Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill at its third reading. We have supported this bill all the way through. I guess part of the reason it gives me great pleasure to do so is that this bill—and better protection of our marine areas—is a real reflection of some of the strongest values that New Zealanders have. These values are pride in our environment, a passion for the great outdoors, and recognising the responsibility that the current generation has to ensure that protections are enhanced so that future generations can benefit from the beautiful surrounds that we have. This bill really is a bit of a step towards a recognition of that passion, and I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, for his work in this. I believe that he is a person who has a personal commitment and passion for the conservation portfolio and also for the great outdoors more generally. I am sure that it has given him great pleasure to be able to progress this bill to this stage.

What this bill does is better protect three of the Subantarctic Islands marine areas around the Antipodes Islands, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island. I have had the pleasure of visiting Campbell Island and I can say that it—and the whole of the Subantarctic Islands area—is a part of the world that more members of Parliament should visit. Some perhaps need not hasten on their return from such a visit, but it is certainly very worthwhile to see such an amazing area. We should consider ourselves very fortunate that we live in New Zealand and are able to access such beauty.

The bill also provides for an independent review of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve in 5 years, because there is part of the surrounding area of Campbell Island that is not included in the marine reserve area. The review would look at whether or not the reserve should be extended to include that part in the marine reserve.

The third part of the bill is making the commanding officers of the New Zealand Defence Force rangers so that they are able to enforce the protections that this legislation gives to those three islands. I think that it is a very good piece of legislation and I am very pleased to be part of the Labour team, which totally supports this. As I said, one of the reasons it is so important is that it is a reflection of the values that so many New Zealanders have: our passion for the great outdoors, our love for the natural environment, and our understanding of the responsibility that we have for future generations. The record of the National Government has not been great in all those areas, though. There have been what I would regard as broken promises, and I think that is deeply disappointing in an area that is so important to the average New Zealander.

One of the two areas that I just want to touch on in comparison with what I think is a great bill that gives us this enhanced marine protection is the total lack of a sense of urgency, of a sense of responsibility, and of any strong action to protect the Māui’s dolphins. In the world there are 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left. That is fewer than the members of this Parliament. But yet when the opportunity arose for the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries to say that we have the responsibility to ensure the future survival of this species, the Ministers said: “No, that is a little bit hard for us. It is a big call. We are not going to do it. We are going to back away and take the easy option.” They tinkered with the protections and it was a total lose-lose. The biggest loss, of course, is the future of the Māui’s dolphins. It will be an unforgivable act if those Ministers end up being responsible for the demise of the species. It will be an unforgivable act when they have had such an opportunity to adopt the precautionary principle, which would be to take all possible action to protect those dolphins. They are critically endangered. I do not know what part of “critically endangered” Ministers Nick Smith and Nathan Guy do not understand, but they clearly do not.

It is also an opportunity for a win-win in regard to the fishing industry. Internationally now scientists and lovers of the marine environment are calling for a boycott on New Zealand fish because it is the bycatch of our fishing industry that is endangering the Māui’s dolphins. So our fishing industry is also under threat, as well as the Māui’s dolphins. How can that be of benefit to anyone? The Ministers had a chance to say that they want to move our fishing industry forward in a sustainable manner by putting some money in to back that transition. It does not need to be much. The people in the fishing industry are up to it. They are bright people. They can see the benefits for them and for the country. They know the benefits for Māui’s dolphins. They do not want the bycatch. They do not want to be tarred with the brush of the extinction of a species. So we could have had, with a bit of vision from the Ministers, the sort of reflection, again, of the values of New Zealanders that would make us all proud. Instead, we got a wishy-washy, half-hearted approach. Nobody was happy. We now have a critically endangered species when the potential for saving it was much higher.

The other area in which I want to express extreme disappointment is the involvement of the Minister of Conservation in the process and the submissions from the Department of Conservation in the proposal on the Tukituki River—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this bill.

The Minister of Conservation, unlike his actions in regard to this legislation establishing three marine reserves, did exactly the opposite in the case of the Ruataniwha Dam, where he meddled to the point of the department being silenced.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on the third reading, and the third reading relates to the contents of the bill as reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. If you look at Speakers’ rulings 122/4-7 and 123/1, it is very clear that third readings relate to the report back from the committee.

I am absolutely confident that the Minister of Conservation exercised the correct approach in regard to the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve, and did not exercise the correct approach in regard to either the Ruataniwha Dam or the Māui’s dolphins. It actually shows a bit of arrogance from the Minister that such important issues with such strong community and, in fact, international concern could be so disregarded. That is not the sort of leadership that I want to see from our Minister of Conservation.

Just going back, in my final comments, to the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, this has been legislation that Labour has supported since it was introduced. We supported it at the select committee and I am certainly very pleased to support it in the third reading. It is the sort of opportunity that this Parliament does not have very often. Well, I cannot speak for the Hon John Banks. Heaven only knows what he might do in regard to his party vote on this bill. But I am pretty sure that all other parties are going to say: “This is a responsibility that we have. This is an opportunity that we have as legislators, and we are very pleased that the Minister of Conservation has taken this opportunity and enhanced our marine reserves.”

