Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT won't be supporting this piece of legislation at this second reading and I'll iron out why if I may. We had a very collegial relationship in the Primary Production Committee when this piece of legislation was heard and we had dozens—dozens and dozens—of submitters come in: coastal fishermen recreational fishermen blue-water fishermen and coastal—Angie Warren-Clark: Fishers. MARK CAMERON: —fishers—yeah thank you very much. There's a real problem and I'll iron it out if I may with new section 72A in clause 14. It's been well canvassed that this is very very problematic and if I may—I'm sorry for the interjection; I didn't make sense of it over there—there's a real problem with the coastal commercial fishing fleet and the blue-water fleet. If I can highlight the reality of it the simple fact is that the coastal commercial fishing fleet often catches a plethora of species: mid-water fish surface fish deep-water reef fish. Anecdotally we heard multiple submitters say Hey look in this instance mid-column fish"—things like mullet and kahawai—"are being caught in the same net. One is targeted and one is not." Now just very quickly as we go through this new section 72A speaks to treating bycatch and it's not monetised in as much the same way as high-value species. If I may read it out it's having discard of 50 fish more or less having a penalty regime attached to them. In that regard if I may that would speak to pilchards having the same penalty regime attached to them as 50 kingfish. The industry has gone to massive lengths to try and minimise and reduce unwanted bycatch. Six-inch mesh has gone to a 5-inch and then it's gone to a 4-inch the design of the mesh has changed from a diamond to a square corkline technology has improved massively leadline technology has improved massively and yet there is still unwanted bycatch. When it talks to landing and discards deck wash—now I just want to try and conceptualise this for people who have never spent any time at sea on a boat. You've got a 2-tonne net potentially in the blue-water fleet coming aboard with a tonne or half a tonne of fish inside of it and there will be subsequent species that are caught. The technology is emerging. We absolutely agree—and this is logical and all the submitters agree—that the likes of the camera roll-out was beneficial to the industry and by virtue of that they could then understand the health of the ecosystem and the biomass. But as proposed—and I want to speak to the practicality not the political theatrics—this is a really difficult problem for coastal fisherman and it was canvassed by Joseph Mooney earlier. Fuel costs are monumentally more than they were 12 or 24 months ago and that's one thing. A lot of the seasonal staff that came into especially the blue-water fleet—this industry and these commercial operators couldn't get staff. Then you're throwing this at them. The reality is that there is a 13000-strong part of society—employees staff—that goes into this and that is part of this industry and it's worth billions. There is emerging technology but I go back to the practical application of the Fisheries Act as it is being proposed. Landings and discard rules a penalty regime—and let's read it out if we can. It speaks to discard of 50 or more fish being faced with a $100000 fine and fishers that offend two or more times in a three-year period could receive a maximum $250000 fine. Well gracious me how does that work if you're a set-netter commercial fisherman on an inshore fleet? Are you going to be prosecuted for the one offence on which perhaps you haven't had your day in court? You go on about your business you're out fishing again and there's a subsequent bycatch of 50 fish or more. Now I don't know if anyone understands the mullet fishery—yellow-eyed mullet. That's a mid-water to upper-water column fish species. Inadvertently there are commercial fishermen that catch them for the sake of selling them to the bait fish market. They have bycatch of kahawai. Instantly there's potentiality for a massive prosecutorial reality there. Now try and reconcile this. The industry has gone through rigorous change in mesh size floating cork development and leadline so they can actually set these nets at different places in the water column. This is the kind of innovation that this industry is constantly seeking to improve on and yet here we have an exponentially ramped-up prosecutorial reality for 50 or more bait fish being treated as if they're high-value southern bluefin tuna. Based on this sort of logic—or the lack of it I think is the point—ACT won't be supporting this bill at the second reading. We want to give this industry some surety to invest in the future because at the end of the day most of the concern is around table fish—or what you might call exotic fish species that are basically sold to domestic consumers here in New Zealand—being heavily predated or fished out. Again the technology is emerging. Thus far the industry has done marvellously well I think to adopt the narrative of having cameras on boats to further alleviate bycatch. I don't think that as proposed the penalty regime we are being confronted with here is anywhere feasible based on the technology as it sits. We cannot support this bill at this second reading. Thank you Madam Speaker."