Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill

I move, That the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Before I begin my talk on this bill, let us have a look at what kinds of marine animals we are talking about. The photo I am holding up shows eight dead Hector’s dolphins. They are the second-most endangered species of dolphin in this country. The other side of the photo shows dead sea-mammals, a fur seal, and a sea lion. Other photos show dead albatross, killed by the fishing industry and found by observers on fishing industry boats.

These are the kinds of marine animals I refer to in my bill. They are absolutely protected species under the Wildlife Act, but they fail to get any real protection because of the legislative mess of our Marine Mammals Protection Act. My bill is an attempt to resolve some of that mess so that those animals—albatross, Hector’s dolphins, Hooker’s sea lions, fur seals, and Māui’s dolphins—achieve some degree of protection by our community. All of those animals have died as a result of poor industry regulation and failed legislative protection. Those marine animals are not the only kinds at threat. New Zealand has half of the world’s whales and dolphins present in its waters, including the rare southern right whale and the endemic dolphin species. New Zealand sea lions are found only in our southern waters, as is the more wide-ranging kekeno, or New Zealand fur seal. We are known as the seabird capital of the world. A third of the 84 seabird species that breed here are found only in Aotearoa, and half of the world’s albatross species circle our waters. The critically endangered Māui’s dolphin numbers just 111. Only 36 fairy tern individuals hang on to survival in this country. Up to 10,000 albatross and petrels drown on tuna longlines each year in New Zealand waters. In the last breeding season, 600 New Zealand sea-lion females failed to return, and a third fewer pups were born as a result.

With many marine animal populations declining, and the eyes of our export markets watching us, this is a crucial time to boost biodiversity protection and ensure a sustainable future for our ocean. The international journal Conservation Biology recently published a report entitled Major Conservation Policy Issues for Biodiversity in Oceania. The report was compiled by 14 scientists, including two from New Zealand—one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and one from the Department of Conservation. In that report the lead author, Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales, described the Pacific region as having the notorious distinction of having possibly the worst extinction record on earth. Species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and wildlife disease.

Today we will see the National Government allow those threats to continue unabated, because National intends to vote against the protection of marine animals. This bill poses a very serious problem for the supposed Bluegreens group within the National Party. Before the 2008 election Dr Nick Smith, a key leader of the Bluegreens group, said: “Further deterioration in [Hector’s and Maui] populations must be halted … If it is a choice between fishers’ rights and dolphins’ survival, the dolphins must come first.” But the Bluegreens, whether or not they are led by Nick Smith, clearly have no influence over their Government. As a group of environmentalists within National they are clearly impotent. I am truly sorry about that. I have met with Bluegreen members around the country, and I know they are passionate and committed to achieving environmental and conservation gains. But they operate within a party that will simply use them for “greenwash”, because that is what the Bluegreens have become, through National’s failure to protect marine animals.

There is no doubt that National members tonight will make the false argument of environment versus economy. That is their mantra. It demonstrates an extraordinary economic deficit in their thinking, although it is a common one from Governments, I must say. One comment from the lead author of the conservation report I referred to stated: “The biggest problem seems to be that the policy challenges are just not being taken up by governments. Conservation policies are just seen as a problem for the economy,”. But that is clearly not the case, especially in the context of the protection of marine animals. Marine tourism is estimated to generate more than $100 million a year to New Zealand. The fishing industry is under increasing pressure from our markets to reduce its environmental impact. The New Zealand brand itself is at risk. Just last week it was reported that “The upmarket grocery chain Waitrose has refused to stock hoki because the ‘destructive’ method of bottom trawling did not fit with its sustainable suppliers programme.” The hoki fishery is worth $151 million in exports to New Zealand.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Well, that’s it, isn’t it?

That is right.

If we are to sustain our economy in difficult times, we must invest now in measures to protect the natural resources on which our economy is based. The green new deal argument for greater conservation measures is clear, and even the notably disengaged—I have to say—Minister of Conservation, Tim Groser, thinks so.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Who?

Yes. He recently said: “Biodiversity has positive economic value and removing or degrading it, threatens the ecosystem it supports … Tourism focused on marine mammal experiences, for example, must be monitored and controlled to ensure the animals are protected and the business opportunity endures.” Even the Prime Minister has waxed lyrical about this, saying: “Our environment is a huge part of our brand … The Government will work to protect the resources that tourism providers rely on—clean air, clean water, and unique landscapes.” Well, I say to the Prime Minister that that may be the case, but clearly National believes its own effort will result in clean air without seabirds and albatross, clean water without sea lions and Māui’s dolphins, and landscapes without little blue penguins and fairy terns. In short, it is a nice clean environment completely devoid of unique New Zealand marine species on which that brand is dependent.

My bill provides just one option for how to reform our legislative tools to provide greater protection for marine animals such as those in the photos I have held up—Hector’s dolphins, the albatross, and the sea lions. My bill is quite technical in that it alters three different Acts—the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Wildlife Act—in order to strengthen definitions, to set clear objectives and principles for protection, and to require proper monitoring. It alters the relative powers of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Fisheries in developing population management plans. My bill is no threat, nor is it perfect, but it would have given Parliament the opportunity to tweak the laws that are meant to be protecting our marine mammals and sea birds. It is quite obvious from the photos I have shown that those laws are not working.

