Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

I must say that two things came as a surprise to the National Party. One was that the vote on this bill was actually lost at the Primary Production Committee. That means that the Government, which has the majority in Parliament and can win at any stage through the voting process, actually managed to drop the ball at the select committee, and lost the vote. How did it do that? The Government has 51 members. It has the Greens and the United Future lapdogs, who are barking and panting around it. How could the Government have lost the vote on the bill at the select committee? The second point that intrigues National is that Supplementary Order Paper 246—and I know that Nick Smith will be interested in this, so I tell him that the bill itself is 32 pages long, without including the schedules—which corrects the mistakes the Government has made is 17 pages long. The Supplementary Order Paper with the amendments to the bill is half as long again as the original bill. Is it any wonder that the National Party, the ACT party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First party reluctantly held hands and voted against the Labour Government?

One major issue that we had, and I would like the Minister to address it, is the idea that he is to put highly migratory species such as tuna, skipjack tuna, and all the other highly migratory species into the quota management system. Those species swim all around the world, and are hammered by other nations. We only catch somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of them. They spend very little time in New Zealand waters, yet the Minister wants to put them into the quota management system. I have a publication by his own officials called The Bite, which is a good title because that publication will bite the Minister’s backside right now. The publication states: “One country can’t sit out on its own pretending to manage a stock that spends only a small portion of its life in its fisheries waters.”.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who wrote that?

The Ministry of Fisheries. The Minister should know that New Zealand has the ability to have regional and international agreements on the management of tuna species around the world, and in the Pacific and the South Pacific. He should get together with the Australians, the Koreans, and every other fishing nation to try to manage that fishery. He should not try to stop New Zealand fishers either from fishing in New Zealand waters or from fishing on the high seas or in other countries’ waters, by capping them and giving them a handicap—so to speak—against other fishing companies. He should not try to manage the issue in that way. It is absolutely absurd.

We want to hear from the Minister as to how he will fix that particular problem. Why is the Minister creating the potential to put highly migratory species into the quota management system? Why is he proposing a trigger clause, when he should not even put those species into the quota management system at all? Why does he not just get together with other South Pacific nations and manage the stock of those species sensibly? We ask the Minister those questions, and we invite the Minister to tell the Committee how he proposes to address that particular problem. His own ministry states in its publication The Bite, which is a glossy, taxpayer-funded publication, that that is an absurd thing to do. I am surprised that the publication does not have a lovely photo of the Minister in it. That publication states that it is absolutely absurd to pretend to manage a stock that spends only a small portion of its life in New Zealand’s fisheries waters. Would the Minister please address that particular problem, tell us about the deal he has done, and tell us where in Supplementary Order Paper 246 he has addressed that particular issue and fixed the problem. That is what we want to hear from the Minister. After that, we would like him to address other issues, particularly concerning new schedule 4C, to be inserted in the principal Act by schedule 1 of the bill, where he has dreamed up a list of other fish species that he wants to put into the quota management system.

As this legislation goes through the Committee stage members need to understand that in the last few days a substantial Supplementary Order Paper, No. 246, was tabled in the House, and that effectively, it guts one of the most controversial parts of the legislation. Today in the House I moved that that particular Supplementary Order Paper go back to the Primary Production Committee, in order for that committee to examine it quickly and report back to the House within a couple of weeks. That would not have delayed the passing of the legislation significantly, at all. The Minister—David Benson-Pope—and Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, denied leave of the House for that Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee. We wanted to have a chance to examine the content of one of the most substantial Supplementary Order Papers that have ever been tabled in this House, and that was denied by the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance because they did not want it to be scrutinised.

Those Ministers know that Supplementary Order Paper 246 is about as big a mess as the original bill was. They know that if this legislation is scrutinised they will go through the same embarrassment they went through at the select committee, when the select committee worked on a Government bill in very good faith, to try to tidy it up, and, as Doug Woolerton said, did its bit very, very well. We were bogged down because the legislation was such a mess, and I personally asked the Minister for the committee to be given another week, as we might then have been able to make something out of that very messy legislation. He denied us the opportunity to have a week’s extension and the legislation went back to the House, but only after it had been lost at the select committee. The Government was done over with regard to its own legislation in the select committee, because it was such a mess. What was then amazing was that when the legislation went back into the House, the Green member Ian Ewen-Street appeared to have a change of heart. I think that was because the Supplementary Order Paper has a clause that, effectively, would undo the whole issue about the highly migratory species.

What the National Party argued was this: why should we put fish that are caught outside New Zealand territorial limits into the quota management system, when there is no need to do so? The Minister argued that in the future the Government may negotiate a regional fisheries management plan, which may be the solution for the sustainability of those species. We were told it would be 5 to 10, or maybe 15, years before that happens, and that is why the National Party opposed the bill. The sneaky Supplementary Order Paper effectively achieves that. It passes the legislation in substantive order—it gives the ability to put those species into the quota management system—and then curtails the Minister’s ability to do that because there are no regional fisheries management plans in existence as we speak, so the species cannot come in.

