Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Our indigenous freshwater fish are a precious part of Aotearoa’s natural heritage. Freshwater fisheries are also important economically, culturally, and socially. But as Minister of Conservation, I have inherited an antiquated legal framework for managing these fish, including regulations that haven’t been reviewed since 1983. So this bill is a small but important step towards providing a better framework for improving the protection and management of indigenous fish and fisheries. We need to prevent the loss of any more native freshwater fish species and restore the health of their populations and fisheries.

The bill doesn’t make major changes to how fish are managed on the ground in lakes, streams, and wetlands, and I’m committed to fully engaging with iwi and the public before any changes are made here. What it does do is make some technical changes to the Conservation Act 1987 to give us better tools to manage both indigenous fish and noxious fish like koi carp. It fixes some uncertainties and gaps in the law and will enable better regulations.

So why do we need this bill? New Zealand has 77 species of freshwater fish—56 of those are indigenous, and most of them are found nowhere else in the world. Twenty-one of our 56 indigenous freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, and that’s a higher proportion than in almost any other country. Most of these fish, including some of those which are closest to extinction, are little known. They are often nocturnal, they are shy, and many of our lowland waterways no longer have healthy populations of them. With species like eels and the species that make up the whitebait fishery, they are important fisheries, but they are also in trouble. It’s hard to believe that whitebait were once caught in such quantities that they were used as fertiliser, but over the last century, all of our native freshwater fisheries—eels, whitebait, lamprey—have experienced catastrophic declines. That’s due to drainage of wetlands, declining water quality, obstacles to fish passage and their ability to move between fresh water and the sea, and the loss of spawning sites. So we need to tackle all of these issues if we are to restore our fisheries.

Freshwater fish and indigenous fisheries are managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) under the Conservation Act, and by Fisheries New Zealand under the Fisheries Act. Broadly, DOC manages all freshwater fish species, the whitebait fishery, noxious fish, fish passage, and indirect threats to fish, such as impacts on spawning sites; Fisheries New Zealand manages customary fisheries, aquaculture, and the eel fishery. So the bill clarifies the relationship between the Fisheries Act and the Conservation Act. It changes the definition of freshwater fish to make it clear that species which occasionally use fresh water, like mullet and kahawai, are managed under the Fisheries Act rather than the Conservation Act. It also makes changes to clarify how fisheries management arrangements under Treaty settlement legislation relate to management arrangements under the Conservation Act. In clauses like clause 5, that’s changing the provisions for freshwater fish management plans so that the department can prepare a statutory plan for a particular freshwater fish species, and have it apply nationally if that was desirable.

The only native fish in Aotearoa which enjoys legal protection is the grayling, and it’s extinct. So native fish—if they’re in waterways in national parks and scenic reserves, they are protected from fishing, but if they’re in a conservation park, they’re not. The bill changes this so that native fish in waterways are given the same level of protection as other native wildlife and plants in conservation areas. In other words, if fishing is to occur, it needs to be specifically authorised. The bill also protects fish in local council reserves from recreational fishing, unless the council has specifically authorised that through a sign, for example. That covers situations where communities want eels and other native fish in their local recreation reserves to be protected from fishing, but none of these changes affect customary fishing.

The bill will make it easier for teachers and others to educate the public and students about native fish, by deleting the current regulations which make it illegal to take native fish out of a stream—fish like bullies—show them to students, and then return them promptly to the waterway without being harmed. That’s currently illegal; the bill removes those regulations.

Clause 9 relates to spawning sites, and it will provide more flexibility around how these sites are protected. Fish have very strong preferences for where they lay their eggs. The number of eggs they lay and the proportion of those which hatch depend on the availability and quality of the spawning sites. For example, with inanga—one of our whitebait species—they lay their eggs in vegetation on the banks of streams, at spring tides, at the highest point that the saltwater reaches. They need thick vegetation on those spawning sites to catch the eggs, to keep them moist, and to prevent them from drying and dying. So where you’ve got concrete and rock gabions and closely mown lawns, that means that the spawning site won’t have successful spawning.

