Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill

Can I first of all express my disappointment about our agreement not to have this bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, taken as 11 separate parts and say that that would have provided us with a lot of opportunity to discuss in depth the matters within this bill. But we agreed to having it taken as one part because we agree with the bill. It is a very good bill. It extends the marine protection for three of the Subantarctic Islands: the Antipodes Island, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island. I have had the pleasure of going to Campbell Island but not to the other two yet, and I want to say that having the whole of Parliament agreeing to these provisions, which is what I expect will happen in the third reading, is a very good message to future travellers there.

I also want to extend my congratulations to the Minister who is sitting in the chair, the Associate Minister of Conservation, who has recently been appointed again as a Minister, and I want to acknowledge that and congratulate him. He is, I guess, Associate Minister of Conservation, in his current capacity as Minister in the chair, amongst other things—or perhaps because other Ministers had urgent matters of public business to attend to rather than coming to the House. I actually think that it is very good for the recently reappointed Minister that his first task is to shepherd through a bill that has the support of the entire Parliament. I think that this is a good step.

There are a few issues that I want to raise—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Stop with the sucking up.

It is actually manners, Mr Hipkins. I do not know what has happened to the younger generation. In my day, we would have thought that that was just good form and manners. But I do not know—these young ones today. On a serious note, though, the primary issue that I want to raise in my initial contribution on this bill is a matter that is raised in the interpretation clause, clause 3, which looks at the role that the Minister of Conservation has, but also looks at the role that the Minister for Primary Industries has. I think that in this bill the tension that exists in other examples is not so bad, but in other examples it has provided a dysfunctional process and a very flawed outcome.

Let me give you two examples. The first one is in an area where I think the Government should have absolute shame, and that is the lack of application of the precautionary principle when it looked at provisions for protecting the Māui’s dolphin. There are only 55 Māui’s dolphins left—not just in the North Island, not just in New Zealand, but on the planet. There are 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left in total. When the Minister of Conservation had the job of looking at extended protection, 21,000 submissions were made on those proposals and every single one of them—there were half a dozen exceptions, to be truthful, but nearly every single one of them—wanted exceptional caution to be applied. They also wanted widespread protection to be given to the Māui’s dolphin’s territorial area, like where the Māui’s dolphins crossed Cook Strait, where they settled in the inner harbour, and where they were clearly going out beyond the nautical miles that are in the current provisions. But the Minister of Conservation was not able to adopt what that overwhelming number of submissions said. He was not able to do that because he was tripped up by the need to make that decision with the Minister for Primary Industries.

Unfortunately, just at the current time—but only until the beginning of October, when we will have a new Government elected—the current Minister for Primary Industries does not have a lot of confidence or vision, let alone a bold approach to the future of the fishing industry.

💬 Moana Mackey: Who is it?

That is a very good question. Mr Guy is his name.

💬 Moana Mackey: I thought that it was Phil Heatley.

No. Oh, yes, it might be Phil Heatley. So the Minister for Primary Industries does not have a bold vision, let alone the courage, to put forward a new approach to take the fishing industry not just into the future but into a much better future. We had the opportunity, through that process, for the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries to come out with a solution that was a win-win for everyone. We had the opportunity for a win for the Māui’s dolphin, which we could have saved but is now at real risk of being extinct within our lifetime; we had an opportunity to have a real victory for the fishing industry; and we had a real opportunity for a major victory for New Zealand.

Just imagine the marketing opportunity if the New Zealand fishing industry was able to say that we fish New Zealand waters in a sustainable way. Just imagine the pride that the Minister of Conservation could have had if he had been able to say that we have done every single thing possible to save the Māui’s dolphin. But, oh, no—we will just tinker at the edges. The fishing industry is unhappy because it has lost a bit of its fishing, but the Māui’s dolphin remains critically threatened and our fishing industry is in danger of being subject to a boycott.

The people who buy New Zealand products overseas are looking at the labels more and more. They want to know where the produce was grown, where it was caught, in what manner it was produced, and in what manner it was harvested. If they see that fish was caught in New Zealand waters and threatened the Māui’s dolphin, they are going to say: “To heck with that—we’ll buy our fish from somewhere else.” That is a lose-lose situation. In the interpretation clause of this bill, there is exactly the same lack of clarity about whose job it is to make the proper decision. I think that is a fundamental flaw.

The other example where that joint decision-making creates a tension that is unable to be resolved sensibly is the example that I used in an earlier debate, and that was the proposal by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to build a dam in Ruataniwha—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is nothing to do with this.

It actually is, Mr Chairman, in regard to the joint decision-making in the interpretation clause of this, which is between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries. In the Ruataniwha Dam proposal it is a joint decision-making process between the Minister of Conservation, again, and the Minister for the Environment. Unless you have clear leadership from one Minister with a vision about what is proposed, you will end up with the total mess that we have in the Hawke’s Bay—actually, if the dam goes ahead, we will have more of a mess. The Tukituki River is at risk of being turned toxic because of the model they are using in that dam proposal.

This is the only concern that I have with the provisions in this legislation. The bill itself, offering better protection in the subantarctic, is excellent, but having the joint decision-making that is in other legislation—in here made slightly weaker by the requirement to consult with the Minister for Primary Industries—is, I think, a fundamental flaw The Government should decide that if something is worth protecting in a marine reserve, in a national park, in schedule 4 land, or in conservation land, then it should be protected. That should be the message, that should be the bottom line, and that should be the process that is set out in regulation and legislation.

