Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As the spokesperson on conservation for the New Zealand National Party and as lead for this bill for our members on the Environment Committee it's a pleasure to lead off this debate from our side.It may be surprising to the Minister of Conservation but we too believe in protecting our indigenous freshwater fish so we will be supporting this bill at the first reading and to select committee. However I do wish to make it very clear that we have some concerns and some reservations about this bill. We have concerns about its reach and about some of the ramifications it will have on our recreational fishers and some of the costs that it may pose toward private land owners. So while we are happy to send the bill to select committee we will be very vigilant about it. We will be questioning officials. We will be taking heed of what the submitters say. We'll also be expecting quite a wide consultation process given that there was certainly a lack of consultation before the introduction of this bill. We want to make sure that the effects of this are truly investigated.I do want to commend the Minister with respect to her acknowledgment of the importance of indigenous freshwater fish in New Zealand and with respect to freshwater ecosystems. From my research I see that there are 57 species of freshwater fish and 22 of them are threatened with extinction. As the Minister noted our freshwater fish play a really important role in aquatic ecosystems with respect to the recycling of nutrients. So their extinction or decline can pose a serious risk on our freshwater systems and their productivity.She mentioned the longfin eel before and actually freshwater-wise they're one of my favourites albeit very prehistoric looking. They may not be as cuddly as obviously some of our native birds but they're certainly unique to New Zealand. If you watch any of the fishing shows they're often held up as quite a significant and unique beast in New Zealand. But not only that they're a valuable part of our commercial fishery. So it is important that the population is monitored and obviously it is a productive one. In fact the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd estimates that the commercial eel fishery is worth about $6.1 million annually. So the future of our eel population is certainly important from an economic point of view as well.I want to recognise that despite our efforts in the freshwater space the productivity of freshwater fish populations and their size has decreased over the past 50 years to 100 years especially with regards to whitebait. With the opening of the season it's certainly been back on the radar of people whitebaiting. The Department of Conservation (DOC) obviously regulates the activity of whitebaiting not with respect to catch size but it limits the methods and seasons and hour in which whitebaiting can occur. But it was stated by DOC and it has been indicated that it is freshwater habitat loss and degradation which is the significant problem with respect to the whitebait population.So our position—obviously when we were in Government we were the first Government to bring in freshwater standards. We were concentrating on freshwater ecosystems through targeted funding and with restoring habitats and certainly recognising the importance for example of wetlands. Waituna down in my area is no exception. It received extra funding to help its management. Of course we looked at the eradication of invasive estuary weeds.So I again reiterate that we are supporting this bill at first reading but we do have significant concerns with respect to whether these changes are going to be measured whether they are sensible and whether or not they will unreasonably or unfairly impact recreational fishers and/or cost private land owners significant amounts of money.With respect to a few finer points of the bill as the Minister has mentioned it doesn't in itself on the face of it bring any new management measures into the current regime but it does allow the Minister of Conservation to review and improve old regulations on which fish passage and the control or eradication of noxious fish can occur. So again while we're looking to improve the protection of indigenous freshwater species we do have concerns as to the reach of how far that can go.The first concern that I have is that further reform or too much reform in this area as I've mentioned could have significant cost on private land owners. One of the things that has been recognised is that there could be designated significant spawning habitat of let's say whitebait on private land and the question then becomes as to its management its rehabilitation and its protection and where the cost falls with regards to that habitat on private land. We're talking about more than protection on the conservation estate; we're talking about going further and extending that to private land owners. Land adjacent to whitebait spawning areas are not off the table in which the Department of Conservation officials will look at.A certain case study and concern of mine—while it's a very good conservation outcome—was when I visited Denmark and they had significant trout issues population issues and in some Scandinavian countries extinctions. What they legislated for was that fish passage across rivers that were on private land needed to be cleared and that fish passage needed to be accommodated for. The cost of that fell on the private land owners. They were able to reintroduce trout and obviously maintain healthy populations but like I say that significant cost did fall on the private land owners and we will need to question in our case as to the extent of that in the realm of New Zealand.The bill also allows the Department of Conservation to manage water flows: so discharges intakes flood control works and any infrastructure that may go to control that. So again where does the cost fall? Do we really need this extra tier of freshwater fish management will it be arbitrary how will it be controlled and where will the costs fall? The other thing is that as the Minister noted it can allow the Department of Conservation to close certain fisheries and so this would adversely affect our whitebaiters and others that catch native fish.Another thing that the Minister noted is that DOC's native fish plans would actually take precedence over sports fish plans. So the Department of Conservation's direction would outrank the longstanding tried and true management system of fish and game councils which are designed for representation and implementation at the coalface. Certainly in Southland we take our recreational fishing very seriously. We take our hunting very very seriously—as I'm sure others do on the West Coast and further north. Duck shooting weekend in Southland is like a provincial staple. Certainly recreational fishing puts food on the table it provides tourism opportunities it contributes to our economy and the simple act of recreation as well. It provides enjoyment it provides relaxation and exercise.So again coming back to the lack of consultation the fact that some of these stakeholders Fish & Game have not been consulted is very very disappointing. That was certainly noted by Treasury in the regulatory impact statement—a lack of consultation.So we support this bill at first reading but we will be taking a closer look at it at the select committee.