The direct interactions of marine animals with human activities on the sea—like fishing, mining, and tourism—can be managed directly through legislation. The Marine Mammals Protection Act is designed to do that, but, unfortunately, it has not—in part, because it is subservient to the Fisheries Act. The powerful tool of population management plans in the Marine Mammals Protection Act has yet to be used in this country. Too much power lies with the Minister of Fisheries and a Fisheries Act that is biased towards utilisation. This is the position that National clearly favours, to the detriment of our $100 million marine tourism industry, to the detriment of access to the global markets from industries, and to the detriment of vulnerable New Zealand marine species, which are at real risk of extinction under a National Government. The Bluegreens should hang their heads in shame. In anticipation of the support of the Labour Party, Progressive, and the Māori Party, I acknowledge that those parties have all agreed to provide their support for this bill and to the marine animals that are so clearly in desperate need of protection. I commend the bill to the House.

The Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is respected as a genuine attempt to address some of the anomalies that continue to occur around, especially, our oceans. The Government certainly gives considerable respect to the intentions of the bill. However, there are two reasons why we will not support it. The legislation can always be improved, but the National Government prefers consultation with the industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements, rather than regulating these pieces.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: The member knows that doesn’t happen.

The previous Government—and we hear its members now on the other side of the House—took every opportunity to regulate. A phrase was coined that we ended up with the “nanny State”. On the other hand, the National Government would prefer to work with industry to ensure the protection of marine life, rather than to regulate it.

I will come back a couple of steps. My parliamentary secretary gave me a wonderful book on albatrosses, and I must admit that it is incredibly gut-wrenching and soul-destroying to see one of those magnificent creatures dragged aboard a boat, dead. But I also balance the debate by talking about a Marlborough fisherman. I will not mention his name. After the best endeavours of officials and bureaucrats to regulate, he was put into an exceptionally dangerous position where he was duly hooked by one of his lines and dragged under because he was applying rules and regulations that in actual fact did not give any consideration whatsoever to the risks that were involved. Basically, our first reason for not supporting the bill is that the National Government prefers consultation with industry sectors to deliver improvements.

The second reason for not supporting the bill is a bit more of a complex one. The National Government agrees that more needs to be done; however, we believe that we will not achieve that solely through legislation. It would make more sense to look at the whole issue, as opposed to just the pieces of it. I leave those comments for people to consider. There is no doubt about it. The Government is aware that we have to lift our game. As I mentioned, it needs to be in a complete set of circumstances. The bill itself is highly technical. We have some concern that it will be hard to enforce, given the massive geographical size of New Zealand’s responsibilities on the oceans.

I will read one particular part of the bill that I think should focus our attention on how difficult it is to ensure there is that balance between risk and management, the needs of the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries, and so forth. The proposed new section 2A of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 talks about ensuring that “human-induced mortalities of marine mammals are reduced to insignificant levels, approaching zero, within 20 years of the coming into force of Part 1 …”. Nobody in this House would disagree with the sentiment of that new section in clause 5 of Part 1. Basically, that is where we are all aiming to go. The concern the National Government raises, respectfully, to the member in charge of this bill—and we appreciate the bill’s intention—is about the effects it will have on the present day-to-day operations of things. I think that in this House we are long past doing things that basically pass the ball, as it were, to the Department of Conservation to do stuff in the oceans. We are not talking about just sea mammals. We are talking about marine animals, and we have a huge inventory of those particular animals. There are issues. In New Zealand we could probably enforce it upon ourselves, but then again it would be highly disruptive.

When we look at the process going forward, I do not disregard the photographs that the Green member Metiria Turei held up in the House earlier. I also introduce the fact that whenever a member is emailed and lobbied on whether he or she will support a bill, it is not done flippantly; it is done in a considered way. There are some outstanding testimonies to our going forward in a significant way. I quote such things as the Kaikōura dusky dolphin tourism research project, which has been going on for 2½ years. It has measured the impact of tourism on dolphins, and it will be released at the Takahanga Marae next Monday. It is hugely significant to Kaikōura. It has a huge economic value. It has been entered into in a way that one could call collegial, constructive, and consultative. I believe that way forward, which the Government has adopted, is the best way.

We also have in place—and it was put in place by the previous Government—the set-net ban. We also have the ban on fishing of blue cod in Marlborough. These are quite positive things. We have the Perano family and a collection of people doing whale counting out of Cook Strait. We have the re-seeding of pāua, the research and development that is going into replenishing crayfish and suchlike, and the wonderful model of collaboration and discussion that has emanated out of the Marlborough Sounds, where the group Guardians of the Sounds has put together a balanced and publicly agreed outcome around managing a resource in a sustainable way.