This is another example where the Government cannot quite get it right. It tries to have a dollar each way, and I think it ends up giving unclear messages to the sector, which is foolish and unfair, particularly if it is given to the business community. But it also means that we are less likely to have that vision of protection for some of the most pristine and important waters in our jurisdiction offered to the fullest extent. In my view, that tension is something that should be avoided. We should go back, or go forward, to a time where the Minister of Conservation has a clear mandate to be an advocate for conservation and to be an advocate for better marine protection, and not for that advocacy or vision to be watered down by any responsibility to consult.

I just want to conclude by saying that it is always good to see marine protection supported. New Zealanders have a very strong affinity with the sea. We are surrounded by it. We are an island at the bottom of the world. We love the protection. We want to enhance the quality of our water that goes to the sea. Hopefully, we will be able to do that through other legislation that is not yet before the House. But in this particular instance, it will be a pleasure to cast our vote alongside the Government and—I know—every other party in support of this bill.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a great privilege and a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve Bill in the Committee stage. This is a bill that the Green Party supported through every stage. It is great to see more marine reserves being created around our waters. We want to congratulate the Government and acknowledge the work done by the former Labour Government, which kicked this ball off back in 2006-08.

Marine reserves should not be a partisan, political issue. This should be something that unites the parties, that unites the people, because all New Zealanders, as we have heard in this debate, have an affinity for our oceans. We love it. We want to protect it. Obviously there is always going to be a debate about where, how much, and what level of protection, but it is something that unites us. All of us have our experiences of learning to swim in the sea and summers at the beach or fishing and putting out the craypots with your dad, as I vividly remember doing at Pouawa Beach on the East Coast.

It is important to remember this because New Zealand is an oceanic country with the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. We may be big on the world stage in some aspects and small in others, but when it comes to the oceans, we are a global superpower. It is great to see the work we have done in the past—from protecting Antarctica to advocating for the Ross Sea and protecting sharks, which we have seen recently in New Zealand. It is great to see New Zealand embrace this, but we need to embrace our oceanic destiny even further. This could be the basis of our prosperity going forward, from more marine protection through to sustainable fishing and export products, through to being a pioneer, even, when it comes to wave and tidal energy. We could be trialling and selling our expertise and services around the world.

We welcome this bill. We support it. We believe that protecting our waters is our future. We were quite happy to support it. If you read the bill, it is pretty small, but a big chunk of the bill is actually taken up with the Green Party minority report. Although we support having marine reserve protection round these three Subantarctic Islands, we would protect all of them. These are World Heritage listed areas. We think they should all be protected. We do not think that anyone around the world is going to be potentially buying crab from a World Heritage listed area that is not protected as a marine reserve.

We are making, I guess you would say, some small progress when it comes to the 10 percent target originally signed up to by the Labour Government in 2000, subsequently signed up by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. We have still got this target of 10 percent of our marine waters being protected in marine reserves. At the moment this legislation takes us from 0.31 to 0.41 percent. The 430,000 hectares contained in this reserve takes us to less than 0.5 percent.

The Green Party would go much, much further than this. We would do things like protect the Kermedec Islands, which overnight would take us to 15 percent. We would modernise our marine reserves legislation, because although we have been voting in support of this bill, it is deeply ironic that in 2014 New Zealand needs legislation to create marine reserves. I find it ridiculous, frankly, that New Zealand needs legislation to make marine reserves.

We were pioneers once upon a time, in 1971, with the Marine Reserves Act. However, subsequent delays by successive Governments mean we still have this antiquated legislation with out-of-date purposes and out-of-date processes, as we heard from the Hon Ruth Dyson. We have this antiquated process that has not served New Zealand well. It has not served our sustainable fisheries brand and it has not served us well in terms of marine protection. So although we support this bill, we oppose the principle that we need legislation. We should have modern, progressive legislation that brings communities together, gives stakeholders a genuine say, gives a genuine voice to iwi, and actually protects our waters, because what the science informs us is that we need 30 to 40 percent of our waters protected in marine reserves for the health and viability of those ecosystems.

This being the Committee stage, it is a chance to go clause by clause through the bill. I am going to take only one or two calls because a lot has been said in the previous stages. I want to acknowledge the select committee process and the Local Government and Environment Committee chair, Nicky Wagner. We obviously put a minority report in. Eugenie Sage and I, the Green members on the Local Government and Environment Committee, pushed for full protection. We were not a lone voice. This is what the majority of submitters were urging—to fully protect these World Heritage areas. That is what a future Green Government would look to be doing.

We welcome the 5-year review, which has been brought forward from 7 years. That is a positive move. I would have preferred that to be brought forward a little sooner, because I think that we can move to 100 percent protection a lot sooner. The single Supplementary Order Paper we have in front of this Committee, Supplementary Order Paper 410—the amendment to be considered by this stage of the debate—relates to moving the establishment of this marine reserve forward. Although we welcome and will be voting for moving the protection of these three Subantarctic Islands forward in time, we have to acknowledge the rationale.

This is what I want to communicate to the people of New Zealand: the Government is doing this to try to look good on the environment. It is trying to look good on the environment because in reality it is hopeless. No amount of spin, no amount of gloss, is going to cover over or paper over those glaring gaps in the environmental performance of New Zealand under 5 years of a National Government. It has managed to take us to less than 0.5 percent of our waters in marine reserves. It is quite happy to see oil wells in the middle of marine mammal sanctuaries. It is quite happy to see benthic mining in the benthic protected areas. It is quite happy to see sanctuaries for Māui’s dolphin that do not provide sanctuary and benthic protected areas that do not provide protection.