I have seen a poll that the Government is undertaking at the moment to see whether New Zealanders support the establishment of a further marine reserve in the Kermadec Islands. I guess the Government is waiting for the poll results to come back to see which way the wind blows. It is not an approach that I would consider principled or visionary; it is a poll driven by fruitcakes, actually. That is what a former Prime Minister said. It is definitely not evidence-based or driven by any ambition for New Zealand. I hope that a Kermadec Islands reserves bill is introduced. I actually hope that it is introduced by Gareth Hughes, because he has got a member’s bill in his name. He is well ahead of the Government in that regard. I know that if the polling comes out right, Steven Joyce will say: “That looks like a winner for us. Let’s get on to it. It won’t cause any controversy.” That is not the sort of approach that I like to see running our country. But leaving that concern aside, if that bill came to Parliament, I would certainly support it in the same way that I support the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill.

I too want to support this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill at its third reading. The Subantarctic Islands are a unique and spectacular natural environment. The land in that area is already protected under the national nature reserves status, but this legislation will protect the ocean around that land. The whole area is so spectacular that it has World Heritage status. This legislation will make sure that these three island groups—the Antipodes Islands, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island—are able to join with the Auckland Islands in having marine reserve protection. The Auckland Islands were protected in 2003.

These new reserves cover an enormous area of about 435,000 hectares. It is a great step forward in protecting our oceans. It is absolutely in line with National’s long-established interest in marine protection. It was the National Government back in 1971 that passed the first Marine Reserves Act. That led to establishing the first marine reserve at Leigh, just north of Auckland, in 1975. In those days that was absolutely groundbreaking legislation and new to the world. That reserve in Leigh has gone on to entertain, to educate, and to inspire New Zealanders and people who visit our country, from that day to this.

Currently, New Zealand has 48 marine protected areas. That covers about 8.2 percent of our territorial seas. These new reserves are so big that when they are gazetted that will increase to 9.5 percent of our territorial seas. Under our present legislation we can create marine reserves only in our territorial seas. There are more reserves to come. Since National has been in Government we have announced nine new marine reserves, and there are further areas that are beginning stakeholder talks.

Creating marine reserves can be quite difficult for communities. New Zealanders are absolutely passionate about the sea. They love to recreate there, to swim, and to fish. But sometimes there is a bit of a difference of opinion as to where marine protected reserves could be. Of course we all want to protect the ocean, but maybe the community does not want it happening quite in their own backyard. We have come up with a new collaborative stakeholder process that seems to make decisions about marine reserves much more palatable and easily done. That was based on the first collaborative approach taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. It is similar to the collaborative approach that we are seeing nationally in terms of things like the Land and Water Forum, and we are also seeing it locally in terms of things like Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura in Kaikōura, which is another marine protection mechanism.

Basically, the strengths of these models is that they allow everybody to have a say and allow them to work together to create a compromise that works for all stakeholders. Indeed, this bill was written as a result of a collaborative stakeholder forum with input from iwi, industry representatives, scientific and conservation groups, and the general public. This bill was based directly on their decisions. There is even a compromise written into the bill, as there had been identified the possibility of a commercial deep-water crab-fishing industry around Campbell Island. This bill gives a window of time to explore that option. If the evidence shows that a viable, sustainable fishery with minimal impact on the marine environment and ecosystems is possible, then the boundaries will remain as stated in this bill. But if not, the reserve will be expanded to take in the whole of the territorial sea around Campbell Island. The Local Government and Environment Committee has ensured that this will happen in a timely fashion and that the review must be completed within 5 years of the bill being passed.

Finally, I would like to say that the whole of the Local Government and Environment Committee supported this bill. We enjoyed working on it. It was extremely interesting. We believe that we have passed good legislation. We believe that it was based on a fair and effective process and that it will have a valuable outcome for our oceans. My only regret is that we as a committee did not manage to have a site visit.

It gives me great pleasure to also support this bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, and to commend to the House the work of both the Minister of Conservation and the Local Government and Environment Committee in getting this bill through. It was actually started back in Labour’s time, and it has been good to see that this has been continued and processed through so that we do actually have a piece of legislation, as many of the speakers have said up to now, that we can be rightfully proud of.

New Zealanders do care about their environment. They do very much feel a distinct link to our environment. It is something that you feel a certain longing for when you are on the other side of the world and you see a New Zealand environment or a New Zealand landscape. I recall just a few years ago an advertising agency that was looking into what stimulates New Zealanders, what sells goods, found that the environment was one of the most important things that it could use to help sell products. When it asked New Zealanders what they thought about the environment or how to describe it, they talked about recreation in and around it, caring for it, being part of it, and looking after it—those were the main values. It did the same thing in Australia and the response was totally different. The response in Australia was that it was a harsh environment, you needed to tame it, you needed to control it, you dug it up, and, basically, you dominated it. New Zealanders had a very different approach and an approach that I think comes through in this piece of legislation, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill.

We have wanted—and I think there is a real appetite in New Zealand—to protect our broad areas, our natural areas, and this goes to the hearts of many New Zealanders. It will mean now that in addition to the Auckland Islands, the Antipodes Islands group, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island will be protected. We have already had protection on the terrestrial part of the islands, but this now extends to the marine areas around those islands and expands, as was just said, the area up to about 450,000 hectares. A novel part of this is that the rangers who are going to be looking after this are actually going to be from the Defence Force. Because they frequent these areas more frequently than others, they will be able to do that.

