Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15264] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is unequivocally opposed to the passage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). Unless other parties come to their senses and see the bill’s serious and dramatic flaws New Zealand and New Zealanders will again be presented with poorly conceived legislation that will have damaging implications for recreational and commercial fishers alike and will have a detrimental impact on our society and our way of life. At some time very soon in the future this House will be debating new legislation that will be required to address the inequalities that are being established here today. No doubt they will be described as unintended consequences. 
It is intended that the expansion of the quota management system will lead to Maori receiving an allocation of 20 percent of highly migratory species. How can businesses conduct their affairs internationally in an environment of such uncertainty when they are from New Zealand? Why would any commercial enterprise invest in the development of a fishery if subsequent legislation is likely to alter the conditions of that fishery? The Crown’s obligation to allocate 20 percent of any fish species that is being included in the quota management system arises from the 12-year-old deed of settlement of 23 September 1992 signed by the previous National Government. It is an obligation that contemplated new species but not new areas and I emphasise that. It contemplated new species but not new areas. 
Through the whole debate the Minister of Fisheries has claimed that he had legal opinions. He said he had three of them. Frankly he had one opinion twice from the same person in Crown Law. He would not and still has not produced the third legal opinion. Frankly on examination of that legal opinion I do not believe it is worth the academic paper it is written on. Clause 1.3 of the deed makes a specific exclusion in respect of new areas. It states: “This Deed embodies the entire understanding and the whole agreement between the Crown and Maori relative to the subject matter hereof and all previous negotiations representations warranties arrangements and statements (if any) whether expressed or implied (including any collateral agreement or warranty) with reference to the subject matter hereof or the intentions of any of the parties hereto are extinguished and otherwise are hereby excluded and cancelled save the Treaty of Waitangi itself.” That is what the deed states. All fisheries management areas were limited to New Zealand fisheries waters. 
It has been argued that to extend the quota management system as proposed would advantage Maori by a side wind disadvantage the fishers who lose that 20 percent of the quota and create further uncertainty. 
Why should a company go off shore create a fishery and lose 20 percent of the quota to Maori because of an arbitrary in-house arrangement made by the Labour Government in order to try to save its Maori members? It is not based on any law or on any matter of equity and fairness. The Government has just decided to do that even though Maori through the Maori Fisheries Commission could themselves be building up that resource off shore and thereby gaining a certain percentage internationally. What is fair about that? It is not fair and it does the Maori people a grave disservice. Crown Law opinions to the contrary are based on fallacious arguments and again I challenge the Minister to make those opinions available in their entirety. The least that he can do is to provide some transparency in this exercise. 
The non-Government parties must act as Opposition parties and oppose this bad legislation. Unfortunately in some ways they have been seen to lose their way. What those parties seem to fail to realise is that the application of the 20 percent Maori share of the stock to the new area means that catch history ceases to be the basis for quota allocation. In other words it brings into question the very legitimacy of the quota management system. Our quota management system which has been touted as one of the most successful in the world will lose its legitimacy and thus our conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. Future generations will not thank us for once again being so careless with our assets. 
 We in New Zealand First cannot stand by and watch that happen. What sort of message is the Government sending to business in this country? I will tell members what the message is. It is that businesses should not take the risk of making new investments and should not put their capital and technology into a new enterprise because if they do one-fifth will be given to somebody else who made no investment in the first place. It is a modern-day confiscation of property rights and it is anti-business. I repeat the comments I made in previous speeches regarding mussel spat—it has no place in this legislation. But its inclusion is consistent with the madness that is embodied in other clauses of the bill. 
Lastly I want to say that it is terribly unfortunate that the inexperienced and politically naive Mr Baldock put forward Supplementary Order Paper 247 and expected people to back it. In fact he told me that he had the backing of all Opposition parties except New Zealand First and he asked for our position. When I made some enquiries I found out that was not true. It was not true of the Greens or of ACT so what on earth was Mr Baldock talking about? More important putting such an inappropriate Supplementary Order Paper in a badly drafted bill—which this bill is—is not something that New Zealand First can support although we support the sentiments behind the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why we abstained. But let me make this very clear to Mr Baldock who seems not to understand this: if New Zealand First opposed all aspects of this bill and every part of it and opposed the second reading and the Committee stage how can it be said to have supported anything other than kahawai not being in the legislation or in the quota management system? Mr Baldock seems to have a problem with logic. But then again naivety is what United Future and Mr Baldock in particular are famous for. Where was this issue for example in the 2002 manifesto of United Future? It was not there at all. Did the United Future leader mention it in his discussions with Labour about the coalition and United Future’s support of the Government arrangements? In the 1½ pages of motherhood and apple pie can we find anything about this issue? No we cannot. 
Mr Baldock is just a naive silly inexperienced politician who will be gone before the 1 year of grace that he asked for in his Supplementary Order Paper is over. He will be gone from Parliament by then. Mr Baldock had the temerity to put out a press statement at 9.30 this morning that is blatantly defamatory. I emailed him just a short while ago to say that if he does not withdraw the penultimate paragraph within 24 hours I will sue him—and we will. We will not allow people to go outside this Parliament make defamatory statements and get away with it. 
Hon Member 
: Another one on the rack! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Another one on the rack? Well we used to have an understanding here in this Parliament about what was defamatory and what was not—but not that clown. He put out a statement attacking all and sundry: the Greens ACT and New Zealand First— 
Simon Power 
: What did he say? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I cannot read it to members because it is utter drivel but he threw in a paragraph that is defamatory. I think I am getting pretty good at dealing with that so let us see what Larry Baldock’s lawyer is like and let us see what his bank account is like. Let him put his money where his mouth is. If I were the United Future leader I would say to Larry Baldock that unless he withdraws that statement I will fire him. He cannot go around doing that but the problem with United Future is that it has no leadership. How can a party leader allow members who are as naive as Mr Baldock to make such silly statements and then to slag off every other party? 
Here is the point: had Mr Baldock got kahawai in he and his colleagues were going to back the bill were they not? Oh yes they were. There is not a mutter not a syllable not a sound and not a murmur from the United Future members. They were going to back the bill if they had got kahawai in. For how long was kahawai going to be outside the quota management system? For 1 year by which time Larry Baldock will be gone from this House. He will no longer be here. I say to Mr Baldock that he should withdraw the penultimate paragraph of his press statement or I will sue him—that message is on his email right now. 
Larry Baldock 
: You sue everyone. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: And I am suing that member. He cannot go around telling a tissue of porkies and get away with it. He will not get away with telling porkies inside this House or outside it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot accuse another member of telling porkies. He will withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: OK. I withdraw and apologise. But the member should know that he cannot go around being a mendacious sybarite and get away with it. He cannot go on being a mendacious sybarite inside and outside Parliament and get away with it. That is why if we do not see the withdrawal of that paragraph within 24 hours we will start legal action and we will see what that member’s defence is. 
What New Zealand First said was that we did not believe that kahawai should be in the quota management system at this point in time. We made that statement—and Supplementary Order Paper 247 stated that it should be in that system but a year from now. That is what it states. So who is telling fibs to the recreational fishers? If someone shows those guys in United Future a gun they get carried away. The gun lobby will back them to get totally carried away and show just how demonstrably inexperienced they are. Thank God New Zealand First does not have any members like that!