Fiordland Marine Management Bill

, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, I would like to introduce this bill back into the House. This is a very important bill. Fiordland National Park, and Fiordland as an area, is an icon for this country. Many millions of people throughout the world know the sight of Mitre Peak from postcards, and this bill will go some way to protect that very iconic environment that the world enjoys. Through the tourism industry it is a very big part of New Zealand’s economy, and the people who live in and around that area, including some very good operators whom I had the pleasure to visit in Doubtful Sound, are passionate about its protection.

I commend the Minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House. I know that those people who have a genuine interest not only in conservation but also in economic development will support this bill and its speedy passage through the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We had a number of submissions to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. It was not a vast number, because it is a bill that addresses issues in a particular part of our country, although it is a part of our country that is significant to all of us—the Fiordland area. It is a beautiful area to visit. It is an area that all of us can rave about and promote as we travel around New Zealand and around the world. It is arguably one of the most scenic areas in New Zealand. Consequently, those who live in Fiordland and in that area of the South Island are very proud, very protective, and very supportive of both conserving and utilising that environment for all those who care to visit and, of course, to fish there, and of using its resources sustainably.

There were some disappointments during the select committee process. When the Fiordland Marine Management Bill came into the House, the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment—who have been working for well over a decade—had put together a package that suggested how best to manage this particular region. The Fiordland guardians were made up of people with a particular commitment to the environment, to the fishing industry, to recreational fishing, to tourism, and to the ecosystem generally.

They got together, as I say, over a decade ago to put together a package to present to the Government of the day on how the area should be managed. I have to report that they were somewhat disappointed to find that the bill that reached the House for the first reading and was before us at the select committee stage did not precisely reflect what they felt were the needs of Fiordland. It did not reflect precisely what they had put forward as the best way to manage this beautiful area.

One of the issues was, of course, management into the future, and the team that would oversee that. They were concerned that in the future the guardians would not be drawn from a local pool with local thinking—by those who are on the ground and at the coalface, who are out on the water in Fiordland on a daily or weekly basis. In fact, the bureaucracy was going to stack the guardians quite heavily with the Wellington brigade rather than utilise those who actually live in the region.

The group raised this concern with the select committee, and the committee acknowledged that the appointment process for the guardians should better reflect, not Wellington’s desires for this area, but the Fiordland community’s desires for this area. We were glad to see some changes made to that aspect of the legislation.

Another issue raised was that of access to the Fiordland area by not just water craft but also flight craft—that is, helicopters and aeroplanes. There was a concern about aeroplanes landing on the water in a marine reserve. Members can appreciate that aeroplanes fly into the area not only on scenic air tours but also occasionally need to land on the water to drop off recreationalists—although that is rare—for all sorts of other reasons. There was some contention over the issue of aeroplanes landing in a marine reserve area. The argument was put to us that if commercial or recreational boats are allowed to cross over a marine reserve—and members will know that boats are not banned from marine reserves; they might be banned from fishing in marine reserves, but they can motor over the water—surely aeroplanes should be able to land in those reserves as well.

That argument seemed sensible to us. There is no reason why aeroplanes should not be able to land in those areas. What is more, they should not be billed for doing so. If a craft makes some sort of commercial gain from dropping off divers who are pulling stocks out of the water—outside a marine reserve, of course—perhaps a concession should be paid by the operator. But if a craft is simply landing, spending half an hour on the water for some reason or another before taking off, and not disturbing the marine life at all, why should a concession be paid? The select committee basically smiled upon that argument and thought it was fair enough, so we saw some changes to that aspect of the bill come about as well.

Other issues were raised during the select committee stage. We decided not to take the time to travel down to Fiordland as a committee, although some individual members did go down there, and I am glad they did. We had select committee submissions in the South Island, but we never did a site visit as a committee. The major reasons for that were the cost and the time it would have taken to do so, and the fact that most submitters to the select committee—by far the majority—supported this bill in principle. The debate was around the details. We got a pretty good picture of what was happening down there, because there was so much agreement on this legislation, so we did not necessarily need to visit. But I do thank the chairman and Larry Baldock for taking the time to visit and reporting back to us. I acknowledge them for doing that.

