🧪 EXPERIMENTAL / ALPHA — this is an independent prototype, not an official record. Data may be incomplete or wrong - always check the linked Hansard source before relying on it.
Hot Air

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill

Part 3 Fiordland Marine Guardians
HansardID: fc1d47a5-1f96-4370-af6e-a18f0183deb0
🗳️ 3 votes — jump to votes section
Back to debates
🗣️ Speech Jim Peters (New Zealand First Party — List Member)
Time unknown

The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to, bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system, by statute, at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party, the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However, the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised, particularly in regard to the review process.

Firstly, changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly, clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation, who will, in turn, consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly, and probably most importantly of all, the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members, rather than two, who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill.

🗣️ Speech Keith Locke (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand — List Member)
Time unknown

The Green Party, in the name of Metiria Turei, has moved some amendments to this part, all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably, we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly, the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch.

The final form of the plan, on which this bill is based, recognised, in a modest way, the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically, to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this, and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities, be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited, being completed within a year of its start.

In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise, aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas.

Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6, 7, and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3.

Does that not include the schedules?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is schedule 13 only.

🗣️ Speech Larry Baldock (United Future New Zealand — List Member)
Time unknown

I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill and welcome the recommendation by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to change clause 14 so that when the Minister appoints the Fiordland Marine Guardians, he or she needs to ensure that at least five members are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions, whereas the original bill required only two. It is important that the focus is on the local area, and I think the change will strengthen those provisions.

Initially, I think the Minister appointing the guardians is the necessary way forward. It is a process that began in the local area, and those who first became involved were those who were willing to put up their hands and volunteer their time for what was going to be quite a long process—one that would require a considerable amount of self-sacrifice in terms of their time and energy to see it through.

So we are comfortable for the Minister to continue with an appointment process after this bill is enacted, but in the long term United Future would like to see communities choosing representatives in their area, similar to the process we now have with our district health boards, where we have elections for a number of the board members, then the Minister can appoint a few others, perhaps to fill in a few gaps where he or she sees that the board does not have representation. That would be a good step forward, and perhaps with the implementation of clause 21, “Ministerial reviews” that recommendation may be made in the future as the guardians bed in and settle down. Perhaps in the years ahead communities will have an opportunity to elect their guardians’ representatives. We in United Future believe that would work very well for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the 13 conservancies around the country that are, at this stage, ministerial appointments. We think there could be a balance between elections and ministerial appointments to fill in some gaps where there might be a lack in experience or representation of community interests. However, at this stage United Future is comfortable with the appointment process, and we will look forward to that review occurring in 15 years’ time.

We also welcome clause 22A, “Protocol between management agencies and Guardians”, which we think will strengthen the important role of the guardians so that the process continues to be a locally-managed one that Government agencies must take account of, work with, and take note of the advice the guardians give. That was the whole genesis of this project, anyway—working together with Government agencies but not being led by them, and allowing local residents to take care of their own marine environment. We believe most residents are capable of doing so. We want to see it not just applied in Fiordland but also adopted in other regions around the country. I think that New Zealanders are conservation minded. They know how to take care of the environment, and, when engaged properly, there can be a win-win situation both for Government agencies and for the community. United Future wishes to commend this part to the Committee, and we will be supporting it.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (e) of subclause (2).

🗣️ Spoke in this debate (3)

  • Larry Baldock (United Future New Zealand — List Member)
  • Keith Locke (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand — List Member)
  • Jim Peters (New Zealand First Party — List Member)

🗳️ Votes in this debate (3)

✕ Failed
Question: That the amendment be agreed to
✕ Failed
Question: That the amendments be agreed to
✕ Failed
Question: That the amendment be agreed to