Although we have the utmost respect for the intentions of the bill, we see National’s preference as one for consultation with the industry sectors to bring them along together. I would really like to underscore that it is the easiest thing—and I have seen this House do it so many times—to put legislation in place, and then wash one’s hands of it. I do not see that as being a permanent, enduring solution, and I do not see that that will have the best long-term effect on New Zealand’s economy in the future. I commend the intention of the member who is in charge of the bill, Metiria Turei. I reiterate, for the record, the reason why we are not supporting this bill. It is because National prefers consultation with industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements. Finally, we believe that significant progress is being made, there is a long time to go in this term, and the National Government is in a good position to do it. We are about building bridges, relationships, and trust. It would make far more sense if we were to consider this matter as a whole, as opposed to looking at it piece by piece.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

As the previous Minister of Conservation I am very pleased to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. It was interesting to hear the speaker just before dinner, Colin King, talking about the Bluegreens and their lauding of principles of sustainability and species protection, yet saying that National will not vote for the bill. This bill is one of the most robust pieces of legislation on marine protection to come before the House.

I will mention some of the achievements of the Labour Government. Species protection, which this bill is all about, is one plank of sustainability, but the other was how we looked after the marine environment and created four new marine mammal sanctuaries for the protection of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins. The National Opposition at the time we brought in that legislation told us that it was pathetic, that it was not good enough, and that we needed to do more. Yet here they are in the House tonight voting against very good legislation put forward by Metiria Turei.

We also looked at marine protected areas and announced in 2008 a whole network around New Zealand of 14 coastal regions, which created a whole network of marine protected areas. We started working on areas like the West Coast, which is going really well. Then we went down to the bottom of the South Island, which the member Eric Roy knows well about. There were great meetings, talking about how we could get more protection for marine areas. Those forums have proven to be a new model of negotiating with communities and iwi to look at marine protection. We also doubled the number of marine reserves from 17 to 33. We certainly did not do nothing while we were in Government, as has come across tonight from members on the other side of the House.

The bill is also about looking after threatened species: not only Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins but also sea lions. Parties went out on to the forecourt of Parliament, as we do when we are lobbied by pressure groups and advocacy groups. I received a petition from little children dressed as sea lions, asking us for more protection for sea lions. The children were very worried about marine animal species. National members were out there saying they would do something when they were in Government. But the first decent legislation that really builds some robustness around marine animal protection comes along and National is voting it down from a purely blind ideological position. I heard Colin King say that National would rather consult the industry and let it bring about voluntary change. Well, that does not work. That is exactly why the non-governmental organisations have said to us that these species are deteriorating now beyond sustainable replacement levels and that we have to do more. Talking to the fishing industry will never cut the mustard.

When I was Minister of Conservation one of the greatest challenges was having to look at marine protection, because I had to work with the Ministry of Fisheries. It was a difficult position. We were like the yin and yang of protection and pro-industry, and it never worked. It never worked and it never will work. I think the Bluegreens in National should hang their heads in shame about voting against the bill tonight. It is a genuine attempt. Industry will not come to the party on the issue. As Colin King said, the Government needs to lift its game. The member admitted that. How will voting down this marvellous legislation help the Government lift its game? We were worried about aspects of the bill, but we were very happy that some of the thresholds for sustainable levels could be sorted out with a good robust process in the select committee.

One of the issues was a new definition in the bill, which is that of “best available information”. That definition is always contestable. Who puts forward the information: the fishing industry, the scientific industry, or the conservationists?

It is a rare opportunity for me to speak on legislation. I do so on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill for two reasons. One is that I am a conservationist, and I think most people in the House know the position I take as a conservationist. The second is that having chaired for 20 months the total rewrite of the Fisheries Act 1996 I probably know as much, or more, about fisheries law and how it works as any other person in this House. I will desist from picking up on some of the politics and criticisms of various people or sections within parties that have been thrown out here tonight, because I think this issue is too important.

The bill has a laudable aim, which is to protect marine animals, creatures, birds, or whatever. All of us want that to happen. I have read the purpose of the bill; I have read the whole bill. My issue is to ask what is actually broken. What is now not working? Yes, there is mortality, but the Minister of Fisheries has at his disposal some significant steps he can take. Let us consider the issue of the Māui’s dolphin. Yes, we are seriously concerned about a unique dolphin, but the Minister put in place some measures that many sections of the community would say were Draconian or more than were actually necessary and applied them not only to the Māui’s dolphin but also to the Hector’s dolphin when the science around the endangerment of that species is far from proven. In fact, according to all anecdotal evidence, the Hector’s dolphin species is in pretty good shape.

The impacts of the bill are quite far-reaching. There are rig fishers out of many of our coastal ports near where Hector’s dolphins and Māui’s dolphins are who have a quota they now cannot fish. It is as simple as that. The Minister has some very, very strong options in terms of dealing with issues that need to be addressed. This bill shifts the approach from an effects-based approach to a prescriptive, generic approach. The difficulties about that are that it will substantially increase the cost of compliance. When we look at this bill and ask why it would be a difficulty it is simply for this reason: when putting in place fisheries legislation there needs to be what I call equity of influence. The fishing industry is a very polarised industry; if one tips the scales any one way one increases the rate of litigation. There is no Minister in any Cabinet who faces more litigation, legal challenges, or development of jurisprudence around the area of his or her portfolio than the Minister of Fisheries. That is the nature of the industry. The bill shifts influence in such a way that we will simply end up with Ministers of Fisheries simply not able to make a decision.