On the whole, the National Party supports this legislation. We would like to acknowledge Bill English, who in the initial stages of its coming to the House took the case to the National Party caucus. He did so because he had been involved with the guardians of Fiordland for some time as a local electorate MP—and, as I say, the guardians have been going for well over a decade—so he knew the ins and outs of this legislation, knew the goals of the local people, and wanted to see the National Party support them in their endeavour to conserve parts of Fiordland while also seeing large parts of it continue to be utilised.

I thank him for reporting that to the caucus and for encouraging the caucus to support the legislation. We certainly agree with him. We are glad that the bill has been massaged by the select committee to make changes to better reflect the needs of the Fiordland guardians now and into the future, and we wish them the very best with this bill. I commend the bill to the House on behalf of the National Party. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but more particularly I thank Bill English for promoting this issue and for working hand in hand with the guardians through to today.

I want to thank my colleague Damien O’Connor for moving that the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be read a second time. This bill gives legislative effect to a strategy for the management of Fiordland’s marine development developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The bill as introduced was really a work of compromises among a number of Government departments, also trying to fit in the vision of the guardians. I am really pleased that during the committee process the balance was corrected more, again, in favour of the guardians’ original strategy.

It has been a very difficult job to do. The Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee received 21 submissions on the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the issues raised by submitters and for reporting back on the bill within such a short time frame. The committee reported to the House on 1 April, recommending by majority that the bill be passed with amendments. The proposed amendments will align the bill more closely with the vision and objectives of the guardians, and that is great.

In response to the submissions of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the committee recommends that the title of the bill be changed to “Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill”. Accordingly, the area that is subject to the bill becomes the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. The committee recommends that the purpose of the bill be amended to recognise the local importance of Fiordland and the area’s distinctive biological diversity. These changes address some of the concerns of the Fiordland guardians and of environmental groups about the purpose of the bill.

A key objective of the bill is to facilitate better integrated management of the Fiordland Marine Area. To strengthen the bill in this regard the committee recommends that a clause be included that “requires” the chief executives of the management agencies to enter into a protocol with the Fiordland marine guardians. They are really being lifted upwards in the air as regards official involvement. I envisage that, through the protocol, parties will make commitments on such issues as the exchange of information, and the resourcing of, and attendance at meetings, of the Fiordland marine guardians. With regard to the latter, the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee recommends that a clause is included in the bill that states that employees of management agencies may attend meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. Some submitters were concerned about the status of the advice provided by the Fiordland marine guardians, and the extent to which it could influence decision making. The committee therefore recommends that the requirement for Ministers and management agencies to “have regard” to any advice and recommendation of the guardians be changed to “take into account”, which is a higher legal obligation. I would have to say that I was extremely happy to accept this recommendation from the select committee. It was more in line with my original thoughts.

The committee received a number of submissions from environmental groups and individuals expressing concern that the area protected as marine reserve was insufficient and that it did not protect all ecosystem types. The select committee, in its commentary, has noted that the bill is not the final word on protection in the Fiordland Marine Area, but that it is a very good start. I endorse this. As a result of the bill the number of marine reserves nationally will increase from 18 to 26. This is a significant increase. The Government acknowledges that some gaps remain in terms of ecosystem protection. But I expect that this is a matter that the guardians will turn their minds to when the current management measures are reviewed 5 years from the commencement of the legislation.

The member from United Future, Larry Baldock, who sat on the select committee, has raised a number of issues with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, and with me, regarding the change to the bag limits for recreational fishers. He supports the bill, and the approach of the guardians, for which I am grateful, but he has requested that the ministerial advisory panel on recreational fishing, soon to be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries, consider the bag limits set in the guardians’ strategy, which are to be implemented by this bill and the regulations made under it. I have discussed this with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. He is happy for the advisory panel to consider the bag limits and to report to him, and any recommendations of that panel will be fully discussed with the guardians advisory committee.

While I accept this procedure of considering bag limits, I am mindful that the particular beauty of this process is that of the gifts and gains made by the different local groups, which included local recreational fishers, as they set up the strategy. This is the same situation when the ecological groups argue that this is not as tight, as they would say, in the ecosystems. This piece of work is truly local decision-making at its very best, with its inevitable compromises among parties.