Why is that important? The reason it is important, of course, is that here is another opportunity for Māori to claim 20 percent of the quota for highly migratory species caught by New Zealand operators off the coast of Fiji. That is what Larry Baldock, the United Future spokesperson, will be supporting if he votes for this legislation, and that is what Ian Ewen-Street, as a member of the Green Party, will be supporting if the Greens vote for it. We have had various interpretations of the 1992 deed of settlement, but I just refer members to clause 4.2, which quite specifically states that Māori endorse the quota management system and acknowledge it is a lawful and an appropriate regime for the sustainable management of commercial fishing in New Zealand—in New Zealand. The quota management system was always for New Zealand territorial waters—the 200-mile limit. It was never envisaged that the quota management system would be extended by the Ministry of Fisheries to international waters and, more significantly, if that was to occur, that Māori would suddenly have a claim extending well past New Zealand’s economic zone and into the waters of foreign countries.

This legislation is an absolute outrage. The Supplementary Order Paper is an outrage, and the Minister should either stand and take the opportunity to answer the questions that are raised or allow the Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee, so that it can be adequately examined.

Let me just tell the National Party why it is that the House is having an argument on the issue of Māori obtaining quota in the international zone beyond the 200-mile limit. That is not a policy that I believe in, and it is not a policy that New Zealand First supports, but I want to remind the National Party who was responsible for this debacle coming about, so that if there should be a discovery in the Ross Sea Dependency, in respect of a fishing resource, then, automatically, the National Government would have conveyed and transported to the Māori people the right of 20 percent.

💬 Hon David Carter: That’s rubbish.

No, it is not rubbish and I will tell the member why. I was here at the time, and I can recall that it was October—

💬 Hon David Carter: You voted for it.

I did not vote for it. There we go! There is the National Party at its worst. They do not know anything about history. They refuse to face the facts. They have their blood and DNA and fingerprints all over the issue, as culpable and as guilty as one can get, and they stand around saying: “But it wasn’t me!” Who was it that came into the House when Doug Graham was the Minister in charge of Waitangi settlements in October of 1992 and passed the Sealord’s deal? It was all these gentlemen behind me here, all these National Party guys—and if they were not here they were electorate chairmen saying: “Good on you, Doug. Go for it.” [Interruption] We can tell from the voluminous noise that they are as guilty as sin.

💬 Hon David Carter: You were in the National Party then.

Oh, no! They cannot blame Winston Peters, and they cannot blame New Zealand First, because, unlike every other member of Parliament, Labour and National, one member refused to support it, and that is the member who is speaking right now. And what happened the next day? Well, having pointed out the fallacy of having no mandate to do what they were doing, either on the Māori or the European side, having no consultation, no proper process, they went ahead regardless, and the next day they expelled me from the National Party caucus.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Good job.

See what I mean? Here sit these people; they get up and they make all these speeches on things like the Waitangi Tribunal, the Waitangi industry, law and order, and immigration, and now on fishing, of all things, and, having written the whole criteria, they stand here and make these empty, hollow, shallow, baseless speeches and expect good honest New Zealanders to believe them.

I have been in politics a while—not long enough, obviously—but I have been in politics a while and I have seen some examples of impertinence, cheek, and gall, but that last speech beats them all. That speech made by Mr Heatley before that beats all, does it not? Mind you, I heard him telling the people up in Whangarei that he believed that kahawai should go into the quota management system. That is what he said. This morning I found he has done a somersault. Even though he sent out 5,000 letters saying where he stood, apparently with the National Party we cannot be certain. It all depends on what time of the month it is, or what month it is. This was only 6 weeks ago. I was there. I could not believe what he said. But, anyway, he has done a somersault. But I go back to my point. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Unlike other parties, our consistent position is—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is this the scampi man—more scampi?

I say this to the member: “Go outside and say it and I’ll sue you, too, sunshine.” Oh, yes! He can go outside and join his mates David Carter and Ken Shirley. I am very happy—I do not care how many smart alecs I have to face. We will do them all. [Interruption] He is always in court but he never wins.

💬 Hon David Carter: Where’s the 300 grand?

David Carter is not going to win. I tell the member that if he wins I will resign. But he will not. He will be screaming out for mercy and so will his lawyers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member will come back to the part.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where did Ross put the money?

When did Ross put a paper bag over the member’s head? I do not know, but he should have kept it there.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us where Ross put the money.