The process by which this has gone through has been a very collaborative one, and that is very good. There has been wide-ranging exploration of various people’s feelings about it. There were no real issues around mining. There was little interest in petroleum that might be there. And Ngāi Tahu, the iwi of the South Island, was very comfortable with the progression of this bill, as well. So in many ways it ticks a lot of boxes. In return for that, in terms of economic benefit, there is actually a significant tourism benefit to New Zealand from the tourist boats that do go down there. It is a niche type of industry but nevertheless one that looks at natural environments and sees them in their most natural and most pristine state. But it also, of course, enhances New Zealand’s overall reputation, a reputation of looking after our environment, even though in some cases this is not exactly what I would call warranted.

I want to just pick up on two points in this regard. One is the absolute shambles around trying to bring New Zealand into the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. We were offered a partnership with the United States, which we refused and then belatedly took up. The shambles that resulted meant that that convention flopped when it could have actually come to pass and we could have had greater protection over the Ross Sea.

In addition to that I also want to pick up what my colleague Ruth Dyson was talking about in terms of Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins, but particularly Māui’s dolphins. I mentioned in the second reading of this bill that I was out surfing one day when a couple of surfers around me called out “Shark! Shark!”, disappeared off a wave, and paddled frantically to shore. I was a bit slower to get off the mark, but what I did manage to see were two Māui’s dolphins—only very, very small but with a beautiful, rounded fin—swimming around my board and disappearing out to sea. There are only 55 of these left in existence, and I saw two in one go while sitting on the back of a board. I have to say, I came in feeling absolutely enthralled that I had actually seen these two wonderful animals while out on a surfboard all alone.

We have got an absolute responsibility to protect those dolphins. They are the most endangered in the world. There are only 55 of them. They live only to the age of 23. The females do not breed until the age of 9 and then they have a calf only between every 2 and 4 years. Therefore, they are incredibly endangered in terms of their ability to fight back, and we have to make absolutely sure that we do. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Nick Smith—perhaps his Cabinet colleagues rolled him on this one—has done enough in order to actually protect them.

The other issue that I wanted to just point out as we are pushing through this special piece of legislation—this good piece of legislation, which we do have quite widespread agreement on—is that the 1971 Marine Reserves Act, which my colleague across the House, Nicky Wagner, was just talking about, was brought in in 1971. It was world leading in its time, but that was a long time ago. We now need to look at updating that legislation so that we do not have to go through the same procedure every time we want to make a particular area like the Subantarctic Islands a marine reserve. We want to be able to have an efficient piece of legislation that looks at, and facilitates the creation of, marine reserves within our territorial waters and beyond into our economic zone in addition to that.

I would like to see many more marine reserves enacted and brought into place. They do have a real role in the ability to regenerate fisheries. Anybody who has gone up to Goat Island or any of the other marine reserves or the Poor Knights Islands and who has seen the proliferation of fish and marine life in those areas knows that these areas are valuable not only in terms of the information, the education, and the wonder they can provide us with when we are in those areas but also in terms of helping those areas regenerate and the fish stocks regenerate as well.

I am not going to continue any further on this. I just wanted to say once again that the Labour Party has been behind this bill and supported the Government on it. It was something that we felt strongly about during our time in office. This Government is taking it on further. The work of the Local Government and Environment Committee has been very good. I commend once again the Minister of Conservation for pushing this through. I think it is a very good point for this Parliament to be agreeing to the protection of a particularly important part of our ecosystem around New Zealand through the Subantarctic Marine Reserves Bill. So with that I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill tonight. Like the last speaker, David Shearer, I think probably every member in this House and, I believe, everyone in our country has a similar example where they had a spiritual, a visceral, a human connection with the oceans or the incredible animals that live within them. It is something that is, I believe, unique to our country. We are a maritime nation. We have got waters 15 times larger than our land masses.

I grew up in Gisborne. Every summer we used to go camping at Pouawa Beach. My dad had a lifestyle block up at Whangarā. No doubt Hekia Parata knows that location well. For 18 years we used to camp at the same campsite. I learnt to swim there. I used to go out on the dinghy with my dad and put the crayfish pots out. Reflecting on the debate tonight reminded me of when I learnt to scuba-dive just before the last election in 2011. That was at the Taputeranga Marine Reserve, a new marine reserve we have created in Wellington—an absolutely spectacular place. I think that when New Zealanders get to experience these beautiful marine reserves we have around the country, they are committed and they want to see more of them.

That is the science that informs the debate—that we need more marine reserves. Our oceans are under threat, despite having these amazing dolphin sightings, shark sightings, and experiences with our oceans. We love them but we also know that they are threatened. We see it when we go down to the beach and we see the waste washing up. We see it when those dying, starving turtles wash up in Northland. We see it when the finned sharks wash ashore. We all know that our oceans are sick and they are unhealthy, and we need to do something about it. This is why it is good to see this Parliament coming together to do something about it. But this bill is not enough. It is not going to save our oceans. It is not even going to protect the full waters around these World Heritage listed islands. It is going to be protecting only 39 percent of Campbell Island’s waters and 58 percent of the Bounty Islands’ waters. But it is good to be doing something about marine reserves. They are something we all love and we all want to protect.

