Muller Todd; Salesa JennyTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. I along with my colleagues look forward to sharing the National Party's thoughts on this bill and as the Minister has said over the last 10 minutes this has had a pretty long gestation. It's been the thick end of a decade where issues relating to the quota management system and particularly the sustainable use of New Zealand fisheries—that it's not operating as effectively as it could be and that the incentive regime around reducing unwanted catch is not optimally set up. We had the 2015 review we had the 2016 Heron report—which the Minister referenced—under Nathan Guy's time and there's been subsequent Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) compliance projects as well.But as the regulatory impact statement notes pretty clearly whilst there's broad support for the need for reform there's still limited alignment in our view on what to do. One thing that keeps coming back consistently is there is a lack of trust that exists within the sector for reasons that can't be traversed in these 10 minutes but it remains a challenge to ensure that we get the right outcome with this bill.As the Minister has said the four main provisions: amending rules for what fish must be landed and what must be returned to the sea enabling graduated offences and penalties streamlining the decision-making process for setting catch limits and some technical management changes to the Act to assist with the roll-out of cameras. At its core it removes the Schedule 6 exemptions that are currently in place with a far narrower band of opportunity for fishers to release to the sea and of course that is supported with the planned significant roll-out of on board cameras. So in a nutshell this bill imagines significantly less fish will be discarded cameras and observers in increasing numbers to check compliance graduated penalties and streamlined decision-making. At first brush it all sounds reasonable but then when you dig into the detail there's some genuine complaints that we have real concerns with and we expect the select committee to be able to have as the Minister said some focused deliberation on it.Fishers are likely to exceed their annual catch entitlement—which is called ACE—and will have to pay deemed value because they'll be returning more fish landed than was hitherto the case. There is a limited market currently for that unwanted smaller fish and so there is likely to be more fish dumped to waste but the penalty regime was in our view an improvement over the quarter of a million dollars—a $10000 fine for one or two fish that are accidentally caught in a net when it gets dropped again seems excessive and the risk is that these rule changes are not as flexible as what the sector actually needs. You can have a theory which sounds fine in Wellington but it must actually pass the sniff test of being workable in a boat out in the ocean.There is going to be significant commercial impact. Your own regulatory impact statement makes it very clear—and I quote—We expect significant fleet rationalisation will occur over the medium term."—that means less people involved in fishing vessels in our local inshore fisheries. That is an outcome of this and we need to be very mindful of that as we progress through this. Your regulatory impact statement also says that even with cameras—and this is actually I think a critical issue—and observers it is very difficult to determine the size of the fish the species of the fish and the likelihood of survival of the fish and is very challenging and difficult for both observers and cameras. So cameras are not a panacea. They clearly help but the idea that these rules are going to be comfortably overseen by a plethora of cameras needs some testing. Indeed in the conversations that I've had in recent weeks with fishing operators themselves they have talked—with conversations that they've had with MPI they have talked of up to 30 cameras per vessel. I mean the cost is prohibitive. You really get a sense there that whoever that was in MPI who was making that assessment of how to manage the issue had lost all sense of reality.So we need to have clarity from the Government around how these cameras will be rolled out. The technical amendments make sense but we've got to be assured that this is going to be a practical application of this technology and the privacy concerns that have been raised with me over recent times absolutely have to be clarified. We have raised specific questions of the ministry with respect to the privacy issues relating to the footage from the cameras and to date have not been given a satisfactory response.So a number of significant concerns that we raise from the National Party side of the House. One of the key ones for me based on my I guess primary industries history is that when you look through this regulatory impact statement designed by your officials Government members there's not a single mention of the word "pragmatic"—not a single word. Ultimately as the Minister has said if you're going to land something here—excuse the pun—that is actually going to be workable from an industry and stakeholder perspective pragmatism needs to infuse the final conversations over the next two or three years.But in the spirit of fairness there are elements here that deserve support. There is value in simplifying the decision-making framework so it is more nimble and fleet-footed. This is an ongoing expectation of consumers globally that you have a line of sight over the sustainable fishing practices for your fisheries and that you can demonstrate that with transparent reporting and data. Our competitors are moving into this space particularly our European friends. They are moving their fleet into the same type of regulatory regime and as we know here as an export-orientated country you must keep a very keen eye on what your consumers are expecting of you and ensure that your own business practices are meeting that and if necessary have that backed up by a regulatory regime. There is in short an issue to improve here. The real question that we need to ask ourselves over the next three months is: is what the Minister has provided in this suggested bill exactly the best to progress it? We would argue there is much improvement needed before it finally gets passed in the House.The reason ultimately that the National Party is supporting this bill through the first reading is those points of principle if you like in terms of what's happening globally that I've outlined but also the Minister made it very clear that he has been I think quite realistic in terms of the transitional arrangements. They're to be in place until 2026. That does give the sector some time to respond but above all they must be able to respond to final regulations that pass the sniff test of practicality. I have seen it before over the years that the Wellington idea just simply fails when asked to operate in an industry context and in this case a marine context many miles from the New Zealand shore.We've got to get the balance right here. We've got a fantastic industry with fantastic people a product that is world-renowned and the demand for it is growing. We've got to ensure that a regulatory framework that we finally come back from select committee with is fit for purpose to ensure that they remain successful in the future. The National Party supports with some reservation this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to."