It is amazing is it not? Those members make accusations inside the House, and in the same way, I can remember them all saying: “Winston, what if it all works out? What are you going to say, Winston, when it all works out?”. What I am saying today is what I said back then. It will not work out, and it is not working out, and we do not support it today.

The previous speaker blew his credibility, on any issue to do with fishing, over the fiasco with scampi. I cannot believe the gall of the man—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you do me a favour and tell that very naive, inexperienced, and green member that the matter is now sub judice and if he wants to join the action, then he should go outside and open his mouth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that point. I ask members to confine themselves to Part 1 and matters related.

I want to respond to the pretty pathetic contribution we had from the member for Tauranga, and simply suggest that the member read page 18 where it refers to the deed of settlement in respect of fisheries, and in which the words are very clear that it is for the sustainable management of commercial fishing in New Zealand. The words “New Zealand” are there in black and white. The comments of that member are typical of him.

I want to talk about the Government’s record, and to say that Part 1 shows everything that is bad about this Government—firstly, its disrespect for Parliament and parliamentary process, and arrogance in its legislative agenda; and, secondly, its political correctness over both Māori issues and environmental issues. It is a constitutional disgrace that the Minister has tabled in this Chamber a 13-page Supplementary Order Paper that affects the property rights of people who are involved in one of the most important industries for New Zealand, without any opportunity for them to be able to comment. David Carter quite properly tabled a motion to refer the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee, but this Minister does not even have the courage of his convictions to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper, refer it to a select committee, and let democracy take its course.

I must say this issue involved one of the most appalling incidents I have seen, whereby a Government’s own bill was defeated by a select committee. I cannot recall, in my 14 years in the House, a new Minister face the humbling of a select committee that says: “Minister you’ve got it all wrong. You’ve stuffed it all up.” If I were the Minister I would have thrown in my warrant from day one. He need embarrass himself no further. In fact, I know of nothing this Minister has done in his role, since he has had his warrant, that he has not managed to stuff up—whether in respect of kahawai, this bill, the scampi issue, or the mess he is making of the Resource Management Act.

Then we come to the provisions in Part 1 dealing with highly migratory species. What sort of naive Minister do we have that he is going to stop good fishing companies from my electorate of Nelson being able to participate in those industries, when there is not an international agreement? Members on this side of the Chamber agree that New Zealand should sustainably manage those fisheries and work with those countries to get agreement, but it is just a nonsense to tie the hands of our fishermen, while we allow others to rape those particular highly migratory species. It is the sort of expectations we would have of the Green Party, not a Labour Party. Such is the incompetence that we have from this Minister.

Then we go into another dose of dripping political correctness in respect of Māori issues. How can it be that this Minister somehow believes that under the Treaty of Waitangi there is a right for Māori to 20 percent of quota for fisheries outside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone? That truly is naive. Whatever there might be, we are the Parliament of New Zealand. We should ensure in the legislation that we provide for no such nonsense, whether it is the Ross Sea of Antarctica or the fisheries to the north of New Zealand. Only a Labour Party that has gone to incredible extremes to placate Māori would possibly provide them with quota outside those areas. It is a nonsense. The provision should be removed from the bill.

Even the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper does not provide for changes in that respect, and that is a nonsense. It is a double dose of what we have seen with the Aquaculture Reform Bill, in which this Government is tossing huge wealth, away from ordinary New Zealanders, to Māori on the basis of ethnicity. That is one of the reasons this Government will be thrown out at the next election.

Fundamentally this bill is about bringing new species into the quota management system, but so far I have not heard anybody query whether that is a good idea. I have heard Phil Heatley say that it is the best system, and maybe he is right, but certainly it is not the only system. I agree it is a useful tool, but it is just a tool in a tool-box. Why, for instance, do we give people the right in perpetuity—and I say “give” intentionally—to fish stocks that are worth, sometimes, tens of millions of dollars? The answer I often get when I ask the question about why we use that system, is that it gives, firstly, security to fishermen. But what about the fish? Secondly, it is said we can control what is caught. But what about security for the fish?

💬 Brian Connell: Bet he kisses the pregnant ones.

💬 Simon Power: What about houses for fish? [Interruption]

Land rights for gay whales! The idea that the quota management system actually gives security for the ministry to control the number of fish caught, is a fallacy. Indeed, the system is wide open to be rorted. The mechanism by which it could be rorted is that if fishermen want to catch fish—for example, a valuable species like orange roughy—they do not need a quota. But they do need a fisheries permit, and they can get a permit if they have a quota for 5 tonnes of any species.

