Fisheries Amendment Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House considering the Fisheries Amendment Bill that the committee may not consider Supplementary Order Paper 257.

We have been working on the Fisheries Amendment Bill for the last many months at the Primary Production Committee, and we have done that in good faith—as the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Labour Party; and we have had a very good contribution from Eugenie Sage. As we have worked through that, we have worked on a Government bill that itself has been in many years of gestation, with many stakeholders—be they recreational, custodial, or the sector itself. A core component of that bill was the fact that, for the first time, the industry would have a framework—a new framework—called the pre-set decision rules, which would enable some business surety and certainty and common sense for the sector and all the participants to be able to understand how a particular species will be managed within an agreed pre-set decision framework.

In good faith, we have debated it as a select committee. We have read 500 submissions, and we’ve heard from 50 individual submitters, and each one of them reflected around their perspective on the pre-set decision rules. This is the Primary Production Committee, which is known for its ability to be bipartisan more than partisan and to work through issues when we are having points of difference. We have worked through that diligently and with an appropriate focus—those of the sector, regardless of their perspectives—be they from an iwi-custodial perspective; be they from a recreational perspective; be they from the NGOs, who do not want anything taken from our seas; or from the various voices of the commercial sector.

What we have in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been dropped on us this afternoon is every single reference to the pre-set decision rules framework—which, in good faith, was discussed with the sector prior to the Government bill being introduced; which, in good faith, the select committee reflected on over weeks and weeks and weeks; and which is a core component of the negotiation and the balance that was sought to be struck with respect to fisheries management—being pulled. In this SOP, every single reference to that pre-set decision framework—for us to consider in a committee of the whole House stage—has been pulled from this bill.

I think—and hence my debatable motion this afternoon—that it is a unique set of circumstances that will require the relatively infrequent use of this request by the Opposition. Frankly, it is so substantive to the Government bill that was introduced that for it to be introduced as an SOP in this context fundamentally changes the nature of the bill that we have been deliberating on and reflecting on as parliamentarians, in good faith and in a partisan way, for weeks and weeks. It simply is not acceptable, and that sits at the core of the National Party’s—and my—objection to the fact that this SOP has been dropped, as it has, in this House, and has pulled all reference to something that, in good faith, the sector has been negotiating. It destroys the trust that, within a sector, is challenging to find at the best of times. From our perspective, it is completely unacceptable that we would consider it.

ACT supports the National Party’s motion to raise the alarm bells over everything to do with this piece of legislation being, basically, struck off the record. The pre-set decision rules, as framed, were tantamount to good outcome. As the member Mr Muller rightly alluded to, we had multiple submissions, hundreds of submissions, dozens and dozens of verbal submissions, and they all spoke to the importance of pre-set decision rules for not only iwi, for especially the coastal fisheries and the deep water fleet. Even the recreational sector had concurred that pre-set decision rules were tantamount to a good outcome. So the ACT Party absolutely supports the National Party in moving this motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the instruction to the committee of the whole House, moved by Mr Muller. The reason we have taken this unusual path is because of the particularly unusual nature of what we see before us here, today, proposed by the Minister, the Hon David Parker, before this motion was put in place to debate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 257 in the name of the Minister.

Now, it’s an SOP that significantly changes the construct of the bill that we would otherwise have been debating. On that basis, we are very much concerned that the intent, the goodwill, and the submitters’ efforts have all been undermined by this very last-minute change. We’ve seen, actually, through the process, firstly, the pre-set decision rules put in place, and then amendments made to take them out, further amendments to put aspects back in or change the wording, and, now, finally, looking to strike that out altogether. Ultimately, it is a significant chunk of the bill that had been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee and had been reported back to the House as the proposed legislation that, until that point, was part of the Minister’s intent, and, indeed, it had its second reading only just last sitting day, which actually concluded this morning. At that point, even still, only just a few hours ago, it was the Minister’s intent, apparently, that this would be part of the bill. And now, here we are, some short time later, seeing an SOP tabled at the very last minute looking to strike out a significant part of the bill.

So we were considering whether or not to move an instruction on this basis and thought that, actually, it warranted it because it is such a fundamental change to the legislation that had been put forward. Under Speaker’s ruling 78/7, “It is competent for a member to move an instruction the subject matter of which is neither ‘irrelevant nor foreign nor contradictory to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and second reading of the bill,’”. That’s the thing here, we’re not looking to change something significantly, because that would be outside the scope of what can be moved by an instruction. What we’re looking to do, actually, is to maintain the integrity of the process we have taken so far with this piece of legislation—through its first reading, through the select committee, and through its second reading, which finished just a couple of hours ago. Now, suddenly, we’re seeing a massive shift in where this legislation is decided best to sit by the Minister.

We believe that is so fundamentally out of line with what was agreed through the previous stages, through the collegial nature of the select committee. It is at such odds with all the efforts of the submitters and is, quite frankly, disrespectful to the time and effort put in by the submitters going through the select committee process on the expectation that their voice would be considered and heard, and would maybe influence some of the outcome. We went through that; we saw some massaging of that—as put forward in the report from the select committee. The Primary Production Committee reported back to the House with some changes to the proposed wording of those pre-set decision rules, such that it was presumably—and presumably at the Minister’s confidence as well—a more appropriate fit for what the legislation should look like. Now, here we are with that totally scratched off the page and we’re rewriting it again.

