Fiordland Marine Management Bill

I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The bill has its genesis in Fiordland amongst people who live, work, and play there; people who care deeply about the health and well-being of the area’s marine environment. Rather than complaining about outside interference or outside rule-setting for Fiordland’s marine environment, these people decided to pull together all stakeholders—fishermen, iwi, scientists, tourist operators, and environmentalists—and develop some proposals to better manage and protect the area. These people are the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, and members may have read their story in North and South. Their proposals for the management of Fiordland are contained in the Fiordland Marine Conservation strategy.

This bill is testament to the guardians’ vision, tenacity, and commitment to the sustainable management and protection of Fiordland’s unique marine environment. What is perhaps most remarkable is that they have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals, many of which this bill gives effect to. For example, the bill creates eight marine reserves in Fiordland totalling nearly 10,000 hectares. That the guardians secured the support of recreational and commercial fishers and iwi for this is a remarkable achievement.

The preamble to the bill sets out the history of the guardians and the development of their marine conservation strategy for Fiordland. Central to this history is their vision that: “the quality of Fiordland’s marine environment and fisheries, including the wider fisheries experience, be maintained or improved for future generations to use and enjoy.” This vision is reflected in the purpose clause of the bill. In recognition of the importance of Fiordland’s unique marine environment and the outstanding landscape and cultural heritage, clause 3 notes that the bill implements a range of measures to assist in the preservation, protection, and sustainable management of Fiordland’s marine environment.

All the provisions in the bill apply to the Fiordland marine area. This area is established by clause 6. The map included in the bill as schedule 1, and described in detail in schedule 2, indicates the boundaries of the area generally. As already noted, a key aspect of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves. Clause 7 establishes the reserves. Each reserve is described in a schedule that also specifies any special conditions that apply. For example, anchoring is prohibited within particularly fragile areas within marine reserves, and in parts of others the storage of rock lobster pots is explicitly permitted. Allowing the storage of pots was crucial to gaining the support of rock lobster fishers for the creation of the reserves, and I am certain that it will not have a detrimental effect upon the area. In fact, they have lovely names for these reserves, they call them “china shops”.

The general conditions that apply to all reserves are set out in schedule 3. The bill places a moratorium on the creation of any further marine reserves in Fiordland for 7 years, or until a review of the management of the Fiordland Marine Area is completed, if that occurs earlier. Under clause 21, the review is to be initiated by the Minister for the Environment within 5 years of the commencement of the Act. Clause 10 amends the Southland regional coastal plan to give effect to management measures proposed in the guardians’ strategy, relating to such things as anchoring, diving, biosecurity, and the erection of structures in the Fiordland Marine Area. The Government is confident that the consultation, which has been ongoing for 5 years—that is why the speed now—undertaken by the guardians with the public on these changes justifies making them without following the normal Resource Management Act process for plan changes. The changes have been included in the bill with the agreement of the Southland Regional Council. The detail of the changes is set out in schedule 12.

Another key change to the management of the Fiordland marine area is the creation of Fiordland Marine Guardians. This body will consist of between five and eight members appointed by the Minister for the Environment, one of whom is to be nominated by Ngāi Tahu. Under clause 22, central government agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland Marine Area, and the Southland Regional Council, must have regard to any advice or recommendations of the committee. Clause 17 provides for the Minister for the Environment to pay the members of the committee for any work they undertake.

The provisions of the bill, along with several non-statutory initiatives this Government is progressing, give effect to the main aspects of the Fiordland marine conservation strategy. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their years of hard work in developing these proposals and seeing them through to this stage—a very impressive achievement that will ultimately benefit Fiordland’s marine environment.

Of all the legislation I have ever worked on in this House, I have enormous pride in this bill in particular, because of the manner in which it has been developed. It was developed by the people, who came to the Government for some financial support and some help to develop the strategy. We helped them with that money, and this legislation has been generated from their work upwards—this is real people power. It is my commitment to those people that I will try to get the bill through this stage this year, and finally right through by September next year. I commend the bill to the House.

The National Party strongly commends the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for the huge amount of work they have done over many years, going back to the period when National was in Government, in bringing together the ideas that make up this bill, to provide for an effective management regime for the very special and spectacular area of New Zealand known for so long as Fiordland.

The National Party welcomes the fact that different groups coming from a wide range of interests—tourism interests, commercial fishing interests, and recreational fishermen, as well as environmentalists and people from a number of industries—have come together and said: “We think we can work it out better ourselves.”, and have come up with some quite exciting proposals for Fiordland. But I say to the House that this bill very much illustrates what is wrong with the whole legislative framework for the way in which we deal with the foreshore and ocean environment. This legislation shows that the only way we can bring together community groups to develop a comprehensive plan for an area of oceans is to do it by way of special legislation. I think the real challenge with this legislation is to use it as a model for the far wider reform that is required of the Resource Management Act, the Marine Reserves Act, our fisheries legislation, and the Foreshore and Seabed Act, because that package of law is an awful, piecemeal mess that requires substantive change and reform. I must note my disappointment that the oceans policy work initiated by Simon Upton, a former environment Minister, and myself back in 1999 has completely lost its way. If the Government had done that work properly, we would not now be requiring special legislation to do what is sensible.