So if I wanted to rort the system, I would get a fishing permit for sea snails, or something equally valuable, and charter a boat from overseas somewhere. I would come into New Zealand, trawl for sea snails, and accidentally catch 20 tonnes of orange roughy, scampi, or whatever it is that happens to be valuable. I would come into a New Zealand port, having done everything legally—I would have my fisheries permit—and I would have unfortunate by-catch. Pardon the pun. I have my permit, I land all of my fish, I get paid for them in the market, and now all I have to do is pay deemed value for the fish that I landed. So while the ministry is calculating the deemed value, I am in Baluchistan, or somewhere else. I have given my charter boat back and left the country. I have the money from selling my 20 tonnes of orange roughy, or whatever it is, and I have scarpered.

What sort of security does the quota management system give the fishery? It is not very good at all. I think the idea of giving people rights in perpetuity has been shown up in the land tenure debate we are having at the moment. In the past, Governments gave South Island high-country run holders the rights in perpetuity to lease Government land. Now we are having to buy it back. It is a system that did not work, and I maintain that the quota management system is a system that will have to be revisited in the future.

One of the debates we had in the select committee about this bill was about highly migratory species and taking fish from outside of New Zealand territorial waters. Most members seem to overlook the fact that high-seas fishing is the most energy intensive form of food production in the world. When fuel prices go up, the deep-sea fishers will be the first to go out of business. Yet we are trying to give these people quota on the basis of them rushing out into the high seas and catching as many fish as they possibly can now—to basically rape the fishery in order to get quota from outside our territorial waters. It is simply unsustainable. The quota management system is fine as a tool in a tool-box, but not as a mechanism on its own. I think we should look at the sustainability of the fishery over and above the administrative convenience of the officials of the ministry.

I will just take a quick moment to address a couple of small points brought up by Mr Ewen-Street about how bad the quota management system and rights in perpetuity are. I guess we should tell Mr Ewen-Street and his family that they should not have their freehold property in Christchurch—or wherever it is—in perpetuity. They should just lease it and give it back to the public every 20 or 30 years. We know what happens throughout the world when the security of property rights is ignored or constantly threatened by Governments. They dissolve, people do not care about them, and they do not look after them. The same applies to a property right under the quota management system. The fishers who have a property right under the quota management system are far more likely—it does not guarantee it; there are no guarantees for anything—to care for and ensure sustainability in the industry in which they have a major stake. It has been recognised worldwide—and I do not know how many times I have to say this—as the best system for ensuring sustainability. It is not about sustainability of the fishermen—or the fishers as the politically correct people like to call them—it is about sustaining the fish stock. That is the important point.

Is it perfect? No, of course, it is not perfect, but it is sure better than anything else. Until Mr Ewen-Street and the Greens come up with something better, it will continue.

I want to get on to the Committee stage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). It is, without question, the job of a select committee to tidy up a bill when it comes from the Minister and his ministry. I say again, as I have said many times, the Primary Production Committee is well known for working collaboratively to make sure that there is a sensible outcome. It took about 2 minutes, or even less, to look at this bill and realise that it was yet another dog’s breakfast from this ministry. It was an absolute disaster.

So the bill was essentially lost at sea. It was a case of “bill overboard”—the bill, and the nonsense of 20 percent of migratory species going to Māori, was tossed overboard into the South China Sea where it belongs. How on earth could the select committee countenance such abject nonsense that came from this Government? We have just debated the Aquaculture Reform Bill, where 20 percent of the resource is going to Māori. That is bad. It was wrong to do that. But this is just arrant nonsense. I suspect that Trevor Mallard had something to do with this. Has he not been appointed the Minister who ensures that things that might embarrass the Government do not get through? I suspect he had a little hand in this and said “Nod, nod, wink, wink, toss it overboard. Get rid of it as it will say to the public of this country that we are pandering to Māori again. It is the cargo cult again, so we will stop it.” So out it went.

But when the Supplementary Order Paper came in that effectively cancelled the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), the Primary Production Committee members had about 10 minutes to absorb it. It is a technical adjustment, but it is 17 pages long. Other members have talked about this already. It is a Supplementary Order Paper of 17 pages, when the entire bill was about 38 pages. Along with my colleague the chairman of the committee, David Carter, I sought leave of this House to send the Supplementary Order Paper back to the committee. That leave was denied—surprise, surprise. The Labour Government does not want to do the job properly. It just wants to flick it through, get it on the way, and never mind proper public consultation—just get it out of the way. Well, we are having to go through the Committee stage of this bill now, and I suspect that the bill will end up as yet another embarrassment for the Government. There will be more amendments.

I would like to direct my comments to two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that relate to Part 1. First, I will comment briefly on the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246, which is largely the result of some of the discussions I have had with him and with ministry officials since I was asked to try to sort out the mess left after the Primary Production Committee had had enough and had recommended that the bill be discharged. I agree with some of the comments that have been made by committee members that it is a large Supplementary Order Paper. It is something we ought to have the time to go through, particularly as it was tabled just this week. I hope the Minister will stand and take a call to answer some of the questions that have been put specifically about issues, because it is important that this is done correctly.

