Estimates Debate — Vote Conservation

I begin by congratulating the Minister of Conservation on his achievement at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission. The commission endorsed the Minister’s resolution requiring commercial whalers to reduce the suffering of whales they kill. Every step in that direction is a victory and the Minister deserves our acknowledgment of the work he did there.

But I would like to discuss conservation closer to home. The Department of Conservation aims to create a network of parks and reserves in the high country and it is holding tenure review negotiations with more than half the country’s 304 pastoral lessees. In the latest Budget, around $79 million was set aside to fund the process. This included $18 million over 4 years for the administration of the new conservation lands. The Government clearly envisages the high country as a tussock theme park.

However, I would like to raise a few questions that the taxpayers will eventually want answered by the Minister. For example, once the initial administration fund has been spent, how will the Department of Conservation maintain these huge areas of land? One matter that I want to bring to his attention is weed control. For the small acreage that we farm in the Wairarapa, the cost of controlling weeds is astronomical over a year. When we look at the large blocks of land that will come under the Minister’s administration, I have some concerns with regard to that area.

For anyone with a vision of flocks of sheep being replaced by flocks of tourists, I have a word to the wise. Tourists can be like overseas students—here this year and gone the next. They are not a 100 percent reliable source of long-term funds. The loss of income from the loss of the huge blocks of land that the Government has purchased is $33 million with regard to the wool cheque for merino flocks, which equates to approximately 750,000 merinos. That is a loss not only to the farmer but to the community for the rest of people’s lives.

In February this year the Department of Conservation admitted that it controlled stoats on little more than 2 percent of the land within national parks, and possums on as little as 12 percent. That is not exactly confidence-inspiring when we consider that the department wants to control another 1.3 million hectares. There are also the department’s existing responsibilities—for example, preservation of our national bird. At this point I thank the Minister for letting me visit the kiwi-breeding programme up north. With kiwis dying at the rate of 10 a day, kākāpō in intensive care, and kea now described as being under threat by predators, there is plenty of work to be done in this area and the money needs to be made available.

There are sanctuaries that the Department of Conservation should be assisting, such as the excellent Karori Wildlife Sanctuary in Wellington, which is working hard to preserve wildlife without any financial input. I know that the Minister has spent some money on the Mount Bruce sanctuary, but it is now having to go out and publicly fund-raise to keep the programmes going. I would like the Minister to have a look at that, because I do not think it will work long-term for the breeding programmes that he has already established at Mount Bruce. There is even a rumour that any financial help from the Government will be made contestable, which I have just touched on. As well as doing the department’s job, the sanctuary will now have to bid for whatever assistance is available.

Then there is additional expenditure. The Department of Conservation will become liable in the future should the Marine Reserves Bill become law. Policing that law will be the department’s responsibility, but, again, we have no indication of likely costs. I say to Māoridom that it should be more concerned about that bill, under which 20 percent of the coast will be locked up. This year there were warm fuzzy pre-Budget announcements from the department about the establishment of two island sanctuaries at a cost of $7 million. That initiative makes better sense than having a Government department become a landowner and a tourism promoter on a very big scale.

I say to the Minister that it is time that the taxpayers were given figures for the public fund. The department will need to maintain its extra responsibilities. Anything less than full disclosure is grossly irresponsible.

I thank the New Zealand First list member Edwin Perry for his very positive comments about my recent work at the International Whaling Commission promoting the New Zealand position on our commitment to conservation of marine mammals, particularly whales, but also dolphins, dugongs, and other marine mammal species that are under threat internationally. I am proud to say that New Zealand is the staunchest country on conservation at the International Whaling Commission. It is something that has been unique not just under this Government but under the previous Government, as well. It is something we can be very proud of. We are recognised as world leaders in our commitment to conservation and the preservation of endangered species.

The member raised a number of issues and questions about how much work we were doing funding the protection of our indigenous biodiversity species—iconic species like the kiwi, the kakapo, the kea, and others. We can always do more, but I am proud to say that since this Government came into power in 1999 the budget for the Department of Conservation has increased by 40 percent. We have recognised that there are specific problems with some bird species. I have set up Operation Ark, which is an intervention programme. It is an emergency response programme to bird species that are endangered, such as the orange fronted kākāriki, whio or blue duck, and yellowhead. We have identified all of those species as being under particular risk. We have a special $600,000 fund—Operation Ark—as an emergency response programme. At the same time we are funding extensively kiwi recovery. The Ōkārito sanctuary, for example, which I know that a number of members have visited, is a very good example of the really intensive pest control management programmes that the Department of Conservation is setting up and running.

