Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill

I move, That the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill be now read a second time. We have just come from debating the Prime Minister’s statement, in which he outlined the ambition of his Government to create a record number of marine reserves this year, and it is entirely appropriate that the House now works on progressing three very substantive marine reserves, covering 430,000 hectares in the subantarctic area.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Smaller than the oil blocks.

I hear interjections from the Green Party. There is sort of the view that the bigger gains that are made for conservation and the environment are made by the political left. Let me put Mr Gareth Hughes correct. The Marine Reserves Act, which was a world leader, was passed in 1971 by a National Government. The very first marine reserve created in New Zealand was in 1976: the Leigh reserve north of Auckland. Of the 34 marine reserves that have been created in New Zealand, the vast bulk of them have been created by National administrations, and we are proud of that. I would also point out that in the term of this Government we passed very important legislation to put in place proper environmental regulation of our exclusive economic zone. So this Government—

💬 Moana Mackey: It’s not proper.

Well, I hear Moana Mackey from the opposite side interject and say that she questions that legislation. I remind that member that she and the Greens sat in this Parliament for 9 years, allowed deep-sea drilling, and did not raise a finger—

💬 Moana Mackey: None of it happened under a Labour Government.

Yes, it did. There was deep-sea drilling for 9 years during Labour’s Government, with no environmental regulation, and there was not a squeak from the Green Party during that period, which really does expose the double standards that we witness in some of the arguments about the marine space. But I am absolutely pleased that this bill receives the very wide support of Parliament, and I want to acknowledge the good work that the Local Government and Environment Committee, under Nicky Wagner’s very able leadership, has made to this bill.

I would remind the House that the Subantarctic Islands do have World Heritage status. It is actually a status that I was involved in establishing in the 1990s, when I was also the Minister of Conservation. What this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill does is enable—through the collaborative process that was set up back in 2008, which provided a report to Ministers in 2010—us to proceed with the agreement of the key stakeholders that participated in that forum on the creation of these new marine reserves in the Antipodes Islands, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island.

This Government does believe that the best way forward with issues like marine conservation is not the very long, the very protracted, and the very divisive sorts of arguments that we have seen in places like Akaroa, but by actually getting stakeholders working together in the collaborative way that has delivered five proposed marine reserves on the West Coast and these three marine reserves here. Another issue for the Government to work through this year is the proposals for marine protection in Kaikōura that have come from the Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura process. So I do want to acknowledge the strength of that collaborative process, which has brought about these proposals.

There have been amendments proposed by the select committee in respect of the review of the reserve around the Campbell Island area. I think the changes that have been recommended by the select committee make good sense. There has been the issue of the timing—whether it should be 5 years before the review of the area in Campbell Island takes place. That has been shortened by the select committee to 3 years. Given the fact that 18 months have passed in between, that makes good sense, and the Government will be supporting those changes. I would also acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the bill on some of the details.

I know that with every environmental initiative that this Government makes—or, frankly, that the previous Government made—the Green Party always says that it is never enough. There is nothing new about that. I am going to have a heart attack the day the Green Party ever gets up and says: “Yes, that’s good and that’s enough and we’re satisfied.” It has not happened once—it has not happened once—with any initiative made by a Labour or a National Government in the 16-odd years that the Green Party has been part of this Parliament.

The last point that I want to make on this bill is to just note the very special ecology of the three Subantarctic Islands areas that we are looking to protect here. It is true that the ocean environment is the new frontier for conservation. Seventy percent of the species that are endemic to New Zealand—70 percent—are not actually on land, where all the terrestrial concentration has been. They are actually out there in the marine environment, and that is why this Government is giving a particular focus to marine conservation. It is my intention, which I want to give the House notice of, to table a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage just to note that we want to bring the reserve in as quickly as possible after the passage of the bill. Other than that I think it is in good shape, and I commend the bill to the House.

We will be supporting this bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. We welcome the creation of three new marine reserves: Moutere Mahue, or the Antipodes Island Marine Reserve; Moutere Hauriri, or the Bounty Islands Marine Reserve; and Moutere Ihupuku, or the Campbell Island Marine Reserve. As the Minister of Conservation said, these are indeed incredibly unique ecosystems, World Heritage sites, and they deserve the protection that this bill will be affording them. It is important, coming out of the select committee, to note that the majority of submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee did want the extension of those marine reserves. I do not think I have seen the creation of a marine reserve where people have not wanted to see it extended. There are always good reasons and we need to be mindful of those.

We have a particularly successful marine reserve at Puoawa up off the East Coast, where over time that marine reserve was actually extended over the reef at Whangarā because of the unique ecosystem there and, in fact, in the meantime the locals and the local fishermen—and anyone who worked in that area, actually—abided by an unofficial marine reserve because they could see the sense of that. I can tell you, the best fishing on the East Coast is on the borders of the marine reserve. Anyone who says that no one will know where those borders are just needs to look at where the fishing boats are, and that will tell you.

I remember going with the Hon Chris Carter, when he was the Minister of Conservation, to have a look at the success of that marine reserve. It had been highly controversial. There is this idea of locking up the ocean, which I always found slightly odd, given that fish are going to freely move in and out of the marine reserve. But we have had some serious issues with crayfish stocks on the East Coast and with the overfishing of that particular species. There was a PhD student there and she was doing her PhD on this particular marine reserve. It had been in place for only 4 years. Outside the marine reserve she was finding about half a kilogram of legal-sized crayfish per pot, and inside the marine reserve it was 30 kilograms of legal-sized cray per pot. I do not know how the crayfish knew to stay within the marine reserve—I am not quite sure what kinds of communications were going on there—but we also saw the restoration of stocks that we had not seen on the East Coast in a while, in numbers that were significant. So, hopefully, I do not think you need to convince anyone in this House of the benefits of marine reserves, and for our part we are very pleased to see this extension and we would like to see further extensions of marine reserves.

Can I also say how nice it is to have a piece of legislation at the Local Government and Environment Committee that is not diabolically awful and damaging for the environment. So on the one hand the Government giveth and on the other hand it taketh away massively. It is a balance, I guess, which seems to be a phrase that comes up constantly in environmental law and environmental protections. But it was nice to have a really positive piece of legislation, notwithstanding that some people wanted it to go further, and to be able to look at the photos and the images and learn more about a part of the world that most of us will never go to but is incredibly important to the entire marine ecosystem. So that is the good stuff.