So, on that basis, we don’t believe that this SOP 257 in the name of the Minister should be considered by the committee because, as I say, it is so fundamentally different to that view. The intent of the bill was to improve the sustainability of our fisheries. It is my claim, and our moving of this instruction, that, actually, as put forward, it is deviating significantly from the previous stages. I think the key part here is that it wasn’t just that someone has moved an amendment, an SOP, in the committee of the whole House stage—of course, every member is entitled—

💬 Mark Cameron: They’ve rewritten the legislation.

—to do that—but, actually, it is a massive rewrite, Mr Cameron, absolutely, of the fundamental intent of the legislation, and, specifically, as reported back from a select committee that, whilst it is generally bipartisan, still, the Government influence is very clear; it has the majority. On that basis, you would expect that it has a very clear mandate, a very clear understanding, of following the Minister’s intent, going through the process, looking to make some improvements from all of those submitters we heard from, and then coming to this House.

So that was the case: it was reported back; there were some amendments to it. We see that in the report back from the select committee: pages of them, numerous strike-outs or add-ins, as the clauses may be under the pre-set aspects—you know, the 11AAAs, the 5s, the 6, the 7s, all those aspects that had some wording tweaked to, apparently, make it more fit for purpose. Yet here we are now, just a short time later, having ratified all of that in the second reading. So it wasn’t like the select committee reported back something that the Minister thought was inappropriate, because it still passed its second reading with no concerns raised at all—even this morning, a couple of hours ago—about any aspects of these pre-set decision rules that may or may not be fit for purpose any longer. This is just blind-siding the committee and the industry.

On that basis, we have moved this instruction and we would ask for the support of members across the House to advise the committee—when it does go into committee of the whole House—to take this instruction and its consideration, and strike out any further consideration of SOP 257 in the name of the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise this afternoon in support of the instruction moved by my colleague Todd Muller for the primary producers of New Zealand. Now, we’ve just completed the reading of a bill which I thought was one of the biggest shams of the Primary Production Committee process, and that was the animal welfare ban of live exports bill. And this is in no way criticising the chair or the members of that committee, who worked very collegially, but those submitters came in one after the other after the other, actually thinking that they were making submissions that may change the Government’s mind on the ban.

Now we stand up here, just having finished that, having gone through an amazing select committee process. It’s all very confusing, as Dr Duncan Webb was talking before about “my passion for cows”. I’ve been on a real 101 of fishing. This has been a real dilemma for the fishermen, because this is actually about imposing regimes and penalties for fish that they really don’t want to catch in the first place and, unfortunately, it’s caught as part of the process. And day after day after day, those fishermen came in, really concerned about where this was going to end up. This was, actually, one of the main topics of discussion throughout the bill, and this is an even worse process than the last one we went through on the animal welfare ban of live exports, because these submitters also came in and thought they were contributing to, adding to this bill, and then, as my colleagues have said, after the reading we come in here this afternoon and the Minister decides to put up a Supplementary Order Paper and actually change the face of what these good-faith submitters had put in front of them. So it’s clear on this side of the House: support my colleague’s instruction. This is bad practice and bad faith with the primary producers of New Zealand. Thank you.

Just members note that this is a relatively narrow debate, and that members are entitled to speak on it; however, if the debate does become repetitive with the same points, then as Chair I’ll be looking for some closure.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m a bit puzzled. Where have National Party members been? It has always been able for Ministers to introduce Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to change a bill after it has been reported back from a select committee.

National speakers seem to have ignored a lot of the submissions that went into the Primary Production Committee from recreational fishers; organisations like LegaSea, Forest & Bird, the Environmental Law Initiative, and the Environmental Defence Society; and others who had a major problem with the pre-set decision rules and expressed substantial concerns.

What we’ve heard from National members is the assumption that we should only, in a select committee, rely on the submissions from the fishing industry. Certainly, as I said last night, the fishing industry did support pre-set decision rules, but a lot of other people had considerable apprehension and concern about them because of the way in which they reduce the ability of the public to have a say on what happens to a common—I’m not going to use the word “resource”—to fish, which we share in common. The pre-set decision rules—certainly there is consultation on the scope of the rule, but if there is quite a wide range for that rule, the Minister makes a decision when he or she applies it, with no public consultation. It has been New Zealanders getting involved by challenging previous Ministers about the unsustainability of total allowable commercial catch (TACC), the need to reduce the TACC, and the need to provide for recreational fishers and the ecosystem that has led past Ministers to reduce the catch.

