Muller Todd; Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister Hon David Parker for feedback on a few Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) including SOP 253 which is in my name. It seeks to replace in clause 22A(2) new subsection (1A) in section 257 the court must" with "the court may" and essentially is changing the language to provide for some judicial discretion. The Minister would note that on page 8 of our committee report we focused on the policy that sits behind us saying the penalty's maximums. Then as he has noted earlier you know aggravating and mitigating factors may well be or should be taken into account when determining the applicable penalty for any offence. But then that discretion which is envisaged in that policy intent is removed by the bill as it was reported back saying that "the court must … make an order—" so we're suggesting that that would be a flexibility which would make sense.In terms of SOP 259 the Minister will be aware that the existing provision section 72(5)(c) provides for the returns to the sea under an observer authorisation. Essentially what we are doing is you know—obviously we back the Minister's continuation of cameras on boats. That is a sensible addition. But we're suggesting under this SOP to include a parallel provision which would similarly allow for returns to the sea under camera monitoring—and the footage of any such returns can effectively be reviewed by the Ministry for Primary Industries—as a parallel to the observer monitoring which is in place.Then finally SOP 258 essentially provides a generic defence for the offence of returning fish if they are damaged as a result of unavoidable circumstances. The bill as the Minister would know contains a provision in new section 72A(2)(b)(ii) to allow for an instrument to be approved to allow this. Essentially what this SOP is doing is providing an administratively simple solution that I would argue would no longer necessitate the need for a particular instrument because it would have its own clear subsection.So hopefully that is of some value. I have reflected on these SOPs not sought to make dramatic political statements but actually see opportunities for improvement on the bill that we have in front of us.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for his contribution in respect of his Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). If I could address Supplementary Order Paper 253 which as the member has carefully outlined would replace the words "the court must" to "the court may" order forfeiture. That is the effect of the legislation I am advised by officials—I've just checked with them anyway. How it works is that there is the general presumption of confiscation or forfeiture I should say. But then section 257(3) which this forms part of that section says "Notwithstanding subsection (1)"—which was the subsection that the member seeks to amend—"the court may in the circumstances of any particular case and upon application being made to it … direct that any particular license approval permission or fishing permit shall not be forfeit or that the person shall not be prohibited" etc.So the discretion already sits there in section 257 subsection (3) and the scheme of the Act wouldn't make sense if we were to amend that. I understand the member's intention and I respect it. I agree that we don't want to have no ability for a court to say that forfeiture would be unfair and disproportionate in that situation but that's what subsection 257(3) already provides. So I won't be voting for the SOP."