I cannot let the Minister’s comments go without commenting on the protection of Māui’s dolphins, because although I am quite happy to acknowledge that this is a bill that is going to strengthen marine protection and the marine environment, on the other hand we saw in September last year the Government’s decision to oppose further protection measures for Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins, some of the most endangered mammals on our planet. New Zealand was one of just two countries to vote against new protections for these dolphins at the International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Korea.

For New Zealand to stand up on an international stage and oppose a motion to protect one of the most endangered dolphin species in the world kind of runs up against all the really good stuff the Hon Dr Nick Smith was saying right now about marine conservation, protecting marine ecosystems, and protecting the marine environments. The actions, as the Minister will be aware, did cause environmental concern, and they do not make economic sense. Our future is not in unsustainable fishing practices at all.

Just as we have this debate between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House about our “clean, green” branding generally across our environment and climate change issues, we see that same branding being incredibly important to our fishing industry. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealand really does have an opportunity to be a truly sustainable fishery, and the protection of Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins absolutely has to be at the top of that. So, again, Minister, here we are debating a very good piece of legislation where—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’re extending the protection for Māui’s.

Yes, Minister, but we voted against proper protections on an international stage—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, we didn’t.

Yes, we did. The protections have not gone as far as every single expert who is working in the area of the conservation of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins has told us we need to do if we do not want to see a native species die out and become extinct on our watch—die out and become extinct on our watch. And so I think that it is highly unfortunate that the Government cannot extend this wonderful ethos that we heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith about marine protection right across all areas of policy and not just have it in one area—cynically perhaps—because it is election year. Maybe that is cynical but you get that way in this place.

I want to come back to another issue as well that I think flies against the very good ethos we have heard here about the protection of marine environments, and that is actually the protection of our other waterways, which feed into our marine environment, all of which is part of one great big ecosystem. It does worry me sometimes when I hear National Government Ministers just say that we should not have any kind of water from rivers flowing out into the ocean, because it is a waste; we should put it all in a dam. I mean, water storage is a fine idea—

💬 Louise Upston: That’s outrageous.

Go back and have a look at what the Minister said. It is a great idea, but having water go out to the ocean is not a waste. It is actually a really important part of an ecosystem. At the moment we have a very important process going on to decide about a water storage system in the Hawke’s Bay that would turn the Tukituki River catchment toxic. It will turn the Tukituki toxic. That is the concern of the many environmental groups and experts who have appeared before a truncated board of inquiry process that has been geared against community organisations. The Department of Conservation, for some reason—and maybe the Hon Nick Smith can enlighten us as to what that reason was—saw fit to produce a large submission on the Dunedin City Council discharging more stormwater but did not see fit to provide a submission on whether or not the Ruataniwha Dam scheme would turn the Tukituki River catchment toxic. I am not sure why that is, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Maybe you might have more of an idea about that than me. So the burden has fallen—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The department decided that.

Oh, the department had decided that! No one believes that for a second. So what we have is that the burden has fallen to community groups, to individuals, to local iwi, and to NGOs to pick up where the Government has slacked off and has not done its job in protecting the conservation of our waterways. So we have got a truncated process. We have NGOs, community organisations, individuals, and iwi who have not been properly consulted, who were messed around before Christmas, given days in the lead-up to Christmas to change the times that they were doing their submissions and were given mere days for rebuttal.

We have a process that is not protecting our waterways and that the public can have no confidence in. There is no doubt that a number of these schemes are going to be controversial. That is why the process is so important. That is why the Government’s role is to ensure that the best analysis is done of water quality issues and that any issue that goes through this board of inquiry and the Environmental Protection Authority process is done to the highest standard and highest transparency, and is not just a rubber-stamping exercise that is going to turn the Tukituki catchment toxic. That is what it is going to do. That is what the experts are telling us it is going to do. We should be having a far greater look in that scheme at the single nutrient management system that is being proposed.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is Labour opposed to the scheme?

We are opposed to an absolutely dodgy process that is not going to ensure that the environment is protected, Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Ah! She’s not saying.

No, I am waiting to see what the board of inquiry comes out with, and—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, so are we.

Well, I think we know. I think we know, but I am prepared to give the process its shot. But from everything I have heard from people on the ground, Dr Smith, we know what the result is going to be. You know what the result is going to be. That is why you refused to put anyone with a water science speciality on to the board of inquiry—because they might actually know what they are talking about.

I want to finish up by just referring to Dr Nick Smith’s comments about the exclusive economic zone legislation. Here is another example where National thinks that it can put something incredibly weak in place and use it as an excuse for not doing something that would actually protect the exclusive economic zone. There were eight deep-sea wells drilled before the exclusive economic zone legislation came into place. When we went and had a look at them, they were under National Governments in the 1990s and in the 1980s. [Interruption] Yes, they were, in the exclusive economic zone. So when the bill first came to the House, we thought: “OK, maybe the better-than-nothing argument actually is a good one.” But when we read through it, the bill was such a dog and such a developers’ charter that we could not give the National Government the excuse of saying that this had complete and total support in Parliament, because it was not adequate. It is so much weaker than the Resource Management Act. So we have drawn a line in the ocean, a line that is jurisdictional only, and said that on this side we are going to have proper environmental protections, and on that side we are going to have pretty much no environmental protections, no right for the public to have their say, no right for the public to go out and protest—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The time has concluded.

💬 Moana Mackey: Oh, but I was just really getting going.

I am sorry to hear that. You have now finished.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the second reading of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. I was interested in the comments of the previous speaker, Moana Mackey, that Labour may be opposing the Ruataniwha project there in the Tukituki. That is something I have not seen as a public statement by the leader, but Hawke’s Bay listeners tonight will be interested in that information. I, of course, am pleased that the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, is bringing forward the legislation that we have got here before us. He did that before Christmas, and we have looked at it in the Local Government and Environment Committee.

It was 3 years ago today, in fact, that I, as Minister of Fisheries, and Kate Wilkinson, the then Minister of Conservation, announced that these three huge marine reserves, totalling over 435,000 hectares, were to be established in the Subantarctic Islands. We were very proud of that at that time. A considerable amount of work has been done since because there has been a high level of public engagement, which is usually the case when the National Government is doing environmental law. Then action occurs. There will be marine reserves after us.