The committee received submissions from Ngāi Tahu seeking an amendment to the provision in the bill relating to the take of pounamu within the marine reserves created by the bill. The bill exempts Ngāi Tahu from the need to obtain an access arrangement under the Crown Minerals Act for the taking of pounamu by hand within those marine reserves. Ngāi Tahu sought an extension of its exemption to allow it to remove discreet boulders by mechanical means. The committee considered that this was inappropriate, given that the purpose of the marine reserve is to maintain areas as close as possible to an actual state.

It was preferable that the removal of such boulders be dealt with on a case by case basis. This will enable access to be granted only where the effects on the marine reserve would be minor. However, the committee recognised that the current provisions in the bill were somewhat anomalous, and that the exception from the need for an access arrangement for hand-taking did not apply in parts of the Fiordland Marine Area outside the marine reserves. It also considered that outside of the marine reserves there would be no difficulty in applying an exemption relating to the mechanical removal of boulders.

Because of concerns that this was potentially outside the scope of the bill, the committee recommended that a Supplementary Order Paper be considered to provide for this. I subsequently arranged for further discussions with Ngāi Tahu on the proposed Supplementary Order Paper, and Ngāi Tahu noted that Fiordland is likely to have only a small amount of pounamu relative to other areas. Its preference was not to proceed with the Supplementary Order Paper, but rather to have discussions with the Government on access arrangements over all the areas within its takiwā where pounamu is found. Accordingly there will be no Supplementary Order Paper related to this. But to keep faith with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act, clarification has been made in this bill that nothing will affect those two Acts.

In order to address some technical drafting matters I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper making some minor amendments to the bill. The passing of this bill, along with the fisheries regulations, will implement the statutory component of the guardians’ strategy. Planning is well under way relating to a number of other measures recommended by the guardians relating to enforcement and compliance, monitoring, biosecurity, information, and education. With the commencement of the Act I will be appointing the new guardians group provided for in the bill, and look forward to involving it in the implementation of these other measures.

Again, I take this opportunity to thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their hard work in developing the strategy, and for their input into the bill through the select committee process. The guardians’ process has been innovative and forward thinking. It has demonstrated how different interests can work together to define a common vision for an area and work cooperatively to reach that vision. It also demonstrates the reality of using local knowledge to make positive and sustainable local decisions. I am hopeful that some components of the guardians’ approach will provide a model for future local management and problem solving.

It is worth noting that, yes, the guardians have worked for 10 years, but for the last 4 years, at least, they have worked with Ministry for the Environment funding and support. This was a real partnership with a group that came to us and said: “To do this successfully we need Government support; and more than just fine words, we actually need the cash to do this.”, and we have done this. I also thank the Southland Regional Council for its cooperation and assistance throughout the bill’s development.

I am pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and give our support to this bill. But in so doing I wish to commence my speech by referring to the Minister’s previous statements. I refer in particular to the issue she just referred to, which is that representations have been made to the Minister of Fisheries, and her, with regard to catch by recreational fishers. That raises the whole issue of the Fiordland Marine Management Bill—an area-specific bill—against the backdrop of continued Government inaction and lack of planning with regard to the whole marine area.

Some of us in this House would have made representations with regard to a so-called oceans policy, which was meant to be an overarching policy to cover the total marine life on the near coast. None of that has been seen. When the request came to the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at this bill, it seemed to me to be rather strange that we were being asked to look at a bill alongside the unfinished business of a marine reserves bill, which has now been delayed further—it has been put to bed till after the election, because it is too hard. In actual fact, while we strongly support this bill—and I will give other reasons in the forthcoming few minutes—we deplore the fact that this specific legislation is before the House against no ability of the present Government to progress a progressive sequential policy with regard to the oceans of New Zealand.