We see when we watch the news and read the science reports that there is rising acidification, the great garbage Gaia—the great giant Pacific garbage patch, as it is also known—and overfishing in the oceans. We are literally replacing keystone species in the marine ecosystem with jellyfish. I am your stereotypical greenie vegetarian who does not eat fish, but you know what? I think many people in New Zealand—and, perhaps more relevantly, around the world—will have to get used to having jellyfish and chips instead of their fish and chips. The jellies are literally taking over our oceans because of overfishing. The question is not where the fish went, because the answer is clear: we have literally eaten all the fish. Using our industrial fishing fleets and the might of our industrial civilisation, we have gone out to harvest the world’s fisheries, and we are seeing them collapse. Our large shark species have seen a population decline of 90 percent since 1950 because we are using the advanced technological fishing techniques we now have to hunt, target, and—unfortunately, for 73 million of them every year—fin them and dump them overboard.

We all know the risks, the threats, and the dangers facing our oceans, and we all know the answer. Marine reserves are a simple, effective, and cheap way we can protect our oceans. That is why it is good to be going some way towards that tonight. It is clear we need more marine reserves in New Zealand. Sure, you know, these reserves cover 435,000 hectares. It sounds like a large number when you have the National members trumpeting about it, but these marine reserves take the percentage of New Zealand waters in marine reserves only from 0.31 to 0.41 percent. That is still less than 0.5 percent.

Here we see the Minister of Conservation trumpeting these announcements and saying that he wants to gazette a record number of marine reserves. Nick Smith thunders about eight new marine reserves in his kayak as he does his media stunts. He says we are going to set a record. Never mind that the eight marine reserves he is talking about were started under the last Government. Never mind that all his marine reserves are still taking us to less than 0.5 percent of our waters protected. Never mind that a single year’s oil block offer is greater than all of these marine reserves we are creating tonight. Let us put it in contrast. We need more progress. Kiwis know it, they support it, and that is what they told Colmar Brunton—96 percent of New Zealanders want to see more marine reserves. That is why in a recent Andrea Vance column recent polling showed that, in fact, most New Zealanders thought we already had 30 percent coverage. No, we will have only 0.41 percent, if this bill passes.

I have talked before about the irony of needing a law from Parliament to create marine reserves. It shows how out of date and out of touch our legislation from 1971 has become. What we need to do is modernise that law. Under National it languished for the second-longest period of any legislation in our country’s history. Remember, we are the fourth-oldest democracy in the world, and the second-oldest bill ever to languish and die in a select committee happened over marine reserves, and we still cannot produce them in the exclusive economic zone.

Remember, we saw this Government decline the Akaroa marine reserve. The Government members are trumpeting as if they are environmental champions or something, yet let us not forget that they declined the Akaroa marine reserve. It was not until they were taken to court and had a judicial review go in the Akaroa community’s favour that they did something about it. Let us not forget that this is a Government that is quite happy to have oil wells in the middle of those Māui’s dolphins sanctuaries. It is not providing a sanctuary.

The Government is quite happy for the iron sands and Chatham Rock phosphate miners to literally vacuum up the seabed between 5 and 20 metres. On the West Coast, for example, 50 million tonnes of sediment is going to get vacuumed up, but the Government is quite happy for that to happen in benthic protected areas. These are areas where fishers cannot go, 100 metres above the seabed. This Government is quite happy to have industrial fleets literally vacuuming up the seabed and is not providing protection in these benthic protected areas.

This is my last call in this debate, and I want to reiterate the support for this legislation. It is good to be doing something about it. The Greens would go further. We would protect 100 percent of these World Heritage listed islands and the waters surrounding them. But I want to touch on the politics, because, after all, this is a house of politics. This is a year of politics, being an election year. I want to question what the rationale is. What are National’s focus groups showing? Why do National suddenly feel compelled, after 5 years of doing nothing—in fact, taking a toxic “wreck it, destroy it” approach to the environment—to be rushing through legislation like this? Why, finally—5 years in and after allowing innumerable sharks to be finned and thrown overboard, dead—does National have to do something about it?

What we know—and I think what the data the National Party strategists are looking at shows—is that this is an issue National is incredibly weak on. It is an issue where some of its voters are potentially leaving it. We know that female voters in particular have historically had a problem with the National Party. The National Party has got a problem. The problem is that it does not care about the environment. It is not protecting the environment. It is actively destroying it. It is not a problem that is going to be remediated through spin or through public relations. It is a problem that can be addressed only by taking action, by actually producing more marine reserves. We have talked about expanding the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve, which I am advocating for and trying to build parliamentary support for. That would see 15 percent of our waters protected overnight. We need to upgrade our laws. We need an integrated oceans policy. We need to stop the deep-sea drilling that is risking our marine environment. We need to stop the seabed mining. We need to protect our Māui’s dolphins.

These are the solutions Kiwis support. These are the solutions the prosperity of our country is going to be built on. We know that the $1.5 billion aquaculture and fisheries sector depends on our brand. International consumers do not want to be buying crabs from a World Heritage area that is not protected. They do not want to buy our fish when they know that our Māui’s dolphins and Hector’s dolphins or those sea lions we heard about last year are becoming extinct,. If National has identified it has a problem when it comes to New Zealanders’ perceptions of its environmentalism, the answer is not more spin. The answer is not more gloss or more media stunts for Nick Smith. The answer is to do something about it. But I guess I am not holding out in hope or holding my breath, because what we have seen under the 5 years of this Government is a callous disregard for the environment and the prosperity that the New Zealand economy relies on that is based on that environment.