It is true that Labour and the Greens do like to consult more. They do; they go round and round and round again. They do not reach a conclusion. They do not make a decision. People are consulted with thoroughly. They do indeed run a very robust consultation process. We, on the other hand, prefer to have consultation and get better ideas from the community than we have at the current time, once we have put something on paper. Then we make a decision, and in this case, of course, we have. There will be marine reserves. We will not be going out for years and years of more cyclical conversations, love-ins, and hugs, which the Green Party and the Labour Party seem to need. We have made a decision here, and these marine reserves will be put in place.

So we will see a marine reserve cover the entire territorial sea out to 12 nautical miles, surrounding the Antipodes Island, with two further marine reserves around the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island. At the time we made the original decision, it was covering about 58 percent and 39 percent of those islands’ territorial seas, respectively.

There are prohibitions today in seining. They will be introduced in the remaining territorial sea. Of course, these islands as a land mass boast World Heritage status, in recognition of their international conservation importance; what we are essentially doing is extending this to the sea mass. I remember Kate Wilkinson at the time saying that some of the most biologically diverse marine communities in the world are found here, and recent research shows that their diversity compares to locations such as the Galapagos Islands. So it is no wonder that we have good cross-party support for this legislation. I just thank the Minister Nick Smith for making sure that it is cemented in and for, essentially, carrying the ball, I guess, and doing the work to get this over the line and drive it through Parliament, as is his habit. So as a previous Minister of Fisheries involved in this decision some years ago, I would like to thank the Minister Nick Smith for taking this on and making sure that it happens.

I do want to thank the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum, at that time chaired by Buddle Findlay partner Paul Beverley, which conducted a tremendous amount of work consulting on and assessing the marine protection options. When complete, the new marine protected areas will boost the area of New Zealand’s territorial sea that is protected to over 10 percent, which is a wonderful record. I do know that Minister Nick Smith is very passionate about marine reserves. Before I was a member of Parliament, I recall him bringing in the marine reserve out of the Poor Knights Islands, off the Northland coast, which was quite controversial at that time. I recall that the Green Party and the Labour Party had talked a lot about that too for many, many years, and consulted and talked, and consulted and talked some more. They do like to talk. They do like to consult. We like to make decisions. Here is something again that is concrete and not just empty promises, hot air, and love-ins. Thank you, Minister Nick Smith. I look forward to supporting this bill as it goes through the Committee stage and the third reading.

The Labour Party is proud to support this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. We want to support this because, actually, Labour started the process to bring about these marine reserves. It is not about “love-ins” or anything like that, as Mr Heatley seems to suggest. We started this in 2006 and 2007. As he said, the bill has sat there and languished for some time since he was Minister of Fisheries, and now he is no longer fisheries Minister and it still goes on. Yet, here we are, at the second reading.

It is, however, good that we are able to progress this bill this evening. It is something that I believe all New Zealanders will be very pleased to see. It will extend that protection out much further. Right now the terrestrial elements of those islands are under protection but not actually the sea around them. This will enable this pristine and very biologically diverse and biologically precious area to be protected properly and fully.

The concept of marine reserves is something that the Labour Party is, in general, supporting. It is Labour Party policy to extend the protections of marine reserves to about 30 percent of the area under New Zealand’s jurisdiction by the year 2020. That is something that we want to move on. It is something that I would encourage the National Party to actually put in its manifesto as well, because we have made a good start in being bipartisan on this particular issue and it would actually be rather good for it to be taken further along.

These islands, as I have said and as everybody knows and as has been said before, have extraordinary biological significance. But as a result of that they also have some economic significance in the form of tourism. We are seeing more boats going down to these areas so that people are able to take a look for themselves and actually experience the diversity that is there too. So although there has been some talk about the economic cost, there is also a huge economic benefit. That will also contribute to New Zealand’s standing internationally in terms of our ability to have islands of such significance available.

As I said, the Labour Party is very proud and pleased to be able to support this bill. It also adjusts or rebalances some of the policies by this Government, which have come up before international fora anyway, that have been less significant and certainly more embarrassing to our country. I am talking of the debacle over the Ross Sea and trying to get an agreement that was actually—we could have had an agreement with the United States over the Ross Sea, but we lost that opportunity. We lost the opportunity to protect that area, for the sake of around a $20 million fishing industry, I think, which would not have been closed out completely but certainly would have been affected. When we balance that up against the hundreds of millions of dollars that we get in benefit as a result of our reputation and also as a gateway to the Antarctic that the United States is using, I think that was an enormous missed opportunity to actually put some sort of credentials down there as well.

The other area, of course, that we have been less illustrious on is the protection of Māui’s dolphins and Hector’s dolphins. We were one of two countries that actually went against the international agreement to protect these very precious mammals—the most endangered species of dolphins in the world.

On a personal note, I remember some years ago being out surfing off the west coast off O’Neills Beach. I was paddling out there, and some of the surfers around me called out “Shark! Shark!”, and swung their boards round and took a wave in to get away from what they thought was a shark. I was a little more slow off the mark—unfortunately, I am not as quick as some of those guys—but I had the opportunity of seeing two of these enchanting dolphins swim around me, within 10 metres of me, and disappear. So being slow off the mark in that particular case was to my advantage. I was actually able to see these dolphins in the wild, up close. Those small round fins and the way that they were able to move through the water certainly made me feel not only very privileged to see them but also pretty determined to make sure that these dolphins actually survive. If we were ever to lose these dolphins as a result of the policies that we are about to implement and the fact that we are unable and unwilling to sign up to an international protection for these dolphins, I think it would be an absolute travesty.

I am very pleased to once again be here to provide support as a speaker from the Labour Party to ensure that these islands in the south of New Zealand do actually get protection. They were awarded World Heritage status in 1998. The marine reserves and the prohibitions on Danish purse seining, combined with the existing Fisheries Act regulations and prohibitions on bottom trawling and dredging, will provide those marine protected areas in the wider area of the territorial sea of New Zealand and the Subantarctic Islands with the sort of protection that they are going to need.

There will be some impact on commercial fisheries. I note that some of the ling fisheries will be extended. From the regulatory impact statement that I have seen and read, the way that these ling are taken has a very small bycatch. As a result of that, the phasing out of that over the next 5 years will be welcomed, but obviously it will be up for review at the end of that time. Of course, this legislation will also be up for review within the course of 5 years. That is a good initiative. I think it needs to be done between 5 years and 7 years. That will ensure that our fisheries are well reviewed, and ensure that the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill—which I am sure will go through Parliament—is working in the way that we would like it to, and ensure that the protections are being afforded as we would like them to be.