We see Ministers standing up and advocating for a company—Trans-Tasman Resources—to literally vacuum up 50 million tonnes of iron ore and sand off the Whanganui coast, a Māui’s dolphin habitat. It is a Government that is prepared to give that very same company $25 million over 5 years. It is the very same Government that stacked the Environmental Protection Agency process against and is not delivering for that small group of brave Kiwis trying to fight this gigantic seabed-mining experiment on the coast. It will not even help them out with environmental legal aid and is putting them through the ringer. We see it in the Chatham Rise, another area under threat from New Zealand. This Government is advocating putting the pompoms on and cheerleading for Chatham Rock Phosphate to mine—to literally vacuum up—the first 5 metres of the seabed. It is quite an interesting situation when it is the Green Party and the fishing industry opposing that particular proposal.

We have heard a lot about the Māui’s dolphin—the 55 that are left. What the Green Party would do is stop the killing of them in nets. It is as simple as that. What the Government’s own data shows is that 95 percent of the mortality is human-induced by unsustainable fishing methods. We would stop the lethal fishing nets. We would protect us from the seabed mining. We would act to reduce our waste flows going into the great garbage patch—our ocean, which is filling up with plastic waste. I am sure Mr Heatley heard about the turtles that are arriving in Northland, his neck of the woods, that are unfortunately ingesting so much plastic that they cannot dive, they cannot eat, and they are unfortunately washing up in New Zealand and perishing.

What we need to do is embrace a future in New Zealand that takes this seriously, that has integrated oceans policy, and that undertakes spatial planning so that we know where to protect and what resources are appropriate and right, obviously with due consultation with iwi and the public of New Zealand. What we need to do is protect what we love, because this is the basis of our $1.5 billion seafood export industry.

This is the basis of who we are as New Zealanders. We love our waters and we want to protect them, and that is what I am quite happy to sing to the rafters in election year. Obviously the Government is trying to make a focus of this during the election campaign and trying to literally use legislation, first of all, to create marine reserves, and, second, to bring forward amendments to try to rush it through to bring it sooner. We welcome the faster inclusion of this reserve. If the Government wants to have an election battle fought on marine protection, I think both sides of this House welcome that. We have got some great ideas and great policy. When you look at the track record, I think New Zealanders know that if you are going to protect the basis of your livelihood and if you are going to protect what you love, you are going to be voting Green in 2014. Kia ora.

I am very pleased to support the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is very exciting that we are going to have three new subantarctic marine reserves. As we have noted in the Chamber tonight, New Zealanders really do care about the environment, are closely connected to the sea, and really have embraced the idea of marine reserves. Under National, we were the first country in the world to create marine reserves, and the first reserve that we created was in Leigh in 1976. Now, nearly 30 years later and 34 marine reserves—mostly created under National—later, once again we are establishing three huge marine reserves in the Southern Ocean. When I say “huge”, I mean they cover 435,000 hectares. I have just been trying to figure out how much space that actually is. It is about three times the size of Stewart Island. Of course, they are established about 800 miles south of New Zealand—probably south-south-east of New Zealand.

That is an amazing part of the world. There is an incredible, unique biodiversity and there are significant heritage values in those areas. These reserves will surround three island groups in a very similar way to the existing marine reserve surrounding the Auckland Islands. The groups they will surround are the Moutere Mahue/Antipodes Island, the Moutere Hauriri/Bounty Islands, and the Moutere Ihupuku/Campbell Island. Already the land masses of these islands have World Heritage status because they are one of the most untouched areas of the world. They are known for their very prolific and special birdlife and for their unique vegetation, particularly their giant herbs, which are absolutely amazing plants. Now they are going to be surrounded by an ocean that has equal protection.

The Local Government and Environment Committee enjoyed working on this bill because we were really keen to see these reserves put in place and we learnt a lot about these fascinating areas. In fact, there was quite a lot of information about the plants that were there, about the fish, and about the bottom of the seabed. It was a particularly interesting thing to do. We felt that we really wanted to get on with getting these marine reserves in place. We all supported the majority of the bill, but there was some debate over the size of the marine reserve, particularly round Moutere Ihupuku/Campbell Island. We have allowed for an investigation into the deep-sea crab fishing in that area, but we wanted to make sure that that was done in a reasonable time frame, so we shortened the length of time for it to begin—within 3 years—and for it to be completed within 5 years.

I would also like to comment on some of the discussion about the amount of oceans that we have protected as marine reserves. There has often been debate about the idea of 10 percent of our territorial waters protected as marine reserves. In this case, when we add these subantarctic reserves, we will bring that up to 9.5 percent of those territorial waters, and, of course, we have more marine reserves in the pipeline. So I think we are doing a good job to try to cover all the particular diverse environments under the sea, and we are looking at certain areas around New Zealand, particularly in Otago, which is one area that has not been covered as yet.

Overall, the Government and the Local Government and Environment Committee are very happy with this bill and we support it passing as soon as possible through Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Firstly, in terms of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, can I wish the Minister of Conservation all the very best for his cruise down to these islands on a naval vessel in the next coming weeks. In that respect, it is interesting that the very first piece of legislation in this House, this Parliament, of 2014 is this particular bill. It is probably because the Minister tapped his Cabinet colleagues on the shoulder and said: “I am going down there in a couple of weeks. It would be very nice, for the photo opportunity for the National Government, for me to be able to go down to the Subantarctic Islands and be photographed announcing that this has become an Act through Parliament.” Anyway, the Hon Nick Smith will be down there in a few weeks to look at this and we wish him well.