So it is quite good that New Zealanders will get a choice this election. They will get to choose between protecting the Māui’s dolphins or slaughtering them indiscriminately in those unsustainable fishing nets. They will get a choice between more marine reserves—protecting the Kermadec Islands and other marine reserves around New Zealand—or the spin. They will get a choice between clean energy or deep-sea drilling. That is the challenge we are giving to the National Party, and that is the challenge and the option we are giving New Zealand voters at this election. Kia ora.

As I said before, National has got a proud history of marine protection. We did pass the original Marine Reserves Act in 1971 and at that time, leading up to that, the Labour Party had talked about it for many, many years, as is its habit. The Green member who has taken his seat, Gareth Hughes, discussed the fact that the Labour Party had proposals for eight marine reserves on the books for the 9 years while it was in Government, and that is quite true. The Labour Party did do that, and talked about them for a year, then it talked about them for a second year, then it consulted on them for a third and fourth year, and then talked about them again for a fifth year. Labour wrung its hands, for a sixth year, and then talked around and around in circles again for another 2 years, making it 9 years of talking about marine reserves and how wonderful they are, but not actually establishing this marine reserve or others that National has put in since being in Government.

It is great to hear that Gareth Hughes, before the 2011 election, took the opportunity to do some diving in a marine reserve—again, one that the National Government had decided to put in place. Although the Labour Party and the Green Party talk big about marine protection, they are so busy consulting, so busy arguing, so busy going around in circles that they do not actually do anything. I think this country’s fear is that although the Labour Party and the Green Party are very good at talking, consulting, holding hands, and hugging, actual action and decision making are not their strong suit. As we have come out of the recession and we are starting this rebuild of the economy, which is a delicate thing, and of our environment, I do not think that we really need a bunch of hand-wringers in charge. Anyway, this is another solid run on the board for the National Government.

Here we are looking at this particular marine protected area, in the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. I recall myself as Minister of Fisheries and Kate Wilkinson as conservation Minister at the time pushing through the consultation on this marine reserve. We eventually landed on a decision that we made about 18 months or 2 years ago. Further submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee have resulted in this particular proposal and we are very proud of it. Although the three island groups have a protected area status, the territorial waters around them are not currently protected but they will be under this bill. It recognises great opportunities for tourism, research, and fishing. There is very little current extractive use in the islands surrounding our waters. Some of that will continue with the deep-water crab fisheries around Campbell Island.

I must reiterate too how important it is that the fishing industry and recreational fishers are able to fish sustainably outside these marine reserves. Although the Green member Gareth Hughes talks about marine reserves actually improving the fisheries environment outside the reserve, that is not generally the case, because most fish species are territorial. Although you get wonderful growth and development of fish species within a marine reserve, outside a marine reserve it does not tend to flow over. We have to manage those fisheries well as well, within the quota management system.

I gladly commend this legislation to the House. It is another substantial run on the board, one that is measurable and that National has done. It is something Labour did talk about for 9 years. Again, we have actually achieved it. I am very proud of the result.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, and in my address I hope to take the politics out of it and get back to the basis of this debate, which is all about the environment and about these very special islands in the subantarctic.

This bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, represents a 400,000 hectare area that will be protected under law as a result of this bill going through the House tonight and when it is signed off by the Governor-General. These three sets of islands—the Antipodes Islands, the Bounty Islands, and Campbell Island—off the south-east coast of the New Zealand mainland are a very special part of New Zealand. The Antipodes Islands, some 860 kilometres south-east of Stewart Island, were first discovered in 1800 by Captain Henry Waterhouse on the HMS Reliance. So we are talking about one of the very early discoveries several hundred years ago in terms of the island mass of New Zealand.

It is also now one of three World Heritage status areas in New Zealand. We have Fiordland as one of our World Heritage status areas, we have Tongariro National Park up in the North Island, and then this third one, the Subantarctic Islands, which in 1998 were accorded World Heritage status. So it is a very important third part of our World Heritage collection. In having World Heritage status we are effectively the guardians on behalf of the citizens of the world for this particular location. Therefore, it is very special and it is incumbent on us as New Zealanders to ensure that this area is protected.

The sea around the Bounty Islands is the deepest in New Zealand’s territorial waters. It is some 3,000 metres deep. So it is an extraordinary piece of ocean in New Zealand’s territorial waters. Eighty percent of endemic protected species in New Zealand—meaning that they exist only in New Zealand—are found out in the oceans around New Zealand. Over a dozen species in these Subantarctic Islands are endangered, such as the southern royal albatross.

We are very fortunate that New Zealand now has 34 marine reserves and that this will become the latest marine reserve. It is very special when you do visit some of them, such as the original one at Goat Island up near Leigh, which now has wonderful fish life. It is wonderful for schools and universities and the public to go and to visit to see what has happened as a result of that marine reserve, and to go to the likes of the Akaroa marine reserve that has now been provided, and other marine reserves around the coast, where fish species, fish life, and marine life have been preserved as a result of making areas protected.