The other Supplementary Order Paper on the Table is mine. It seeks to withdraw kahawai from the quota management system for this year to give time for the ministry to do a better job of giving advice to the Minister regarding the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch levels that it has recommended occur on 1 October, which the Minister has accepted. This bill has always been about things the ministry has not done properly, right back from the time of the scampi issues and on through a myriad of others, where one thing has led to another and where people have been disenfranchised from their rights or kept out of their opportunities to gain rights. It was always said that once something had been done it was too late to fix it, so things just kept going on in the way they were. Today we have an opportunity to support my Supplementary Order Paper 247, and at least to pause with kahawai, so that we do this job right. The Supplementary Order Paper affects up to 300,000 recreational fishermen in the country, who are very concerned and who have made their concerns known through an email campaign of 1,900 emails, which I am sure other members in Parliament have also received.

It is clear from the advice that officials have given in their paper that they are not doing their job properly, yet again. Let me refer members to some of what they have said regarding the kahawai stock assessment: “While a stock assessment indicated that by 1996 the biomass of kahawai had declined to around 50 percent of its original level, it is unknown whether stocks are currently above or below the biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield.” They admit they know nothing about the science in this situation. They are having a guess, yet they confidently step up and try to assure the Minister that a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch will be sufficient to protect this fishery, which is of importance to recreational fishermen all across the country. They go on to say: “In gauging the required change in catch levels necessary to achieve any particular target level, the matter of a stock size is largely academic.” That is not the sort of advice we should be operating on when it comes to our fish stocks.

I have sought, by putting this Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, and by seeking support from other parties, that we at least pause for a year so that better science can be gathered and more negotiations entered into, in order for a better decision to be made. I appreciate the offers of support that I have had from other parties in Parliament. It is very disappointing that the ACT party is resolute in its ideology, and will not support this Supplementary Order Paper, because of what its members perceive to be the property rights of the commercial fishing sector. I think all of us want to respect those rights, but those rights have not been given yet. They are really there only as an expectation, because of the error that the Ministry of Fisheries made in allowing purse seine vessels to target schools of kahawai and plunder what is really a fish that belongs to the recreational fisherman. Any rights that commercial fishers perceive they own are taken at the expense of New Zealanders all across this country who have for many years enjoyed going out and catching kahawai. The advice that the officials have given the Minister requires not just a 15 percent reduction in the commercial catch, which in reality ends up meaning commercial fishers end up catching more this year than they did last year—because the catch is averaged over 5 years—but the imposition of a 15 percent reduction on the recreational fisherman. The bag limit right now for kahawai is 20 fish, and there is not a fisherman in the country who has caught 20 fish, for years.

I move, That the question be now put.

The cameo performance of Winston Peters cannot go without some comment. He would have us believe—so easily he would have us believe—that he has spent very little time in the National Party. But when I look around at my colleagues now I see that, with the possible exception of one, Winston Peters has spent more time in the National Party than any other member presently in the Chamber. He might say his DNA is not all over some of these fisheries settlements, but he and I know better.

Let me turn my attention to the most hopeless Minister in the Cabinet, and that is Mr Benson-Pope, the one who is in the chair right at the moment. When I was coming down to the Chamber I thought I would pick up the bill and have a look at it. But then I came into the Chamber and saw his Supplementary Order Paper. It does not have just one page of changes; it does not have just two; it has 17 pages of changes, and that is absolutely outrageous. This Minister is so hopeless that he will not even get on his feet and talk about the amendments that he wants passed by this Committee. He is afraid of doing that; he will not get up and do it, because he does not understand them. He does not have the confidence of his officials—but I suppose I can hardly blame him for that, given their recent record.

But it gets worse. When the second reading was given and the bill was referred to the select committee, the Minister had the support of every party in the House. When the bill came out of the select committee, that support had been lost—not just the support of the National Party and the ACT members but that of the Greens as well. What does one have to do to lose the support of the Greens on this type of legislation? [Interruption] I do not know what it is, but it has to be a fair bit, as one of my colleagues has just volunteered. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Minister will not even get up, take a call, and explain what is taking place.

Now the Government wants us to put highly migratory species into the quota management system. Well, foreign fishers sitting out on the next wave with their gaffs in their hands must be saying: “You guys are an absolute joke. These fish might be in your waters for 5 minutes or so, but then they are out on the open freeway,”—so to speak—“and we will take as many as we like.” How stupid can the Government get? This bill penalises the fishers of this country, and this Minister knows it. That is why the support for the bill was lost in the select committee.