At the moment, the Conservation Act protects eggs and it makes damage to spawning sites an offence. What the bill will do is allow regulations to define what activities constitute damage to a spawning site and what don’t, and that will provide more flexibility. It means that things like mowing a riverbank at certain times of the year, where the spawning is not going to occur and there’s no risk to the eggs, can occur, and that might be needed for things like flood control.

Clause 12 amends section 26ZM of the Conservation Act, and that’s the section which controls the movement of fish between water bodies. It clarifies the application of that section, because both DOC and Fisheries New Zealand have experienced problems in how that section applies to issues like fish movement, and the issues that arise there around biosecurity and the disease risks to other fish. It will also streamline the process for low-risk decisions. Clause 13 amends and clarifies the existing provisions which allow temporary closures of fisheries, for a period of up to five years, and this is needed sometimes to allow for a research project, for restoration work to be undertaken, or to give the fishery a chance to recover from an adverse event, and longer-term closures can be made through regulations.

Most of the controls on fishing and the activities that affect our indigenous fish are done through regulations. There are regulations which control whitebaiting, barriers to fish passage, and noxious fish, and what the bill does is provide some new regulation-making powers to fill some significant gaps in these powers. At the moment, there’s no power in section 48A of the Conservation Act to make regulations on noxious fish, and only limited powers to regulate barriers to fish passage. So DOC hasn’t been able to update the 1983 regulations that it inherited, and the bill will fill this gap.

Having the ability to make regulations to control activities like emptying drains and then killing the fish in the process, or emptying the pumps that you can sometimes have in flood-control schemes, will allow better protection for our native fish. I would note that in drafting the bill, there’s been quite a lot of care taken to ensure that it doesn’t impact on the ability of the managers of sports fisheries, such as Fish & Game, to do their work, but I’m aware that Fish & Game may believe that the bill could better address the interface issues between their management of sports fish and the Department of Conservation’s management of indigenous fish. I’m confident that a further clarification is needed here. This can be done through the select committee process.

This bill is technical in nature. It’s designed to amend the tool box for fisheries management rather than to change management on the ground, and it is a vital first step to improve the management of our very special indigenous freshwater fish, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As the spokesperson on conservation for the New Zealand National Party, and as lead for this bill for our members on the Environment Committee, it’s a pleasure to lead off this debate from our side.

It may be surprising to the Minister of Conservation, but we, too, believe in protecting our indigenous freshwater fish, so we will be supporting this bill at the first reading and to select committee. However, I do wish to make it very clear that we have some concerns and some reservations about this bill. We have concerns about its reach, and about some of the ramifications it will have on our recreational fishers and some of the costs that it may pose toward private land owners. So while we are happy to send the bill to select committee, we will be very vigilant about it. We will be questioning officials. We will be taking heed of what the submitters say. We’ll also be expecting quite a wide consultation process given that there was certainly a lack of consultation before the introduction of this bill. We want to make sure that the effects of this are truly investigated.

I do want to commend the Minister with respect to her acknowledgment of the importance of indigenous freshwater fish in New Zealand and with respect to freshwater ecosystems. From my research, I see that there are 57 species of freshwater fish and 22 of them are threatened with extinction. As the Minister noted, our freshwater fish play a really important role in aquatic ecosystems with respect to the recycling of nutrients. So their extinction or decline can pose a serious risk on our freshwater systems and their productivity.

She mentioned the longfin eel before and, actually, freshwater-wise they’re one of my favourites, albeit very prehistoric looking. They may not be as cuddly as, obviously, some of our native birds but they’re certainly unique to New Zealand. If you watch any of the fishing shows, they’re often held up as quite a significant and unique beast in New Zealand. But not only that, they’re a valuable part of our commercial fishery. So it is important that the population is monitored and obviously it is a productive one. In fact, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd estimates that the commercial eel fishery is worth about $6.1 million annually. So the future of our eel population is certainly important from an economic point of view as well.