It is certainly with pride that we are able to come together today with the Government and, I believe, all parties in the Parliament to protect an area that will serve New Zealand well in terms of its reputation. It will serve those marine ecosystems well in terms of their unique fauna and flora that are found in those Subantarctic Islands, which have been compared to the Galapagos Islands, for example, and, as I say, have been awarded World Heritage status. That will also enable us to further develop the tourism potential in those places, and ensure that there is some economic benefit that comes back to us that can be put back into ensuring that these islands are well and truly protected. So it is with those few words that I would like to conclude my comments today and to once again ensure that Labour will be supporting this bill in its entirety. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to wish all the members in the House and people listening over the TV, the live stream, or the radio a very happy New Year, and I wish them all the best for 2014. Of course we celebrate great Kiwis doing great stuff, like Lorde. Obviously, it is election year and we kicked off the debate with the Prime Minister’s statement. We saw a robust debate. I think all of us are going to put our values, visions, and solutions for this country forward, and it is going to be an exciting year because being an Opposition party, as the member Dr Nick Smith points out often, the Greens are opposed to things, but in election year the Greens are going to be going out there putting out our positive solutions and vision. I think we have got a great deal of that, so I relish the opportunity this year to talk about the positive things, the things that make our country good.

I echo the sentiment of Dr Russel Norman. This year we can make history. When it comes to ocean protection and protection of our beautiful Subantarctic Islands, this year we can make history and take it seriously. I am glad we did finally hear from the Labour Party that it started the process. Listening to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, you would think he had come in dressed as Neptune himself with a bit of seaweed on his hair and his trident, for all of his talk of being the champion of marine protection. I welcome the Government taking marine protection seriously. I want to see more action. I want to see more talk. I want to see more consultation. But here is the Minister making out like he is the greenest thing since whatever the greenest thing was.

What we see is the year starting on marine reserves. I think that is great for our country. It is great for our environment. It is great for our economy. Kiwis love our marine reserves. We were pioneering in 1971. I have got to somewhat point out the irony to Dr Nick Smith that here he is coming in as the champion of marine reserves pointing out the National Party’s history. It is somewhat ironic that it has taken 40 years to get to this point with these areas, but even more ironic that the legislation that he refers to from 1971 has been bypassed. We actually need legislation of the Parliament to see these marine reserves adopted. It is not good enough. I think we can all agree on that. Obviously, we saw two marine reserve bills languishing in select committees, the second-oldest in our Parliament’s history.

I would like to reopen the invitation made to your predecessor Kate Wilkinson—I have made it to you yourself—that the Green Party wants to work constructively because it is high time we modernise our antiquated yet pioneering for its time marine reserve legislation. I mean that seriously. I want to work with the Government, be it a blue or a red one, because it is high time we actually addressed the fact that we cannot make marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone. The criteria for getting marine reserves off the ground are incredibly difficult, so let us work together. We need to protect more of our waters. We do need to do more. It is great to be seeing marine reserves around the Subantarctic Islands. I have never been there myself. I really hope to get there. I doubt very many New Zealanders will get to see this very special part of the country. Although the Minister is trumpeting the size—it is substantial at 430,000 hectares—that, of course, is considerably smaller than just this year’s petroleum block offer. Just 1 year of oil blocks, massively, is larger than this. What did the Minister call it? Trumpeting this particular marine reserve. So it is great to see it but let us put it in context.

We need to do more. These marine reserves take New Zealand’s percentage of marine reserve protection from only 0.31 percent to 0.41 percent. So less than half of 1 percent of New Zealand’s waters, the fourth-largest in the world, are protected. Obviously, it is around 79 percent for the territorial sea, but when you look at the exclusive economic zone, it is less than half of 1 percent. We want to work with the Government to see more of our waters protected. When you look at all the academic studies, we know there are significant local economic benefits. When you look at the studies, you see there are significant fisheries benefits and biodiversity benefits—win-win-win for communities. The collaborative process has been good to help stimulate some of those discussions. There have been some controversial ones in the past.

The Minister also liked to point out that the Greens will never celebrate the Government’s good decisions. That is just not right. It is not on. I think in the space of a single week I was tweeting in support of the Akaroa marine reserve decision and the decision to finally ban shark finning—in a single week. I would like to acknowledge the Akaroa decision because there you really see the nexus of the environmental and economic benefits. There are around 200 businesses directly related to the environment in Akaroa and in the harbour. The small marine reserve and the Taiāpure played a significant economic role in that beautiful township. It is great that we are finally seeing progress there. But we need to do more than having 0.41 percent of our waters protected.

What we would be pushing for is greater modernisation of the legislation, a greater focus on working collaboratively with people. Again, it is somewhat ironic that former Minister Heatley comes down to the House and bangs the table and talks about how the Government, the National Party, is all about action, action, action. But we also heard in this debate that these areas were gazetted as World Heritage areas in 1998 under a National Government, which did not protect them then. This Government has been in power for 5 years and it has taken until this point, the election year, to finally get on and do it under legislation. Maybe the action call is not as apt as the Minister made out.

What we would like to point out is that we support the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. We would like to thank the submitters, the Local Government and Environment Committee members, and the chairperson, Nicky Wagner. We think that the bill was improved in the select committee. The fact that the review for full protection has been pushed forward is a good thing. But what we were urging, and you can read it in our minority report, is the fact that these are World Heritage listed areas. They should be fully protected. I think it makes a mockery of protection to see only percentages. It is 39 percent of Campbell Island and 58 percent of the Bounty Islands. The rationale is the potential crab fishery in the future. I challenge any member to say who is going to be marketing crabs caught in a World Heritage area and exporting them around the world. I do not think that they will find many consumers, particularly in those premium markets that we should really be going on.

I welcome the focus for marine reserves. If the Government wants to have an arms race, a competition, when it comes to protecting our waters, I welcome that because we have got some really good policies when it comes to that area. When it comes to the Māui’s dolphin, we have a protection plan that would stop the trawling that is happening in the marine mammal sanctuary. We would end the mockery of our marine protection laws, which see that in the benthic protected areas fishers cannot fish 100 metres above the seabed, yet a company can literally vacuum up the top 5 metres of the seabed—a protection area that does not offer protection. We see an oil well in the middle of a marine mammal sanctuary. We see the Government this year in the petroleum Block Offer 2014 literally offer deep-sea oil permits that cross into a marine mammal sanctuary around Akaroa. Good on the Christchurch City Council and Vicki Buck, in particular, who made a submission to the Government opposing that, pointing out the risks of deep-sea drilling.

