Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in this first reading of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to make a couple of comments about the contribution made by the Hon David Parker because I thought he brought some thoughtful consideration to the interconnectivity of a range of issues that this bill seeks to address. He effectively highlighted the complicated nature of our ecosystem of our freshwater ways of our water quality of wetlands of indigenous species and of introduced species and how no one single factor really is dominant in terms of the long-term preservation of indigenous freshwater species but they are under threat from a range of activities—human physical historic—that have caused us to get to a fairly awful state where so many of those species are now under threat of extinction and certainly that's not something that any of us want to have occur. He particularly made a point about the issue of koi carp. I know that in my electorate of the Coromandel across the Hauraki Plains that is an issue in the waterways and the drains and in the areas where koi carp are prevalent farmers do tear their hair out. Minister Parker acknowledged his bald spot. I'm sure that that has occurred not for any reason to do with koi carp but it does highlight the overarching concern of a wide range of New Zealanders who have multiple interests in ensuring that our indigenous freshwater fish species are preserved maintained and enhanced. I wanted to just also comment on Minister Sage's introductory speech. She made it very clear that she had a preference to be utterly committed to engaging with the public and iwi but in terms of that engagement she didn't actually mention Fish & Game until very late in her contribution and I think that is a bit of a challenge around this bill. So my colleague Sarah Dowie who is the National Party's conservation spokesperson has acknowledged that we are intending to support this bill to first reading. We'll send it to select committee. But as is the case with so much legislation the devil is in the detail and I regret to say that this Minister introducing this bill is rapidly developing a reputation for being well intentioned but not good on detail. There are some concerns in this bill that highlight that lack of attention to detail yet again and only go to enforce or reinforce the rapidly growing perception of a Minister who's not completely over her portfolio areas. This bill is well intended. It seeks to make amendments to some legislation that is now quite old—probably no longer fit for purpose. But there are some issues. There's no mechanism in the bill for instance to ensure that Fish & Game is consulted before decisions are taken by the Department of Conservation that could negatively impact on sports fish management in New Zealand. And that's an obvious and glaring oversight in this legislation—so much so that Fish & Game have taken it upon themselves to seek independent legal advice ahead of this bill being introduced and they've gone to none other than that well-respected oracle on things legal Sir Geoffrey Palmer Queen's Counsel no less. They've commissioned an opinion from Sir Geoffrey Palmer that creates some obvious concern. I'm sure that Fish & Game at select committee will make a detailed submission to the committee and it will largely be based on the legal opinion that's been provided by Sir Geoffrey. But Fish & Game as members will know represents the 110000 anglers and some 30000 game bird hunters who are active in New Zealand. And when they look at legislation that comes before this House they look at it in terms of a starting position that basically says Does this legislation maintain Fish & Game's status quo position? Does it improve their interests or does it undermine the interests of Fish & Game?" Frighteningly in terms of this piece of legislation Sir Geoffrey in his legal opinion has identified some very significant issues for Fish & Game. His conclusion in his legal opinion is that and I quote "aspects of the reforms impact directly and negatively on Fish & Game". And he specifically draws attention to proposed clause 6 which in Sir Geoffrey's opinion he believes will allow Treaty settlements to actually override the several important elements of the sport fisheries management regime that exists in New Zealand and has done for a long period of time. Indeed he cites a case from the Court of Appeal in McRitchie v Taranaki Fish and Game Council back in 1999 where those matters were traversed and canvassed and where those matters that are of great concern to Fish & Game in terms of the legal opinion provided by Sir Geoffrey are highlighted. Sir Geoffrey goes on in his legal opinion—and I'm sure that the Minister will be taking careful consideration of this. Sir Geoffrey says and I quote "I consider that this bill has the potential to seriously impact on Fish & Game's interests. The amendments are on the whole quite technical. Aspects of them will impact on the sports fishery regime managed by Fish & Game. I understand that Fish & Game were not consulted on the bill despite the impact on its interests and I consider that to be concerning and unusual. Fish & Game is a statutory body that has a no-surprises arrangement recorded in its memorandum of understanding with the Department of Conservation and that does not seem to have been honoured here."In fact if one turns to the departmental disclosure statement there are some concerning matters in that that go to the very core of the lack of consultation which again goes to reinforce the impression that this Minister hasn't done the detail hasn't done the homework and isn't across her portfolio. It says that "The Bill only relates to indigenous freshwater fish and threats to those fish (including noxious fish). The Bill does not relate to introduced sports fish". Then when we get to paragraph 2.3.1 of that paper the question is asked "If so did the RIA Team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?" And the answer is "The review team considers"—and this is Treasury remember saying this—"The review team considers that it partially meets the quality assurance criteria. … However"—and it's a big however—"the key constraint which has been acknowledged in the Regulatory Impact Assessment is that the time frame did not allow consultation with iwi and stakeholders." It goes on to say "stakeholders are likely to have some concerns about the lack of consultation and the limited scope of the review." So here we have Treasury the advisers to Government—on this piece of legislation at its first reading coming to the House in what clearly is an incomplete and not fully prepared situation. Now that's just not good enough. Notwithstanding the good intentions of the bill—again the detail and the preparation has not been achieved. It's not been fulfilled and it goes to a Minister who is keen on getting something into the House hoping that the select committee will do the legwork on her behalf and that the select committee will do the consultation with Fish & Game that hasn't been even attempted to have taken place during the preparation phase for this piece of legislation. So in summary Opposition members in the National Party will support this bill at first reading but we have some grave reservations about the detail; we have some grave reservations about the lack of consultation; and we have some grave reservations about the intent hidden or otherwise that this bill may seek to achieve. In short we are concerned that there is a hidden agenda here so we will be on great alert at select committee as we peruse the bill."