I want to recognise that despite our efforts in the freshwater space, the productivity of freshwater fish populations and their size has decreased over the past 50 years to 100 years, especially with regards to whitebait. With the opening of the season, it’s certainly been back on the radar of people whitebaiting. The Department of Conservation (DOC), obviously, regulates the activity of whitebaiting, not with respect to catch size but it limits the methods and seasons and hour in which whitebaiting can occur. But it was stated by DOC, and it has been indicated, that it is freshwater habitat loss and degradation which is the significant problem with respect to the whitebait population.

So our position—obviously when we were in Government we were the first Government to bring in freshwater standards. We were concentrating on freshwater ecosystems through targeted funding and with restoring habitats, and certainly recognising the importance, for example, of wetlands. Waituna, down in my area, is no exception. It received extra funding to help its management. Of course, we looked at the eradication of invasive estuary weeds.

So I again reiterate that we are supporting this bill at first reading but we do have significant concerns with respect to whether these changes are going to be measured, whether they are sensible, and whether or not they will unreasonably or unfairly impact recreational fishers and/or cost private land owners significant amounts of money.

With respect to a few finer points of the bill, as the Minister has mentioned, it doesn’t in itself, on the face of it, bring any new management measures into the current regime, but it does allow the Minister of Conservation to review and improve old regulations on which fish passage and the control or eradication of noxious fish can occur. So, again, while we’re looking to improve the protection of indigenous freshwater species, we do have concerns as to the reach of how far that can go.

The first concern that I have is that further reform or too much reform in this area, as I’ve mentioned, could have significant cost on private land owners. One of the things that has been recognised is that there could be designated significant spawning habitat of, let’s say, whitebait on private land, and the question then becomes as to its management, its rehabilitation, and its protection, and where the cost falls with regards to that habitat on private land. We’re talking about more than protection on the conservation estate; we’re talking about going further and extending that to private land owners. Land adjacent to whitebait spawning areas are not off the table in which the Department of Conservation officials will look at.

A certain case study and concern of mine—while it’s a very good conservation outcome—was when I visited Denmark and they had significant trout issues, population issues, and, in some Scandinavian countries, extinctions. What they legislated for was that fish passage across rivers that were on private land needed to be cleared and that fish passage needed to be accommodated for. The cost of that fell on the private land owners. They were able to reintroduce trout and obviously maintain healthy populations, but like I say, that significant cost did fall on the private land owners, and we will need to question, in our case, as to the extent of that in the realm of New Zealand.

The bill also allows the Department of Conservation to manage water flows: so discharges, intakes, flood control works, and any infrastructure that may go to control that. So, again, where does the cost fall? Do we really need this extra tier of freshwater fish management, will it be arbitrary, how will it be controlled, and where will the costs fall? The other thing is that, as the Minister noted, it can allow the Department of Conservation to close certain fisheries and so this would adversely affect our whitebaiters and others that catch native fish.

Another thing that the Minister noted is that DOC’s native fish plans would actually take precedence over sports fish plans. So the Department of Conservation’s direction would outrank the longstanding tried and true management system of fish and game councils, which are designed for representation and implementation at the coalface. Certainly, in Southland we take our recreational fishing very seriously. We take our hunting very, very seriously—as I’m sure others do on the West Coast and further north. Duck shooting weekend in Southland is like a provincial staple. Certainly, recreational fishing puts food on the table, it provides tourism opportunities, it contributes to our economy, and the simple act of recreation as well. It provides enjoyment, it provides relaxation and exercise.

So, again, coming back to the lack of consultation, the fact that some of these stakeholders, Fish & Game, have not been consulted is very, very disappointing. That was certainly noted by Treasury in the regulatory impact statement—a lack of consultation.

So we support this bill at first reading, but we will be taking a closer look at it at the select committee.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take a call on behalf of the Labour Party in support of this bill at first reading.

