Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

I move, That the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Mangroves and their proliferation around the beautiful coastal shores and tidal estuaries of the Coromandel and the Firth of Thames have been the subject of much debate, discussion, deliberation, and dithering over the last 20 years or so. It is with pleasure this evening that I rise as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, as sponsor, to introduce to the House this local bill on behalf of both the Hauraki District Council and the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

The councils have not taken this step lightly. The two councils are predominantly rural and coastal in their character. Each council has a small ratepayer base, which means limited resources are available to undertake all the functions required of local government. Both councils also have a ratepayer age demographic that is heavily skewed to those in the plus-65-year-old age group. Typically these are people who are often retired and living on fixed incomes, which in turn only emphasises that every dollar taken in rates must be a dollar well and wisely spent on their behalf.

This is a bill that provides for a public process, allowing the two councils to develop an approved mangrove management plan. The councils are merely seeking the ability to create their own plans, because the Waikato Regional Council has spectacularly failed over a long number of years to manage effectively or efficiently the vast proliferation of mangroves within the two councils’ coastal boundaries. This failure has now so compromised the amenity quality of people’s lives that it is at a point where something must be done. I congratulate the councils on taking this initiative and for boldly stepping up where the regional council has so obviously failed.

This bill is not about why the mangroves are there or what has caused their proliferation or where they are. This is a bill merely about allowing the councils to develop their own mangrove management plan. Some years ago the Waikato Regional Council struck a special mangrove removal rate on properties at Whangamata. It has raised, in that period of time, something over $1.5 million, but less than 10 percent of that $1.5 million has actually been spent on the physical management of mangroves. The vast bulk of that $1.5 million has been spent on lawyers, consultants, resource consents, appeals, the writing of reports, and the review of those reports. No wonder the people of Whangamata want action, and these councils—Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel—have, via this bill, found a way through the malaise.

A streamlined, cost-effective, efficient, community-based process is required to ensure the councils are mandated to implement a plan that reduces impediments to human amenity and allows access to improve recreational values. The district councils’ desire to see limited resources more effectively utilised is at the core of this bill. The bill empowers each council to prepare a draft mangrove management plan in relation to the coastal area of its district to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of mangrove vegetation. This is not a bill that is aimed at removing or eradicating all mangroves—that is absolutely not the purpose. I know that there will be some who will criticise it as some kind of mangrove scorched earth policy; that simply is not the case. This is a bill to manage mangroves where they impede human amenity.

Under the bill, a draft plan would be approved through the special consultative process under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill provides that the councils, if they agree, may prepared a mangrove management plan in a collaborative way, including by adopting a single integrated plan for both districts should that prove to be a better and more efficient option. The plea that this bill makes is to give the responsible control and management of mangroves to the local communities that know and hold dear their harbours and tidal estuaries without the financial burden imposed by current processes.

The lower Firth of Thames is an internationally significant tidal wetland protected by the Ramsar Convention and is an important wintering ground attracting thousands of Arctic nesting shorebirds such as the bar-tailed godwit and the red knot. The seaward advance of mangroves in that area since the 1940s has considerably reduced the feeding habitat available to the birds. Community concern about the impacts of mangroves dates from the early 2000s, with, notably, the concerted effort since 2005 by citizens of the Whangamata community to address the spread of mangroves and to ensure the restoration of harbour amenity.

People naturally think that mangrove management should not be that hard. To the south of my Coromandel electorate in and around Katikati, Tanner’s Point, and Kauri Point in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, they seem to be able to manage mangroves without any great issue. North of my electorate—Auckland City—seems to be similarly able to manage them. But throughout the Waikato Regional Council area there seems to have been no political or elected representative will to manage mangroves. It is as if the personal eco-political agendas of those involved have been allowed to get in the way of sensible, prudent, pragmatic management of an issue that, on the face of it, is so simple, but one that has caused so much angst and heartache, to say nothing of the costs to the citizens, ratepayers, and good people of the Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel districts.