The Local Government and Environment Committee considered a great deal of evidence on this bill. It was one of the more pleasing bills, in that the whole committee was in agreement with what was required to put this through into legislation. The committee agreed on a shorter review time in terms of what was originally in the legislation. Again, we felt that it was appropriate that the review period be reduced because of the special nature of these islands. It was a very good, cordial agreement by the Local Government and Environment Committee to achieve a good outcome for this bill.

It is pleasing to see that this week the HMNZS Wellington set sail from Devonport naval base yesterday, heading to the Subantarctic Islands. It will be picking up the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, somewhere on the way as it travels south. The Minister will be on there. So by the time this bill is enacted and perhaps signed off by the Governor-General in the next couple of days and is in force, the Minister will actually be arriving in these islands to make the appropriate announcement. I am sure the National Party will make sure that that is heard loud and clear in all available media.

More especially, on board the HMNZS Wellington there are 12 Sir Peter Blake Trust young leaders. They left from Auckland. They have been selected as some of the top young leaders that this country has. They are going down there to the Subantarctic Islands. In the spirit of Sir Peter Blake and all the great work that he has done out on the oceans around the world and in the marine environment, those 12 young New Zealanders are going for a 13-day expedition to look at the Subantarctic Islands with representatives from the Department of Conservation, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, from Otago University, and from a number of other organisations and hosted, of course, by the Royal New Zealand Navy.

The group, while they are there looking at the islands, will be drafting a feasibility plan for a world-leading subantarctic research station, which is hoped to be completed by 2015. The station will allow New Zealand scientists and worldwide agencies to study the effects of ocean and climate change and also the effects on many of those endangered species, wildlife, marine life, and the southern oceans around the islands. This has, again, huge potential for the outreach of New Zealand into a special part of the oceans that surround New Zealand. We certainly commend those young people for the good work they will be doing over the next 13 days on board that naval ship—with the naval officers and the many other Government support people and scientists who are in support of them—to come up with some good recommendations as to how that station will be established.

In closing, it is not often that we have unanimous support in this House, but this is one of those occasions. This is a special occasion because this will be our most far-reaching outpost in terms of a marine reserve for New Zealand as a nation. It is very special and it shows that New Zealanders, as a whole, place a high priority on the environment and conservation and on ensuring that we do our very best for the natural environment. So New Zealand First is very happy to support and commend this bill.

It is amazing how jealous we all are of the Hon Nick Smith’s trip down to the Subantarctic Islands. It speaks volumes, I think, for New Zealand’s regard for those islands, and so I proudly stand to support the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill at its third reading.

The previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, is earning her salary tonight! I am very happy to stand and take a call—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, you know, at least she does earn her salary, not like that member.

Oh, calm down! Calm down! It was just a joke, Mrs Collins. Have a sense of humour. Anyway, I am very happy to stand and take a call on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is a very interesting bill and it was a very enjoyable experience having this bill at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I wish we had more pieces of environmental legislation coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee that we could all agree on and that are actually doing good things for the environment, as opposed to undermining and destroying the environment, which is usually the tenor of environmental legislation we deal with at that select committee. But, in this instance, it was a very good piece of legislation.

I think it is important to note that nearly all the submitters who came along did say that they did not think it went far enough. They were very supportive of the protections that were being put in place, but they did feel that the areas being protected were not sufficient. We responded by amending the review period in this legislation from 5 years down to 2 years in order to reflect the fact that they did not feel that we needed to wait that long period of time in order to make those decisions and determinations.

This bill will create three marine reserves: the Antipodes Island Marine Reserve, or Moutere Mahue; the Bounty Islands Marine Reserve, or Moutere Hauriri; and the Campbell Island Marine Reserve, or Moutere Ihupuku. These are incredibly important parts of our subantarctic ocean. They have been recognised as World Heritage sites, and in that respect we welcome this piece of legislation.

Marine reserves have had a bit of a bumpy ride in New Zealand in general. I think it is fair to say that in terms of marine policy right across the board we are kind of playing catch-up. We do not really know a lot of what is out there in our marine environment, particularly around the various ecosystems, around the make-up of the sea floor. In fact, the Australians have a lot more information than us because when they did a lot of their oil and gas development in the 1970s they required the companies to do that work and to provide that spatial information about the marine environment to the Government. They have been able to base a lot of their policies and decisions on information that they required as a bottom line and as a condition of that activity going ahead. We have not had the benefit of that, so what has happened is that right throughout the decades we have sometimes had a rather piecemeal approach to how we deal with marine policy. As previous speakers have said, it would be very, very desirable to see a far more coherent approach to marine policy in New Zealand and to have a strategy for how we want to use, to enjoy, and to extract resources from our marine environment, but to have a strategy instead of siloed debates around each of those issues without connecting them up. That, unfortunately, is what has been missing in New Zealand.

Again, comments were made around the fact that we have benthic protected areas but then we have issued mining permits in those benthic protected areas, and for a lot of the general public that does not make a lot of sense. Why would you create these protected areas and then allow mining to go ahead? These are conversations where we have enormous numbers of layered pieces of legislation all sitting on top of each other, different strategies, and different approaches, but it is difficult to find a coherent strategy for the use and enjoyment and protection of our marine environment.