If members care to have a look at clause 20 they will see that it sets out quite clearly a change to the Fisheries Act that requires robust scientific information. How do we get robust scientific information? If we take the number of species of fish there are in New Zealand and divide it by the quota, we get 712 different fishing licences or annual catch entitlements to fish. How do we actually work out the biomass of each one of those 712 licences, in order to have a robust decision? The Minister when signing off what is the total allowable commercial catch has no robust science to be able to pursue that. It is just impossible to do. What is the corollary of that situation? The corollary is simply that at any stage in the future any individual, any member of this House, any member of any lobby group or any eco-group, or any fisher can go to the Minister and say that because the Minister does not have robust scientific information as prescribed in clause 20 of the bill he or she has made rules that are ultra vires. So we end up with a hamstrung industry because the Minister cannot make the decisions. We need to have what I call equity of influence. Some people call it equal screaming, when no one is happy but where there is a balance whereby things can be worked out. This bill just shifts the balance totally. I seek leave for a further 2 minutes.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to extend the speech by a further 2 minutes. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I thank the House; I really believe in this stuff. We are all consumed by the desire to protect species, but we have to do so within the realm of what is a workable solution.

The next question that could be raised—and I look forward to some members further developing this issue—concerns what robust science is and how we actually get it. I have mentioned only one part of that. The next situation that comes forward would be the fact that the select committee can sort it out, and with members’ bills, that is a good approach, but because this bill shifts the whole nature of the process of decision making so dramatically, I believe this bill has to be rewritten. Yes, there are some elements of the law that this bill modifies. We have the Wildlife Act of 1953 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978, and they may well be out of date, but we should bear in mind that the 1996 Act picked up a number of those issues in its principles and purposes. So, unfortunately, I will have to vote against this bill.

Firstly, I acknowledge that Eric Roy’s concerns for conservation interests are sincerely held beliefs, but I suggest for a number of reasons that his decision on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is incorrect.

I start by pointing out a few statistics. Do members know that 50 percent of the world’s marine mammal species are found in our oceans? Although we do not have 50 percent of the numbers of those in world population terms, we have a very substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals. Two-thirds of the world’s species of albatross and big petrels are found in our waters. Again, we also have a high proportion of their total numbers. If there is any one country in the world that needs to be a responsible guardian of our seabirds and our sea mammals, it is New Zealand. We have the greatest proportion. If we in New Zealand do not properly protect those species, we have to acknowledge the reality that the world, including New Zealand, is willing to oversee the extinction of those species. As a member of Parliament, I am not willing to abrogate my responsibilities and see that as an outcome. I am voting for this bill, and the Labour Party is voting for this bill.

The National Government says it does not want to be a world leader on these issues, but, really, we already are. The shameful thing is that we are the world leaders in conservation destruction. Since 1998 there has been a 50 percent decline in the Auckland Island’s population of the Hooker’s sea lion. I got that statistic from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and I trust it to be correct. If we think the population of that sea lion is getting better, I can tell members that in the last year that population declined by 30 percent as a consequence of by-catch—mainly through fishing for squid. So it is absolutely plain that the current law is not working.

The example Eric Roy gave of the Hector’s dolphin and the Māui’s dolphin is illustrative, because I see that example as arguing against the point Mr Roy was making. There needs to be a higher conservation baseline there, and he is right; it is being litigated by the industry. Every time the Minister of Fisheries makes a decision in respect of trying to improve the results of the catching of seals, sea lions, or albatross, it is very frequently litigated by the industry because the legal test in the legislation the Minister relies on is too lax. It is too difficult a hurdle for the Minister to meet without the risk of litigation, and that is why members should support the referral of this bill in the name of Metiria Turei to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Like Steve Chadwick, I think there are some problems with the definitions in new section 2A, inserted by clause 5, relating to the protection of marine mammals and the effect of the definition of the “high probability that each population will be at or above the level at which it has its maximum net productivity”. That test is a wee bit high; actually, I think it is impossible to meet, but that can be sorted out at the select committee. The principle at stake here is we as guardians of a substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals and big seabirds are currently failing in our duty to the world. We are failing not just our own populations and not just because of the intrinsic worth of those populations, but we are failing the rest of the world. As I said, those populations are already declining. In the case of the Hooker’s sea lion, the Auckland Islands’ population has declined by 50 percent since 1998. I think that says it all; we do not need to go further than that. Our law is patently not working at the moment, and we need to do better.