Therefore we, last year, in looking at these matters with regard to marine parks and reserves, saw with regard to Mimiwhangata, which is an area in Northland, the need for a policy that began with consultation and led to understanding. Now, in the Fiordland Marine Management Bill that took place. It did not begin, by the way, because of Government concerns. This bill had its genesis right back in the mid-1990s because recreational and commercial fishermen, tourist operators, and others knew and had a unique understanding of what had to be done if they were to preserve and have recognised what hitherto they had regarded as their natural right—the natural right of recreational fishermen, and the acquired right of commercial fishermen, to fish as they were able to under existing regulations in regard to the Fiordland area. That is where it began. Also, the tourist operators were interested in being able to maintain their activities. So this did not begin because of some Government bureaucrat thinking it was a wise policy. It did not begin here in Wellington. It began out there in the regions.

The first point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that one of the reasons we believe this is a very sound progressive bill is that this is a model that we were talking about last year in regard to Mimiwhangata, Aotea—or Great Barrier Island—and, shortly, the Three Kings.

This is a model that I believe should be adopted against the overarching final provisions of an oceans policy. So we applaud the fact that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment took up the challenge and then realised in the year 2000 that they alone needed to bring in wider community input, including those traditional sectors of the community who have a precious regard for the community—and I mean that in the very best sense—so that all the so-called environmental issues were finally covered in the enlarged guardians committee. I acknowledge what the has Minister has said—that that was accomplished after the year 2000 by funding and support from Government agencies. As well, I acknowledge the work of the Southland Regional Council, which also realised that this was part, if one likes, of its marine and coastal management, and I acknowledge the part that at least two officers played in the development of this programme.

So we finish today with a sound bill before us; a bill that was changed by the select committee after its representations. The bill contains an acknowledgment that the gifting of what would have been acquired property rights by a segment of the community, the long-term right of recreational fishers to have a certain take being reduced, and also other areas of concession being made by the community, all incorporated into a comprehensive plan. From that plan came an acknowledgment that those unique areas of marine biodiversity, which we believe are the basis for a marine reserve, fit quite naturally. That brings me to the second part, as far as New Zealand First is concerned.

We see in the wider marine park concept, an understanding that if the process begins with consultation in the very first instance, with all stakeholders, in a cooperative understanding that they wish to achieve a harmonious end—the long-term management of the coast, the seabed, and foreshore resources in their community—only then will ministries such as the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry for the Environment be able to progress together a sustainable management plan, and one that the local community considers to be theirs. Ownership thereby ensues, as has happened in this bill. Therefore, those measures of enforcement, if needed, will take place naturally, because the local community, or the regional community, realise that that is to their long-term gain and benefit.

The third issue about this bill is that, in its revised form—after submissions to the select committee—it recognises more fully the fact that the guardians had a real role to play, which in the first reading debate we did not see. So we are very pleased to support the select committee’s considerations. The guardians are still a fundamental part of the long-term management. There are issues of regret. The major issue of regret for New Zealand First is not just the fact that this should have been part of an overarching oceans policy, and it is not just the fact that this has been taken out of its context and used as an area-specific example; it is the fact that in present Government legislation there is no capacity whatever to allow for integrated management at departmental or ministry level. That concept was one that the select committee wished to advance, but we were told very strongly and cogently by officials that at the present time there is no ability in legislation for an integrated role for the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation with regard to aquaculture and the marine farming environment, and no ability for there to be a cohesive, coherent structure with regard to the matters inherent in this bill. That is just not possible, and that is a disappointment to us. That should have been able to be incorporated, and that view was apparent in the submissions made to the committee.

The process this bill went through did include consultation—it was initiated, first of all, at a local level. The bill does not provide for integrated management. What it does do is almost recognise that the guardians—and this is very important for them—relinquish a variety of rights, or so-called rights, in the interests, their interests, of ensuring the quality and sustainable management of the environment and fisheries in the long term. So the bill incorporated a whole range of expectations, benefits, and activities that New Zealanders have always believed were theirs—and that is the case particularly with regard to recreational fishermen—being incorporated into an agreed understanding of how this can proceed over the next 7 years, and with regard to a proper review. The guardians will be a major part of the review as to what had been accomplished, and what should be the purpose of any further development in the area.

We are very pleased to support this real advance in thinking on the part of the Government in accepting an area-specific bill that covers the very aspects of consultation, cooperation, and responsible thinking by Government ministries in regard to a local issue. I only wish that people at Aotea—Great Barrier Island—Mimiwhangata, and the Three Kings could feel the same satisfaction in years to come that they could endorse such a model and that it could be part of their day-to-day thinking and activity.