Marine reserves have had a long history in New Zealand, but we have not actually gone that far in terms of the percentage of our marine environment that is put into these protected areas. They are important because they are very effective. We have a marine reserve up near where I live—from Pouawa, just north of Gisborne, up to Whangarā—and it was very controversial when it went in. When you are dealing with marine policy, because that work has not been done, there are a lot of existing interests there. There are a lot of people who make their livelihood out of that environment, so when you start to talk about changing the way in which they may have to operate in that environment, sometimes they do not like it. There was real concern that we were locking up the ocean, I think they call it—cutting off large parts of areas that had previously been open to fishing and shutting those down. Of course, the idea of locking up an ocean is not very real. Fish are not going to magically stay within a marine reserve or go outside—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Passports.

They do not need passports; thank you, Mr Prasad. But what in fact happened was that within a very short period of time we saw an incredible resurgence of the fish stocks within the marine reserve. We saw species coming back that we had not seen for a long time in our waters, and this was in a relatively short period of time. I think Chris Carter was the Minister of Conservation at the time when we went up there, and it was only 4 years after the marine reserve had been created. They had a PhD student who was doing her PhD work on that particular marine reserve. What she was doing was she was measuring the amount of legal size crayfish that she was getting outside of the marine reserve and comparing that with inside the marine reserve. Bear in mind that, of course, crayfish do not know where the marine reserve is. I do not know, maybe they do, but it would seem unlikely. And yet outside of the marine reserve, after 4 years—and we have a real issue with our crayfish stock on the East Coast; it is really heavily depleted—she was getting half a kilogram of legal size crayfish per pot, and inside the marine reserve she was getting over 30 kilograms of legal size crayfish per pot. So that was an extraordinary resurgence of our crayfish stock, which was in serious trouble. What happened was that the fishermen actually quite liked the marine reserve because the best fishing was suddenly on the border of the marine reserve. Everyone would ask how the fishermen were going to know where the marine reserve was. Well, anyone who did not know where the marine reserve boundary was just had to look at where all the fishing boats were. It was pretty clear where the boundary was.

What happened was that there is a reef at Whangarā that was not actually included in the marine reserve initially at the time. They actually ended up with an unofficial agreement to extend the marine reserve out over that reef in order to protect the crayfish stock. It was fantastic because kids would come down and go out to Whangarā. They would go walking on the reef. The crayfish were walking around in the day with their antennae sticking out of the water, which is highly unusual because they are meant to be nocturnal. But they were walking around. Kids were getting to see crayfish in their natural environment. The Department of Conservation said to us that when it sends people down to actually just check on the stocks and do some of the chipping that it does and the tracing, people actually ring the police to say that someone is fishing in the marine reserve and that they are taking crayfish out of the marine reserve. So then, of course, the police say that, no, that is a Department of Conservation worker and he is just there making sure that everything is OK.

So we have had an incredibly positive experience of that particular marine reserve on the East Coast, and that is why Labour would like to see more of these marine reserves created. The subantarctic ones do raise an interesting difference, which is that it is one thing to police marine reserves that are just off the coast of New Zealand like this one, but policing them in areas that are far away from New Zealand is a completely different matter. There are clauses in this bill to allow rangers to be appointed from the New Zealand Defence Force, but I know that there have been concerns around fishing boats that have been seen around the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve, and from time to time other concerns are raised about fishing boats that just seem to be kind of hanging out there. Foreign fishing vessels—there is really no reason why they would be there. These people do email us and say that they have contacted the Ministry for Primary Industries and it really does not seem that fussed about it. Unless these marine reserves that are far offshore are going to be policed or checked—however that is done—then you can pass all the marine reserve law in the world, but if people can just breach it and there are no consequences, then it does undermine that particular piece of legislation.

We are very happy to support this legislation. I would say to members on the other side of the House that I would not get too carried away. We are not solving climate change here. It is a good piece of legislation, but there is an awful lot more to do. As previous members have said, when we look at our marine ecosystem, it is tied in to our rivers and our waterways in New Zealand. The entire health of that marine ecosystem is linked with the health of our land and with the health of our fresh waterways, and we cannot just divorce them from each other and pat ourselves on the back for doing this whilst we turn the Tukituki River toxic in Ruataniwha, which is going to spill out into the marine environment. You cannot just separate everything out and pretend that they do not all join up, because that is not how these ecological systems work. We need to look after our environment on land, at sea, in our freshwater waterways, and in the air, and until we have a change of Government, unfortunately we are not going to get that kind of strategic approach.

Ka tū ake ahau ki te mihi i a koe.

[I rise to acknowledge you.]

I stand to commend the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill to the House. Kia ora.

That was—even by Claudette Hauiti’s standards—a very short and enigmatic speech. There is plenty to say about this bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. Marine reserves, I think, are increasingly an important part of the conservation agenda. I want to start by noting that marine conservation has been, I suppose, the poor cousin in the conservation field. As New Zealanders, I think we were probably late to the game. For at least a couple of decades, much of the conservation energy was really devoted to protecting our forests and our terrestrial biodiversity.

I think it has been heartening to see that New Zealanders increasingly see the importance of not only our coastal and marine environment but also our inland waterways. The degradation of our streams and our rivers from intensive dairying and the other uses that are putting those waterways at threat has become a major public focus. Our marine environment has also become a major public focus, particularly in areas where you have got large populations, urbanisation, and industrial development, and where even just recreational use depletes fish stocks and shellfish populations. So this is something that is increasingly coming up on the agenda.