What we would do is have sanctuaries that actually provide sanctuary and protected areas that actually provide protection. We would set an ambitious target for marine reserve protection around the country. We would update the antiquated Marine Reserves Act. Again, the invitation goes out that we want to work with the Government to modernise this old-fashioned legislation. A good green Government that comes in and makes history could start by protecting the Kermadec Islands. Overnight, New Zealand could go from less than half of 1 percent to 15 percent of our waters protected in marine reserves by expanding the marine reserve around the Kermadec Islands. For the cost of only around $120,000 per annum of fishing we could send a message to the world that New Zealand takes this seriously. We have an economy built on smart sustainability that takes environmental issues like conservation seriously. That is where our economy is coming from and that is why I am pushing incredibly hard, after the Greens won the shark-finning victory, to protect the Kermadec Islands. We want to work with all parties to do that.

We would start the development of an integrated oceans policy, which has been talked about for years and years but we need action. So all in all the Green Party stands for protecting our waters and protecting the economy, which depends on our beautiful environment. As New Zealanders, we should say that this is something that should unite us. I grew up in Gisborne, on the East Coast, where every summer we would go camping at the same beach, Pouawa. That is where I learnt to surf, and it is where I would go out with my dad and put out a cray pot. I think every New Zealander has got that story.

We heard of David Shearer’s story about seeing Māui’s dolphins live in the marine environment when he was out surfing. I think it is an incredible tale, and it is a tale our kids and our grandkids unfortunately may miss out on. But it is not too late; we can protect our Māui’s dolphins. We can see more of our waters protected. We can see a thriving fishing industry built on sustainability. We can protect our waters from the other threats facing them, like deep-sea drilling and like vacuuming up the seabed with some of the incredibly crazy marine mining proposals. A Government that takes it seriously is a green Government. That is why I think you will see that a good green Government will make history protecting our waters, protecting our environment, protecting our economy, and protecting the things we love.

Just, perhaps, a few facts about National’s record. In the 5 years of the National Government, we have announced nine new marine reserves, which will significantly increase biodiversity protection in New Zealand waters. So that is nine new marine reserves.

💬 Louise Upston: How many?

Nine—and that is nine new marine reserves over a period of 5 years in Government, so I think that is a pretty good record. New Zealand currently has 34 type 1 marine reserve areas and 14 type 2 marine reserve areas or other management tools. That covers just over 7 percent and just over 1 percent of the territorial sea, respectively. National has got a pretty good record in this area. Approximately 9.5 percent of New Zealand’s territorial sea will be protected by marine reserves once the three new Subantarctic Islands marine reserves are gazetted, and those are the three marine reserves that are contained in this bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill.

Just, perhaps, a reference to the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, and the Green Party minority report that it put into this bill, where it talked about 0.41 percent being covered by marine reserves. This refers to marine reserves as a percentage of New Zealand’s economic zone, not of the territorial sea, so I stand by the percentage of 9.5 percent of New Zealand’s territorial sea being covered by marine reserve status once this bill is enacted. That member is also absolutely correct in that National has a proud history of marine protection. In 1971 we passed the original Marine Reserves Act and established the first marine reserve, and that was at Leigh in 1975. Incidentally, Leigh was one of the very first no-take reserves in the world. So I stand by National’s proud record and I stand by the record of the Hon Nick Smith in his sponsorship of this bill.

The proposal for the marine reserves is the result of a pretty extensive and collaborative stakeholder forum, with a lot of input from iwi, industry representatives, scientific conservation groups, and also the wider public. That kind of consultation, and collaborative consultation, is one of the hallmarks of this National Government. It has been undertaken in a number of other forums and it is proving to be very successful, as indeed it is with this marine protection legislation.

Just for a little bit of background, although the three island groups contained in the bill have protected land area status, the territorial waters around them are not currently protected in marine protected status. They do not have that status as it applies to the land. So the proposal recognises great opportunities for tourism, for scientific research, and, of course, for fishing in a responsible and sustainable way. Although I appreciate the words of the Green member of Parliament, with him saying that in their view there should be no fishery take in these marine protected areas, I have a different view, as does the Minister of Conservation. That is why there will be protection in this bill for the ling fishery and also a possible exploration for a crab fishery.

This is a thoughtful bill. It was considered well by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I do commend it to the House.

Can I just extend my greetings to all members of this House at the beginning of 2014, and also to all those out there who may be listening to this broadcast. It is great to start the parliamentary year at the end of January with already so much on the agenda.

The Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is a very interesting bill. I have had the great pleasure in the last couple of weeks to be down in what you would say is as close as you can possibly get, on mainland New Zealand, to this area. I visited Stewart Island, Fiordland, and Queenstown. When you go down there and you see what has been done in terms of the—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not going to stand in Clutha-Southland, are you?

No, no, I am not going to stand in Southland, no. When going down into your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, into Eric Roy country, and seeing what is being done on the likes of Stewart Island, with Ulva Island and the marine reserve there, and seeing what is being done in Fiordland, in the World Heritage status area, and throughout that whole area of Southland and Stewart Island, it does make you reflect on where New Zealand is in the world, in terms of our nature and our flora and fauna, and the special place that we have within world global status. This Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is an extra addition to that, in that the islands are some 860 kilometres south-west of the extent of this area, of Stewart Island, and they are, again, a very special area of the greater part of New Zealand Inc. that we have.

The Local Government and Environment Committee was very privileged last year to sit on the exclusive economic zone bill that looked at that huge area of water around New Zealand. I am told that it is the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

—others say it is the fourth-largest, and others say it is not. I am told it is the fifth-largest, and the Minister of Conservation confirms it is the fifth-largest. In terms of the size of our country, it really does show how important that exclusive economic zone is to our country. Therefore, the Subantarctic Islands, as part of that, and these islands that are out there, the Bounty Islands, the Antipodes Islands, and Campbell Island, are a very important part of that outreach of the New Zealand land mass to show our presence in the South Pacific and into the subantarctic ocean.

These islands were first discovered in the 1800s by Captain Henry Waterhouse on the British ship HMS Reliance, so this goes back a long way in New Zealand’s history, in terms of that we are now talking several hundreds years ago when these islands were discovered. It is most important that they are now given this level of protection, and it is important that these marine reserves are put through in terms of also supporting the World Heritage site situation that they have been accredited.