The member asked what we were doing about weed control. The Department of Conservation spends $10 million on weed control, which is more than any other agency or individual in the country. We manage one-third of the land area of our country. Much of that does not need weed control on it. It is mountains, glaciers, and quite thick indigenous forest. There is not a weed problem there. However, in areas that are undergoing restoration or recovery, there is a weed problem. I remind members that the Department of Conservation spends $10 million, and it has budgeted another $18 million for the management of lands that will be passing into the department’s management through the 10-year review process.

Earlier, my colleague John Tamihere spoke of the 10-year review process. He reminded the House, and I will reinforce that, that the 10-year review is an entirely voluntary process. The 304 properties that could enter the process—and some two-thirds of them have done so—do that at their own initiation. They can withdraw at any time. I am very sceptical and cynical about some of the claims Opposition parties have made in this House about how the land 10-year review process is a sort of land grab. It is not at all. It is entirely at farmers’ instigation. The farmer can at any time withdraw from it.

We have also had some comments about the purchase of strategic properties. Of course, approximately half of the land that goes through the 10-year review process will enter into Department of Conservation management. What do we do with that? The Government has signalled its intention that it will have a network of parks and reserves through the high country of the South Island. That is a sensible way to deal with that sensitive natural environment, with its unique biodiversity. It has great tourism opportunities. The previous speaker spoke about tourism in a sort of cynical way. I remind members that tourism has now replaced dairying as our largest source of foreign revenue. We have visits to the conservation estate. Last year there were 28 million individual visits. This year there have already been 33 million visits to the conservation estate. Tourists come to New Zealand for its natural environment. They do not come here to go to the casino or just meet lovely New Zealanders. They come to New Zealand because of its natural environment.

The Department of Conservation, in its management of that one-third of our land area, looks after that natural environment. It is the custodian of our greatest economic asset. This land is not locked-up land; it is protected land. It is land that offers not only vast potential in biodiversity protection and recreational opportunities—33 million visits to national parks this year alone—but also enormous economic opportunity through tourism. That opportunity for tourism is something that I am really keen to develop. I meet with my colleague Mark Burton, the Minister of Tourism, every 6 weeks or so, so that we can synchronise better the synergy between conservation and tourism.

As Minister of Conservation my statutory duty is to be an advocate for the biodiversity of our country. I have to make sure that we will not compromise that through any activity, and that includes tourism. However, I do recognise that tourism, now our primary source of foreign exchange, is an incredibly important industry to New Zealand. I want more tourists and more New Zealanders to be able to enjoy our natural environment. However, we have to also balance that with protection. So working with the Minister of Tourism every 6 weeks or so we will look to develop new tourism opportunities in the conservation estate, and, at the same time, provide adequate protection for the integrity of that estate.

The previous speaker raised the question of marine reserves. He made a statement that the Government wanted to lock up 20 percent of our coastal area. That is not true. The aim, as stated in the Labour Party’s policy programme, both for the 1999 election and the 2002 election, is that it seeks to protect 10 percent of our marine area. The marine area of New Zealand is the third-largest in the world. It is 15 times larger than our land area. It is approximately the size of the continent of Australia. It is a vast, vast area. We seek to protect 10 percent of it. We do not seek to have it in marine reserves only. We seek to have a variety of protections. They might be marine mammal sanctuaries and areas for recreational fishing only. Of course, the core of that protection, just like in our national parks, will be no-take areas—marine reserves. We currently have 17. We are lagging far behind the ambitious programme of our Australian neighbours to protect their marine environment. For example, just recently the Australian Government made one-third of the Great Barrier Reef—a natural ecosystem that stretches over 7,000 kilometres—into a vast marine reserve and a no-take area. That has been a fantastic achievement by the Australian Government in protecting its natural environment.

I asked the Australian Minister for the Environment, Dr Kemp, how he managed to achieve that, because we had such enormous resistance from selfish recreational fishers who kept saying: “Yes, OK, marine reserves might help to restore the biodiversity, but we are not having them in our favourite fishing spot.” I asked him how he achieved one-third of the Great Barrier Reef as a protected marine reserve. He said: “Because, Minister, tourism in Queensland is more important than fishing.” That might have been a cynical approach, but there was a powerful message that biodiversity is in itself intrinsically important, but it offers enormous tourism opportunities, too. The Australians recognise that by protecting that one-third of the Great Barrier Reef in marine reserve they are creating, protecting, and reinforcing an economic asset.