It is noteworthy that the volunteers of the Fiordland guardians, with this bill, propose eight new marine reserves in the area of Fiordland. That is more marine reserves than the Government has been able to achieve over the last 5 years. The Government, despite being critical of National’s record of creating 15 reserves during the 1990s, has created a mere three in 5 years. Its ideological legislative approach to marine reserves, its unique capacity to peeve off recreationalists, means that it has made very, very little progress at all. It could learn some lessons from the way in which the pragmatic Southland and Fiordland communities have put this bill together.

I also want to highlight the nonsense of the Government’s goal of having 10 percent of the marine environment in what it calls marine protected areas. Interestingly, at the select committee last week we asked what “marine protected areas” meant, and the honest truth was that the Government had absolutely no idea. I think it means marine reserves—because of course there is no such legal phrase as “marine protected areas” in any of our statutes. It is noteworthy that Labour’s strategy is to provide for 10 percent of New Zealand’s coast to be in marine reserves, yet even with the very comprehensive approach that has been applied to Fiordland, it has not been able to get 1 percent—and this would have to be one of the remotest areas of New Zealand. The Government does not have a bolter’s show of ever achieving the goal of 10 percent—nor should it, because that is a dumb, silly approach. The approach that is required is that taken by the Fiordland guardians. They have said that they want a representative sample of the different areas of coastline set aside in marine reserves. National supports that approach, not the Government’s arbitrary percentage goal that is not backed up.

I also need to point out that it is somewhat ironic that Labour has taken the view that marine reserves shall be absolute no-take zones. These are areas that are to be absolutely protected. There shall be no mining in marine reserves. Scientists shall not be allowed to take any samples in marine reserves. Recreationalists shall not be allowed to take any fish in marine reserves. But this bill says that if one is Māori, one can still take greenstone. What sort of PC sop is that? Remember, this is only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area. Are we really depriving Ngāi Tahu of their treaty rights with respect to pounamu by saying that they cannot take pounamu, or greenstone, from these eight little marine reserves in Fiordland? Why do we take this absolutist view? Nobody shall take any—except a bit of greenstone for Ngāi Tahu. That, again, shows the Government’s sickly liberal approach, whereby it will—[Interruption] I say to the Minister—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: You are belittling the guardians.

No, I ask the Minister just to take a deep breath for a moment. Under the Marine Reserves Act, the Government has said that no exceptions whatsoever will be made to no-take zones in marine reserves. In the Marine Reserves Bill that the Minister has introduced into the Parliament she has reinforced the policy that there is to be absolutely no removal of any minerals, or of any natural element, from a marine reserve.

What the Minister has done—[Interruption] Could the Minister for the Environment just calm herself. I know we are under urgency. I know it is a long week and I know you are likely to get fired on Monday—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am not likely to get fired. Please do not bring me into the debate.

We all know on this side of the House that the Prime Minister is likely to sack the Minister for the Environment. She has been sacked from every other job she has had, so she should be sacked from this job as well. I simply say that from this side of the House it seems extraordinary that under the Marine Reserves Bill there is a process that communities are required to go through in order to create a marine reserve. It is a bureaucratic, slow process. The Government has had a Marine Reserves Bill around for 2½ years that it has not processed, and which is stalled in the select committee because the Government cannot get its ideas clear. Now we have to have special piecemeal legislation to advance those ideas.

This bill contains very sound ideas that have been developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment but it really exposes the failure of the Government to develop any sort of comprehensive policy in respect of the marine environment. They have fudged and stalled—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: I think your mother is in the gallery.

I assure the member that she is not, but I thank the person for his or her support, regardless. It shows a complete failure of the Government’s approach—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Doesn’t look like it. He’s been with Nick so it’s probably not his mother.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Will you allow that to be said, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise those in the gallery that the debate takes place inside the Chamber. There will be no comment, whatsoever, from outside the Chamber or else the person will be removed from the precincts.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, on reflection, that the Minister of Education will form the view that his comments were inappropriate and that an apology is due to Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

I conclude by saying that this is good for Fiordland. What we need, though, is a legislative framework that allows communities all over New Zealand to take this sort of approach so that different groups are able to come together and come up with the marine reserves and resource management plans that will see the marine environment managed in a local, community way that delivers for tourism interests, recreational interests, and those who want to see properly protected marine areas in marine reserves. Again, I commend the Fiordland guardians for their work. I congratulate Bill English, the local member, who has put a lot of energy into trying to make this happen. I look forward to the bill progressing.

I rise to support this bill, which has excellent measures to preserve, protect, and manage the area in Fiordland. I am delighted that this bill has been put forward by a very good friend of mine, Marian Hobbs.