In rising on behalf of United Future to address the Fiordland Marine Management Bill in its second reading, I first express our appreciation of the initiative that has been taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. As we mentioned in our first speech, it began a process of local decision-making in order to come up with an alternative to the approach currently being undertaken, which seems to focus only around the marine reserve applications being put forward by the Department of Conservation. This alternative is something that gives a lot of people in New Zealand some hope of a way forward in terms of how our marine areas can be protected, while still giving respect and consideration to those who enjoy the marine environment but do not particularly hold to the philosophy that the only way to protect it is to have large marine reserves all over the place. I congratulate the guardians on their process. It has been a major achievement for them to go through this process and arrive at a consensus and an agreement. As a result of listening to submitters to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on the bill, I think the guardians do need to be commended further for the way that they have managed the process.

It did, however, come as a surprise—and Phil Heatley mentioned this in his speech—to find that the guardians’ own submission had some quite serious concerns in it. The guardians felt that after they had completed their process the bill had been somewhat hijacked and diverted from its original intention, which was really about a fisheries management issue in their area. I am pleased to see that the committee and the Minister have agreed to make changes, so that the bill can be returned to much more of its original intent. I still have some concerns about the use of the word “preservation” in the bill, because I do not think that that was the guardians’ intent. I think they are very practically minded people down there in Southland, who understand that it is impossible to preserve anything. They simply want to do the best they can to manage and protect the area. The marine reserves that are being established are part of that goal, but the idea that we can preserve things really takes matters a bit too far. In fact, in my recent trip there, seeing the damage done by recent earthquakes showed me that the environment is changing all the time. We have to be flexible in that situation and do our best to keep things in good order. But to go too far and try to keep everything locked up in order to maintain that pristine environment seems to me to be ideological nonsense.

Fiordland is a beautiful area, and in many ways it has a natural protection by virtue of its remoteness and its wild nature. I think that we could go over the top in trying to preserve it for future generations—it will preserve itself, and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is a rugged and an amazing place. My recent visit was the first time I had been there, and I really appreciated the assistance given to me by Ministry for the Environment officials and also by the Southland Regional Council. They facilitated an opportunity to look through the area and to talk with the guardians after we had completed the select committee deliberations on the bill. It certainly helped me to understand more of the complexity of the process.

I am happy that the committee has addressed some of Ngāi Tahu’s concerns about the extraction of pounamu. The final Supplementary Order Paper that we will discuss in the Committee stage is designed to finish that process.

I had concerns about the recreational fishers’ submissions that came into the select committee, and also about the submissions that they put into the guardians’ consultation process. I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the issue right, because we are dealing with differences of opinion between local fishers, people who go there on charter fishing trips, and people who maybe travel there once a year from around New Zealand on their annual fishing holiday. It would be difficult to strike the right balance between those groups. I think there is a need to recognise the differences between charter boat operators and those who fish there in their own boats, particularly with regard to the bag limits that have been recommended by the guardians. A cut from 30 blue cod to three, with no right to accumulate numbers on a daily basis, seems to me to be a very severe cut. It was agreed to, none the less, by the representatives amongst the guardians who were speaking on behalf of recreational fishers.

My concern has been whether that cut was necessary. We heard from submitters who said that they did not mind accepting reductions in their bag limits or the non-accumulation provisions, provided there was good science to back up the provisions. I think recreational fishers in New Zealand are good environmentalists. They are not there to plunder the resources of the sea; they want to see them remain there for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. But they were asking some fairly reasonable questions, I thought. That is why I have raised the issue in the select committee, with Minister Hobbs, and also with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. It is clear that it is difficult to make any changes to the “gifts and gains” process; it was the key part of the agreement. This bill does not even deal with the fishing regulations, so United Future is happy to support the bill at its second reading, through the Committee stage, and into its third reading. We think it is a very good bill and one that will have very positive outcomes for the Fiordland area. But there were things that I thought could have been done to address some of the concerns of recreational fishers. I am very pleased to have had cooperation from the Hon Marian Hobbs and also from the Hon David Benson-Pope, which has meant we were able to address those concerns in some way.