Sometimes I wonder about the attack by the ACT party in particular, but also National, on the Department of Conservation and its programme of protecting the natural environment; it is so short-sighted. If they really believed in economic progress and opportunity, they would be seeing the protected estate that we have, both terrestrial and marine, as an enormous economic asset. That is what it is. That is what brings millions of visitors to our country. It is what defines us as a people. It makes New Zealand a special place and it protects our unique biodiversity. What a fantastic package! All parties in this Parliament should be embracing the idea that protection and encouragement of our natural environment is the best investment we can make for future generations.

That was a very sad reflection from the Minister, because it shows this House that he is totally captured by his department. It has wrapped him in cotton wool and he comes here and dishes up that sort of nonsense. The basic folly of what he was saying is that he equates success with the amount of resource and control his department wields and the amount of money he spends, rather than the measures of outcomes and successes. He went on about iconic species, but look at the absolute failure that he is the steward of—and that is a sad thing.

I was taken with Mr Edwin Perry’s speech. He made some very valid points. The Minister did not respond to that at all. Mr Edwin Perry highlighted the concern that huge areas of rural New Zealand have with regard to the Department of Conservation. They live alongside the department. They have the dinkum oil, and the Department of Conservation is the neighbour from hell. The department uses taxpayers’ money, buys up vast tracts of land it cannot look after, has a whole bureaucracy supporting it—more taxpayers’ money—yet where are the weeds the greatest, and where are the pests the greatest? It is all on department land.

Just recently we saw his department gobble up Molesworth Station. Landcorp was doing a brilliant job. I am very familiar with Molesworth Station, going back many decades. We have turned that around. However, under the Department of Conservation we will see noxious weeds come back, and the broom and gorse come back down the river valleys. The pigs, the goats, and noxious animals have been the legacy of the department. Unfortunately, the Minister and his bureaucrats are so busy swanning off around the world to all of those UN conventions and conferences, signing up all sorts of protocols and world heritage nonsense that look good on paper, but the farmers and the rural landowners of this country know that out there the Department of Conservation is the neighbour from hell. It is not looking after the land. It is squandering and wasting resources, and all the Minister can say is how wonderful it is that his budget is getting bigger and bigger, and his estate is getting bigger and bigger.

I understand that $10 million has just been set aside as a contingency for the lahar on Mount Ruapehu. I can produce support for that. Is that not interesting? The Minister commissioned a report. He got an engineering report and also a report from the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd that stated that the most cost-effective method of overcoming that potential hazard and problem—and it is a very real problem—was to do minor engineering work on the tephra rim and cut a channel.

This Minister said: “No, it would be spiritually offensive. We can’t send equipment and machines into the national park.”, and he tried to blame Māori. But it is not Māori, because it was Tūwharetoa who donated the Tongariro National Park, and Tūwharetoa do not oppose the engineering works on the crater rim. It is actually the Department of Conservation that thinks it might threaten our world heritage status if we take machinery up to the crater rim and avoid a potential disaster. The Minister knows that that is a ticking time bomb. The Minister said that he has overcome the problem and put up warning sirens. That is like saying that a smoke alarm will prevent a fire. At great cost to the taxpayer he has put all these warning sirens around Mount Ruapehu so that when it bursts the sirens will go off and say: “Hey, folks, you’ve got 2 or 3 hours before your property will be severely damaged.” We are also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars lifting the rail bridge across the Whangaehu River.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Two million!

The Minister advises that the figure is $2 million. We also have to upgrade road bridges across the Whangaehu River. There is also the risk that it will break out across the catchment boundary between the Tongariro River and write off a very substantial tourism industry in trout fishing. The Minister claims to be interested in tourism, yet he condones this incredible threat, and for absolute mantras and rhetoric he is not prepared to stand up to his department and see the logic and the overwhelming evidence that would say that we should go up and drain that crater lake. We have the technology to do it. The engineers tell us it is the most cost-effective and simple way to remove the hazard, yet the Minister leaves that hazard in place. Some reports are stating that that tephra rim could collapse later this year.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Local Government, Vote Courts, Vote Customs, Vote Fisheries, Vote Consumer Affairs, and Vote Racing agreed to.

Preamble, Clauses 1 to 13, and schedule 6 agreed to.

House resumed.

Procedure

The bill was reported without amendment.