening. We all knew that Mrs Pettis was going to stand up to put the motion. Before you started to put the question Mr Peters was on his feet to raise a point of order. I think that it was your responsibility to deal with the point of order before you put the question otherwise it creates a certain impression for some members of this House. I believe that that is your obligation and perhaps the Speaker might cast a view on it as well. Surely your obligation in this House is to listen to what is happening in the Committee. If a member raises a point of order you must deal with that first otherwise a question of partisanship may crop up. 
Clearly that is what happened in this case. Mr Peters was well and truly on his feet. I suspect that other members of this Committee were on their feet as well. I kept my eye on Mr Peters knowing his experience—knowing that he knew what was going on and would take the appropriate action. Mr Chairperson I am afraid that you have fallen by the wayside on this one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point out to the member Standing Order 138 which states: “If the Speaker accepts a closure motion a question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate.” That is where we are now. I have accepted a closure motion and that stands and I have made the ruling. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 58/3. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Whilst I do not wish to contest your ruling under Standing Order 138 I invite you to peruse Standing Order 137(3) which states: “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so.” You have already indicated to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that you thought his request to seek leave for a second contribution to this debate was reasonable. In fact I believe the exact phrase was “not an unreasonable request by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.” That being the case I invite you to rule under Standing Order 137(3) that as you have already indicated that a not unreasonable request was made by Mr Peters you will allow his request for a further contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I thank Simon Power for his contribution on this issue. Of course under Standing Order 137(3) the Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so. At the time I was of the opinion that it was reasonable to do so. I took the closure motion. There was a lot of noise. Unfortunately that sort of thing happens in this Chamber but I have now taken the closure motion and there the matter rests. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am seeking leave one more time. I say to Government members that if their answer is “No” this party will remember that and do something about it in the next months. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use threats. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not a threat. If we are to have no cooperation or any concession at all from Government members then the consequences for them are very certain—make no bones about it. I am asking you to put leave one more time for me to give one speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will put it to the Committee again. Is there any objection to the Rt Hon Winston Peters having one further call? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that clause 1 be agreed to. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I point out to members on my right that Speaker’s ruling 61/2 states that there is to be no comment at all during votes. There is to be silence and that goes for everybody in this Chamber. It is not the first time that that has happened this evening. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is the exact point I was making—that we have two standards operating in this Chamber with you in the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not accept that Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Are you going to listen to my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not accept that there are two standards of rulings in this Committee. You are challenging— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Are you going to listen to my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is challenging the Chair. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Are you going to listen to my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will listen to the point of order but it had better be in keeping with Standing Orders. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A strict rule in the Committee is that there is no calling out during a vote. You pointed that out to the chief Government whip who was calling out in a voice that could only be described as “megaphonic” right across the House. You told her to keep quiet. She completely ignored you and carried on. You asked her again to be quiet and she called out again. If that member were any Opposition MP I would expect him or her to be thrown out. I expect the Government whip to be setting the standard but in taking a vote Mr Chairperson for you to offer no sanction when the Government whip called out three times—you told her twice in a few seconds not to do so and you were completely ignored—leaves this side of the House with only one conclusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I say again to the senior Government whip that she should consider herself reprimanded and I would appreciate it if she apologised to the House. 
Jill Pettis 
: I do most sincerely apologise. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I shall report this bill with amendment— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to make sure that New Zealand First cast its vote the right way by asking this question: if we voted at all points against this bill thus far does that mean we voted for kahawai to be part of the schedules? Could the Minister tell me so that we can make sure? If we voted against the bill at all points and on every vote does that mean that we voted for kahawai to be added to the schedules? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am assured by the Minister that the answer is “No” but the point is not relevant now. 
Bill reported with amendment.