Who would come to the House, having read through the Fiordland Marine Management Bill and accompanying documents, and not commend the bill? New Zealand First does just that. A locally based incorporated society has worked since 1995 to develop, in consultation with the widespread community and with all the stakeholders involved, a plan that has finally culminated in this bill. The motives are there, particularly with regard to the integrated management of the area and the special features that make that area quite unique.

But having said that, one wonders why we have a piecemeal intervention into the whole marine reserves process. Some of us were involved with the Oceans Policy and worked through it many months ago. So where is that overarching, all-embracing policy? Why is it not here to set out the indicators and determinants of where our total marine shelf, marine life, and coast should be with regard to their future and preservation? That is not here. We also have a Marine Reserves Bill, on which submissions were heard many, many months ago. There is no indication whatsoever that the present Government wishes to advance that bill. Yet at the same time the Department of Conservation is endeavouring to promulgate marine reserves elsewhere, against local opinion. I refer particularly to Mimiwhangata, Great Barrier Island, and, more important to those in the far north, the projected Three Kings Islands reserve. Those are all examples of the use of haphazard systems to develop marine reserves, and they are all in various stages of uncertainty because of local reaction.

I will now draw the House’s attention to some issues that, in perusing this bill, I find rather interesting. The first one is why the local authority, Environment Southland, is not the determining body for this bill. There may be very cogent reasons for that not being the case, but one has to ask whether it is part of the Government’s policy. Yesterday we heard in the debate on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill of interventions upon local authorities. We know that there probably had to be interventions with regard to Environment Canterbury. Is this yet another intervention upon the regional coastal policy, which was created only in March 2004, and which—as far as I am able to see—is a very, very sound proposed coastal plan? One would expect the local authorities to have a major role. I do not see that, at all, in this bill.

Secondly, when I look at the proposed regional coastal plan for Southland, and at the various delineated boundaries and areas in the plan, I see some strange omissions. One wonders, and I hope that submitters will bring this issue to the Fisheries and other Sea-Related Legislation Committee, whether there are cogent reasons as to why there is a fenced-off area. When I look at the coastal plan and see the delineation from Awarua Point southwards along that coast, I wonder why a significant part of that area is not part of the plan. The coastal plan states that the values of the coastal marine area are very diverse and include ecosystems, habitats, natural character, amenity, open space, landscape, biodiversity, and historical, spiritual, or conservation values. It states that those values are the heritage of future generations. One wonders, therefore, having seen that statement in the outline of the coastal plan, why those values are not extended to a much greater area of the coastline, particularly as when one goes through the attributes of those sections of the Southland coastline—and, by the way, it is a very significant one, of almost 3,000 kilometres—one finds there are other areas to the south that should be part of the plan. So I suggest to the Minister and to submitters that attention be given to why the fenced-off area is considered to be significant by the guardians, and not a much larger area.

The third major point I want to bring to the House is that behind this bill was a “gift and gain” concept. The gift and gain concerns commercial and recreational fishing—where the gift is through a reduced take—and tourism operators. I would like to be reassured that this bill will go out to each and every one of those stakeholders, in order to make very certain that they really feel that the final version of the legislation represents a gift and a gain—that what they have given away will be a substantial gain to them and to the environment long term. In that regard, I particularly notice in the coastal plan that special importance is given to the sheltered anchorage areas of Southland’s coastline. The single most important safety feature available to fishermen in Fiordland, it states, are the few sheltered bays and anchorages. I would like to believe that every one of those areas has been preserved in this plan. Not only are they of value to commercial and recreational fishers, but also they are of value to cruising yachts, to pleasure boats, and to tourist launches. In fact they are of the same value today as they were to Captain James Cook so many, many years ago. Although one would hope that those special features of the coastline are preserved in this plan, on looking at the anchorages that are listed I am not altogether certain that they are all included.

Last of all, I want to draw the House’s attention to the issue of why this bill is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill has mixed features. It is a bill that concerns the Department of Conservation and also concerns the Ministry of Fisheries. There is a Marine Reserves Bill before the House that wishes to exclude fisheries totally from the oversight of that bill. Yet this marine reserves bill, which is intended to incorporate into the national system probably the largest marine area, in terms of size and capacity, that has ever been incorporated into it, is to be looked at by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. I am not saying that that is the wrong way to consider matters with regard to the sea, but it does send a mixed message as to what the Government really intends. I hope some submitters on the bill will come back to that matter, particularly because, when I look at the Southland Regional Coastal Plan, I see one major submitter. One would not have to hazard a guess as to who that submitter is—it is the Department of Conservation, which has attitudes with regard to coastal management that are sometimes rather perverse and rather strange, but that cause ratepayers many, many thousands of dollars in resolving the department’s local reference orders.