Mechanisms for allowing a transfer of authority under the Resource Management Act from regional to district councils do not adequately address the timing and resourcing concerns. The process undertaken so far under the Resource Management Act has been costly, time-consuming, and has simply not delivered outcomes. The Thames-Coromandel District Council has, amongst all our local authorities around New Zealand, the largest proportion of absentee ratepayers. Many of these visitors together with the resident population enjoy the amenity, both ecological and recreational, offered by the peninsula’s various harbours, and estuaries. They are, indeed, a key feature that gives the district its distinct character. This bill is asking the House to let the engaged communities of Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki look after their special harbour and estuarine areas without the burden of excessive process and regulatory costs.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge with thanks the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki district council officers, the mayors Sandra Goudie and John Tregidga, the local communities and citizens of Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki for their relentless focus in mangrove management issues. This is a simple local bill being promoted by two hard-working and caring local district councils, frustrated by years of inaction at a regional level. I am very pleased, as the local member of Coromandel, to be able to sponsor this bill into the House this evening, and I commend it to members for their favourable consideration and support.

Actually, a former member of that Government who is now the current Mayor of Thames-Coromandel District Council made her name on chopping down mangroves, so it is no surprise that this bill has been brought to the House, and it is no surprise in terms of the content of the speech of the local member Scott Simpson that much of the focus was on the efficient allocation of resources—I hear that.

Labour will support this bill, at its first reading, going to the select committee because we know locally this is a contentious issue. No matter what people think about mangroves, whether they should be there or not, how they enhance the ecological environment—the whole approach to a mangrove management strategy and what that means for parts of the coastline holds quite a deep significance for the people who live along it.

I want to focus on a few things. Firstly, the Hauraki Gulf, Tīkapa Moana as it is known to local iwi there, covers about 800 kilometres of coastline. There are strong views amongst iwi in terms of the contribution of mangroves to kai that is often secured from around these areas like pūpū. My daughter loves to go and collect pūpū—it is a sea snail - type of creature—and it is something that, as a small whānau community, they go and gather kai to contribute to certain events. So when I heard comments around the amenity value, one of the local concerns is that the amenity value is, primarily, for recreational purposes.

If that is the case, the issues around opening up more of the coastline for recreational use without the considered impacts on the coastal environments, the birdlife there, the kai moana that is there, become a challenging issue. But that is exactly why we would want this bill to go to the select committee. If you are not from the coast and do not appreciate some of those strong connections that people have to their part of the rohe and what they feel is important in terms of retaining the type of ecological value, then I think people will not really understand how strongly felt some of the concerns are here.

The other point that was well made was with regard to the existing regional council process. It has been long and frustrating and very difficult if, at a planning level, people want to take a more proactive and constructive approach to mangrove management plans. I acknowledge that, and, again, the Waikato Regional Council has done a number of studies on getting the right balance between the various types of amenity values and also the contribution that mangroves make to parts of the coastline where they are suffering greater erosion—that they are a buffer to flooding, that they can actually protect the coastline in some valuable ways.

I am sure that when all the heads around the table with the best evidence are constructing these plans they are trying to manage the balance of these types of interests. One of the things that the current process affords, which this bill does not, is that the plans under the regional council process are certified by qualified experts in this area, and obviously supported and backed up by a lot of research. So this is an important component of the current process that could be considered within the context of this bill and whether or not it could be a helpful addition to the way in which district councils are intended to create plans in the bill.

The other aspect that I want to comment on is local sentiment. It is true that councillors, certainly in the Thames-Coromandel District Council—if I recall, Councillor Simon Friar was championing an approach here. A local survey that was taken among residents at the time had around about 68 percent of the respondents agree to 73 hectares of mangroves in the Whangamata area being removed. So, you know, we cannot ignore the fact that there are very strong local opinions both ways.