It gets worse. The Minister’s own party members on that select committee are so embarrassed that they will not even take a call today to try to defend the measure, and this Minister is completely out of his depth and will not do it. It gets worse. National is particularly concerned that what the Government is trying to do now is entirely premature. There is no international, or even regional, convention of putting these species into some form of quota system, so why would one do it before all one’s major competitors do it, unless one did not understand what was taking place? That is the issue at heart. This Minister is so hopeless that he cannot even get his head round that particular issue.

If we are to go down this track, we might expect that some of these fish are in danger, but they are not—they are absolutely not in danger, at all. Skipjack, I understand, exists in huge numbers across the globe, but this Minister, because of some feel-good reason, wants to put it into some sort of quota management system. Well, it is worse than stupid; it is just incompetent. Imagine a fishery off Chile, where fishers say: “Well, I can’t take this number of fish today, because it might upset the Kiwis. They have a Minister of Fisheries over there, David Benson-Pope, who said we can’t take these fish because they are not in our quota management system.”!

I move, That the question be now put.

The reality is that this bill will be passed through Parliament unless the Green Party and United Future come to their senses. If they do come to their senses, then this bill will not proceed, and we will have time to consider its serious and dramatic flaws.

I have had a chance to look at the legal opinion provided by the Minister of Fisheries to me. I was told he had two legal opinions, but he has not; he has one from the same man—twice. Well, the day the courts of this country believe that the 1992 settlement was envisioned by Māori at that time to include the zone beyond the exclusive economic zone, it is high time we start changing our judges. What the Minister is saying is even if we got a contract off Chile, for example, nevertheless the Māori people—whether or not they invested one cent—would gain 20 percent. Surely, the Māori people are not so unfair that they think that is right. I do not know of any sane, rational, fair Māori who thinks that is fair, bearing in mind that the Māori Fisheries Commission has hundreds of millions of dollars and could join our New Zealand fishing companies now, make an investment, and gain its 20 or 30 percent that way. That is the honest and fair thing to do, and why we are facilitating these sorts of demands is beyond me.

More important, why did the Minister not go and get a second or third legal opinion from some Queen’s counsel down town on whose academic expertise we could more rely?

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: We have got three.

Well, if he has three, where are they? I have only two legal opinions here, written by the same man.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: They say the same thing.

Oh, they say the same thing. Well, if they say the same thing, why have we not seen them all. Why are we not privy to all the legal opinions that say that? But can he show me the Māori who says that 20 percent of the Ross Sea Dependency resource is owned by Māori? Many years ago I said that, in a statement I made at the time, and I got a letter from a Māori who said: “Well, in our mythology one of our waka went down there.”—and that is a fact. It is one thing for Māori to make fair claims—

💬 Brian Connell: What’s his name?

What is his name? It was such a long time ago. I threw the letter in the round filing basket, as I was so disgusted with it. But it is in the name of Māori that many of these claims are being made. My message to the Māori people is to ask how it benefits them if this sort of baseless claim is allowed to be promoted by a Government that is in trouble because it does not understand the Māori people, and whose members have not been doing their work around the Māori rohe, and, as a consequence, seek to sneak this bill through Parliament and somehow ingratiate themselves with the whānau and the brothers back home. Mr Tamihere knows full well what I am saying; the Māori people are sick and tired of members who are lions on marae and lambs in Parliament—and this bill will not save them.

There is a significant injustice here. Why should a fishing company take the risk of capitalising into boats and of putting men offshore in a very, very high-risk environment if, no matter what it gains by way of quota history, 20 percent automatically goes to Māori? Let me ask the Greens this: where do they think Māoridom is going, if that is a fair policy? What do they think they are doing for the Māori people if they advocate that? And what about United Future, of all parties? Where in the family doctrine of United Future does it state that it is right to treat one member of the family differently from the other? Where is that doctrine? Why do we have it in respect of this legislation?

The other thing I want to ask very clearly is where the Ministry of Fisheries gained the idea that green-lipped mussel spat is to be found only in the far north. Where did it get that idea from? Nine people will become the exclusive owners—from now on, in perpetuity, it seems—of that resource. Where on earth did it get that idea? Where is the scientific evidence? Do all those spat that I have been seeing on the beach at places like Whananaki and Whangaruru get there by some sort of mistake?

R Doug Woolerton: Are they yours?

That is what I said: are those ours, or are we to allow others to take what is a resource and develop it into something huge? I know, for a start, that if we allowed aquaculture off the coast of the Bay of Plenty, 20,000 tonnes of spat could be harvested per year and 400 people could be employed.

It has been interesting to listen to the contribution from a number of members today. One thing that has been absolutely fascinating to note is that even though we have the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, we have not heard a single peep from the Minister. The document is so thick, in so many different ways, that that ensures it will never be read—that is for sure. By virtue of the very eloquence of that Supplementary Order Paper, in terms of how thick it is and what it is trying to achieve, it will never ever be read. That is one thing we can be sure of.