The last thing that this bill may do is that if the Minister accepts—and the ministry does accept, I hope—that the fenced-in area is too small, then the same studious attention would be given to the wider area of Southland’s coast, and particularly to the area to the south. That would mean that there is a truly integrated approach, not just in the area set out by the proposed framework of the guardians but for the wider area of Southland. I am quite sure that the local authorities down there would be very pleased to be party to such an approach, because the cost of preserving that environment long term would be shared—as it ought to be. I do hope the Minister keeps that point very much in mind, because it seems to me that the fenced-off area is too small. The reasons for preservation are relevant to a much wider coastal framework than that—and they should be, if this bill is to progress further with the widespread blessing of the wider community. Increasing the size of the area would be of far greater benefit than the currently proposed area, and would preserve the essential core values that the regional coastal plan states should be the core values for the future.

This morning I spent a considerable period of time on the telephone, talking to a number of people in the Te Ānau district. Rather unusually for a politician, I suppose in some respects, I asked people what they really think about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. Those people are involved on the ground floor. But, first of all, I would like to thank Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson, and to recognise the job they have done. I think it is important to give credit where it is due, so I thank Marian Hobbs, the Minister for the Environment, and Pete Hodgson for their efforts and the fact that they understood what the locals were trying to do. I quote from a comment made by Pete Hodgson, who was Minister at the time, in North and South magazine. He said: “What the locals have gone and done is what central government and organisations like Forest and Bird have failed to do. The lesson for all of us, in the technocratic and bureaucratic age, is that it’s entirely possible as a community to get it done.” That is absolutely correct.

I will also quote again from the same article, which I think is very good. It was written by Peta Carey—I assume that is a lady—who goes on to quote John Steffens. She states: “As much as the Guardians of Fiordland claim to have consulted all interest groups in Fiordland, there was one voice expressly excluded in the first few years of discussions, that of Forest and Bird. John Steffens admits they were simply not invited. ‘Personally I felt that from the behaviour I’ve noticed in other groups I’d been involved with, that if Forest and Bird had sat around the table with the Guardians they would have tipped the group over. People would have given up in disgust and walked away.’ ” That is the group that controls the Minister of Conservation, and I commend again Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson for their foresight and common sense. The comment was also made to me this morning that the Minister of Conservation has not even replied to those people. I think that is quite outrageous. So I am delighted, especially at this time of the year, to offer that little bouquet to those two Ministers.

However, on listening to those people this morning—and I do listen to them—I did hear them express some very, very real concerns. I asked them whether it was possible that the whole process could be open to capture, and one gentleman said to me that that was absolutely right, and there was a concern that they had created a monster. As long as the process is controlled by the local people, that will not happen, but the concern is that, through a political process, Marian Hobbs may not be the Minister forever. Well, it may last a few days—who knows? But never mind. Those people are concerned that Ministers who understand the process may be taken away in the future—whether it is next week, next month, next year, or whenever it is. That is their very real concern. The bill allows for the Minister to appoint the guardians, and that would be wrong in every sense. The appointments should come from the local people, with perhaps one or two being appointed by the Minister to give some sort of outside perspective. But we cannot allow ministerial appointments to dominate the guardians in the future. As I say, we open ourselves up for total capture of the absolutely excellent job that people like John Steffens and other members of the guardians have done.

I must say that one thing that really concerned me was the appointment of Professor Alan Mark to the guardians. Professor Mark is well known to me and to the high-country community, because he has alienated virtually every farmer in the high country over his top-down approach to the whole process. Quite frankly, Alan Mark is a bad appointment to have made to that group. I concur totally that in order for these sorts of organisations to succeed, there has to be a bottom-up approach, which is exactly what we have in the guardians group at this time. But we cannot have people like retired emeritus Professor Alan Mark believe that people from Dunedin or Wellington are the appropriate people to have as the guardians of this most remarkable area of our country. Professor Mark stated in North and South magazine that he was “marginally acceptable to Forest and Bird”. Well, the only thing I can say to that is “Yeah, right”.

Professor Mark is well known as New Zealand’s foremost preservationist. I make the distinction between conservation and preservation, because this bill should be about conservation, not preservation. Conservation would be welcomed, I am sure, by everybody in this House, including me and members of the ACT party. Irrespective of who it is, conservation is what we are about—perpetuation of the species, if one likes. Preservation, especially in remote areas, is all about creating a haven for poachers. If Government members and other members have not worked that out yet, they should come and talk to me, and I will point them in the right direction towards the people who understand that.

Something I think I should also reflect on is the reason why the guardians group was created. I suspect it was that the egos of people in the southern regions are significantly smaller than the egos of the people concerned with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, for example, where all sorts of problems and agendas occur. That is not happening in the far south at this time, so I am delighted to see that we can proceed. In fact, I listened to Dr Smith’s speech, and I think he was quite correct when he said that this group offers a way forward for the future, because it is a blueprint or template. The Romans had a principle they called usufruct, whereby the locals controlled local resources. Sure, there was an input from on high, from the emperor—or, in this case, from Helen Clark. Such input is possible. However, we want to be given no more than input. I think this bill is an excellent opportunity to show the rest of the country, where our marine reserves are being depleted, that it is local people—not the Department of Conservation, certainly not the Forest and Bird Protection Society, and certainly not Kevin Smith—who will show the way to ensure a sustainable future around our coastlines.