I just want to make sure, really, for the most part, that the select committee process will bring the strongly felt views of the community out into the open and that the way in which the community can participate in the method that the bill is proposing can be a public process that assures the public that they can contribute to the decision making. Whether or not there are current aspects of the way in which management plans are, for example, certified by qualified experts could be integrated into this bill—also to get that ecological and recreational amenity balance right. For all those reasons, the bill should go to the select committee.

I wonder whether this bill is being promoted purely for administrative ease, rather than looking again at some of the science and the information that are informing the contribution that mangroves make to our marine coastal environment.

I did not want to take too long a call, because the sooner we can get the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, that we can call for submissions—I know that there will be quite a large number of submissions for the committee to hear. The other key aspect—which my colleague rightly points out—that is omitted in this process is circumventing the Resource Management Act. That, again, becomes quite a large area of consideration, where local voices, again, are not taken into account.

On those key fronts I believe that I have made a number of important points. Tīkapa Moana is the Firth of Thames. The Māori word for mangrove is “mānawa”. A mānawa is a heart, but, in this sense, with the ecosystem, it acts as a filter and it expresses the role of the heart as a filter of the marine environment.

I hope that we can have a pretty sane debate. I know that when the current Mayor of Thames-Coromandel District Council championed this particular issue she was all fired up—on fire and, you know, red hot in all sorts of ways—about this issue, and focused a lot of her efforts and contributions on progressing this debate. She has had her chance, now that she is the Mayor of Thames-Coromandel, and has taken the opportunity to promote a bill of this sort. I do hope that, in calling for submissions, the select committee ensures that people get a good hearing and that the public gets a good chance to air its concerns around achieving the right balance, in terms of mangrove removal, public participation in the decision-making process, and also getting the balance between the recreational and the ecological amenity values right. Kia ora koutou.

It is a pleasure to be talking on the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill at its first reading. Of course, we are talking about mānawa—Avicennia marina—commonly known as the mangrove. Of course, this is a facilitating bill for the Thames-Coromandel District Council and the Hauraki District Council, and it recognises the scourge of mangroves. It empowers each council to put in place a good management plan to be able to implement some changes—and what a good thing.

I think it is an excellent job by the local MP, the Hon Scott Simpson—and why? Because these mangroves are proliferating. They are growing like triffids—ha, ha! Goody two-shoes will tell us that they are great for the environment, that they create havens for birds, and that they are natural filters of the water. Well, in my view, that is rubbish.

New Zealand’s coastline is infested with Avicennia marina—not like the other 29 species of mangroves. The concept that sedimentation caused by mangroves is beautiful—is a good thing—is, in my personal view, misguided. How can 8 tonnes a year from a mature mangrove forest be a good thing, in terms of building up sedimentation? I have seen it. I have walked through what the sedimentation is below a New Zealand mangrove forest—what it looks like and feels like—and it is a wasteland. It is a wasteland. True mangroves in other areas around the world are like rainforests, but not in New Zealand. The reason why this is is that we only have one species—one species. And that is the trouble. It is a blight, it is monoculture, and it is expanding—partly driven, unfortunately, by fertilisers applied by farmers on their land.

I understand the international significance of the site, particularly near Miranda and the Firth of Thames. It is a wonderful space where we have those wonderful godwits and the red knot birds that come and forage and wade through the water. But that area has been taken over by mangroves. This is what we are trying to do, because it is not only in the Firth of Thames. It is in areas like Mangawhai, Tauranga, Kaipara, and Hokianga Harbour, and in my own electorate in Waiuku.

The difficulty these people find in dealing with these mangroves—in Waiuku, great guys like Ian Scobie and Dave Gribble , and a bunch of farmers took it upon themselves to clear a great area of mangroves—9 hectares initially. They got out there because Ian recognised that he wanted to get his canoe out into the harbour there, and to be able to paddle up and down the Waiuku estuary. As a result, they started to cut through the mangroves and everyone was behind them. But guess what—guess what? The council came and said they could not. They have had a raging battle, with the council trying to impose new conditions on their consents. They have brought in a whole lot of issues such as what it does for birdlife. They talked about a whole lot of birds, but, in particular, the braided bird is one that they believe is absolutely essential.

