Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14550] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As I wandered down to the Chamber to take a call on this legislation I was bemused at the title of this bill. Along with a number of other speakers I wondered what the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” tells us and what issue the bill addressed. When I started to flick through the legislation it became very clear as other speakers have pointed out that this is really the “Scampi Bill”. That is what it is about amongst other things. So I propose along with the Hon David Carter that the appropriate title for the bill is the “Scampi Bill”. 
However I have had the opportunity to reflect on a couple of alternative titles. As I flicked through some of the other contents of the bill I thought that the “Change of Boundaries Bill” or the “Change of Line Bill” may also be appropriate titles. I have only just thought of that. I am in an arbitrary mood and it occurred to me that changing the boundaries as theMinister has done has been quite arbitrary as well. So those titles may be appropriate. Another title that comes to mind is the “Quota Management Bill”. When one picks up this bill and looks through it one finds in essence that that is what it is about. Essentially we are saying—and National agrees with this component of the bill—that we want to see the scampi fishery come into the quota management system. So that title would be reasonable. However I could be a little more controversial and call it the “Scam Bill” because first it rhymes with scampi and second it also makes me think of some of the things that have foreshadowed the creation of this legislation. We have had two inquiries and we are now getting to a point where we will have legislation that is still surrounded in controversy. 
Another possible title that comes to mind is the “Mismanagement Bill” a title that resonates with me somewhat. 
Hon David Carter 
: What about the “Scampi Scandal Bill”? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is another title that comes to mind. Both those titles resonate with me a bit because when I look through the bill I see the contribution that the Ministry of Fisheries has made to its drafting. Even the best friends of the Ministry of Fisheries cannot really say it did a good job. The ministry has been found wanting by a number of different parties and I do not mean just political parties. The Primary Production Committee went through the legislation and was very critical of the ministry and the State Services Commission inquiry also pointed the stick at the ministry as well. The “Mismanagement by the Ministry of Fisheries Bill” could be a reasonable title. It probably does not serve the fishery industry very well. Maybe that is one suggested title that we will not pursue when I think about it. However we cannot have a debate around this legislation without at least saying to the ministry that it will have to lift its game. It was a pretty hard critique of the ministry’s performance when an independent body said that the ministry was unprofessional ad hoc and inconsistent. Those are the sort of things that we need to take into consideration. 
The contribution of the Labour member Janet Mackey was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to come back to the title. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was about to. I am sure that Janet Mackey’s suggested title of the “Chocolate Fish Bill” was not a particularly serious suggestion but I did think that it was of some interest. It talked about fishing a little more than the title “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)” does. It occurs to me to ask why the bill is titledthe “Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)”. What went before it? 
Shane Ardern 
: Three before it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I assume that three bills went before it but why should we call it that? Who cares? 
Hon David Carter 
: No that’s wrong. No. 3 hasn’t gone before it. No. 3 is still before the select committee. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the Minister can take a call to explain why this is the No. 4 bill when there has not been a No. 3. I am struggling with that and I see that the Minister is also struggling with it because he has neither rhyme nor reason for the title. He is struggling to get past No. 1 probably. However that is a dilemma that we find ourselves in at the moment as well.