Fiordland National Park is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in New Zealand. It has a very special interface between land and sea. Its national and international importance are so great that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. It has ecological features that are simply unique in the true meaning of that word. Because of the fresh water that runs on top of the saltwater, which prevents the light penetrating through that lens, we have extraordinary corals that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot go, and they flourish in those fiords. It is an ecological treasure. But despite that, and despite Fiordland’s long status as a national park and its many years as a world heritage park, only two small areas of the sea are protected. There are only two small marine reserves.

In addition to that need for additional marine reserves, the fisheries have been in decline for some time. If we talk to old-timers we hear them say more than 10 crayfish pots were regarded as ridiculously unnecessary, because they could not get around more than 10 pots before the first one was full again—they simply could not pull them in fast enough. That is not how the cray fishery is now. The blue cod fishery down there is so threatened that two whole fiords have had to be closed in a rāhui, while the fishery rebuilds. There is conflict between charter boats, recreational fishers, and commercial fishers who are competing for the same fish.

I want to add my congratulations, too, to the local community, which has sorted out an approach to deal with those issues. The local people have pulled off an extraordinary achievement, and I congratulate them on it. But let us be honest that what initiated this process was the fear of a proposal for a Fiordland marine park and a determination on the part of local people to take matters into their own hands first. Initially they determined that there would be no representative of environmental or conservation interests on their group—no representative whatsoever. It was not just the Forest and Bird Protection Society and it was not just national organisations that were totally shut out; local people with a longstanding concern for marine conservation were also shut out. Initially the group called itself the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. It was entirely a fisheries resource-sharing arrangement that it was into. That is not to say that many of the people concerned did not have a real love of the marine environment and a desire to protect it, but the fishing issue was of primary concern to them. When the group’s first discussion document went out for comment, it was clear that it considered only fisheries and how to protect a few areas the group called “china shops”, where the corals and other wildlife were so precarious that simply dropping an anchor in the wrong place was capable of doing a great deal of damage.

Other members of the community looked at that document and said it was not good enough. They said Fiordland was actually an area that needed to have a balance between fisheries and marine conservation, and there were other interests that needed to be in there. Minister Hodgson, and I give him full credit for this, and got Alan Mark put on the committee. Professor Mark is a person with the skills to work alongside people, and the proof of Alan Mark’s skills in that area is the fact that, after coming into that group at the last minute, and negotiating with the community, the group has provided an outcome that is very significantly better for conservation than it would have been. Alan Mark has brought all of that group on side. I object very strongly to the slanderous and ignorant comments about Professor Mark that were made by Gerry Eckhoff a few minutes ago.

There are some very good outcomes from that process. There are restrictions on fishing methods that damage unique ecologies. There are reductions in take for threatened fisheries, so that they can rebuild. Commercial fishers have been pushed out to the fiord entrances, in order to protect the inner fiords for recreational fishing or biodiversity reasons. Codes of practice are to be set up to protect “china shop” areas, dealing with things such as anchoring and ballast water. The outcome enshrines kaitiakitanga, and not just for customary fishers but so that Ngāi Tahu can be fully represented for other management issues, as well. The bill creates eight new marine reserves. They are small. There are no whole-fiord marine reserves, so there is no complete representativeness. No outer fiords are protected as marine reserves, and there is not a full range of protected eco-systems. But the result is a lot better than it might have been had Pete Hodgson not put Alan Mark on that committee. It is a concern that new applications for marine reserves are outlawed for 7 years, no matter what needs may become apparent in the meantime. But there is a review process in place whereby that could change, if necessary.

The biggest outcome though—the biggest success—is the community buy-in. It actually does not matter what one does in law, because if the community does not respect the law it will not accept it. Of all the places in New Zealand, Fiordland must be the hardest place in which to get enforcement of fisheries regulations and conservation regulations. So this is a big success. It is not everything it might have been, but it is a good compromise among those who have taken part in the process. It is, actually, an example to the Government of how to do things when there is great contention. Many times this year I have stood in this House and said to the Government, over the foreshore and seabed legislation, that it should just get around the table with Māori and see whether it could negotiate something that they would accept.

I want to finish by quoting a comment made by Mark Solomon in the same article from North and South that Gerry Eckhoff has been quoting. Mark Solomon was shaking his head in amazement at the achievement in Fiordland, and said: “If we dealt with the seabed and foreshore issue like this we wouldn’t have had a problem.” That is what Māori leaders around the country were saying, and it is very sad that that opportunity was not taken.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We welcome the introduction of this legislation to the House, and will be supporting its referral to a select committee. I think it is a very good move to see it go to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, where we will have a combination of Māori members and others to listen to the submitters in this regard. I think that will lead to a very good outcome.