Our Local Government and Environment Committee did wish to visit the same islands to look at this, and the chairman, Nicky Wagner, said that that would be a lovely opportunity for us all to do that, but 12 MPs going to the Subantarctic Islands was not possible. Therefore, we are sending our delegate, the Hon Nick Smith, on our behalf, who sat on our committee when he was in purgatory last year for 6 or 7 months and was being retrained by our committee. While he was being retrained by our committee, he learnt that he would, when he returned to being Minister of Conservation, go on our behalf down to these islands and see what we have come up with.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: He will represent you well.

He will represent us well, we hope. I would note in previous Governments, under a more enlightened Labour Government supported by New Zealand First in previous years, that such delegations with Ministers often included Opposition MPs who have travelled south with our Royal New Zealand Navy to such places. But under this less enlightened National Government, it does not seem to include the Opposition to go to the same places. I think it is something that should be marked in this Parliament—that when we are going to outreaches of the greater New Zealand land mass, which includes these special islands, perhaps some consideration from the Government would be given to the Opposition to ensure that this is seen. Because this has been universally supported by all parties, perhaps the Government could also include other parties who have supported it as well. It would be something that perhaps a National Government could take on board—to be a little bit more inclusive in the future.

But in relation to this bill, it was interesting sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee. These three groups of islands include the Antipodes Island, the Bounty Islands, and the Campbell Island, with Antipodes Island being the most extreme at 860 kilometres south-east of Stewart Island. It is a most interesting part of the extension of New Zealand’s control. The Antipodes Island was discovered in 1800 by Captain Henry Waterhouse on the British ship HMS Reliance, and it has remained there under the New Zealand coverage ever since. It is now a World Heritage site, which adds to its uniqueness. It is in our most southern ocean. It is most interesting that between the South Island and this area, there will be future exploration for offshore oil, offshore gasses, and all that sort of thing. So it is a most interesting area to now include a marine reserve, while at the same time going into those great southern oceans to explore what minerals and what reserves are out there.

In so saying, New Zealand First is very pleased that there is a 3 to 5 -year review process in terms of what is happening in parts of this reserve. We believed that that was appropriate so that after 3 years or so, the officials and all those involved in this would see how it is working and how it is being administered. That is very good.

In terms of some of the comments that Gareth Hughes made in terms of the Green Party, New Zealand First does have concerns in some of the areas in relation to responsible administration of our environment and the conservation estate. He mentioned, for instance, that the seabed mining on the Chatham Rise was of huge concern to the Green Party and should not be taking place.

I think we all have to be aware as MPs, as parliamentarians, and as New Zealanders that we are sitting on the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. Out there, there is potentially huge resource. We sat also on that Chatham Rise situation, in terms of the exclusive economic zone—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Andrew Williams. You must go for the call. You do not continue speaking. You must go for the call.

Sorry, Mr Chair. I was too busy thinking of the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you have the call now.

Thank you. I was thinking of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, where we had some minutes afterwards.

In terms of that Chatham Rise, they are proposing to take something like 1 percent, in terms of the seabed mining, for rock phosphate, which will provide potentially 100 percent of New Zealand’s phosphate for our agricultural requirements to be brought onshore to the South Island and then distributed through New Zealand. At the moment, all that superphosphate for agriculture comes from Morocco, Algeria, and other sources of questionable future ability—depending on their political situation. It is interesting that we have to, as a nation, properly identify the environmental risks, the sustainability, and what is involved long term in terms of whether we should therefore actually say that 1 percent of the Chatham Rise is worth the risk, to take that phosphate to provide 100 percent of our agricultural phosphate and superphosphate for our agriculture, or say that that 1 percent is not worth the risk.

Certainly in New Zealand First we are known as being the party very much in the centre. We believe that all those economic, sustainability, and environmental issues have to be properly balanced, worked through, and properly identified and properly scrutinised, so that at the end of the day we do not leave New Zealand wanting for the sake of perhaps a very extreme Green Party element, which would cut off opportunities for this economic development of New Zealand for the benefit of the whole nation. In that respect New Zealand First is looking at all these things, such as marine reserves. We are very supportive—right back to 1976, with the Goat Island reserve, through to the latest one in Akaroa Harbour, the reserve that has been gazetted in the last few months, and the 34 other reserves. We in New Zealand First want to see a very, very clear balance between good economic development in this country but, at the same time, good environmental sustainable performance.

This bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, is another example. We see huge merit in this. We see merit in other areas of New Zealand getting marine reserve status, but at the same time ensuring economic opportunities as well, through our fishing industry, through our aquaculture, and through our other industries around the coastline of New Zealand, making sure that they are also looked at in consideration. We have to look at a clear balance. We have to look at a balance that is good for all New Zealanders, but at the same time always, always, try to give the environment the benefit of the doubt. If we always give the environment the first benefit of the doubt, then I think as New Zealanders we can say we have done our very best. In this case, I think as parliamentarians we can be very proud of what we have achieved through this bill. New Zealand First commends it to the House.

I will take a short call in this Committee stage of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. At the outset I want to affirm my support for the bill, which will establish marine reserves around some, but not all, of the waters round Antipodes Island, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island. That is good. Marine reserves are great for our oceans. In more accessible areas, they attract people wanting to see the abundance of marine life.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: What would the weather be like then?