Can I respond to the last speaker’s comments about what a landowner’s rights are. The idea that a landowner who owns a wetland somehow is facing a cost if they can’t reclaim it, is wrong. The idea that a landowner who owns a wetland, because they own a piece of land that includes a wetland, somehow has a private property right that enables them to destroy that wetland, is wrong. That’s never been part of the private property right in New Zealand, and it shouldn’t be.

The member who has just spoken, Sarah Dowie, said that the last Government had acted on water issues. Well, actually what they did was spike the national policy statement that was going to prevent further intensification of land use and caused our water problems to get worse. In respect of wetland protection—and I accept that the member Sarah Dowie is well-informed on these issues and is well-meaning, having, before being elected, been an employee of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in the Southland area, and she—

💬 Sarah Dowie: Don’t hold that against me.

—I don’t hold that against you—now lives in Invercargill. I’ve got to say, the stats I’ve been provided with show that due to the fact that there has been a lot of wetland reclamation over the years long gone, New Zealand has lost 90 percent of its wetlands already. The biggest problem that we’ve got with native fish is actually habitat. We’ve already lost 90 percent, but the sad truth is that the State of the Environment report that came out earlier in the year said that we’re still losing them. In respect of Southland, they said that in the period since 2007—which is, essentially, the period of the last Government—Southland lost another thousand hectares of wetland. That’s why we’re running out of native fish—we’re running out of native fish habitat.

Now, I know there are water-quality issues and there are fish passage issues as well, but it’s interesting that the areas where we have the greatest abundance of whitebait left are actually on the West Coast, where the habitat hasn’t been as modified. Essentially, if we’re going to save our native fish from becoming extinct—and I think it’s terribly sad that unless we do something different in our country, more species of native fish are going to become extinct. That’s the trajectory that we’re already on.

So I agree with Minister Eugenie Sage bringing this bill to this Parliament, because part of the answer lies in this bill. Actually, this bill, overall, is not really where we can protect habitat. That’s more to be done in the national instruments under the Resource Management Act in respect of fresh water, including estuarine areas, and, again, it’s notable that the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that the last Government promulgated doesn’t properly control for these effects. So that’s one of the areas that we’re going to have to have another look at the national policy statement and do better in that regard.

In respect of the issues that are raised in respect of predator fish, it is true that introduced species, including trout and salmon, quite like the little cockabully if it goes past. Now, that doesn’t mean to say that we should be ignoring the proper role of Fish & Game to look after the sports fisheries, and—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Well, that’s your mate.

What’s that?

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: That’s your mate who’s running it. Martin’s your mate.

He’s very competent. He’s behind you, looking down at your bald spot.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Now that’s a Minister that shouldn’t be talking about bald spots.

Well, that’s true, too. That’s true too. But it—[Interruption] It is true that I have a bald spot. It’s also true that in terms of the parts of habitat in New Zealand that do not currently have sports fish in them, actually, we do have to be careful that they don’t expand into those areas, because those are some of the remaining habitats that have not been subject to predation pressure by introduced sports fish.

I am sure that that issue can be worked through between Fish & Game and the Department of Conservation. My understanding is that the greater concern in respect of introduced fish is the likes of koi carp. Now, I was shocked, upon becoming Minister in the current Government, when I went to have a look at some of the problems in the Waikato catchment about how bad the problems with koi carp are there. They are an introduced goldfish that grow to a large size in the wild and, uncontrolled, their spread of population is awful. There are farmers and other community members in the Waikato catchment who are just tearing their hair out, but no matter what they do to improve fresh water quality, they can’t get on top of the problem caused by koi carp.

Koi carp burrow into the beds of the rivers and the banks. They kick up sediment. They really ruin the habitat. It’s a problem that we haven’t got under control in New Zealand, and we don’t really know at the moment how far they’re spreading. Sadly, there are occasions where New Zealanders deliberately spread them because they like the fish to catch and eat, but it causes such terrible problems environmentally that we’ve really got to do a bit better with koi carp. So if we need more regulation-making powers on the part of the Minister to control koi carp—and I think we do—I’m in favour of that because they really are a scorge, a scourge.