When you clear mangroves you start to see the shoals of fish coming in. In Waiuku, for instance, they have already had the tern show up. Kingfishers are coming back. White-faced terns—and now, more recently, pied stilts, oystercatchers and, during the summer months, godwits, wrybills, banded dotterels, and red knots—

💬 Denise Roche: Where do they live?

—and I know the Greens over here like dotterels, as I do. It is true that it is the hard work of volunteers who are getting out there, like our group in Waiuku, who will be able to make a change, and that is why this is such a good bill. I absolutely commend the work of the member for Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson, for bringing this bill to the House.

As I call Catherine Delahunty, I am just going to lament the lack of Latin in schools in recent years.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Sometimes I think I have heard enough, and then I hear something new. I hear that the colonisation of the coast is being committed by a dangerous, invasive species, and I hear that the Associate Minister for the Environment has put up a bill that suspends the assessment of the environment Acts so that a former vandal who took a chainsaw to a mangrove could satisfy her desire to cut up the coast.

The ecological ignorance that has been displayed in this House tonight is remarkable—it is remarkable. Those members do not understand anything about our coast. They have written a bill without proper scrutiny and without proper process so that they can facilitate people cutting up mangroves—as Sandra Goudie did—as if they are the enemy of the environment.

Mangrove is mānawa—it means heart, as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said. Why does it mean heart? Because it is the heart of where the fish actually breed. We have a crisis in fisheries because we have destroyed so many areas for coastal fish to breed, and these people want to cut it all up without due process. It is fantastic for them, but all it does is show that National members are the enemy of the environment, and that they allowed their Associate Minister for the Environment to bring this bill to the House is absolutely extraordinary—absolutely amazing. I really find it extraordinary.

I live in the Hauraki—Tīkapa Moana. My family has been there for quite a few hundred years. I know the Gulf and I know the other coasts and I know the people, just like those members claim to. There are going to be many people joining our campaign against this bill because it does not represent the ecological passion that drives our communities up there. The coast is affected not by mangroves, but by poor land uses. So if we want to fix the problems, what do we do? Do we attack the coast with a chainsaw, or do we fix the sediment that is blocking up the harbours and changing areas that were previously open coast? Those members have got absolutely no ecological common sense whatsoever.

They say: “Let’s attack this stuff, get the right to attack it, and then we won’t deal with the land use issues.” We have got some very poorly managed forestry in our area, but these guys never mentioned that, because they do not even know anything about the area. They have got no idea about the lack of buffer zones in forestry, or the way in which particularly the Wharekawa and Whangamata have been affected by poor forestry management, which has led to excessive sediment. If you take away the mangroves, where does the sediment go, people? Into that magical space called away—out into the sea, where we do not have to think about it. If you are a vandal, it does not matter that the ecosystem is intimately connected—land and sea. They will just take out the barrier.

The other thing that is virtually madness is there is this thing they have not heard of called climate change. Do you know what happened—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You don’t even have a spokesman.

We are all spokespeople on climate change, Simon—all of us who understand the crisis. If you take this stuff off the coast, you open the land up to the risks that come with sea level rise and storm surges, and if they knew anything about climate change—which, clearly, they do not—they would realise that the mangroves are a buffer. They are not only a home for fisheries; they are also a buffer.

If you want to modify your environment in some places without a chainsaw, which is perfectly legitimate—you do not have to go in there without the law and attack the coast like a bunch of Visigoths—it would be quite good if you followed the letter of the law, instead of creating laws to undermine it. I have got 27 seconds to point out that clause 5 says: “The mangrove management plan may include any other matter that the council considers desirable or necessary to give effect to the purposes of this Act.” That is vandalism. That is legal vandalism. I know why this is written in here—“any other matter”—and you are going to get one iwi representative on a committee to discuss this?