The islands are a very long way away—as I said, 860 kilometres south-west of Stewart Island. When you think about the distance that New Zealand has, it is very important in terms of our impact in this part of the world. Many people around the world do recognise the fact that although New Zealand is a very, very small land mass, we do have a great presence in this part of the Pacific Ocean and the Tasman Sea, in this part of the world. We are the guardians. It is interesting that many submitters who came to our Local Government and Environment Committee have said and have reiterated the fact that this generation and every generation are the guardians of the environment. We are the guardians of what we are given. We are very fortunate to live in a place like New Zealand where we are given this enormous, beautiful, natural resource out there, and we are the guardians of that.

All parties are supporting this bill. We support the National Government in terms of what it is bringing through in this bill. We think it is important to provide these additional safeguards. When I was on Stewart Island I was told by some locals that the Minister is visiting these islands in the near future, coming on a naval frigate, apparently, or something to that effect. Are you visiting, the Hon Nick Smith, in the near future? Is that the case or not? Can you confirm that?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Maybe.

Maybe. Again, I think it is a good thing that a Minister is going down there to show interest in this particular area. I know that our Local Government and Environment Committee suggested that the whole committee should go to the Subantarctic Islands to personally check out these islands and make sure that they are legitimate—that we should all go. But it was determined—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, just the New Zealand First caucus, for a long time.

No, no, I am sorry, Minister. No, no, we cannot let you get away with that. Our chairman said that it was not appropriate for the whole select committee to go to visit these islands, even though we were receiving the submissions on this particular bill in relation to this important area off the southern coast of New Zealand.

But it was very interesting, and I would like to thank all those who submitted on this bill, and also the Department of Conservation, with all the work that it is doing down there. I was greatly impressed with what the Department of Conservation is doing in the likes of Stewart Island and in Fiordland, and was talking with many of the Department of Conservation rangers down there during my visit to both those areas and seeing what the Department of Conservation is doing. This bill is another extension of that whole conservation area, which is most important.

New Zealand First does continue to have concerns about the level of funding to the Department of Conservation. We have constantly said that we feel that with the growing demands on the natural resources of New Zealand, we cannot be short-changing our conservation measures. In this area, there certainly are concerns out there within Department of Conservation circles that it is having to tighten its belt all the time to provide for what is required.

When you look at the level of tourists and when you look at the level of New Zealand domestic visitors to many of these areas around New Zealand, there is huge pressure on our natural resources, on our national parks, and on our natural environment. Therefore, I think that every New Zealander can say that the more out of every taxpayer dollar that we can provide to support our natural environment, the better. We would recommend to the Minister that please, Minister, we cannot be short-changing our Department of Conservation when it is so vital.

When I was tramping the Routeburn Track last week, we were the only Kiwis in the Falls Hut on the Routeburn. Every other tramper was from overseas—from Europe, from Australia, from Asia, and other places. They recognise the fact that this is a very, very, very special part of the world that we have in all these areas like Fiordland, like the Routeburn, like the Milford Track, and like Stewart Island, and they come to New Zealand for a reason. In many cases, they come to New Zealand because we offer a special part of the world. We cannot cut back in terms of what resources we provide to these areas, because it is most important for New Zealand to maintain its world image in terms of the importance of New Zealand as a protector of nature and as a protector of the environment, and we must ensure that those resources are provided and that we do not cut back on them.

Also, in terms of marine reserves, this area is another addition. We heard from Jacqui Dean that there are now something like 34 A class reserves around the country. I was in Akaroa Harbour with a lot of eminent scientists in December for Dolphin Day in New Zealand. Again, that was a recent and new addition to another marine reserve, which the Minister approved last year. It is increasingly important that these marine reserves are recognised, and the importance of them to New Zealand. Although in the scheme of things it is a small percentage of the overall ocean and it is a small percentage of the overall area that New Zealand covers, they individually and cumulatively add up to a significant factor in terms of protecting our marine life around our shores in very, very critically important areas such as Akaroa Harbour.

These latest marine reserves in the Subantarctic Islands are yet another example of this. It stands New Zealand in great stead on the international global stage that we do this, and New Zealand First supports it in every way so that New Zealand can stand on the global stage and say that we do support the environment.

I rise to talk to the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill at its second reading. As others have noted, this is a bill whose time has definitely come. It establishes three new marine reserves around the subantarctic Antipodes Islands group, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island. Like other members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I regret that we were not able to go there in person and sample their delights, because this is a unique part of the world. Perhaps because it is so remote and it has had very little impact from human beings, it has an enormous heritage value. These three island groups have enjoyed World Heritage status, but, of course, as others have said, the waters surrounding them do not enjoy that same status.

This is a bill that needs to protect the area of water around these islands. It is going to be the first marine protected area to be implemented under our Government’s marine protection areas policy. We were in Government when the Marines Reserve Act was established back in 1971. That Act is no longer fit for purpose. It is outdated and it needs now to be improved upon. We need to have marine reserves that will have a broader range of protection tools and a more integrated approach, I suppose you could say, to marine protection.

World Heritage status does afford a lot of protection, but protection of the marine areas around the islands is a vital part of our overall philosophy, which was outlined very eloquently by the Minister of Conservation at the start of this debate tonight. The very special ecology of these three islands is important to us. As the Minister said—and I will leave it at this—the ocean environment is the new frontier for conservation. That is why this bill, among the raft of measures that we are bringing in for marine conservation, is so vital. I commend it to the House.

Can I just begin by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all members of the House and their families a very happy New Year. I think it is going to be a very busy one ahead of us, and a year in which many of us go through our 3-yearly job interview process, and one which you will happily—by the look on your face—avoid this year, by your own choice.

Can I next commend the Minister of Conservation for this legislation, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is not very often that we get bills in the House that are supported by every speaker, but this is one of those measures. It really is an indication of the passion and commitment that New Zealanders have for the better protection of our environment, including our marine areas. But it is not always the case that we get a Minister of Conservation who does those things, and who pushes them along, and who, I have to say—he would not say this, but I will—pushes them along against the tide of his own Cabinet. So that shows a bit of political nous and a bit of courage. Whatever other trickery that was used to get this past the Steven Joyce radar, I want to commend the Minister of Conservation because it is very good stuff.