💬 Hon Members: “A scourge”.

Yes, a scourge—thank you. So I don’t think I need to say much beyond that. I do think we need to look at these issues as to the border between DOC and Fish & Game on this. I note that Fish & Game do have statutory authority in respect of sports fish, so I’m sure that we can work those issues through.

A final point before I sit: I hope that you have the ability to look at tidal flaps. Tidal flaps are used as a cheap way of reclaiming land. They stop the tidal inflow coming in on the incoming tide. They block it because they push against the drain and then against the culvert, and then, as the water builds up when there’s a low tide, it opens up and it drains the water. They are an effective, really cheap way of, effectively, draining wetlands.

I was involved in litigation with this years ago, where we put a stop to any more of them on the Merton tidal arm, and the structures that were then consented—at a time when perhaps we weren’t aware of the threats in respect of the extinction of native fish—were time-limited, but the practice has been that we should always just renew them. I think we actually need to look at whether we’ve got that right as a country, because we really are running out of native fish.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in this first reading of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to make a couple of comments about the contribution made by the Hon David Parker, because I thought he brought some thoughtful consideration to the interconnectivity of a range of issues that this bill seeks to address. He effectively highlighted the complicated nature of our ecosystem, of our freshwater ways, of our water quality, of wetlands, of indigenous species and of introduced species, and how no one single factor really is dominant in terms of the long-term preservation of indigenous freshwater species, but they are under threat from a range of activities—human, physical, historic—that have caused us to get to a fairly awful state where so many of those species are now under threat of extinction, and, certainly, that’s not something that any of us want to have occur.

He particularly made a point about the issue of koi carp. I know that in my electorate of the Coromandel, across the Hauraki Plains, that is an issue in the waterways and the drains, and in the areas where koi carp are prevalent, farmers do tear their hair out. Minister Parker acknowledged his bald spot. I’m sure that that has occurred not for any reason to do with koi carp, but it does highlight the overarching concern of a wide range of New Zealanders who have multiple interests in ensuring that our indigenous freshwater fish species are preserved, maintained, and enhanced.

I wanted to just also comment on Minister Sage’s introductory speech. She made it very clear that she had a preference to be utterly committed to engaging with the public and iwi, but in terms of that engagement, she didn’t actually mention Fish & Game until very late in her contribution, and I think that is a bit of a challenge around this bill.

So my colleague Sarah Dowie, who is the National Party’s conservation spokesperson, has acknowledged that we are intending to support this bill to first reading. We’ll send it to select committee. But as is the case with so much legislation, the devil is in the detail, and I regret to say that this Minister introducing this bill is rapidly developing a reputation for being well intentioned but not good on detail. There are some concerns in this bill that highlight that lack of attention to detail yet again, and only go to enforce, or reinforce, the rapidly growing perception of a Minister who’s not completely over her portfolio areas.

This bill is well intended. It seeks to make amendments to some legislation that is now quite old—probably no longer fit for purpose. But there are some issues. There’s no mechanism in the bill, for instance, to ensure that Fish & Game is consulted before decisions are taken by the Department of Conservation that could negatively impact on sports fish management in New Zealand. And that’s an obvious and glaring oversight in this legislation—so much so that Fish & Game have taken it upon themselves to seek independent legal advice ahead of this bill being introduced, and they’ve gone to none other than that well-respected oracle on things legal, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Queen’s Counsel, no less. They’ve commissioned an opinion from Sir Geoffrey Palmer that creates some obvious concern.

I’m sure that Fish & Game, at select committee, will make a detailed submission to the committee, and it will largely be based on the legal opinion that’s been provided by Sir Geoffrey. But Fish & Game, as members will know, represents the 110,000 anglers and some 30,000 game bird hunters who are active in New Zealand. And when they look at legislation that comes before this House, they look at it in terms of a starting position that basically says, “Does this legislation maintain Fish & Game’s status quo position? Does it improve their interests, or does it undermine the interests of Fish & Game?”