You guys have got no idea—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, not you. But them—they do not know what they are doing with this bill. It is ridiculous, and we will fight it to the end. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise in support of the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill in its first reading. I must say that after listening to the member Catherine Delahunty, who has just resumed her seat, it is clear why New Zealand is looking for environmental direction from this Government when, compared with the Opposition, that is all it has to offer.

It is very clear why we now have the Bluegreen platform of providing pragmatic and practical environmental policy, because, for us, we believe that the world operates in a system. What this bill is ultimately underpinned by is the belief that the mangrove is growing out of control in the coastal system. So we are not saying: “Let’s completely eradicate it.” I think the Hon Scott Simpson summed it up very eloquently when he said that it is not a scorched earth policy. It is very much Bluegreen thinking. It is pragmatic and it is practical, and what we want to do is manage the system of mangroves.

I cannot claim to have experienced overgrown mangroves, myself. We do not tend to have them down on the Waimakariri coastline. Probably it is a bit too cold. But it was helpful to have that, I suppose, etymology lesson—well, even probably a slight lesson in Latin as well—from Andrew Bayly, who I think—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No.

—perfectly captured the history and the background to this plant. I just wanted to add mine, Mr Assistant Speaker, because I did do my research on Wikipedia. In 2000, in the world, the total mangrove forest covered 137,000 square kilometres, and it covered 118 countries. So the mangrove does get around. That, in my calculation, is about two-thirds of the countries. There we go. So that is the mangrove—it gets around. So, clearly, we have to be watching the mangrove, because it does tend to take over.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might even like to refer to the bill.

As you have, quite rightly, said, Mr Assistant Speaker, I will refer to the bill, because this bill is a local bill, and, in fact, the whole point of a local bill is to connect with local issues. So what we have got here is potentially quite a contentious bill that does need to go to select committee, and I think Nanaia Mahuta clearly outlined the reasons of the two camps. In fact, that is why we have the parliamentary process to send it to the select committee. It is disappointing that the Greens do not believe in that democratic process of sending it to the select committee. Let us hear what the public has to say, and from that we can look at the bill, give it a kick round, and then bring it back in a good shape, and that is perfect for the parliamentary process.

I must say, nearing the end of possibly the last members’ day in the 51st Parliament, I did not think I would be talking about mangroves, so I do hope that I possibly get to talk about them again.

But what we have here is a local bill that is trying to deal with the issue of bureaucracy. We have heard tonight that $1.5 million has already been allocated to the management of mangroves in this area, and that led to only 10 percent of that money being spent on mangrove eradication. So, clearly, we need to address that bureaucracy. We need to cut that red tape. I think that by this bill we can have a mangrove management plan that will be agreed between two councils and that will, ultimately, achieve the end result where people in this area can enjoy their coastline without it being overrun by the mangrove. Thank you.

Look, it is a very short bill and it is a very simple bill. From New Zealand First’s perspective—we had a bit of a conversation about this in Parliament—we are going to vote to support this bill through to select committee. I cannot help but make the comment, which is slightly off the bill, but is in reply to the last speaker’s comment that we would ask that this bill be voted through to the select committee so that it may be discussed. That comment was from my “twin brother” over there, Matt Doocey, who wears the same haircut as I, and is from Rangiora, as well—a brother from another mother. I have got to say that I wish the same view had been expressed over the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill, which was to let it go through the select committee for analysis, conversation, and discussion.

But that is not what the bill did. So I have to say, Mr Doocey, that I take your words with a handful of salt. Despite what I consider to be a not genuine argument, we will support this bill through to the select committee for that very same reason that you espoused. We just wish that you had showed the same view, taken same approach, to Darroch Ball’s Youth Employment Training and Education Bill, which is something that you promoted in 2008—military training for young people not in education and not engaged in training.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Not really relevant.

