Parker DavidFISHERIES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Fisheries Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon DAVID PARKER: I move That the Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Can I begin by thanking select committee members from all parties including the chair Jo Luxton for their constructive participation in consideration of the bill. I appreciate the time the Primary Production Committee spent to understand this bill and the complexities of the fisheries management system. Can I also acknowledge the officials who worked with the committee and of course those who took the time to submit on the bill.The bill is needed to strengthen and modernise New Zealand's fisheries management system. Our fisheries management system has at its heart the quota management system and it has served New Zealand pretty well but it does reflect the science technology and management approaches of the 1980s and 1990s. Since then technology has developed in ways which gives us more choices. These choices both enable some of the changing technologies which this bill proposes to utilise but it also enables us to meet the increasing demands of consumers to know where their food comes from and to utilise these technologies in a way that provides consumers in all parts of the supply chain with greater assurances that our fisheries are managed sustainably. The bill proposes key changes that will address issues that are quite old now. They were brought to light under the previous National Government in 2016 when a report was commissioned from Michael Heron QC into controversies in respect of some operations that had been run by the fisheries division of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) which were called Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp. The Heron report and those underlying reports that the Heron report looked into showed that discarding and high grading was a longstanding problem in New Zealand. The then Government proposed that we introduce cameras on boats and as is sometimes the way we've had to wait a while for those technologies to mature and also to find the money to do it.New Zealand's not unique in trying to address these concerns. Fisheries management systems around the world grapple with them. I was recently in Iceland and it was notable to me that they are dealing with similar issues around illegal discarding that were exposed recently in Iceland through the use of drones. They were surprised by the scale of that discarding just as I think New Zealand Ministers were surprised following Operations Hippocamp and Achilles. So the bill proposes to tackle the issue of high grading or the discarding of unwanted fish by improving the incentives for better commercial fishing practices. It does this by both the introduction of on-board cameras and these rules around discards which support a change in fishing behaviour because fishers are incentivised to more selectively target the fish they want and to maximise the value of the fish that is caught.So the bill proposes that all fish that are caught whether they are a quota management system species or not must be reported. All quota management systems species must also be landed except if there is an exception provided for in regulations. The exceptions process will be evidence based and takes into account that some fish are best returned to the sea. There are three exception categories. The first is that the species have an acceptable likelihood of survival when returned. The second is that the species if retained would damage other catch on board—for example ammoniating sharks if they're kept can ruin the rest of the fish in the hold. And the third area is species-specific returns for biological fisheries management or ecosystem purposes. An example of that is a female rock lobster with eggs. We know that there are concerns about the impacts of these proposals especially amongst some inshore fishers and the Primary Production Committee listened to a range of issues. I would emphasise that there is some flexibility for live fish to be returned to the sea to support the ecosystem. Decisions on an acceptable likelihood of survival will be guided by new factors including the sustainability status of the stock the fishing methods used and relevant cultural social and economic considerations. Fishing methods are developing including some new harvest techniques which make it more likely that the fish will survive if released. The proposed rules aim to incentivise fishers to avoid catching fish they don't want. This can be achieved in part through a change in fisher behaviour and also through the use of new technology. There's also a range of new technologies available or being developed including as I've said the new types of nets alternative methods such as potting or longlining and the use of cameras on nets.The bill proposes a four-year implementation period to ensure that fishers have got time to transition to the new rules by changing behaviour using new innovative fishing methods and developing new markets. Some of the current exceptions to what fish can or must be returned to the sea will continue as they meet the new rules. Other current exceptions will be reviewed in consultation with stakeholders and Treaty partners to see if they fit under the new framework or whether they should be revoked.The Government has committed to review 75 percent of the sub-minimum legal size returns and 95 percent of live release exceptions in the first two years. So this will provide certainty to the fishers about what exceptions remain and which ones will be revoked early on in the implementation period. If a decision is made to amend or revoke an exception implementation is delayed by between three and six months to ensure fishers have time to adjust. And an indicative review schedule has been developed and will be made available shortly to stakeholders for feedback which will again provide more certainty about the next steps.The tightening of landing and discard rules is supported by the roll-out of on-board cameras. Cameras provide more accurate information about fishing activity better evidence for a responsive management system and they also encourage a change in fishing behaviour and reduce unwanted discards and waste. They'll also support measures to reduce the bycatch of birds and sea mammals. The bill supports broader use of on-board cameras which has been tested with the fishing industry who are broadly supportive of the initiative.When introduced in 1986 the penalties regime was based on the low probability of detecting illegal discarding with high penalties when offending was proven. So it was pretty hard to catch people under the old system and therefore when you did you had to hit them pretty hard in order to act as a disincentive to that behaviour. While prosecutions will remain available as a deterrent for serious offending the bill introduces a more graduated offences and penalties regime that can now be implemented because we have cameras on boats. There is a 50-fish limit or a threshold for the proposed infringement regime. That has been the subject of some scrutiny. To a certain extent any limit is arbitrary as to where you draw the line and we thought that was the right place to draw the line. In addition the bill makes infringement regulations available for lower-level offending that doesn't justify the full imposition of the criminal law.When determining an appropriate prosecutorial response to non-compliance the MPI enforcement officers will have a prosecutorial discretion and they will as with other prosecutors consider all factors of the offence including whether the act was intentional or accidental; the nature of the offending including the species and quantities involved; and previous behaviour of the fisher. The proposed regime will allow commercial fishers to be penalised more proportionately and appropriately relative to the level of their offending.In conclusion the select committee process has made a number of changes to strengthen the bill. There will be a small number of changes by way of Supplementary Order Paper as we continue to polish the bill. There are mainly technical in nature. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.