Just after Christmas, Mr McClay, I went out to White Island, and it was magnificent. But what was extremely sad was that 30 years ago when I went out to White Island, there was such an abundance of yellowfin tuna. Today they are extremely rare. People are dreadfully aware of what they are dreadfully aware of. The diminishing fish stock that we have in our oceans is something that all New Zealanders should be concerned about.

There is a severe risk to these new marine reserves that we are establishing tonight, and, indeed, to all marine reserves. The risk is the hands-off approach that this John Key - led Government adopts towards maritime transport, to the ships that traverse our territorial waters. There have been a number of shipwrecks over the years on the islands that we are discussing, and of course near my home in Tauranga Moana we had the disastrous event when the Rena met the Astrolabe Reef. Perhaps even more disastrous is the fact that this Government is doing nothing to stop the Mediterranean Shipping Co. from leaving that rotting wreck on the pristine Astrolabe Reef. As John Clarke so notably said, the front came off the ship, and the front is not supposed to come off the ship.

Members opposite might think that I am being alarmist with talk of another Rena type of disaster possibly occurring in these marine reserves that we are creating tonight. But I say this to those members: let us take a brief look at the track record of the Mediterranean Shipping Co., the operator of the Rena. Just 4 weeks ago the Mediterranean Shipping Co. vessel Monterey was off the coast of Newfoundland in the North Atlantic—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is about those islands you identified at the beginning and about marine reserves. It is not about a shipping company with a flag overseas. Focus on the 11 clauses and the schedules of this bill.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled. You have the call.

OK, thank you. My great concern with these islands—Antipodes Island, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island—is that they are vulnerable to pollution if one of these maritime shipping company vessels goes within even 200 kilometres of those islands. Where are the safeguards? The fact is that this Government has proven it cannot remove oil from a ship wrecked on a rock just 20 kilometres off the coast of New Zealand. What is this Government going to do if a ship strands on these islands? That is the question that I ask of those members. How do we enforce fishing regulations around those islands? How do we stop foreign vessels going there when our armed forces have been decimated by this Government?

Mr Chair, I do not want to get offside with you, but I am extremely concerned about the risks that these ships pose to these islands, so I will end here. I support this bill. Thank you.

Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange once famously described New Zealand as being a strategic dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica. He was making a very obvious point to, I think, the geriatric generals at the time, which was that if anybody was planning to invade New Zealand on the way to somewhere else, the only place that they were on the way to was the subantarctic waters and Antarctica.

But we have had a very special relationship with those areas. They are part of our exclusive economic zone. We have particular responsibilities for the Subantarctic Islands. We have responsibility for the fisheries that are there, and we have special responsibilities for Antarctica. That was reflected in the fact that New Zealand was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty back in the 1950s. New Zealand would very much like to be seen as a world leader in protecting the environment in these areas. We had the chance to do this when, in 1998, the areas that we are talking about, the Subantarctic Islands and their territorial seas, were declared to have World Heritage status.

World Heritage status created special responsibilities for New Zealand. We were the guardians for the world community, to ensure that these areas were properly protected. I was proudly part of the fifth Labour Government, which started to make some very important inroads into the protection of those areas. For example, in 2003 we moved to fully protect as a marine reserve the area round the Auckland Islands, which are part of this widespread island group. In 2007 we moved to prohibit both bottom trawling and dredging. There is an important reason why we did that. We looked at the northern hemisphere and we saw how the northern hemisphere countries had turned their oceans into deserts, wiping out the fish life. Having wiped out the fish life in the northern hemisphere, the next target would be the southern hemisphere, including the areas for which we had responsibility. So those important steps were taken to protect the Auckland Islands as a marine reserve area and to stop bottom trawling and dredging.

Then in 2006 the Government brought together the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries, and said that it needed a marine protected areas policy—a marine protected areas policy—which was the foundation for the legislation that we are looking at tonight, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. To develop that policy, in 2008 we set up the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum. That was to bring in expert and public opinion to go through a thorough consultation process, to determine how we could protect the islands and the seas round them. The islands themselves were not so much of a problem because they are protected under the 1977 Reserves Act. So we could protect the pristine, beautiful, and bleak nature of those islands, but we needed further legislation to deal with the marine areas around them.

The islands that we are talking about are very special places. Antipodes Island, which in Māori—if I have got my pronunciation right, and Moana Mackey will correct me if I have not—is Moutere Mahue. What does that mean? It means an abandoned island. Well, when you look at the Antipodes you cannot imagine that it was ever inhabited, but the term “abandoned island” gives you a sense of the bleakness but also of the beauty of that place. The Bounty Islands in Māori are Moutere Hauriri—angry wind—and that tells you something about that area of the world and the nature of it, which is inhospitable, but, nevertheless, because it was so inhospitable, it was an area that remained ecologically pristine. Very few human beings intruded on that area and therefore the ecosystems were intact. Our obligation in this generation is to continue to protect that ecosystem.

Campbell Island has another meaning in Māori—Moutere Ihupuku—which is “nose and belly”. I have tried everywhere to find out why it is called “nose and belly”. I think I talked to Shane Jones about it at one time, and Shane Jones said something about it reflecting that Government policy was belly up on this area.