The new advisory panel that the Minister of Fisheries is establishing to represent recreational fishers in New Zealand is a good forum for him to review the consultation process and to see what its members’ advice to him may be. There were 287 submissions during the guardians’ consultation process from all around New Zealand. Those submissions far outnumbered those from the other submitters in the process, but they were treated as one submission because they all came from Option4 and were on a form submission, which was somehow deemed to be less significant than other submissions. But I think those submitters still made very good points. In fact, about 90 of them made personal comments on their submissions, which still outnumbered the other submitters who had other concerns about the whole process. So I think it would be good if the newly established ministerial advisory group of recreational fishers could look at that and take up some of the issues.

The other part of the recreational fishing issue had to do with the science behind the decision to make such drastic cuts in bag limits. I think there is a lot more that can be done to see whether the fish stocks, particularly of blue cod, are under any threat from fishing in the fiords. Perhaps some more scientific and investigative work could be done. Recreational fishers around New Zealand could then be reassured by the Minister giving an undertaking to conduct a review of the bag limits in a couple of years’ time, if other scientific evidence comes to the fore that shows there is no real risk and no real danger to fish stocks.

Perhaps there is also a way of treating the non-accumulation regulations differently for people on charter boats, compared with those who are fishing on their own boats. I can understand the concerns about a charter boat that takes on 60 fishers who can each get three fish a day. When that tally is added up for a week, a great tonnage of fish has been hauled out of the area. It may be wise not to allow for that accumulation on a charter boat. But for a family, or for a fisher and a few of his or her mates, who go out on their own boat and who suffer a few days of bad weather and therefore cannot catch any fish on those days, it seems that it would pose no real danger to the environment if they could accumulate their bag limit over 3 or 4 days of that holiday, and take a few fish home to give to their neighbours. That is very much a part of the Kiwi culture. We fish not only for ourselves; we give a bit to our neighbours when we get home. That is the way we all enjoy the bounty of the sea around us.

United Future is keen to support the bill. We believe that it has been through a good process, and we do not want to hold it up in any way. I really appreciate the consideration given to us, but say that there will need to be some review of the catch provisions on behalf of recreational fishers. We look forward to further debate through the Committee stage in the House this week.

The Greens have supported this bill because we are passionate about marine reserves and are committed to seeing many more of them in place in our seas. We are committed to seeing the marine environment managed sustainably and the non-extractive values given much greater weight. Those values are inherent values—not just the services that the sea provides for communities, but inherent values that the sea holds in its own integrity and on its own account. We are delighted that there are to be marine reserves in Fiordland National Park, but we have many concerns about the level of protection for the marine reserves that are set out in the bill.

Fiordland is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in our country, and it has a very special interface between the land and the sea. Its national and international importance is so significant that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. Fiordland has ecological features that are absolutely unique, in the true meaning of that word. Because the fresh water that runs on the top of the saltwater prevents the light from penetrating through, we have extraordinary corals at very shallow depths that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot usually go. Those corals flourish in the fiords. In New Zealand terms and in international terms, Fiordland is an ecological treasure. But this bill, for all its attempts to protect that treasure, also fails in many ways and it therefore puts that treasure at continued risk of damage. The Greens want to remedy those risks. We will be proposing amendments to this bill in order to do that.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee heard a number of submissions about the process by which the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment had achieved its strategy document and about the extent of its consultation. The Greens applaud the guardians’ extraordinary efforts in achieving the level of agreement that they have achieved. But that does not make them perfect, and it does not justify the risk that the marine reserves will continue to face. Much was made of the “gifts and gains” approach to the protection of the fiords taken by the guardians, and there has been some discussion about that today. Much was also made of the fact that all stakeholders were involved in the discussions. But we know that that is not true. In terms of gifts and gains, it is very clear that the marine environment itself has made the greatest contribution in that process, and that it has gained only the most minor level of protection in return. Only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area will be protected by the reserves. That is a truly disappointing and minimal level of protection. All the reserve areas are to be within the inner fiords, leaving the outer, ecologically distinct areas unprotected.

