Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. One of the perspectives that has been missing in this debate and indeed the report back from our select committee to this House from our deliberations on the Fisheries Amendment Bill is that there was no agreement at all across the various stakeholders who presented on the bill and that gave a very clear voice to the fact that issues relating to our oceans and fisheries are some of the most contested in this country. We had impassioned submissions from commercial fishers and particularly those as my colleague Mark Cameron from ACT mentioned inshore fishers who are owner-operators who are particularly concerned that the rules around landing and discards along with cameras could ultimately lead them to decide that it is all too hard and that they have to walk away from a sector and an industry that in many cases has been in their lives and their families' lives for generations.We had recreational fishers who saw this bill as a Government-inspired attempt to partner with the commercial sector to ensure that more fish were harvested at the expense of recreational fishers. We had iwi representatives who said that in no way did this bill address the fact that from their perspective the primary relationship with respect to any issues relating to oceans and fisheries was one of the Crown and iwi and that a consultative framework was missing. Then we had the NGOs who said that this bill will see the treasured taonga of New Zealand our exclusive economic zone further threatened further put under pressure at the expense of future generations.All four stakeholders said that this bill does not meet their expectations with the exception I would argue of broadly the seafood industry who has been working for years through successive Governments to try and get a framework that was more relevant than the framework that exists today. One that creates some flexibility and surety for their business as to what they should bring back and account for—not only under their annual catch entitlement but what they needed to bring back as opposed to discard to the sea. One in which the rules around how to manage a particular fishery a particular species could have some clear framework that could be agreed up front so that when the fishing stock changed over time they didn't need to go through an incredibly laborious process of ensuring that every one of those stakeholders was in alignment before the Government or the Minister of the time made the change. And of course what was outlined to us at the select committee was that you will never get that alignment. The degree of dysfunction and disconnection between those particular parties is at record levels.Therefore this bill is a step forward in and of itself but it doesn't in any way deal with the fundamental tension that exists in our oceans and fisheries space. Now the Government has set up for the first time a Minister for Oceans and Fisheries Minister Parker but there is an inherent tension in the way the Minister delivers against that mandate. On the oceans side there are people such as the very respected in my opinion Eugenie Sage from the Green Party who gives voice to the concerns of many in the New Zealand that the pressures on our oceans generally are not being appropriately focused on and then the same Minister has to reflect on the fact that we have a $1.6 billion seafood export industry. It is a big part of our primary sector. We deliver—not only to New Zealand but to the world—food that is highly valued and somehow he has to manage a quota management system that reflects on the interests of Māori ensures that we don't over fish ensures that customary rights are protected and ensures that over time the oceans in this country are improved and enhanced. And so this bill rather than dealing with those inherent tensions adds more layers of framework and rules and scaffolding to what I would argue is a fundamentally dysfunctional system. Now the National Party will support the bill because landings and discards and particularly actually a framework to get pre-set decision rules with respect to how you approach a particular species makes sense. But the rules in here when we tried to grapple with it as a select committee were mind-numbing. And I have to say with respect that we're getting only two-minute contributions on behalf of the Government side on a bill that has got this degree of complexity. I think I can speak generally on behalf of all colleagues across the House who sat on that committee—and we were constantly having to use every bit of our brains to try and navigate this—when I say that to now listen to two-minute speeches that sort of tip over the top of it I think does a disservice to the sector and actually to the bill that we are trying to progress. Tāmati Coffey: You agreed; we agreed. Let's go.TODD MULLER: I was at every single one of those—thank you Mr Coffey—every single one of them. And it deserves more reflection on the challenges of trying to get the balance right. Now I think where the balance has been broadly struck is the concept as I said earlier of a pre-set decision framework across the various species of the quota management system—makes sense. If you can create a sort of parameter in which all the players can operate and operate in a way that is more flexible and able to respond more deftly to data—which tends to turn up in sort of clumps—around the effectiveness and the healthiness of that particular species that makes sense conceptually. But what I noticed as we walked through this process was it was just layer after layer of additionality of more process of more considerations and of more decisions being handed essentially back to the officials and the Minister to have to grapple with. So all the rules associated with the pre-set decision rules across all the species that currently sit in the quota management system that sits in front of us for four years; all the rules around landings and discards and what counts and what doesn't and what's survivability. All of that has to be dealt with species by species over the next four years. And you could actually see it frankly in the faces of the officials when they were putting on a good face that Yes we'll be able to manage this." Frankly they can't manage the current obligations on them in all honesty based on not a function of competency; it's a function of resources and what's expected of them. And we have layered up even more on Fisheries New Zealand over the next four years in partnership with the sector. Our view is that on balance where there is a choice between pragmatism and being pure the National Party signals very clearly—we have an expectation that the officials and the Minister default to what is practical and you have had good contributions from this side as to some of the challenges particularly for inshore fishers of getting that balance right. We intend to focus on that very significantly. We have three Supplementary Order Papers that we will talk to which I think add greater clarity to the balance that is sought by this bill. But I remain disappointed that the great opportunity of trying to genuinely create a framework that tries to put in alignment those tensions between commercial and recreation and customary and the NGOs who want us to essentially look at a postcard. That has not been resolved and until it is resolved the great potential of our moana stays unrealised. Thank you."