I am very fortunate to have been to some of the Subantarctic Islands—of the three we are offering better protection to tonight, only one, Campbell Island—and they are just extraordinary. They are mind-changing when you see life in the subantarctic and the Antarctic. So I am particularly pleased to be supporting this legislation, as is Labour.

There are some other areas, though, on which I think the Government and the Minister of Conservation need to do a bit of rethinking and recalibrating, and some of it needs to be done with some urgency. There are two areas that I just want to make comment on before I return back to the key points in the legislation. The first point is what has been a very controversial proposal and debated with some heat in this House, and in relation to which I have to express the opposite of what I recently commented on in terms of the Minister of Conservation and his actions. Although I supported him in this legislation, I feel exactly the opposite in terms of the role of the Department of Conservation in the proposal for the Ruataniwha Dam. That dam, in the Hawke’s Bay, uses an entirely new model, called the Tukituki River In-stream Model (TRIM model), where the proponents of it, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, have said that changes to the nitrate level in the river that are caused by the dam should be disregarded. That is new. It is frustrating scientists—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member is saying NIWA’s wrong?

—and the board of inquiry process has not been able to give enough time for robust discussion and consideration of that new model. That is not a criticism; that shows the ignorance of the Minister of Conservation on this particular matter. He would be wise not to have comments like that said in a way that they can be recorded in Hansard, because they will come back to bite him, and I will guarantee that they will come back to bite him. So he is advised not to do that, from my perspective, although I would enjoy it politically if he put some more of those ignorant, ill-informed comments on the record in Hansard. So the board of inquiry has not got the ability to give the time, because of the constraints that are put on it by the Ministers who set up the board of inquiry. This is not—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The law says 9 months.

That is how Ministers make instructions—through law. This is not a criticism of any individual members of the board of inquiry. They are doing what they are required to do, but it means that on a brand new model, which has never been considered in New Zealand before, which has the potential to turn the Tukituki River toxic because of the level of nitrates caused by the dam, the Minister of Conservation has supported his department having no role at all to play in that proposal other than a very minor one. This is despite the fact that his department had spent a lot of money, a lot of time, and had put very high-quality expertise into preparing a submission that challenged the model. That has to be wrong, in my view. If we have public servants who know what they are doing, who are competent to express a view, and who are stymied by some sort of political process from doing that because it does not suit the political irrigation agenda of the Government, that is wrong. We should not have the good people of Hawke’s Bay not only subsidising the dam for 120 farmers but risking their river being turned toxic as a result. So for all the praise of the marine legislation, for all the proposals that we support in this bill creating the three new marine reserves, it pales into insignificance, which is a tragedy because we should be able to celebrate good progress in this House—if only it was consistent.

There is another area that I want to talk about, and that is in the area of dolphin protection. There was a protest a little while ago outside the front of Parliament. There were more people at that protest than there are Māui’s dolphins left on the planet. Yet when all the submissions to the latest extensions were being called for, the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries went for the least possible protection extension—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not true.

It is an extension. But, in my view, when you have only 55 dolphins left—not just 55 around here; 55 on the planet—what bit of “critically endangered” does the Minister of Conservation not understand? There cannot be fewer for that species to have a future. So we should take the precautionary approach. Every possible measure that was supported by the best marine scientists should have been picked up—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We have.

The Minister is once again giving me a fantastic political opportunity because again he is showing his lack of understanding of the very submissions that were sent to him. I do not think he has read them. I do not think the Minister read the submissions that said we need the best possible protection and that the precautionary approach must apply when we have a critically endangered species that it is our responsibility to protect.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We have.

There were 21,000 submissions on that proposal. Did the Minister read the submissions?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I did, but they were standard submissions.

Did the Minister read 21,000 submissions on the—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not 21,000 identical—

Oh, so did the Minister read 21? Did the Minister read 21?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I read all the submissions.

No, no. I just asked that, and you said “No, I did not read 21,000.”, but, actually, there were 21,000. There have never been more submissions on any proposal, according to a Ministry for Primary Industries senior staff member. On the public record they said we have got more submissions about this issue than ever before. So we missed the opportunity, in my view, to adopt the most responsible position possible, and—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: So what’s Labour’s position? Tell us—

Well, there you are. The Minister should have read my submission, because that outlined Labour’s position. Actually, that would have been a big help. The other issue that our lack of protection risks is the future of the fishing industry in New Zealand. In my view, we should have the Government backing not just the Māui’s dolphins but also the fishing industry. If we were able to support our fishing industry to transition to sustainable fishing, we would not only save the dolphins and we would not only save the seabird bycatch but we would be able to say that we have the first sustainable fishing industry in the world. What an export brand advantage that would be. So then we would be winning. Then our whole country would be winning. The Māui’s dolphins could be saved. A large number of seabird bycatch could be saved. We could have a brand label of sustainable fishing, which would make our fish popular, instead of currently, where international experts are calling for a ban on people buying our fish. How can the Minister for Primary Industries let that proceed? It is irresponsible and it is tragic.

Just going back to the bill, I want to again commend the Minister of Conservation. He does show courage, he does show passion, and I believe he has got a strong personal commitment to conservation issues. That is well reflected in this legislation, which I am delighted to support.

Happy New Year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to respond briefly to the idea of the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, that somehow the National Party has been reluctantly brought to this piece of legislation, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. That is a load of nonsense. This is a Government that gets on with things. It does not talk about things endlessly; it just gets on with them.

This piece of legislation is bringing in three new marine reserves. That will mean that approximately 9.5 percent of New Zealand’s territorial sea will be protected by marine reserves, once these three new Subantarctic Islands reserves have been gazetted, and that is a marvellous achievement for this country.

This is the party that also introduced regulations covering the exclusive economic zone. Other parties jump up and down, wail, and sound terrified at every proposal that comes in, yet they were quite happy for a long time not to have any legislation operating in the exclusive economic zone to regulate and protect our waters. We are the party that is making good progress on water quality, through the work of the water forum. So, when other parties posture and puff and talk about the environment, the National Party gets on with it. I am very proud to be part of that party and to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Is this a split call?

💬 Phil Twyford: It is.

Phil Twyford—5 minutes.

Labour is, of course, supporting the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, as my colleagues have pointed out. We support the inclusion of these three areas in marine reserves. They are a treasure that belongs to this country. They are part of the World Heritage network, and it is the right thing that they are included as part of the marine reserves. We congratulate the work of the Minister of Conservation on getting the legislation to this point.

