Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)

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 Māori 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.

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?

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—

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 Māori 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 Māori. 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?

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.

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—Māori 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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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 Māori, 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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—

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

Absolutely! That is for sure—and certainly he was not sure at any stage during that process, that is for sure.

💬 Brian Connell: Unsure.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I seek leave for one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

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.

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.

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.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled.

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.

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.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, Mr 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.

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.

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.

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—

Are you going to listen to my point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is challenging the Chair.

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.

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.

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.

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.