It has also been interesting to listen to a number of the other speakers who have made a contribution. I refer in particular to the Green member, who absolutely opposed the process right through the select committee stage in the Primary Production Committee, and who has come to the Chamber now and been bought off. I have gone through the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper 246 and I cannot find the bit that is so particularly good for the Green member. I hope somebody will take a call and explain why the Green member has been bought off with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for that is bound to be in there somewhere. The chairman of the select committee cannot find it. Someone will know where it is, but I cannot find it in that Supplementary Order Paper, at all.

R Doug Woolerton: It’s not there.

I agree that that is probably so. The Green member also touched a bit on the issue of by-catch. We know that the member himself became a victim of by-catch in the select committee, and we all hoped that that might help to eliminate the migratory species that are going up his tie and frightening most people in the Chamber. But that has not worked; even that has failed.

I ask the Minister to take a call and answer some of the very important questions that have been put to him by a number of speakers. The last speaker, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, put a range of questions to the Minister, and not one of them has been answered. I want to know how a migratory species can be introduced into the quota management system, and how that will be managed off the coast of Brazil by a New Zealand Minister called David Benson-Pope. How will that happen? Somebody needs to explain that. The previous member spoke about how 20 percent of the quota for those species, once it has been established, can then be allocated to Māori. National wants to know how that will work. The Minister needs to answer those questions today, because a lot of other people want to know the answers to them, as well.

I also want the Minister to answer this basic question: given that a number of people, right at this moment, are contemplating making an investment in what is an up to $1.5 billion export industry in this country, how can they make that investment with any degree of certainty, whatsoever? The Minister is basically saying to those people that they simply cannot do that. He does not consider the industry to be important enough to be given the proper amount of time, through the proper parliamentary process, so that those people can go out and risk their capital and their lives—as is often the case out on the fishing boats. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that he should go out on a fishing boat one day, and look at the physical kind of environment that those people work in. Why can the Minister not show the decency towards those people of putting this legislation through the correct select committee process? He is just abusing the process. Many people have sought leave to send Supplementary Order Paper 246 back to the select committee, so that the very people who are involved in this industry and risking their capital can come to Parliament and tell the Minister what they find wrong with the process on this legislation. Will he do that? Not at all. It is absolutely amazing.

We have a minority Labour Government that is propped up by a few lackeys—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

SHANE ARDERN:—and it will not support the very people it purports to represent. It will not support them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. In the interests of parliamentary decorum, whilst one may call certain parties “doormats”, “carpetbags”, and what have you, I think the word “lackey” has been ruled out. Therefore, I think the member should choose his words carefully and not persist in that line. But to say “doormat” is OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I did call for order, but the speaker did not turn back to the Chair. I ask Mr Ardern to please withdraw that comment; it is not acceptable in the Chamber.

💬 Simon Power: The Rt Hon Winston Peters raises an interesting dilemma for members. If the word “lackey” is to be ruled out, could the Chair confirm, as Mr Peters asserts, that the word “doormat” is fine?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If anyone uses either “lackey” or “doormat” in reference to either a member or a party, I will rule it out. It depends on the context that those words are used in.

💬 Phil Heatley: What about “lapdog”?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): With regard to anything like that, it will be a matter of my judgment. Mr Ardern used “lackey”, and he will withdraw that. I ask him to please withdraw.

I withdraw. I was saying to those parties in the Chamber whose support is very cheap and can be bought without very much substance at all, that they should stop for a moment and think about what is being done to the very people they purport to represent in this Parliament. Those people will definitely not be happy with the process on this legislation, and those parties should just think about that.

I also say to the Government members, who are supporting this parliamentary process, that they are abusing it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I know that this is the procedure during question time, but Committee time is also pretty important. The Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, has indicated that there is a third legal opinion in existence; he said that he has three legal opinions. That being the case, I seek leave to ask the Minister whether he will provide us with that legal opinion. If he has it, then we are entitled to see it.

Any member may seek leave for anything. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

The point raised now by the Hon Winston Peters raises in my mind a very serious constitutional issue about the way in which this Minister of Fisheries has treated the Primary Production Committee. I refer to the issue of the legality of our requiring 20 percent of the quota for species caught outside New Zealand to go to Māori. One of the first things the select committee asked for was a legal opinion. From memory, we asked the Minister, through his ministry officials, for legal opinions. We got one legal opinion dated 9 May 2003—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: From Crown Law.