I want to make just a few comments about the general state of the marine reserves legislation and note that this bill basically uses special legislation to achieve marine reserve status for the Subantarctic Islands. The reserves are not being set up under the law that currently exists for the creation of marine reserves, which is the Marine Reserves Act 1971. That legislation, now 40 years old, is cumbersome. It was ahead of its time when it was passed and highly rated, but no longer. That legislation has been left behind by international best practice. Unfortunately, I think, and in spite of the fact that many New Zealanders applaud the goal of achieving 10 percent of our waters being declared marine reserves, this has been a very difficult issue over the last couple of decades.

I think the Minister would probably agree that that primary legislation is in dire need of an overhaul. I think that most parties in this House would agree that work needs to be done to find a mechanism that can work in the kinds of political and social realities of New Zealand conservation policy today. It was difficult, I think, during the time of the last Labour Government when efforts were made to revamp that law and reform it. The numbers in this House were not there. There was not majority support to reform the marine reserves legislation and update it. I hope that now there is majority support for reforming that legislation, because it is long overdue.

The regulatory impact statement for this bill points out that the average time to establish a marine reserve under the Marine Reserves Act is about 12 years. It ranges between 1 and 23 years, and that clearly is not good enough. The Environmental Defence Society released a publication last year that I thought made some very good points. It argued for the need to overhaul the legislation and produce a Marine Reserves Act that allows for the efficient promulgation of marine reserves for the creation of a network of different types of marine protected areas, all the way from no-take areas right through to full protected reserves. I believe that we need that kind of legislation.

I spent much of last week kayaking around the Waitematā Harbour in the Hauraki Gulf in Auckland, looking at conservation issues and talking to many of the movers and shakers within the Hauraki Gulf Forum. That forum is a collaborative governance model set up to advance the agenda of preserving the Hauraki Gulf for future generations—cleaning it up, addressing issues of water quality, and protecting biodiversity. The establishment of marine reserves—in fact, establishing the 10 percent of the Hauraki Gulf earmarked as marine reserves—is one of the key elements in that agenda, allowing crayfish, snapper, and other species to regenerate beyond current stock levels so that the ecosystems can be restored and repaired and the gulf protected for future generations.

Marine reserves are one of the really big challenges that we have. I hope that the Hauraki Gulf Forum can achieve something like 10 percent of the Hauraki Gulf set aside. It is a big ask and I hope that as well as establishing reformed marine reserve legislation in this House we actually see real, practical progress on the ground in places like the Subantarctic Islands and places like the Hauraki Gulf. Thank you.

Happy New Year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to other members of this House and their families. I am pleased to take a call on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, which, as Gareth Hughes explained, the Green Party will be strongly supporting.

I congratulate the Minister of Conservation on his stewardship of this bill, on getting it to the House, and on his commitment to establishing a record number of marine reserves this year. But we would also like to see progress on the marine reserves legislation because, as Phil Twyford pointed out, it is outdated and it is cumbersome. There have been a number of promises by National and by the previous Minister of Conservation to introduce a new marine reserves bill. One has languished before the select committee for over a decade and not progressed. Given that collaborative processes are the flavour of the month now, we would like to see some collaboration around that legislation.

In a former life I was a member of the West Coast Marine Protection Forum, which made a number of recommendations to the Government on the reserves that are now going to be established. The reserves that conservation groups would have liked to see were somewhat larger than the ones that are being established, but that collaborative process was very valuable in getting everybody around the table—iwi, conservation groups, commercial and recreational fishers, divers, and others—to actually work out where the common ground lay, to understand others’ points of view, and to understand what the areas were that were favoured by fishers.

Again, here in this bill, it is the result of a collaborative process and a forum that was established to look at marine protection in the subantarctic. That is a process that was triggered by the Marine Protected Areas Policy, which was introduced by the former Labour Government, but there have been very few of these collaborative forums established under National until quite recently, when one was established, I think, in Otago. They are a good process—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: And in Auckland.

Thank you, Minister—and in Auckland. With legislation that is establishing protected areas and a review of the Marine Reserves Act, it would be useful, I think, when we are dealing with law that is creating benefits for present and future generations and that is protecting biodiversity for its intrinsic values, that there should not be the party political differences. We should be able to establish common ground. So it would be valuable, Minister, if there was some discussion between parties before the legislation was introduced to see whether and what sort of consensus could be agreed on for the Marine Reserves Act, given that it failed before because of the widespread different views around it. So, Minister, we would encourage the Government to look at similar consultation and a similar commitment to collaborative processes before new legislation is introduced, and to that sort of collaboration that it is endorsing at a regional level in investigating individual marine reserves.

Turning to this bill, we are pleased to support it. There is only one marine reserve in the Subantarctic Islands at the moment, and that is around the Auckland Islands. That was established in 2003. The islands are really important. They do have World Heritage status because they are some of the least modified islands on the planet.

This bill is a step forward in giving us a marine reserve around the Antipodes Island and some protection around the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island. But—I do not want to disappoint the Minister—the Green Party believes that the bill could go further and could take on board the submissions by Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, Forest and Bird, the Southland Conservation Board, and others to protect the full extent of the territorial sea around the Bounty Islands and around Campbell Island, because the very strange boundaries around those islands are to ensure that the ling fishery continues and to allow for a speculative potential deep-water crab fishery. There have been investigations in the 1970s and the 1990s of that crab fishery. Nothing has come of it. Given the distance to the subantarctic and the cost of diesel, it is unlikely to be profitable.

The Green Party would see a proper commitment to marine conservation and marine protection by establishing the full extent of the territorial sea around those islands as marine reserves. That would recognise their internationally important values and World Heritage status. Nevertheless, this bill is a step forward. Thank you.

Ā, ka tū ake ahau ki te mihi i a koutou katoa, ngā kaimahi roto i tēnei Whare, ngā mihi ki a koutou mō te Tau Hou.

[And so I rise to acknowledge you all, users of this House; salutations for the New Year to you collectively.]

The Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is probably one of the best pieces of legislation that we have seen, apart from the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. We know that it is a most outstanding piece of legislation because it is being supported by the parties around this House. So I commend the Minister of Conservation for bringing this bill to us to be debated and to be discussed. Nō reira, e te rangatira, ka tū tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki tēnei Whare. Kia ora.

[Therefore, I stand in support of this bill to this House. Thank you.]

Bill read a second time.