As a number of colleagues have pointed out, there has been a little too much self-congratulation on the Government benches over this bill, considering that these marine reserves have been sitting around for a number of years and were, in fact, started during the fifth Labour Government. Also, I think that although it is undoubtedly a positive thing that these marine reserves are being created, they are, you would have to say, low-hanging fruit. There is very little in the way of commercial fishing where these zones are, down in the Subantarctic Islands. There are not big vested commercial interests that are wanting to protect their right to fish in the area, although I know that earlier in the debate a number of speakers pointed out that one of the zones was somewhat truncated in order to allow the possibility that the industry might develop some commercial fishing in that area.

These reserves are low-hanging fruit, and it would be great to see the Minister of Conservation show the same kind of enthusiasm and resolve for establishing marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf. That would be a fine thing. It is an altogether more complicated proposition to establish marine reserves close to a large population base, but that is exactly what I think we should be doing.

I recently spent a few days kayaking around the Waitematā Harbour and spent time with many of the marine biologists, scientists, and environmental activists who are working in the Hauraki Gulf and working to restore those waters. They make the case that in terms of repairing the damaged marine habitats, marine reserves are probably the most powerful tool that we have. The particular problem in the Hauraki Gulf is that the depletion of crayfish and snapper stocks has been so severe that it has allowed for an explosion in the population of kina, believe it or not. What the kina do when they reach a certain level is that they wipe out the kelp forests, which are an endemic habitat there in the gulf, and they create these things called kina barrens. Basically, a kina barren is a completely bare ocean floor, devoid of any kind of vegetation and devoid of any life except for kina. If you really love kina, you might think that that is a fine thing, but it is very much a degraded habitat.

The only way that we know of to restore that habitat and to restore the biodiversity, like the snapper and the crayfish, is through having marine reserves. Reserves at places like Hāhei and up at Goat Island have demonstrated how successful that is. I do not suppose that the problems are the same down in the Subantarctic Islands, but nevertheless we do support the creation of these reserves, and we want to see many more of them.

I call Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to be speaking at the third reading of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, but I think we need a bit of a lesson in history here. One of the earlier National speakers, the Hon Phil Heatley, a former Minister of Fisheries, was almost claiming that National was responsible for marine conservation in New Zealand because it had passed the initial legislation in 1971. But the honesty around the history is the fact that that member and other National speakers need to acknowledge that the substantive work to establish these marine reserves was actually done under the previous Labour Government. It was in 2006 that the Department of Conservation produced this background resource document. It described the immense conservation and scientific values of the land and sea communities of the Subantarctic Islands. It was this document that recognised the strong international interest in better protecting the marine environment in the Subantarctic Islands. It was also an initiative of the previous Labour Government—not the National Government—that established the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum in 2008 to actually go and investigate and consult on the options for marine protection around the islands. So National is reaping the reward of this work, but it cannot claim all of the credit for it.

In relation to the work of the subantarctic forum, the bill is very much a missed opportunity because it implements the option for protection that was recommended by commercial fishers, not the option that was recommended by Ngāi Tahu, by environmental organisations like the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand and Forest and Bird, by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research representative, and by the scientific representatives on the forum. They were recommending that there be full protection of the territorial sea around the Bounty Islands and around Campbell Island. It would have been world leading if National had done that in developing the bill and if it had listened to the submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee who supported that full extent of the territorial sea being protected. So what we have is a much-truncated couple of reserves coming through this bill. Nearly a third of the territorial sea around the Bounty Islands will be outside the marine reserve, and that is so a longline fishery for ling can continue—a fishery that results in about half a million dollars a year of revenue, so it is hardly a valuable fishery.

The bill should have included the full extent of the territorial sea, because the Bounty Islands have got hundreds of thousands of seabirds using the land mass and using the seas around the islands. We have got the biggest breeding colony in the world of New Zealand fur seals. If we had had a decent reserve there, it would have gone right out to the extent of the territorial sea. That is critical because on the Bounty Islands you have got very little vegetation and very little soil, and the seabirds and the other species depend absolutely on the oceans. Yet we have failed to recognise the full extent of that interdependence by failing to protect the full extent of the territorial sea.

It is also a missed opportunity because around Campbell Island 61 percent of the territorial sea is going to be open to fishing, subject to a prohibition on Danish seining, and it is not going to be part of the marine reserve. One of the good things that the select committee did was to ensure that there was a review of that and of the potential for a deep-water crab fishery within 3 years of the bill going into law, rather than 5 years, as was proposed in the bill as introduced. But the far greater worth of an intact ecosystem would have been much better recognised if we had had a proper, full marine reserve there.

The Greens obviously would support that 100 percent protection, but we do support this bill because something is always better than nothing. The United Nations Environment Programme described the islands as the most diverse and extensive of all the subantarctic archipelago, so this bill, with some protection, is definitely better than nothing. But the fact that we are establishing the marine reserves under special legislation and that Parliament’s time is being taken to pass it shows again the fact that National has failed to introduce the marine reserves bill that it has long promised. Thank you.

I am proud to support the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill.

Bill read a third time.