Frighteningly, in terms of this piece of legislation, Sir Geoffrey, in his legal opinion, has identified some very significant issues for Fish & Game. His conclusion, in his legal opinion, is that, and I quote, “aspects of the reforms impact directly and negatively on Fish & Game”. And he specifically draws attention to proposed clause 6, which, in Sir Geoffrey’s opinion, he believes will allow Treaty settlements to actually override the several important elements of the sport fisheries management regime that exists in New Zealand and has done for a long period of time. Indeed, he cites a case from the Court of Appeal in McRitchie v Taranaki Fish and Game Council back in 1999, where those matters were traversed and canvassed, and where those matters that are of great concern to Fish & Game, in terms of the legal opinion provided by Sir Geoffrey, are highlighted.

Sir Geoffrey goes on in his legal opinion—and I’m sure that the Minister will be taking careful consideration of this. Sir Geoffrey says, and I quote, “I consider that this bill has the potential to seriously impact on Fish & Game’s interests. The amendments are, on the whole, quite technical. Aspects of them will impact on the sports fishery regime managed by Fish & Game. I understand that Fish & Game were not consulted on the bill despite the impact on its interests, and I consider that to be concerning and unusual. Fish & Game is a statutory body that has a no-surprises arrangement recorded in its memorandum of understanding with the Department of Conservation, and that does not seem to have been honoured here.”

In fact, if one turns to the departmental disclosure statement there are some concerning matters in that that go to the very core of the lack of consultation, which again goes to reinforce the impression that this Minister hasn’t done the detail, hasn’t done the homework, and isn’t across her portfolio. It says that “The Bill only relates to indigenous freshwater fish, and threats to those fish (including noxious fish). The Bill does not relate to introduced sports fish”. Then when we get to paragraph 2.3.1 of that paper, the question is asked “If so, did the RIA Team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?” And the answer is “The review team considers”—and this is Treasury, remember, saying this—“The review team considers that it partially meets the quality assurance criteria. … However”—and it’s a big however—“the key constraint, which has been acknowledged in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, is that the time frame did not allow consultation with iwi and stakeholders.” It goes on to say “stakeholders are likely to have some concerns about the lack of consultation and the limited scope of the review.”

So here we have Treasury, the advisers to Government—on this piece of legislation at its first reading, coming to the House in what clearly is an incomplete and not fully prepared situation. Now, that’s just not good enough. Notwithstanding the good intentions of the bill—again, the detail and the preparation has not been achieved. It’s not been fulfilled, and it goes to a Minister who is keen on getting something into the House, hoping that the select committee will do the legwork on her behalf, and that the select committee will do the consultation with Fish & Game that hasn’t been even attempted to have taken place during the preparation phase for this piece of legislation.

So, in summary, Opposition members in the National Party will support this bill at first reading, but we have some grave reservations about the detail; we have some grave reservations about the lack of consultation; and we have some grave reservations about the intent, hidden or otherwise, that this bill may seek to achieve. In short, we are concerned that there is a hidden agenda here, so we will be on great alert at select committee as we peruse the bill.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First—and my colleague, Jenny Marcroft—to take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill at first reading, but we cannot commit to supporting it further. We have some concerns—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Oh, coalition’s falling apart.

—but let’s start with—oh, Mr Guy. What’s really interesting, what is incredibly interesting about a working coalition Government, is that the National Party doesn’t recognise it. The National Party doesn’t actually recognise how a group of people can come together and discuss things in a grown-up and constructive way, and actually make things better. But that would be because Mr Guy and the National Party have never had to discuss anything with the cling-ons that they have been in Government with before.