All of these islands are very special, and the areas around them are equally special. When I look at the regulatory impact statement on this bill, it makes these comments, and I think they are worth reflecting upon: “each of the island groups”, it says, “is highly distinct biologically, geologically and geographically. [The] Antipodes Island rocky reefs support subantarctic shallow subtidal marine communities dominated by encrusting coralline algae, the rocky reefs at the Bounty Islands are dominated by filter and suspension-feeding invertebrates, such as encrusting sponges, barnacles and mussels.” It says this: “Each island group also supports its own suite of threatened and/or endemic species, living or breeding only on and around these remote islands. The subantarctic islands and their territorial seas have been subject to minimal human impact and are therefore near-pristine …”. The reason that we need this legislation is to ensure that it stays that way.

We have progressed this legislation at each point. I spoke at the first reading in support of it. Our members on the Local Government and Environment Committee did a great job in examining and supporting it. My only regret is that it is 4 years since the forum was set up to make progress. I think it is a reflection of the low priority that has been given to environmental protection by this Government that it is has taken 4 years for this legislation to get here today. It is our intention today not to delay the legislation in any way, but to ensure it proceeds through its Committee stage and gets its third reading so that it can be brought into effect as soon as possible.

If we want to be leaders in the protection of the subantarctic and Antarctic environments, we need to act here. I regret that we have not been effective in other areas. We seem to have totally stuffed up, if I can use that term, the Ross Sea marine protected area, which is before the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources group, which is trying to protect the fisheries in the Ross Sea. One of the reasons that we stuffed it up is that we failed to coordinate with the Americans in the first instance, and it looked more like we wanted to protect our $20 million fishing industry in the area than protect the inherent value of the environment. That lost us credibility in the world because they said: “You’re just like all the other countries. You’re only interested in this for what you can extract out of it.” We have a responsibility as the guardians of this area.

I have to agree with my colleague Ruth Dyson on her comments about the Māui’s and the Hector dolphin. Those are the most endangered species in the world, but in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s World Conservation Congress meeting in Korea in 2012, we were one of only two countries that opposed the protection of these dolphins—in our own area. There are 55 Māui’s dolphins left, and the National Party opposed it. So one of the reasons why we need this legislation to go through with all speed now is to try to resurrect some of our credibility as a country that is worthy of leadership in the subantarctic and Antarctic areas, and that is why we are supporting this legislation.

This is legislation that was initially promoted not by a National Government but by a Labour Government, but was fortunately followed through with all due slowness by this National Government. It is time we had this protection on the books and in legislation. It is time for this legislation to pass.

Yes, it is certainly time for this legislation to pass, and the fact that it has taken nearly 6 years before we get marine reserves in the Subantarctic Islands shows—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This barracking across the benches is unacceptable. I am going to ask the member to start again.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is certainly time for this legislation to pass, and the fact that it has taken 6 years for these marine reserves to be established in a World Heritage area I think highlights some of the flaws with our marine reserves legislation. We had the multi-stakeholder forum, as the Hon Phil Goff noted, being established in 2008. That forum went out to public consultation in 2009, it made recommendations to the Minister in 2010, this bill was introduced in 2012, and it will come into force in March of this year. That is 6 years. The fact that we have got special legislation being needed to establish them, rather than their being done under the Marine Reserves Act itself, again shows the urgent need for an overhaul of that Act. This Government has made promises that there will be new marine reserves legislation. We have not seen it yet. One of the flaws of the need for special legislation is that we will not see these marine reserves in the subantarctic protected from mining, because the legislation is not specifically referred to in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, which I will talk about in a minute.

The Green Party is supportive of this bill and it is because the Subantarctic Islands are, as other speakers have noted, really distinctive. They have got a whole raft of marine life and seabirds that are found only there, and really important breeding and feeding areas for the New Zealand fur seal, for the New Zealand sea lion, and for a range of albatross and petrel species. Because they were recognised in 1998 as being internationally important, with World Heritage status, our obligation to protect the Subantarctic Islands is not just to other New Zealanders and to the species themselves but to all of humankind. So we are very pleased to see the legislation proceeding.

As others have noted, we already have a marine reserve round the Auckland Islands. That was established in 2003. This bill will establish marine reserves round Moutere Mahue, the Antipodes Island; Moutere Hauriri, the Bounty Islands; and Moutere Ihupuku, Campbell Island, but in the Green Party’s view it falls well short of providing the protection that the outstanding and internationally important biodiversity values of the Subantarctic Islands actually deserve. The Government has been too cautious, and that is because although it protects the full extent of the territorial sea round the Antipodes Island, it protects only 58 percent of the territorial sea round the Bounty Islands and 39 percent of the territorial sea round Campbell Island The Minister has said that he wants the Government to establish a record number of marine reserves this year, but if they are all like these ones, they will fail to protect all of the habitats and all of the biological diversity that deserves to be safeguarded for its own sake and for present and future generations, and to ensure that our fisheries are sustainable.

As Phil Goff noted, we had the chance to be a world leader. Here, in relation to the Subantarctic Islands, I do not think we have been because of the truncated nature of the reserves. One of the reasons that the Green Party believes that we should have all of the territorial sea round both the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island protected in a marine reserve is that all of these islands are separated by large expanses of ocean. That means that their geology, their geography, and their biology are quite different. They are quite distinctive in each of the island groups and they have a number of endemic species, which again deserve protection. On the Bounty Islands you have got the Salvin’s mollymawk. There are at least five species of albatross that rely on Campbell Island, and there is a huge link between their habitats on the islands and their feeding areas at sea, so it would make sense to recognise this interdependence of land and sea by protecting all of the territorial sea.