It reflects poorly on the National Government that it will not allow this bill to be referred to the select committee. National pretended before the election to be blue-green. We now know that it will not lead on any of these things despite the fact that the rest of the world relies upon New Zealand because we have 50 percent of the species of marine mammals, more than two-thirds of the species of albatross and big petrels in our economic zone, a substantial proportion of their total populations, and they are declining. One final point: Sir Peter Blake said this is happening so fast that he noticed the absences of birds on his around-the-world voyages.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Hoi noa i ngā tau e rua ki muri i te wā i haere Tai Tokerau ki Ōrakei ki te kōrero mō te kaupapa o WAI 262, arā, te kaupapa mō ngā uri a Tāne, kei tō mātou taha, a w’āea Saana Murray. Engari, ehara ko ia anake. E tautau mai ana i tana kakī, ko tōna taonga tūturu, te anga o te pūpū harakeke. Mō ngā tau tekau mā waru, mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te taraipiunara, i mau mai ia i tōna pūpū harakeke. Ko tēnei te taura e here ana i a ia ki tōna tupuna. Tata ngaro ana te pūpū harakeke i te mata o te whenua, ā, he kaupapa tino pōuri tēnei mo Ngāti Kurī i te mea mō te mano tau ki muri, ko rātou te kaitiaki o te taonga nei. I raro i tēnei kaupapa, te kaitiakitanga, ko te tikanga kia tiaki i ngā uri o Tāne engari, kei te whakapōrearea tēnei tikanga i te mea, kei te tūkinohia te taiao.

Nā konā, ka hari au ki te tū ki te tautoko i taku tuahine, a Mētīria, me tana pire hei tiaki i ngā kararehe o te moana; kia pai ai te noho o ngā uri o Tāne, kia maha, kia noho ora mai rātou. Kei te whakaae hoki mātou kia tuku pūtea te Kāwanatanga, hei āwhina i a rātou kei te tokoiti haere, kia maranga mai anō. E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tenei pire mō ngā tutumairekurai, papakanua, tūpoupou, hopuhopu, tukuperu, me ngā upokohue, ngā aihe ā Māui. Ko ēnei ngā aihe tino tokoiti o te ao, he tino taonga rātou ki a mātou. E ai ki ngā kōrero, kotahi rau tekau mā tahi noa iho, rātou e toe ana.

Ko te wāhanga o te pire nei kei te tino tautoko e mātou, ko te tikanga, kia rāhui i ngā mahi a te tangata, i ō rātou wāhi noho. E whakaaro ana ahau ki ngā paru ka tukuna ki te moana, ngā rapihi paratūtae. He tino raruraru anō wētahi o ngā momo hī ika me ngā mahi kari i te moana. Mai rāno mātou i whakahē i ngā tono raihana ki te kari i te moana, ki te rapu hinu, me wērā atu mea i te mea, ko ēnā mahi kei te tukituki i te wāhi noho o ngā uri a Tāne. Ko te nako a tēnei pire kia tohu ki te Papa Atawhai kia whakamatautauhia ngā mahi a ngāi tāua ki te taiao, te kāinga noho o ngā kararehe nei.

He whakaaro anō tāku mō te komiti whāiti, hakoa e tohu ana te pire nei kia wānangahia tēnei kaupapa e te Tumuaki o Te Papa Atawhai me te Māori, kīhai i tohia kia korero hāngai ki ngā iwi, kei a rātou te mana whenua o ēnei rohe. Engari i raro i tēnei pire, ko te iwi Māori he rōpū kotahi i roto i te maha noa atu o ngā rōpū katoa. Ko tō mātau wawata, kia whakamanahia te tangata whenua hei kaitiaki ki te haere whakamua i tēnei pire. Kei te tautoko mātou i tēnei, te pānui tuatahi o tēnei pire i te mea, ko tō mātau hiahia kia noho ora, noho pai te taiao mō tātou katoa me ngā uri whakaheke. Kia ora tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us, the House. Indeed, 2 years ago when Tai Tokerau turned up to Ōrakei Marae, to speak to the hearings for the WAI 262 claim, the indigenous flora and fauna claim, we were flanked by our Auntie Saana Murray. She never travels alone; around her neck she carries the large coiled white shell of the pūpū harakeke, a flax snail. For the 18 years since the historic claim began, Auntie Saana has worn her flax snail shell, which links her directly to her ancestor. The flax snail is now a threatened native species—a fact of life that causes great sadness to Ngāti Kurī, who have been the guardians of this treasure for 1,000 years. Our guardianship responsibilities, the capacity to protect and care for our native plants and animals, have been severely compromised by the destruction of ecosystems.

From this context, then, I am pleased to come to support the sister, Mētīria, in her bill, the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, to ensure that marine animals are a functioning element of their ecosystem. We support the objectives to maintain populations at healthy levels. And we also believe that the Government should make the investment to enable depleted or threatened populations to recover. The Māori Party supports this bill, in particular, on behalf of the Hector’s dolphin species of tutumairekurai, papakanua, tūpoupou, hopuhopu, tukuperu, and upokohue, Māui’s dolphins. These are the rarest marine dolphin in the world, revered by the people of the land as treasures, and it is estimated that there are only 111 of these creatures left.

The part of the bill we are most keen to support is the introduction of objectives to manage the human impacts in the marine environment. I am thinking of things like pollutants, rubbish, and human waste discharges into the sea. Fishing and harvesting seafood, particularly with methods such as bottom trawling and dredging, are disturbing. We have always spoken out against the granting of mining and oil exploration licences, and related activities that cause adverse effects to the ocean environment, and, therefore, marine animals. So what this bill will do is to require the Department of Conservation to regularly monitor human impacts on marine mammals to ensure that the protection objectives are being met.

