SpeechSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise with anticipation and expectation a desire to inject clarity into this argument as to the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill because what I've heard in the media from Government members and throughout select committee is that it's clear that Government members have not read the fine print have not read the bill or are simply applying a very wide mischievous approach to the statutory interpretation of that bill.Before I get to the detail of that I want to talk about the process—an extraordinary select committee process that was fraught. Quite frankly officials came into the Environment Committee and didn't know whether they were Arthur or Martha. They did not understand exactly the purpose of the bill and what the bill was required to do. It was introduced to this House with very little consultation. It was introduced to this House as a minor and technical amendment and what ensued was anything but. It was an absolute shemozzle and what ensued from that were recreational fishers were Māori groups were whitebaiters who submitted and quite frankly their fears have been confirmed.Look we supported this bill. The National Party supported this bill at first reading. We had a real genuine desire to be collaborative with this bill and this process and have a desire to add protections with respect to our indigenous fish. We were the party that increased funding to clean up our rivers and wetlands from $3 million to $30 million. We have a desire to invest in our indigenous freshwater fish but quite frankly the wide-reaching ramifications of this bill run roughshod over recreation and private landowner rights. Hence we are not prepared to support it. I will say however that it was National Party pressure that came to the aid of sports recreational fishers. We were able to put pressure on the Government to change clause 5 and make it clear that with respect to the hierarchy of plans between freshwater fish indigenous fish and sports fish a freshwater indigenous plan would null and void a sports fish plan. It was through our pressure that we were able to make those changes in select committee which obviously keeps Fish & Game and anglers very happy.But whitebaiters and private landowners ought to be very very concerned. This bill does primarily two things and it's there in black and white in new section 26ZHB inserted by clause 7. It's in black and white. The first thing that it does with respect to the take of indigenous fish on conservation land is it renders it illegal unless there is specific authorisation. For rivers and streams and water bodies that are outside the conservation estate you may take fish provided it is for food and in accordance with regulation. It is through that regulation that we believe this Minister is trying to ban the practice of whitebaiting and that is proven by the inclusion of the transitional clauses that give a one-year grace period to whitebaiters until another management plan and pseudo-consultation process is conducted. That is the method and manner of this Government: to run contiguous consultation processes to confuse the public as to a line of sight of what this Government actually intends. It's designed to fatigue people and stakeholders that are interested in the management of indigenous freshwater fish. Whitebaiting is a favourite Kiwi pastime. It is a tradition. In some cases it provides a livelihood to people and these people already sign up to sometimes voluntary but pragmatic measures to sustain the whitebait population. I have spoken to many many whitebaiters over the course of this bill and none of them want to eat the species to extinction. They want to provide a legacy for their children so that they can continue to recreate on the conservation estate and elsewhere and collect a feed of fish for their table. Now Mr Duncan Webb should agree with that because I heard that he wants to eat kiwi. Now I wouldn't want to go that far but sustainable management of our indigenous fish can be done in balance with taking a feed. And what about the money that goes into these stands people investing into these stands—Maureen Pugh: Tens of thousands.SARAH DOWIE: —to undertake whitebaiting? Tens of thousands." my colleague Maureen Pugh from the West Coast says. What is going to happen with these people's livelihoods when this ban comes into place? Now the Minister has been quite tricky in my opinion. She's been heard quoting that "Oh maybe we will maybe we won't; it depends what comes out of another consultation process." She talks about moratoriums. Well "moratorium" means ban and that's what she's after. Her intentions have been exposed by this party. We need to make sure that we mobilise and hear from our hunter-gatherers in our regions who still go out and catch a feed for the table. The other thing that this bill does is it talks about spawning sites and gives the director-general on the grounds of a reasonable belief the ability to declare a spawning site on private property. Now this has not been addressed by officials as to the ramifications of what this means. There is no process for the declaration of a spawning site; it is simply arbitrary and based on a reasonable belief. It has not been addressed as to how department officials will go about this. There has been very little research and acknowledgment and monitoring as to what a good spawning site is. It is unclear as to whether a spawning site will override any existing consents or concessions as to activity on for example a river bed. This is a Government that says that there are infrastructure problems. Well you need gravel extraction to handle infrastructure issues. So if we're going to shut down all of our gravel extraction then there's going to be problems and that will cost people time and money. I certainly hope that it doesn't turn into another area where people lose their private property land rights because of an officious little Department of Conservation officer that comes onto private property and makes a claim that is unfounded and not based on science. This is the party that believes in pragmatic conservation. We believe that it can be balanced; use can be balanced with conservation if it is based on good science. That is simply what we need—some decent monitoring with regards to whitebait populations in particular and some decent monitoring as to catch. The people who whitebait need to be listened to and private land owners need to be listened to. It is quite clear that National is the champion of recreation and recreational activities. We will continue to champion that as we move through this second and the third reading. For that reason we simply oppose this so-called minor and technical bill that is anything but."