Many ecologically fragile areas, for example those described as “china shops”, have lost any protection that they had, because the select committee decided to remove the restrictions on anchoring over them. Officials argued that because people did not anchor over those areas anyway, no restrictions were necessary. But that is a ridiculous argument. It is unbelievable that that argument was supported by the select committee, because now those very precious coral areas have absolutely no legal protection from damage. People will not even know that those areas are there and will not know they should avoid damaging them in that way. The Greens are putting up an amendment to reinstate the anchoring restrictions, because it is absolutely critical that those areas have the maximum amount of protection. There is no justification for removing those restrictions from this bill.

We are also very concerned that aircraft are allowed to land and take off within the marine reserves—within that 1 percent of the area—without any controls whatsoever. No concessions from the Department of Conservation are even needed. In national parks on land around this country, tour bus operators need concessions just to drive into a national park and out again. But the Fiordland marine reserves do not even get that very minimal level of protection. It would take only one spill of aviation fuel to wreak havoc with the ecology of the marine reserve. If there is just one minor accident, the whole of that reserve area will be irreparably damaged, especially since water movement in and out of the inner fiords is very slow, and it would be very difficult to mount clean-up responses within those areas. Yet we are placing them at risk by removing any controls whatsoever on the taking off and landing of aircraft.

The Greens were very disappointed in the guardians’ approach to the bill at the select committee hearings. We acknowledge the guardians are the primary group that has driven this process, and for that they should be congratulated. But it is not a question of the guardians owning this process. This area is nationally and internationally precious, and we all have a stake in its preservation—preservation which, as Mr Baldock mentioned previously, is about maintaining the area’s integrity and enhancing the integral values of the area for their own sake. Mr Baldock said that the area would be able to preserve itself, but that is simply not true. As we all know, all those sorts of areas are very fragile and are subject to damage from human use. We need to have the maximum amount of protection. Given that we are talking about only 1 percent of the whole area being put into marine reserves, surely that 1 percent deserves to be given the maximum amount of protection and preservation that we can provide.

We recognise the guardians’ role, but we also recognise that they are primarily a group of recreational and commercial users of the area, and we are disappointed that they did not have more respect for the ecological values of the fiords. Their wish to have the bill not refer to the international and national importance of the fiords was particularly disappointing. I have already said that the fiords have world heritage status and that Fiordland is a national park. It is ridiculous to argue that the words “national” and “international” should be taken out of the bill. That request, along with the submission that the word “preservation” be deleted from the bill—because the guardians said that it was insulting—clearly demonstrates that the intention behind the guardians’ strategy, and hence this bill, is to protect the interests of users to the greatest extent possible, with the fewest possible measures put in place to protect and preserve the incredible biodiversity of this national ecological treasure. That is a very disappointing approach to take towards the marine reserves of such an important place.

The Greens have supported a greater role for the guardians in the ongoing management and review of the marine reserve areas. It is absolutely imperative that local communities are involved in that, but we argued very hard for a conservation representative to be a member of that group in order to ensure that there is an advocate for the marine environment itself, not just the users of it. We are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that will seek support from the House to have one representative from the New Zealand Conservation Authority among the membership of the Fiordland Marine Guardians. That is sought to make sure that the guardians are a broad church, and that they represent all the interests that the fiord areas contain. It is really critical that the marine environment has an advocate. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a very long history of involvement in marine reserves. It has extraordinary expertise, yet this Government and other political parties in this House refused at the select committee deliberations to have a Conservation Authority member appointed to the Fiordland Marine Guardians, for no other reason than that they did not want to. But that leaves that marine environment at incredible risk, because no one is there to advocate for it on its own terms and for its own sake.

The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill, and I have discussed some of them. I sincerely hope the House supports those amendments. They are designed to restore to the bill much-needed advocacy of the inherent integrity of marine biodiversity, which is sadly and obviously missing from the bill as it is now. We hope the House will give those amendments due consideration and support them if this bill is truly to meet its objectives of protecting, preserving, and assuring for future generations not just the management of the resources that the reserves will give to our people but the protection of the precious corals and all the biodiversity that lives within them, for their own sake and for the sake of future generations.

Debate interrupted.