I want to plant an idea for further debate that we hope will come up during the select committee process, because while the bill creates an obligation on the Director-General of Conservation to consult with representatives of Māori, it does not create an obligation to specifically consult with those who have authority over the land. Instead, what we see in this bill is that Māori are being positioned as one interest group amongst many. We hope that the unique status of people of the land as a guardian will come forward in later renditions of the bill. We are happy to offer our support at this first reading, in our commitment to keep our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for the generations to come. Greetings to us.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, te Kaihautū o te Whare. I want to begin by talking about some of my experience as a yachtie. I do not have time to do it any more, but in years gone by, I used to do it a lot. There is nothing quite like sailing a boat out of sight of land. It is kind of an eerie feeling; it changes one’s perspective. I am minded to think of the fact that, when we look at Earth from space, most of its surface is taken up by ocean. When we look at this country of ours, New Zealand, Aotearoa, most of its exclusive economic zone is also sea or ocean. The problem is that from land we cannot see it. The problem is that it is out of sight, out of mind. As we have heard from various speakers tonight, so much of the vital biodiversity of our nation, and, indeed, so much of the biodiversity treasure trove of the world is in the ocean surrounding New Zealand. Most of us cannot see it, and, therefore, we often do not think of it.

In his address tonight, Colin King spoke of a commercial fisherman’s story, and I will give one of my own. It concerns one of the central figures in the commercial fishing industry in New Zealand today, who told me about the nuisance presented by dolphins. They get caught up in fishing nets, and then what can one do? It is a waste of a good net. So it is a bullet through the head for the dolphin.

There is no question that the legal framework we have currently for protecting marine animals, both mammals and other animals, is not working. There is no question that we need to do something and we need to do something now if we want to change that picture. I have listened to all the speeches made on this legislation by members of the House, and every one said they want to do something about this problem. Well, the very best opportunity we have in this House to do something about this problem is the opportunity presented by this bill tonight. Certainly, I have heard from various members of the House tonight that there are problems with this bill. Eric Roy spoke about some of those problems, and I think all members have acknowledged some improvements that can be made to this bill. But the place to deal with those problems is at the select committee. If we choose to not allow this bill to proceed tonight, and instead to wait on some never-never land of another bill that might come before the House at some future time, then the cost of that decision will be in extinctions of New Zealand marine animals.

We Greens see the protection of biodiversity as not being principally an economic issue, but we are aware that some people do see it in those terms. I want to note that the clean, green image on which we trade internationally in every respect—not only tourism but also all of those agricultural exports—actually relies on the protection of our biodiversity, and the protection of the marine animals and other animals in New Zealand. So I appeal tonight to those on the Government benches. I realise that they came into the House tonight with a set of instructions to oppose this bill. I appeal to those members to reconsider. If this is truly a bad bill, then they can vote it down at some future stage. What is the harm in allowing this bill to proceed to select committee? The reasons given for not doing so are pathetic. The Government talks of a nanny State; I say, instead, that they run the risk of promoting the “ninny State”, which risks cutting off its nose to spite its face. They speak of the fishing industry, and I say that craven capitulation to those interests does no one any good.

I rise tonight to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. I think it is no surprise that National will be voting against the bill, but I want to give some context to that decision, because if one looks at just the decision itself, one does not get an explanation of the picture.

I think, after listening to the debate in the House, it is evident that there is a strong level of support and agreement on the importance of our marine environment and the importance of marine mammals and seabirds. None of us is disputing that importance or disputing the need to deal with these issues. I am definitely a supporter of biodiversity and marine reserves in particular.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Hollow words.

I point out for members who dispute that, that I have spent the entire time I have been a member of this House working incredibly hard with the local members of my communities to get a marine reserve in the Akaroa inner harbour, where one is absolutely needed. That has been an ongoing piece of work for me, which I continue to support. I support it because I recognise, as do the other members on this side of the House, that marine life, marine mammals in particular, has a very special place in our natural environment. The Hon David Parker talked about it before.

We have 41 species of cetaceans in the New Zealand marine environment and nine species of seals. In addition to that, we all acknowledge the important part that marine mammals play in our cultural identity. I take on board the words of the Māori Party members in that regard. If we look back, there was Opo the dolphin in Ōpōnoni in the 1950s, and just lately we have Harbour Hector, the Hector’s dolphin in Wellington Harbour. We all have memories, I would suggest, of swimming with dolphins in the Bay of Islands, off Kaikōura, or in Akaroa, or of watching them swim alongside the ferry.

I freely acknowledge that marine mammals are significant players in our tourism sector. I take on board what Kevin Hague said in that regard. He is quite right. The marine environment is an important factor in our economy. Certainly in Akaroa, which is part of my electorate, it is a vital part of the tourism economy.

Equally, we have to be fair and acknowledge that New Zealand already sits at the forefront of marine mammal conservation. In saying that, I do not resile from the fact that there is certainly more we can do, and this Government supports doing more. But we do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that any additional regulation must be a good way to go. We have to look at whether it will be right for the purpose and whether it will achieve what we need to achieve.