We digress, but I think it is relevant, Simon—what is your name? Powers? No. What is his name? “Brylcreem”.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t know, “Ronald Dark”.

Sorry, it escapes me now. Simon “No” Bridges is interjecting on me right now, but Simon “No” Bridges—Simon Bridges, who built no bridges in Northland—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I think I have given the member considerable latitude for 2 minutes, and I am not sure yet that he has shown any sign of knowing what the bill is or is about. It would be very good if he got to it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “A streamlined, cost-effective, efficient, and community-based process is required to ensure that the councils are mandated to implement a plan that reduces mangrove growth to acceptable levels that will improve any access, recreation, amenity, or ecosystem values.” We understand that. We get that. We agree with that. But we do ask why this bill is restricted to Thames-Coromandel. Thames-Coromandel is not the only place in New Zealand that has mangroves. Thames-Coromandel is not the only place in New Zealand that is struggling with the same issue within its communities. Some of us would say mangroves are not even indigenous and they should not even be here. Some of us might argue that there is no value whatsoever in allowing mangroves to continue. Others might argue that there are other ecosystem advantages to having mangroves continue, but they do need to be controlled.

We would agree with the National Party, and specifically with Scott Simpson, who has done a tremendous job as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee in the time I have worked with him, and who has been rightly elevated in recognition of his work. So we recognise that and we support that, but we would make this proposition: if the National Government is serious about this, then why not expand the bill?

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Because it’s a local bill.

Well, why not consider further how we might expand that bill? Yes, this is a local bill. The member is quite right. But let us have a wider conversation. I am not an Auckland boy—I am fortunate that I have a partner who is an Auckland girl who would never go back to live there—but I drive through Auckland frequently and I look across those mudflats and the mangroves, and the conversation is clear. How far do you allow those mangroves to spread? I have had people say to me, well, Coromandel is fine, but what about Whangarei? We have got people saying to us right now that it is an issue in Whangarei. We have got people saying it is an issue in Auckland City. We have got people saying it is an issue in other parts of Northland. The question is, if Parliament goes this far to, quite rightly, satisfy the request of a specific district and a specific council, Thames-Coromandel District Council—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: And Hauraki. Two councils.

—right—then can we not have a conversation more broadly? We will look for that conversation in the select committee phase, but at this point in time we think the bill has merit. The bill should go through to select committee, and we will quite happily support that.

I stand to take a brief call on the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill. I visit the Coromandel, or actually Thames, quite often. I have family who live up there, and it is hard to believe when you look around that area that back in the 1940s, it was sandy beaches there. It has been taken over by mangroves.

But this bill is not about eradicating all mangroves; it is about management. It is about empowering those councils to be able to manage how mangrove plant plantations are going to survive up in the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki districts. So when some of the Opposition members say that we are going to wipe it out—no. It is called a management plan, and it is a plan that will empower those district councils to be able to manage what they perceive as a weed that is overtaking their shorelines and their beaches and actually interfering with some of the recreational and fishing events in those areas.

I want to thank the Hon Scott Simpson, the MP for Coromandel, for bringing in this bill and for being a voice for the district councils up there on the coast. I am looking forward to it coming to our select committee because I think, as others on my side of the House have said, we need to get it and have a good look at it and listen to some submissions around it, and then bring it back to the House for further readings and for Royal assent.

Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

It is really unusual for a member of the Government who is trying to filibuster on members’ bills to not even be able to speak for 5 minutes. I want to first of all acknowledge the member of—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: She’s not trying to filibuster.

Play the tapes—play the tapes. I want to commend the member Scott Simpson, who has introduced this local bill, and say that I was pleasantly surprised that he seemed to have resolved his differences with Sandra Goudie, the former local member of Parliament and now the mayor. They are working hand in hand, just like that—so close. It is a delight to see central government and local government politicians working so closely together.