This bill implements the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy, a strategy that was developed by a local incorporated society called the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, which represents the major marine environment stakeholders in Fiordland. The development of the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy was notable for its constructive, balanced, and inclusive approach. It was not marked by the degree of rancour often associated with decisions affecting large parts of the marine environment. It was very much a grass roots - driven process, and it may possibly provide a model for future decision making on matters of this nature.

We certainly congratulate those who have played such a significant role in the discussion that has gone on prior to this bill coming to the House. It really must be one of New Zealand’s best kept secrets. It has been going on since the incorporation of the society in 1995—an 8-9 year process—yet most New Zealanders become aware of it only when North and South magazine did an article on it. Then, suddenly, we realised that there were some sensible, common-sense, constructive people in this country who were working through some very complex issues and coming up with some good outcomes. We certainly commend them for it. It is a very, very good example of what is needed and how to go about it.

I believe that many communities around New Zealand will look with envy at this legislation and the opportunities it will introduce for the conservation goals of the Fiordland area. I think of communities in Auckland right now, in the Hauraki Gulf, that would welcome this kind of approach to addressing the issues of marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf, and, of course, the very controversial one right now at Great Barrier, the Aotea Marine Reserve, which is an example of a shambles of a consultation process. It is an absolute shambles. The thing that we will learn as we go through the select committee stage of this bill is that there has to be a shift away from the Department of Conservation approach to the introduction of marine reserves, and towards a more local involvement, a local initiation even, in the process, and definitely representation on meaningful consultation in the outcomes the community wants to see. The sooner the Department of Conservation realises that slow is faster, the sooner it will achieve the outcomes that it very passionately wants.

This has taken 9 years, but what an amazing outcome we have. The establishment of eight marine reserves will take place and it is without the contention and the rancour of other communities around the country. I do not believe that all communities will take 9 years. I think they had significant issues to work through in Fiordland, and I believe that some communities could achieve it in a much shorter space of time. But regardless of the time, the Department of Conservation has to understand that it must listen to the people of New Zealand, those who treasure their inshore marine environment, and that it must engage them properly and constructively, without secret agendas, and without the involvement of the Forest and Bird Protection Society and its strategy to try to put a sham of consultation across. Again, the issue going on in Auckland around the Great Barrier reserve right now is a disgrace, I believe, to any Government department.

The Department of Conservation should not be the lead agency, and that has been one of the keys to success in this regard. A trust was established and people were invited to be on that and to begin to discuss the issues. That is the secret, I think, to the success that we see before us. We will now be looking into the situation with foreshore and seabed reserves around the country as a result of the foreshore and seabed legislation. I think that that will almost necessitate this kind of approach in future, because where there are foreshore and seabed reserves with Māori management, it will be absolutely impossible for the Department of Conservation to step into those areas and initiate marine reserves without this kind of consultative approach. I trust that not just Māori and the Department of Conservation will participate but that other stakeholders in the community will be invited to participate in the same way as has happened in the Fiordland issue.

United Future welcomes this approach, and this bill, which establishes a geographic entity called the Fiordland Marine Area, which delineates this bill’s geographical jurisdiction. The coastal marine area around the Solander Islands is adjacent but has been specifically excluded by negotiation, and that is another good point—that it is possible for people to say no in these issues and be listened to and respected. Within the Fiordland Marine Area the bill creates eight special marine reserves, covering nearly 10,000 hectares in total. That is no small feat and it should be welcomed by those in the House who are concerned about the preservation or the conservation interests of our marine environment. I hope that Mr Eckhoff will excuse me for using the word “preservation”. I agree with him that that is not what it should all be about. It is about conservation and not preservation, because human beings are allowed to participate in the environment. We are allowed to enjoy that which is being created for us and we do not have to be excluded from those areas in order to take good care of them.

The bill also creates the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee, which will be important in overseeing the management of the area. The bill amends the proposed Southland regional coastal plan, as it applies to Fiordland for vessel anchoring, diving activities, location and construction of structures, biosecurity, Resource Management Act functions, and marine reserves in china shop areas. “China shop areas” is an interesting concept. There are some very delicate ecosystems down there that we do not want bulls running around in—like in a china shop. I think they have coined a very good phrase for it. The bill also requires the Ministers and Government departments responsible for resource management, fisheries, marine reserves, and marine biosecurity, and the Southland Regional Council, to recognise and have regard to the advice of the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee. What sweet words those are! How sweet they would be to many, many communities around New Zealand that look forward to that active participation with Government departments in the conservation interests of their local areas. Most New Zealanders want to see good outcomes in their marine environment. They have learnt many things in the last 20 to 30 years. So we welcome the approach that is in this legislation.

I look forward to being on the select committee that will hear submitters. I believe that there will be concerns, as Gerard Eckhoff has mentioned. Perhaps there will be people who have concerns about the appointment of the guardians. Perhaps that is one thing the select committee will look at, if there is significant concern about it. This Government introduced district health boards in terms of local management of our health services. It would be entirely consistent for there to be, in time, elected representatives on the guardians committee, and indeed, on the conservation boards, as well. They should not all be by appointments. So we will be looking into those matters in the select committee and paying close attention to the submissions. We commend this bill to the House and to the select committee process.