So others have said, like LegaSea, that these pre-set decision rules—and it was an attempt by the industry to get them smuggled into a bill which is primarily about landing and discards, improving reporting, and enabling the introduction of cameras. So this is within the scope of the Minister to do. I think it allows a lot more measured consideration. As one National member said last night, “The whole bill does create more complexity.” And, taking these pre-set decision rules out, there’s already quite significant changes in the bill which will take the industry a while to get used to. We can do this, and the Minister’s decision, with this SOP 257, is responding to a lot of submissions which were expressing considerable apprehension about these rules. So we won’t be supporting National’s motion.

The Labour Party will be opposing this motion. I would note that the claim that this is the major part of the bill is exaggerated. It is a 48-page bill. These provisions are on pages 3 to 7.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I’m glad the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries spoke and I’m glad the Green Party spoke, because it puts the context around what’s actually happened here today. The Green Party made it very clear that they don’t want this ability to have those kinds of decisions within the bill. They just don’t see it as there.

The Labour Party have confirmed that, in the Minister not explaining why Supplementary Order Paper 257 is being dropped today. As my colleague Tim van de Molen said, we just debated this a mere number of hours ago in this House. There was not one mention from the Labour members that they felt that this was an issue in the Primary Production Committee. There’s not one point where the Minister stood up today, when he had an opportunity just now, to explain why he did this. All he did was try and confuse and conflate people and say, “Oh, it’s a 48-page bill.”

Well, I’ll show you what your 48-page bill looks like now. [Holds up Supplementary Order Paper 257] You’ve taken out clause after clause after clause. It’s typical Labour Party propaganda. They try and say, “We’re only just changing a small part of the bill.”—he’s ripping a big part of the bill out. And it’s not only the part of the bill that he’s ripping out; he’s ripping out the consultation between the industry and Government, and that is the ability for the industry to go forward and Government to go forward. We all want to see the same thing happen in the fishing industry: we all want to see the best result for New Zealand fishing and New Zealand fishers.

The Minister deliberately did not say anything when he spoke. He had the opportunity to explain his decision. He has been sitting there quietly, smugly looking. He knows damn well that he doesn’t want to explain it. He just wants to hide it behind the process. He doesn’t want it in there. He’s shaking his head. Well, maybe he needs to stand up and tell us why he’s taking it out—and not some excuse that “It’s a 48-page bill and it’s not the heart of the bill we’re taking out.” Well, of course there’s more in the bill; everyone knows that. But I actually want an explanation. You just don’t take things out, with one line saying, “This is deleted, this is deleted, this is deleted.”, and stand up and try and excuse yourself. Explain it. Explain it to the industry. Have you got a good reason? Tell us.

💬 Hon David Parker: It’s the committee stage. It’s what we debate at the committee stage.

It’s what we’re going to debate at the committee stage! Well, this is actually in the Minister’s—so he’s now going to debate it. He’s telling us he’s going to debate it. Well, he had the opportunity then to actually explain what he wants to debate. He won’t debate it. I bet you they’ve all been told not to say a word on this. All the Labour—the whip’s trying to stand up and shut it down. That’s what he’s doing. They’re not going to stand up and debate it and explain it.

💬 Hon David Parker: We’re debating the motion.

Yes. And were you going to explain why you’re against it? [Interruption] Yeah, your reason against it is because—he says the bill is big enough as it is and he doesn’t have to explain it. He is more important than the industry! He himself does not have to bow to this Parliament and explain his decision. He just has to oppose it. The arrogance of that Minister in doing that, and the arrogance of the Labour Party. They’ve got no intention of debating this. He’s trying to shut it down. The whip can’t get up quick enough. And there’s the next call: it will be a Labour Party member trying to shut it down, won’t it? None of them are going to explain it. None of them are going to debate it.

The Labour Party needs to be honest with the fishing industry and say why they’ve done this. They need to get out there and the Minister needs to explain it, and not waffle about the size of the bill and try and hide behind that—actually say what he thinks about the issue. And as our oceans and fisheries spokesperson, Todd Muller, has said, there’s good faith in that select committee. The members of that committee have discussed this time and time again. There’s good faith by the sector. This is something that we don’t do every day in the fishing industry, because it is very complex and difficult. And for a Minister to come in here and be so arrogant as to say, “I don’t have to explain it. It’s just a big bill. I’ve taken out 10 lines. Who cares?” just shows how out of touch he is with the public and how out of touch the Labour Party is.

Now the whip can stand up and do his closure motion. Go for it, mate. Knock your socks off. But it just shows that you’ve got no intention of explaining what you’re doing and the Labour Party are just using this process. They could have done this months ago. The Minister wanted to do this months ago, it was in his mind—it didn’t come up today. He’s been—

💬 Mark Cameron: Lobbied.

Well, I don’t think he’s been lobbied. I think he’s actually known this for a while; he just didn’t want to have it in front of the debate. He just wanted to put it in at the very last minute, in the committee stage. Don’t shake your head like that. We know it’s the truth. You didn’t want to actually debate it. You didn’t want to actually have it in the public arena. You only wanted to put it in at the last minute so that you had to explain it for the very least amount of time, and you won’t even explain it to this House. It’s a shambles of a Minister, and it just shows the deceitful nature of the Labour Party.

I declare the House in committee on the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill, the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, which will commence when the sitting resumes at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.