I mentioned that New Zealand is already at the forefront of marine mammal protection, and it is. All cetaceans are already fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, and anyone who chooses to breach that Act faces 6 months’ imprisonment and fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, including an extra $10,000 fine per animal. We have the Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005-2010, The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, which is the foundation document on these arguments, and the set-net ban, which came into force over the east coast of the South Island and in many other parts of the country in May of last year. The national plan of action on seabirds is now under review to ensure fishing does not have an unacceptable impact on any of those species.

The point National is making is that the protection of iconic and threatened marine species is something that we take incredibly seriously, but—and it is a but; it is the reason we are not supporting this legislation—the tools already exist to manage the situation, and if the issue is that Ministers in previous Governments have not used them sufficiently or effectively, then let us address that. If it has not been done to date, then that does not necessarily mean that the tools are not there. I would suggest that the tools are there and that we have to ensure that they are used.

The compliance burden imposed by this bill is unworkable. In this House Opposition parties badger the Government daily about jobs. Well, this bill is a very real example of where the rubber hits the road, because passing this bill would cost jobs, and suddenly all those members’ strong talk on jobs goes out the window. It will cost jobs in the fishing industry, but those members do not care about jobs any more. Now that they are wearing their environmental hats, they say: “Stuff the job market.” All of that was just rhetoric.

This issue is about the economy partly. It is about maintaining the fishing industry partly. But we believe that we can do this in a collaborative and community-based way. This is not about the Government imposing its will on a sector that will not accept it. More regulation is not the answer. The answer is working with stakeholders, and that is what we will do. Thank you.

I rise to support this Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, which sets out to give greater protection to some of New Zealand’s unique species. I feel well qualified to speak on this bill. For 5 years, from 2002 to 2007, I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation. During that time I was a passionate and very public advocate of greater marine mammal protection. I frequently fought with the Ministry of Fisheries, occasionally with my colleagues who held the portfolio of Minister of Fisheries—I see one here tonight—and also, of course, not least of all, with the Seafood Industry Council.

The previous speaker, Amy Adams, talked about the importance of marine protection. In fact, she made reference to a proposal to have a marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour. Well, how interesting that statement was in this House, when Mr Groser, one of our successors as Minister of Conservation, has just instructed the Department of Conservation that there will be no more marine reserve applications. I am proud that in the 5 years I had the job I created 17 marine reserves. Mr Groser and his Government are creating none. How astonishing to have a National member say that she would like to see one in Akaroa Harbour! I guess that she had better speak to her Minister.

She could also talk to him a little about the cut to funding to Enviroschools, an incredibly positive learning programme that has been taking place in about 30 percent of New Zealand’s schools. It is a programme that has been copied in Chile and elsewhere in the world because it was so successful not only in raising knowledge about conservation and environmental issues but also in creating incredible learning experiences for young people.

I attended five International Whaling Commission conferences as the Minister of Conservation. I was proud that I was able to be a strong advocate for the great whale species. A number of colleagues from the Green Party and Labour have mentioned how unique our marine environment is. New Zealand’s marine environment, the area that we have legal jurisdiction over, covers some 480 million hectares of ocean. That is the fourth-largest marine jurisdiction in the world. New Zealand is a great oceanic country. Its marine area covers 27 times its land area. The vast marine area that we are responsible for is home to many unique endemic species. Several colleagues have mentioned the 50 species of marine mammals that are found in that area. There are already 15,000 identified marine species, ranging from marine birds to unique fish species, unique seaweeds, unique corals, and, not least of all, unique mammals.

Our Government was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We are, therefore, committed to maintaining New Zealand’s unique biodiversity. It is a taonga, a treasure, for the current generation and future generations. We have an incredible responsibility to future generations of New Zealanders to look after the species that we have in this vast marine realm.

I mentioned that there are 50 species of marine mammal. Over half of the world’s species of whales swim through our seas. These whales are incredibly vulnerable. Only 5 percent of the number of humpbacks exist today compared with the number that existed before whaling began. We have two unique endemic species of dolphins. I thank our Māori Party colleague Hone Harawira for the support of the Māori Party for this legislation in Metiria Turei’s name, because it is very important. Māori people especially appreciate the importance of future generations. With regard to our two unique dolphin species, Hector’s dolphin and Māui’s dolphin, Hone mentioned that there are 111 Māui’s dolphin left and perhaps 7,500 Hector’s dolphins. All of these species are at risk through inappropriate fishing practices. For many years when I was the Minister of Conservation I debated with the fishing industry about safe methods of using nets, particularly in the Southern Ocean, in the hoki fishery, during ling fishing, and so on.

I seek leave for a 2-minute extension for my speech.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There—[Interruption]

Oh, I see. So we let Eric Roy—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe the member could seek leave again.

I seek leave for a 2-minute extension.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for a 2-minute extension. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I thank the House for this extension of time.