This is a really good bill. I could spend a whole 10 minutes on this, but I will not. This bill shows what creative and innovative Kiwis can do to keep New Zealand clean, green, and sustainable, and I think it underscores what a precious international asset Fiordland is. This bill is an excellent way to manage that asset for future generations. I commend this excellent bill to the select committee.

That was a substantial contribution from that member and more than we are used to.

💬 Simon Power: Which is a big call.

Which is a big call. I do compliment the Ministers who have brought this bill forward. I think the House does not understand how radical a departure it is from the usual vein of environmental policy. Both Pete Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have been involved, and it is great that they have seen the wisdom of a proposal that has emanated from my electorate. I particularly congratulate John Steffens, who has managed this process for a number of years with a mixture of patience, insight, and determination without which this bill would not be here.

The reason this bill is such a departure from traditional environmental policy is that it treats the local people as if they have some understanding and sense of stewardship of the Fiordland Marine Area and the national park. The usual way that this Government in particular has done business is to sit in Wellington, decide that it wants to lock something up for the good of the nation, walk all over the local interests, treat them as if they were environmental vandals and do not care, push legislation through with the subtlety of a jackboot, then sit back, watch the controversy, and hope it generates some support in metropolitan areas.

I had to sit through exactly that process when Labour decided to deal with indigenous forest policy and its impact on my electorate, back in the late 1980s and flowing through into the early 1990s. It ended up being a disastrous policy. It cost the Government tens of millions of dollars to get something it could have got for almost nothing if only it had enlisted the cooperation of the local people. Although people from the Forest and Bird Protection Society sitting in their offices, and the Minister of Conservation sitting in his ivory tower—

💬 Phil Heatley: Same office.

—the same ivory tower—may think that people who live next to the Fiordland National Park have no idea what a glorious asset it is, in fact they do. In this case, it is the horny-handed fishermen who initiated—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What?

Well, in every way the Minister might care to take that. They initiated the whole idea of the Fiordland Marine Area. The last speaker, the co-leader of the Greens, was right: they did it to head off a ridiculous proposal to turn the whole of the fiords into a marine reserve. That was always stupid. It would have ridden over all the local interests and existing users, and the locals decided to do something about it.

So this measure is a new model, and it has a number of characteristics that are desirable. First, it is localised. Professor Mark regards himself as a local. He is a man of much knowledge about the area, but in the end he is a pontificating environmentalist from Dunedin, and I hope, from the positive contribution he has already made, that the Government will not stay wedded to the idea that the success of the whole enterprise has depended on the parachuting in of some academic expert. But the proposition is localised. Local interests generated it, and ultimately they will be the guardians of whether this legislation works.

It is also more integrated, and I must back up the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith. New Zealand does not have an oceans policy. The management of these coastal areas is fragmented and fractionated. This measure gives the opportunity for at least one part of New Zealand to operate under integrated management.

It is also flexible. We will have the opportunity to shift the balance of interests as changes in use shift—and a lot of change in use is going on in the fiords, particularly in respect of tourism. It is important that the governance of that area can react to changing circumstances.

I want to contrast this exercise with what is going on with the national park plan, a process run by the Department of Conservation. This exercise is participative and consultative; the various interests get a say, and they all feel they have been treated with integrity. That is in sharp contrast to the way that tourism, aviation, and fishing interests are being treated by the Department of Conservation as it draws up the new Fiordland National Park plan. That plan has been in the making for at least as long as this particular proposal. But what happens, after years of talking, is that the Department of Conservation lodges a plan, everyone submits on it, and there are long delays while the department prepares its revised version of the plan. Then, at the last minute, the department makes proposals for drastic changes, particularly in respect of Milford Sound. That has left many of the interests around Fiordland National Park out of the legal process, but, more important, it has poisoned their attitude towards the Department of Conservation, which, in many respects, does not do a bad job. But in this case, when large-scale, last-minute proposals are introduced—actually a rewrite of whole sections of the plan—and people are given 3 or 4 days to react and submit, people have every right to feel they have been duped.

If the Department of Conservation thinks that is the way it will continue to do business in respect of the national park, then it is wrong. The department ought to pay attention to this legislation, and to the attitudes, the compromises, the vision, and the environmental understanding that lie behind it. The department is doing itself permanent damage in the eyes of many people who work in the national park and have regard for it. I would hope the Minister of Conservation would do better than to act with his usual dismissive arrogance and to take advice from people who have no particular interest in my community. He should intervene in the process of the national park plan and fix it up. Because not many changes were proposed in the initial plan, people did not submit on it. Then, when the department made major changes, it took the legal view and told people that because they did not submit in the first place, they could not submit now—even though the plan looked completely different from the original one.