Doing that round the Bounty and Campbell Islands would have also included the core breeding and feeding area for the second major population of the threatened New Zealand sea lion, as well as the feeding areas of several albatross and petrel species. By including all of the territorial sea, we would have recognised the endemism—the fact that some of these species like the Bounty Island shag are found nowhere else in the world—and it would have had minimal impact on other users such as fishers because of the very limited commercial fisheries in the area. There is no customary fishing. Ngāi Tahu supported full protection of the full extent of the territorial sea. So what we have got is one reserve round the Antipodes Island, which encompasses the full extent of the territorial sea, but we have reserves with big bites out of them where fishing can continue round the Bounty Islands and round Campbell Island.

Again, this fails to take account of the views of submitters. The Tourism Industry Association said in its submission there was “a unique opportunity to fully protect the marine environment and in doing so to show environmental leadership” and demonstrate “a commitment to the environment and long-term sustainability.” In the view of the Tourism Industry Association, where you have got about 800 to 11,000 visitors a year, making a full marine reserve to encompass all of the territorial sea would have enhanced its attractiveness as a destination. It would have given scientists the opportunity to study undisturbed ecosystems, and it would have reflected the option that the environmental groups put forward to Ministers from the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum. So it was really disappointing that the Minister and Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee refused to take that extra step and that they were so cautious and only wanted to go with the original boundaries that were supported by the fishing industry.

One of the reasons that the Government is even prepared to create reserves here in the first place is the very small amount of commercial fishing—there is a limited amount of ling fishing around the Bounty Islands—and the fact that the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association said that its members had very little interest in the area. They are not interested in deep-sea oil exploration in this area and there are no proposals for mining activity. If there had been the slightest interest from the mining industry or from the oil-drilling industry, Ministers would have run a mile from establishing marine reserves, given the record of this Government to open up our deep sea to oil exploration and to seabed mining over large areas of the seabed.

One of the problems with this bill, which I alluded to earlier, is that schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, as amended last year, protects marine reserves and restricts the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources from granting access for mining. Schedule 4 refers only to the Marine Reserves Act. It does not refer to specific legislation like this Act. So I would ask the Minister in the chair whether he could comment on that—certainly the select committee should have probably picked this up, but we did not—and whether there could be a Supplementary Order Paper that makes sure that the outstanding biodiversity and ecological values of the Subantarctic Islands marine reserves that the bill will create will be protected from mining through being recognised in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, because they are not at the moment.

I would just like to go on and talk about clause 6 of the bill, which sets out the boundaries for the Bounty Islands reserve. There, longline fishing is going to be able to continue because of the small nature of the reserve round the western and south-eastern part of the territorial sea. Yet why is the Government allowing this when in recent years the average ling catch has been 129 tonnes within the territorial sea, worth about $500,000? So the impact on fishers of having a proper marine reserve here would have been minimal. That amount of fishing is equivalent to about 20 longlines a year—potentially only one ling fisher, Forest and Bird has calculated. So it is hardly essential to the fishing industry and the Government could have easily established a reserve over all of the territorial sea. If the Government had chosen to do this, it would have protected seabirds from becoming bycatch in that fishery.

We will be supporting this bill, but it does not go far enough because of the big areas that are missing round the Bounty Islands and the Campbell Island group. We do congratulate the Minister on actually progressing the legislation to coincide with his trip south, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, on the process that she has organised for this, and also officials, particularly from the Department of Conservation and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, on their contribution. We look forward to the legislation passing. Thank you.

I want to start off by following on from my Green colleague Eugenie Sage and her question around the status of this piece of legislation, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, in terms of the schedule 4 protection that would normally be accorded to marine reserves under the Crown Minerals Act. It certainly was not something that we picked up at the Local Government and Environment Committee, either. I think it is something that probably should have been raised at the committee, given the numerous pieces of legislation that we have had through Parliament around this very sensitive and contentious issue. I suspect that the fact that it was not raised with the committee answers the question. I suspect that if some kind of level of protection at the level of schedule 4 was being accorded to these marine reserves, as it would have been under the Crown Minerals Act, we would have been told that and it would have been trumpeted in every speech from Government members. But I would ask that the Associate Minister of Conservation in the chair clarify that point. If, in fact, we are saying that this is a lesser form of marine protection, then that is deeply concerning.

That is not to take away from what is on the whole a good piece of legislation, and a piece of legislation that Labour will be supporting. But if mining activities are allowed to be carried out in the waters surrounding the three islands where these marine reserves are being created, then that is of deep concern because that is not in the spirit of the marine reserves legislation. That is not in the spirit of the policy that has certainly been followed by Labour Governments and, purportedly, from speeches in the House that we have heard on this bill, by National Governments. So I would really appreciate the Minister in the chair, even if it is only a 20-second contribution, letting us know whether or not that is the case—whether or not, in fact, this is a lesser form of marine protection.

Our understanding, given the advice we were given at the select committee—and I want to acknowledge the work of officials on this—was that, in fact, the Marine Reserves Act is very outdated and clunky. It is a very long process. It takes a lot of time, and certainly we do not disagree with that at all, and so this is a way of making sure that we get this protection in place as quickly as possible through a separate legislative process. We took that on board and thought, well, it does raise the bigger question of what we are going to do about the marine reserves legislation in New Zealand. If our marine reserves legislation is actually preventing the creation of marine reserves in and of itself, then that is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed and a debate for a different piece of legislation. But certainly we supported a stand-alone bill if it meant actually getting some protection afforded to these very ecologically unique and significant World Heritage sites. So I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on that particular issue.