I also want to say that I am very suspicious that this local bill has been brought in tonight, and I regret having to say that about the Hon Scott Simpson because I think that for a National Party member of Parliament, he is a jolly fine person, actually. He is passionate about the environment, he works hard, and I think his promotion to Cabinet was well-deserved, but I think that this bill is in the House so that my bill, which would otherwise have been read, is further down the Order Paper. That is why it is a local bill and not, as Ron Mark suggested, a more comprehensive look at whether the Resource Management Act (RMA) is still the most appropriate tool at the moment for dealing with the issue of mangroves across the country.

So that disappoints me. But I have to say that I was really pleased to learn that despite the National Party members saying foolishly, incoherently—and Andrew Bayly demonstrated that again tonight—that they would be voting against my retirement village bill enabling residents to get a rates rebate, which would have been read ahead of this bill, I would have had a majority of Parliament voting for it. I am really pleased to acknowledge that the New Zealand First members, the Green Party members, the Māori Party members, and Peter Dunne would have joined with Labour and would have had my retirement village rates rebate bill passed tonight, had this Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill not suddenly appeared as a pressing local issue from the local member of Parliament, working so closely with his local mayor.

Labour is supporting this bill to select committee. It is a reasonable debate to have. We know that when the mayor was a member of Parliament, she tried to deal with the issue of mangroves restricting the berthing of local yachts in a rather inappropriate way. She took to the mangroves with a chainsaw—that is my recollection—and then said that she hated them all and they should all go. This bill is certainly a more appropriate way of deliberating on the issue than her approach, but I am concerned that this completely puts aside the processes of the Resource Management Act. The National Government has done that far too often over the last 9 years, and I do not think we should continue to do it.

It is really important that local people across the country have their say on this. This is not a Thames-Coromandel issue, even though the instigation of this bill is from that area. We know in this Parliament that as soon as National sees a way of undermining the RMA—if it works here, those members will say “Ah! Great, let’s roll it out across the country.”, and I do not think that is appropriate.

We also know that even though the member introducing the bill described mangroves as though they were sort of climbing in through the window and strangling the local residents, and turning the TV on to another channel—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: It was him—it was him.

—oh, it was just the member behind you—but, actually, mangroves play a really important role in our ecosystem. They provide habitats for fish, they provide habitats for birds, and they provide habitats for shellfish. The member himself talked about the birds in his area, and I know that he is a committed conservationist and environmentalist, which further added to my surprise that he introduced this legislation.

It is getting near the conclusion of this Parliament’s time, so this bill will not be heard at a select committee prior to the election. I hope that the member reflects on the weakening of the RMA, and on whether this is the best way to progress the concerns that local residents have about the intrusion of mangroves. I think it is better to do it in a more open way. I think it is important to balance what is clearly a commercial pressure against an environmental pressure, and to make sure that in the end we do not do such damage to the environment on behalf of commercial boat owners or developers that we are never able to repair that again. So I am interested in seeing the debate at the select committee after the election.

I am making a very brief and, certainly, non-filibustering contribution on this Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill, in the name of my colleague, the very fine member for the Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson.

I want to begin by saying mala herba cito crescit—it is an ill weed which grows apace—and mangroves certainly are an ill weed. I spent a good few months in my very first job after school combating the mangrove swamps of Northland on behalf of Golden Bay Cement Works Ltd, and I can tell you they are a noxious weed. They do certainly grow apace, and I think this is a very sensible measure. I want to commend the local member, but also Mayor Goudie and Mayor Tregidga for bringing it before this House.

I would like to see consideration in committee to possibly extend it to other areas where appropriate, but we know that other areas, in many cases—as the member Scott Simpson outlined—are doing a better job, certainly, than those within the Waikato Regional Council area. It is a very good bill, and it deserves further consideration. Thank you.

It has been very interesting listening to the conversation. The level of ignorance about the ecological and economic values of mangroves has been rather alarmingly on display tonight. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a massive step backwards, and it puts aside the protection for our environment that exists in the Resource Management Act (RMA) by overriding the processes that exist for controlling mangroves, to enable, as the bill’s explanatory note says, removing, preventing, controlling, destroying, and disposing of mangrove vegetation.