Members in this House, especially those who were MPs before the 2008 election, will know that I am a very passionate conservationist. In fact, the nicest thing that has ever been written about me in the media was in a Japanese daily, which described me as an environmental extremist. I took that as the greatest compliment that had ever been paid to me as a politician, because I am passionate about our unique biodiversity in New Zealand.

I have mentioned already this vast oceanic realm that we are responsible for and the unique species that are found there. I have made reference to the two dolphin species, which are particularly vulnerable. The New Zealand sea lion is unique to our waters, and is now restricted just to the Auckland Islands and the Campbell Islands, which is a place I had the privilege of visiting when I was the Minister of Conservation. That species has been enormously reduced through the sealing programme that took place over 100 years ago. The southern right whale swims through our waters. We think there may be as few as 30 left that traverse through New Zealand waters. All of these statistics are statistics, but they are actually more than that. They are a message to us as decision makers, as politicians, and as people who shape this country to protect these species. If we do not protect them, they will be lost. There are simple ways of protecting these species.

My colleague David Parker, who is now Labour’s conservation spokesperson, talked about the unique species of petrel, seabird, and albatross that nest around many of the islands, particularly in the southern part of our country. There are fishing techniques that have been developed here in New Zealand and elsewhere in the world that can enormously reduce the mortality of albatross species in particular.

One of the Government members just talked about our strategy on seabirds, which was developed, I have to say proudly, while I was conservation Minister. That strategy is about getting the fishing industry to adopt best practice. I have to tell members that it is enormously difficult to get cooperation from the fishing industry on even simple things such as how we put out longlines for fishing and how we bring in nets. The fishing industry had a totally extractive commercial view on this. It was not about jobs; it was about cutting costs as much as it could. If we have to spend a little bit more to save what is unique about New Zealand, I am all for that.

I thank members for their contributions this evening on my Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, particularly those who have spoken in support of the legislation. The kind words about the bill and the issue of marine animal protection and its importance are much appreciated.

I will refer briefly to a few comments made by National members. I note a few things. The first is that no Minister with a relevant portfolio has bothered to speak on this legislation. No Minister of the Crown has spoken on the legislation. It is the first truly environmental conservation legislation to come before this Parliament since the last election and no Minister has bothered to speak on it. For all that the National members talk about their blue-green approach to issues and their new-found interest in environmental issues, the lack of commitment from any Minister who holds an environmental portfolio to be present in the House and to speak on this bill is a disgrace. It clearly shows that this Government has a complete lack of commitment to true environmental protection and to the protection of our species and the economy, the industries, to which our environment contributes to such a significant extent.

I say to Colin King that pāua are not marine animals for the purposes of this legislation. He gave a generous speech, but none the less it was inaccurate. I also just note that when I tried to find out from National members whether they would vote for this bill—and it took some time, in fact, some days, to get a clear position—it was not the Minister of Conservation who rang me to talk about this bill, but I found that the Minister of Fisheries was handling this issue. Listening to the speeches that have been given by members this evening, it is clear where National puts issues like the protection of marine animal species such as the albatrosses in this photograph, which, as members can see, were found dead due to activities in the fishing industry. National appears to give the fishing industry a much greater level of decision making or a greater role in this issue.

I note that Amy Adams talked about the importance of jobs, and I will get on to that in a moment. I also note that Amy Adams said that current legislation provides adequate protection, which, of course, is rubbish. I feel very disappointed that Ms Adams was not able to give a rational or logical contribution to this debate, because the whole point of this legislation is to give adequate protection to marine animals. Indeed, the Bluegreens’ manifesto on its website clearly describes marine protection legislation as a “regulatory mess”. The Bluegreens say it is a regulatory mess, but Ms Adams has obviously not bothered to read that Bluegreens’ National Party document. That is the position of the Bluegreens, at least. However, the Bluegreens obviously have no influence in the National Party, because there is simply no adequate protection.

This is a photograph of Hector’s dolphins. This image will be branded for New Zealand tourism and New Zealand conservation: dead dolphins. At some point, quite possibly under the leadership of a National Government, we may well see the extinction of our most vulnerable endangered marine dolphin species, Māui’s dolphin.

I note too that it is not just dolphins that have a good public image, if you like. Other vulnerable and endangered species include the New Zealand sea lion. Despite the fact that they have absolute protection under the current legislation, they are none the less able to be part of the by-catch under the fishing legislation for the squid fishery. I note that last year, in the last fishing season, 72 New Zealand sea lions were killed by the fishing industry. They were killed lawfully under the marine protection legislation that we have in place. Clearly the legislation is failing. Clearly these animals are dying as a result of the lack of protection. Clearly National does not care that we are losing these iconic species, which are so key to our tourism industry.

There are other broad issues. I would very much like both the industry and Māori in particular to be able to come to the select committee to give us their views about this issue. That is why we send bills to select committees—so that we get that consultation, that discussion, with our community, which is affected by the decisions we make. I would welcome this bill’s referral to a select committee; that is why we would like to see it go before a select committee. However, National is preventing that dialogue from occurring.

This photograph of dead albatrosses will become the image of the special protection, the special place, that Amy Adams considers our marine animals to have in the New Zealand economy and in New Zealand conservation. This is the New Zealand brand under National.