I want to come back to this issue of shared decision-making, power, and responsibility between the Minister of Conservation and what was formerly the Minister of Fisheries but is now the Minister for Primary Industries. This is particularly relevant in this piece of legislation because in clause 8 we have a process within the bill to review whether or not the marine reserve that is currently partially surrounding Campbell Island should be extended further. The select committee decided that that review should occur after 3 years, not 5 years. Submitters who came to the select committee were asking for a review after 1 year of marine protection. As a select committee, we thought 3 years was a compromise. But the process that is outlined in this piece of legislation is not a process that I am aware occurs in any other piece of legislation in terms of these decision-making powers and, in particular, with relevance to marine reserves. What we go through in this process that has been outlined in clause 8 is what the review must take into account.

Of course, this is an issue because there is a deep-water crab fishery around Campbell Island, and, obviously, the Government had concerns about the impact on that particular fishing industry, so it did not include the part of the marine area round Campbell Island where that activity was taking place. So it has to consider the value of that additional area that is not going to be in protection, the impact of that deep-water crab fishery in that additional area on the marine environment and ecosystems, and the biodiversity values in the additional area that is proposed to be added if that review deems it should be.

The review must include consultation with relevant stakeholders. Then the Minister of Conservation must, after receiving that review report, provide the report to the Minister for Primary Industries. Clause 8 then goes on to say that the Ministers must consult each other about the report, which is fine, and then no later than 90 working days after receiving the report, the Minister for Primary Industries must provide to the Minister of Conservation his or her response to the report. Well, that all seems, you know, very fine and OK. But it does go on to say that the Minister of Conservation may recommend the making of the Order in Council only with the agreement of the Minister for Primary Industries. So, again, we have this decision-making power where a power—and there certainly should be, in terms of marine reserves, consultation between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries, absolutely. But, again, we have this kind of veto power that we are seeing, time and time again, once again undermining the role of the Minister of Conservation.

We have seen that in terms of mining on the conservation estate, where the decisions as to whether or not to grant a Department of Conservation concession for mining activity on the conservation estate used to be held solely with the Minister of Conservation; that is now a responsibility shared with the Minister of Energy and Resources. I remember that the former Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson, when that was announced, was sitting alongside the then Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, trying to convince us that this was an equal relationship and an equal decision-making capacity. Minister Wilkinson was not allowed to say anything, and Minister Brownlee controlled the entire press conference.

Here we are seeing it again. Here we are seeing it again, where again we have the Minister for Primary Industries having this veto power. I do not know what kind of precedent there is for this kind of process that we are putting in this legislation. I do not know who trumps if they cannot agree—if the Minister of Conservation says: “Well, actually, I disagree with the Minister for Primary Industries that this should not go ahead.”, and the Minister for Primary Industries says: “Well, actually, I think it should go ahead, so I disagree with the Minister of Conservation that this should be protected.”

The wording of this bill really worries me because it makes it sound like it is the Minister for Primary Industries who has the final call. It actually says that the extension cannot go ahead without the agreement of the Minister for Primary Industries. So let us be quite clear that that is who is making the decision about the extension of the marine protected area around Campbell Island. It is not the Minister of Conservation; it is the Minister for Primary Industries. That is not how it should be. That is a further undermining of the role of the Minister of Conservation under this particular Government.

I think the other issue that we have is that when you put these processes in place—and we are seeing it right throughout environmental legislation—you need a process that really does do away with the kind of natural hierarchy that exists, or the bias that exists, within Governments for one group over another. You want a process that gives everyone fair input and that reflects the relative power of the various groups, and I do not believe that this process meets that test. Certainly, with the undermining of the Resource Management Act, with the exclusive economic zone legislation, and with the changes to the Crown Minerals Act—we could go on and on and on—what we are seeing is an injecting of the Government’s natural bias for its preferred supporters and preferred submitters into actual legislation. That is also extremely unhelpful and actually undermines public confidence in these processes, which should be there to ensure that that bias is accounted for and does not become part of the decision-making process.

To finish on a positive note, I think the select committee enjoyed working on this bill. It was nice to have a piece of legislation at the Local Government and Environment Committee that was not environmentally destructive for once, so we enjoyed working on it. I think there is scope for parties across the House to work far more collaboratively and closely—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Work together.

—working together, thank you, Minister—on marine protected areas, because I think there is some common ground. I take on board the points that Eugenie Sage raised about how these areas are not valuable for fishing or mining and that is why we have gone ahead. At least we have gone ahead. You know, if we can get common ground at least on those things, then let us do it and let us really ramp this stuff up, and then in areas where there is more contention, we can have votes across the House where we disagree or where the National Government does not want to stop mining or fishing in a certain area. But I think there is a lot of common ground and there are a lot of areas where we could really make great progress in this area. I notice the Minister is consulting his officials, and hopefully we have some clarification. That is all we need, so I am happy to sit down now and I am happy to support this bill.

I am happy to accept the invitation of the member and take a micro-call in response to the concerns that she and the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, raised about the status of marine reserves that might be established under this legislation. Can I just refer both of them to clause 9 of the bill, which says that a marine reserve declared by the relevant sections of this bill “is to be treated as if it were declared by an Order in Council made under section 4(1) of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 in accordance with that Act.” In other words, the status of these reserves will be the same as the status of other reserves established under the Marine Reserves Act.

Can I just simply acknowledge the support of all members of the House for the bill. It is, as various members who have spoken have said, a very positive step forward. We did act collaboratively and positively, and I am very keen now to see the bill progress to its next stage.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.