The attitude of describing mangroves as a noxious weed and something that is going to take over the whole of New Zealand if we are not careful reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the ecological value of mangroves in providing valuable and essential habitats for native fish, for shellfish, and for birds. That includes—and I hope that Scott Simpson is listening here—the banded rail, which has all but disappeared from other areas.

But also, moving on from ecological values, which are indisputable, I also want to touch on the economic value of mangroves. They act as a natural shield against storm tide surges, erosion, and sea level rise. Rushing ahead with allowing the large-scale destruction of mangroves without going through the resource management process is a very short-sighted move that could prove extremely expensive in the long run. Mangroves have proven time and time again that they are extremely valuable protection and defence against storm surges because they dissipate wave energy. Very recently, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlighted that the extremely damaging storm surges, which can cause massive amounts of erosion in one storm surge and are currently a once-in-a-hundred-year event, are likely to occur every year with just half a metre of sea level rise. Every year we would have what is currently a once-in-a-hundred-year - level storm surge.

The Waikato Regional Council’s report on mangroves concluded: “The mangrove forest provides a number of ecosystem services, which mitigate the potential coastal erosion and inundation hazards that exist for the low-lying Hauraki Plains.” Think about that. We are already seeing erosion from rising sea levels in many coastal areas of New Zealand, and mangroves actually provide a very valuable soft-level defence. It is absolutely counter-productive to tear out a natural barrier against storm tides and erosion and sea-level rise, when these people will later be crying “Oh, we want to protect our property.”, and they want to build their extremely expensive concrete defences. That does not make economic sense. It does not make environmental sense and it does not make economic sense. If the National Government is serious about planning for climate change it will still regard mangrove swamps as its allies, not as something to be destroyed and wiped out at a potentially enormous economic cost. It is just so illogical.

It also ignores the reason mangroves are increasing and spreading over some areas. It boils down to the fact that the single thing that you could do that would be the most effective at limiting mangrove spread would be to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Why do we have sedimentation? Because of inappropriate land-use practices, inappropriate harvesting of forestry in some places, and overgrazing in others, with increased rainfall events that are washing out far more soil into the bays. All of these factors combined are what are contributing to both the loss of valuable soil and the spread of the mangroves.

But we also need to be seeing that mangroves are economically and ecologically valuable, and the RMA is the place where these processes can be balanced out against each other. We should not be discarding that.

I would like to just commence this reply contribution by thanking members from across the House for their contributions on this first reading of the bill. I was delighted to hear contributions from across the House that, in most cases, I think, understand and get the point of the bill, with the exception of the Green Party contributors, who clearly still do not quite get the purpose of the bill. The bill is aimed at merely managing, providing the two district councils—two district councils—with an opportunity to create their own mangrove management plans. That is simply because the current system has not been able to achieve anything like the outcome that the citizens—the human beings, the people who inhabit the coastal areas around the Thames-Coromandel and the Hauraki districts—need to have to ensure that their amenity values and their way of life are preserved and maintained.

This is a good bill. I wanted to just comment on the contribution of Ron Mark from New Zealand First, because he asked a question about why this bill does not go further geographically than beyond the boundaries of the Hauraki District Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council. The simple answer to that is that this is a local bill, initiated and promoted by those two district councils. If this bill is passed at first reading and it does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, then there will be an opportunity, I would suspect, at that point, for a wider discussion about the bill’s application to district councils and territorial authorities outside the two areas that are promoting the bill.

So just in conclusion, this is a bill that is not about a scorched earth policy towards mangroves. This is about simply giving the two district councils an opportunity to create, through a formal process that will involve public participation and scrutiny, their own mangrove management plans. I think it is a good bill. I am pleased that the two councils have brought it to me to bring to the House and, as the local member for Coromandel, I support it and I commend it to the House.