I have a final point to make about marine reserves. Although they are incorporated in this plan, I think they are a concept that has had its day. This plan shows there is widespread willingness to get to grips with the management of marine areas. The idea was that the only thing one can do in a marine area is to have a marine reserve, with all the attendant legal and policing difficulties, but it is now becoming clear that that tool does not work. It is not the best tool to have, and we will be having a scrap over marine reserves at Kaka Point. It is much better for the Crown to pursue the various management options available that take into account the balance of interests in the marine environment, with the understanding that almost everyone has goodwill towards preserving and enhancing that marine environment.

As the local member, I certainly will be supporting the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. I congratulate the local individuals who have put it together. I do not think there is much that the select committee can do to improve on it, and I hope that its hearings on the bill will not be an opportunity for the various bureaucrats and lobby groups who do not like it to come round the back door and try to pull it apart.

I found some of those comments irreconcilable. I too think this bill is good, and it is good that the Government is bringing it to fruition. One of the outrageous statements made by the last speaker was his suggestion that it was this Government that had caused all the problems with native forests in his electorate. I remind him that it was his colleague Dr Nick Smith whose decision illegally to restrain logging in that area, which was struck down by the High Court—

💬 Government Member: Denis Marshall.

No, it was not. It was Dr Smith.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: As if you would know.

I do on this occasion, because I was representing some of the neighbouring landowners down there. This is good legislation. I agree that it is a model we would like to see spread elsewhere in the country, but I do not agree that there is no future for marine reserves outside this policy framework. I recommend the bill to the select committee and look forward to its progression through the House.

We in the National Party support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill going to the select committee. We do so on the recommendation of the Hon Bill English, who has been involved in this particular process from the ground floor. Over the last few years we in the National Party caucus have appreciated the updates Bill English has given us from time to time on how the process of establishing this co-management regime is going. He acknowledged those in the guardians group for their work, and he mentioned their determination and participation. What he did not mention was their frustration with having to fight the ivory tower over the years, and I would like to put that on the record. I thank Bill English, on behalf of our caucus, for his work there.

It comes as some surprise to us in the National Party that the bill will be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, which is fast becoming the clearing house for the Government for controversial legislation. So it is with some trepidation today that we see that. We are wondering what sneaky tricks will come out of that committee that result in this bill and all its good intentions in some way being changed and made a little bit more sinister than they are today. We celebrate the bill. We are nervous about it going to that committee. We do not know what the Government has in mind.

I suspect, though, that it is about avoiding the Green members who sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Government does not want the Green member who chairs that committee to be involved in the bill, and the Government’s tenuous relationship with the Greens is reflected in this move. That is quite interesting. I reflect on the marine reserves policy that Labour espoused before the election—not the 2002 election but the 1999 election. It said that it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine area in marine reserves. That was a sop to not just the Green Party but to green voters right across the country. Before that election the Labour Party said it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine space in marine reserves. Today Labour is saying that 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine space will be in marine protected areas. So it has done a U-turn there. Now it is saying that it did not mean that 10 percent would be marine reserves; now it says that that 10 percent includes shipping lanes, cable protection zones, taiāpure, and mātaitai—any area that is locked up in some way and protected, whether because of shipping, or law to do with Māori customary rights, or telecommunications, or electricity generation. Those areas fall into the marine protected areas trap. So voters on the green side of life who supported Labour on its hardy marine reserves policy will be very disappointed by the U-turn in that policy that we are seeing espoused today.

One of the good things this legislation reflects is the degree of consultation that has finally happened with the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The announcement that the Minister of Conservation will be driving through some marine reserves in Northland has prompted moves to have guardians’ groups set up there, as well—for example, the proposal to turn Mimiwhangata Marine Park into a marine reserve—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is nowhere near Fiordland.

That is fine, but we are talking about a guardians’ group to do with—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, we are talking about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill.

We are. In due course we will see a bill relating to Mimiwhangata introduced to Parliament, as well, because the only way to make progress in the marine environment, with the fractured approach to the marine environment that the Government is taking, is to have that solution wound out throughout the whole country. We will see that in Northland. The consultation that has finally happened in Fiordland has to happen throughout the rest of the country, and I hope it does. The local people in Fiordland know most about their local marine environment, and the local people in Northland know most about the local marine environment there.

Interestingly enough, the Department of Conservation up north, when discussing its particular marine reserve proposal like the one for Fiordland, tried to do a deal with local hapū for quid pro quo support for aquaculture—the aquaculture interests of hapū would be supported by the Department of Conservation, if local hapū would support the interests of the department in a marine reserve. Local hapū turned round and said no, in that instance. They said that their aspirations as Māori are exactly the same as the local community’s and local recreational fishers’ aspirations—that there was no distinction, and they should not be approached as a racial group to get some sort of support through the back door, because they shared the same aspirations as everyone else in that marine area.

I commend the bill to the House. We will support it going to the select committee. We will be sitting on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and watching very, very carefully to ensure that the rules in the bill are not changed too much in order somehow to appease the Department of Conservation. We will be watching over its progress on behalf of the people in Fiordland and the Hon Bill English, who represents that region very well indeed.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.