The Minister interjects, so he is still awake. The opinion is from Crown Law. It is signed by a Mr Craig Linkhorn, Crown counsel, but what Mr Peters may not be aware of, and what the Committee needs to know, is that the Minister and his officials deleted great portions throughout it. In other words, the actual legal opinion was not given to the select committee, and to this day that has not been done. That is absolutely outrageous. For the Minister then to say he is sitting on two other legal opinions that he was not prepared to give to the select committee so that it could examine the legality of the issue leaves me with only one conclusion: the other two legal opinions probably have a very contrary view to the very shallow, partially deleted legal opinion from the Crown Law Office. That is the only possible conclusion as to why the Minister and his officials clearly tried to pervert the select committee process and did not give the members the opportunity to consider legal advice as to the legality of this issue.

R Doug Woolerton: We’re being kept in the dark!

Absolutely. The select committee was kept in the dark. We now know from the Minister’s interjection—he is not prepared to take a proper call, but he chips in—that there are three legal opinions in existence. Yet all that the select committee was given was one legal opinion with a number of large deletions throughout it, so we could not form an opinion as to the legality of this issue. It is an absolute outrage that the Minister suggests that Parliament pass legislation that gives Māori 20 percent of species caught outside New Zealand territorial limits by New Zealand fishers, but he is not prepared to let us have a look at the legal opinion that justifies that.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: It says the same thing.

Now he says the second and third legal opinions say the same thing. If that is so, he should give them to the select committee. Why hide them? I might add that the first opinion had so many heavy deletions in it that the select committee was unable to form a view as to what the opinion stated. The Minister should take a call and allow the Committee of the whole House to have a look at those opinions.

I can only assume he is hiding those legal opinions for one reason, and one reason only—that is, he knows that this measure has no legality. It is another sop to Māori, an attempt to settle the issue around the seabed and foreshore. That is what is going on here. New Zealand fishers who catch tuna and albacore on the high seas are now being asked to pay up and front up with 20 percent of their hard work, to be given to Māori so that the Labour Government can buy favour with Māori. The Minister shakes his head and denies it. He should take a call. He should not sit there like a dork. He should take a call and answer the questions that have been raised.

I want to move to another point. The select committee was concerned at three specific submissions, one from Westhaven Shellfish, one from Sea-Right Investments, and one from the cockle industry. I know that Mr Ian Ewen-Street said in his contribution earlier this week that the Minister had given his word that those issues, which were of concern to the whole of the select committee, would be addressed by his Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Minister that I cannot see where that happens in the Supplementary Order Paper, and therefore I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us how it addresses the issue of Westhaven Shellfish, which has had an argument with the ministry for years, has won in court, and claims that this bill overrides its rights. I ask the Minister to tell us how the case of Sea-Right Investments, which is in the same situation, is fixed by this law.

I wish to address the amendment moved by Larry Baldock on the question of kahawhai. I agree with the substance of what he said about the kahawhai fishery. It has been Green policy for many years that kahawhai should be managed as a recreational-only species, because it has so much greater value as a recreational species than it does as bait, which is what much of the commercial catch is used for. There should, however, be just enough commercial quota to cover the inevitable by-catch so that that is properly accounted for, but kahawai should not be targeted. I have had hundreds of emails from recreational fishers, thanking me for the position that the Greens have taken on that for years. They are convinced that the stocks are declining, that they are harder to catch, and they blame the purse-seine boats that have been scooping them up. I discussed that issue with the former Minister, and I thought at the time that he agreed that that was how kahawai should be dealt with. So I was quite disturbed to find that when kahawhai went into the quota management system the quota issues were based on commercial catch history, just like any other fishery.

The fact is that kawhai are not in this bill, and the amendment is not in any way related to this bill. Kawhai are already in the quota management system. I was quite intrigued to see how Larry Baldock would fix the situation through an amendment to this bill. When I saw the wording of the amendment I could not support it, because it would not actually fix the situation for the recreational fishers but it would make it worse. I also cannot support a process whereby a party withdraws support for a bill it fundamentally accepts, in order to get an amendment that has nothing to do with the bill. That kind of horse-trading does not work around this place, and we have always refused to trade between issues in that way.

The fact is that the Minister is constrained by law. Once a species is in the quota management system, he has to make decisions that are based on scientific information that can be challenged in court. As Larry Baldock himself said, we have a great paucity of information about kahawhai stocks and about kahawhai catches. I have talked with the Minister today, and I have a personal undertaking from him that $1 million will be put into getting good information on the kahawhai fishery over 1 more year, at which stage the quota will be reassessed—not after 3 to 5 years, but after 1 year—and that if there has been no recovery in the stock, then the commercial quota will be reduced in order to protect the recreational catch. At this stage there is no other way that that can be done.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I am sorry.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to draw to your attention that we have before us a Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled on Tuesday of this week, which includes 11 pages of amendments. These are not amendments that have been considered by the select committee. They are amendments that affect a large—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand that. The time has come for me to leave the Chair to report progress, and I must do that.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.