McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party and we oppose this bill. We find that it's an unnecessary and costly solution that appears to be looking for a problem. We note that the Ministry for Primary Industries' regulatory impact statement talked of extensive consultation over a long period of time about fisheries. They held public meetings they had hui they had one-on-one meetings with key Treaty partners which includes the Iwi Fisheries Forum and Te Ohu Kaimoana. What they represent are the interests of Māori commercial fishing businesses and they give advice to 58 mandated iwi organisations. That is indeed a large proportion of tangata whenua stakeholders. Other stakeholders who were also consulted including those with interests in commercial and recreational fishing arenas were small and large operators those with quotas individual fishers and companies who fish using quotas: those with total allowable catches and those with TACCs as well—the total allowable commercial catch. What I found interesting was the feedback that was received by an independent technical advisory group conducting the consultation who actually found that all groups—whether they're Māori recreational commercial—stated that the fisheries management system was sound. Yes they said there was room for improvement but every law has room for improvement. What this bill actually achieves though is not necessarily improvement but over-involvement with rules that have no proper cost-benefit analysis. We keep being told how we need to do better and large sweeping changes occur off the back of these statements. ACT would like to point out just how good we actually are on the global scale just for a nice change. Multiple international studies have ranked New Zealand's quota management system and its management of particular fish stocks against a range of global indicators. Our rankings in all of these studies have consistently been at the higher end compared to other countries. New Zealand scored amongst the highest of 53 countries that were analysed in an evaluation of compliance with article 7 of the Food and Agriculture Organization's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and this covered six fields of fisheries management. We have ranked among the highest in the world in terms of prospects of fishing sustainability and the overall effectiveness of management. With all these good international outcomes for our current management system I then sought to find substantial data on the impacts of this legislation and do you know what I found? It was actually not much because there's very little analysis on the impact. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) noted in their regulatory impact statement that they have data limitations. Further to that consultation that was held in February and in March in 2019 they left MPI determining that they had little insight on the marginal impact on the operational costs or any one-off costs that may be required. MPI has acknowledged that the operational and administrative costs that fishers incur from catching and processing fish is not accessible to them and that there are varying complexities with each fishing operation. However what MPI do state is that the majority of the cost for implementing this regime is effectively expected to fall directly on to the commercial operators of which many are smaller independent operators and they will be hit the hardest. The proposed changes to landings and discard rules are going to have the greatest impact on our commercial operators. All licensed fish receivers quota holders and annual catch entitlement holders will be incurring extra and additional costs: added costs to an industry that does employ 13300 people and contributes $4.2 billion per annum to our total economic activity; added costs to a system that has no need for such fundamental change based on the consultation feedback to these proposals.Something else that I read in the MPI regulatory impact statement has led me to have some concern. It's about how far the cameras on boats mandate is eventually going to go under this Government and I wonder if this piece of legislation is a precursor to more invasive legislation that is yet to come. You see MPI spoke of the need for cameras on boats to ensure that there's verification and monitoring of catches that can take place but that the landing and returning of fish to the sea can be checked—that they can observe fishing. This is why they want to have their cameras on boats. But what caught my eye was the repeated use of the added phrase which is including transportation in capturing of the electronic equipment. I see that both the MPI document and now the bill also refers to provisions to install electronic and other equipment to observe fishing-related activities and this includes the return abandonment processing or sorting of fish transportation connected with fishing". MPI wanted to amend the definition of fishing to broaden the power relating to the installation of cameras on boats in order to observe wider fishing-related activities such as fish processing. Their definition of the processing of fish includes land-based activities related to fishing such as the filleting of fish in fish factories and also at market. This Government makes a fine job of telling New Zealand businesses that while globally we're being hailed as one of the best in the world at management systems and sustainability "We don't trust you to get it right and we want the ability to film everything that you do just in case and just because we can." We all have an interest in ensuring that we have a sustainable fisheries regime and that we protect the species we harvest so our future generations also have a harvest supply none more so than the fisheries sector. If they deplete our source at source and if they don't continue their world-wide recognition of the great job that they actually do in New Zealand waters they won't have an industry. Like farmers they have the greatest respect for their resource and sustainability of the product is paramount to the success of the business. It's not rocket science.One last point I'd like to make: making changes without understanding the cost implications and making statements that the commercial sector will have to pay for these rules means that the commercial sector is going to have to offset these costs. Added costs to the purchase of kaimoana during a cost of living crisis with no cost-benefit analysis imposed on groups who believe that management is actually sound is absolutely nuts. It's telling our communities that the reason your seafood has gone up in price is because the Government wants to watch how you got that fish. No doubt there's a fair bit of work to work through in this bill but at this stage of the process ACT is opposing it. Thank you."