8. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Fisheries
Was the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, consulted on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill prior to its introduction to the House?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) Link to this
Yes, as were all my other Cabinet colleagues, as part of the normal Cabinet process.
What did the Minister mean when he wrote to the Hon Parekura Horomia on 28 November 2006 saying: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government.”, and why did he not consider Shane Jones and all Labour Māori caucus members to be part of the Government?
It would be very helpful if the member were open with the House and finished the sentence he quoted, which states: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government”—which is where the member finished the quote; he should have continued—“until Cabinet has made its decisions.” That is the normal Cabinet process. But, of course, the member did not want to say that, because it would have hurt his case. Never let the facts get in the way of one’s own prejudice!
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister share the views of the Labour Party Māori caucus that the proposed amendment will impact on the value of Māori fisheries assets obtained under the Sealord fisheries settlement; if not, why not?
We are in a situation where we are discussing all of these issues—and I welcome that—both at the select committee, which is taking a constructive approach, and with other members of Parliament. The reality is that we are facing a crisis of sustainability in some of our fisheries, and the Māori caucus members acknowledge that quite strongly. I support them in that and I welcome that support. They have legitimate concerns about the effect of any Act of Parliament or any change in law on commercial fisheries, and I accept that. I do not believe that it is necessarily a valid concern, but we have to talk it through, and we are going to do that, and I welcome the discussion.
So did the Minister consult Shane Jones and all of the Labour Māori caucus before introducing the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill to Parliament?
All bills that go through the Cabinet process go to caucuses. The Progressive caucus met and considered the bill, and was in full agreement with its leader on that matter. I am sure that the Labour caucus also met and that its members expressed their views.
So why did the Minister sign out a Cabinet paper specifically noting that this particular legislation did not have to go before Government caucuses?
I believe that the Cabinet minute the member is talking about is a Cabinet minute that went to the economic development Cabinet committee. When Cabinet considered the matter, the minute was altered to note that Government caucuses would be consulted, and that other parties in the House would be consulted—and other parties in the House were consulted. I remind the member, of course, that when the bill finally came to Parliament the member’s own party voted for it.
I seek leave to table consultation on Cabinet and Cabinet committee submissions, signed by Jim Anderton, and specifically—
Madam SPEAKER