If we come to the bill, let’s start with the bits that are good. Let’s start with the bits that New Zealand First supports. So first of all, we actually support—the Minister of Conservation quite clearly articulated about what has actually been a silly piece of legislation before, where, for example, the Wai Care project that many of our schools run to make sure that our young people are able to participate in greater learning about what is their natural environment, what is part of protecting the future of New Zealand, by going down into the streams and waterways that feed into the major waterways around their schooling areas and taking out some of the living organisms in that stream for a short period of time—strangely enough, they work with the Department of Conservation to do this. And the clarity, what is in that waterway—they learn how that shows the clarity of that water, how clean the streams are, and they quite quickly put them back. The whole purpose is to teach the young people how to be part of what is the process of actually protecting our nation. New Zealand First celebrates the changing of that piece of legislation to make sure that the Wai Care project and similar projects in combination with our education system and the Department of Conservation can go forward, without worrying about six-year-olds or 10-year-olds being arrested for taking bullies out of the stream.

Around fish passageways, those migrating fish that need to get to places and where man-made implements have been put in their way—again, we celebrate the fact that there must be a much more concentrated effort to make sure that when we disturb the environment, we do it in a way that takes into account how we can work better with it. I take on board the Northern Gateway, which was the large motorway, actually, that ran to Ōrewa from Albany, or wherever. But the culvert adaptation that was created during that project, it was a brand new adaptation to create culverts with the possible ripples through it. There were plastic inserts inside the culverts, so that as the water ran, as the streams ran, the ripples and pool effect of a normal stream was able to be duplicated so that it didn’t interfere with what is the process for our native fish. There are ways for us to better work with our environment and make sure we don’t just override what is our progress, supposedly, and then make sure that we take away things that are incredibly important to us.

However, the concerns we have are the concerns around, for example, those articulated by Mr Scott—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Simpson.

—Simpson. Mr Simpson. Thank you, Mr Guy. It’s all right. We’ll get there in the end.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Here to help.

He’s loud but not very effective. Ha, ha! So we do have similar concerns to Mr Simpson’s, which is around the level of consultation that has taken place, which is around actually making sure that while we’re trying to protect one part of our environment, we don’t have unintended consequences that affect another.

If we do talk about, for example, trout in this nation—and can I just mention, though, the comments by the Hon David Parker around koi carp. I absolutely agree that we have an issue in this nation with koi carp, and we really do need a concerted effort in this nation to deal with that problem. That needs to be at an educational level about those that are actually releasing goldfish into the environment, about those that have decided that it’s a great species to have here, without recognising that, actually, it’s doing more to destroy our environment and costing us other species on the downstream of it.

But, I mean, 110,000 people buy trout fishing licences every year. We do need to make sure that when we make some rules over here, we don’t have unintended consequences over there. The Hon David Parker acknowledged that there must be a way—there surely is a way—through this, through Fish & Game and through the Department of Conservation. And that is exactly, I would say, Mr Simpson, the real value of the select committee. The select committee is where those groups can come and talk to the representatives of the Parliament without having to come and talk to representatives of parties individually, and where representatives of the Parliament can come together and, through their—I suppose, what would you call it?—collective brainpower that might be at a select committee, they can come forward with those recommendations that make sure that as a nation we move forward. And that’s the value of the select committee.

I know that it was a particular line that the Opposition wanted to run about a particularly effective and very hard-working Minister. I know that it’s one of those things that they like to run when they see somebody doing their job as well as this Minister is doing—then the opportunity to just have a little chip is always there. But that is exactly what select committee is for. That is the power of select committee, to send a piece of legislation that has been thought out as well as it can be and gets sent to select committee—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: I think there’ll be another redhead in the conservation department very soon.

—so that the combined power of the Parliament. Yes, Mr Simpson, you can participate fully. The combined power of the Parliament can actually bring their weight to bear and improve in those places where Mr Simpson would like to improve.

Before I sit down, I would like to say one further thing. Ms Dowie, in her contribution, talked about, I think it was, her favourite fish, which is the longfin eel. One of the things that is happening with regard to—it’s interesting when we talk about whitebait—that glass eel. Juvenile eels are actually being depleted in the wild because they are being fished so that they can be grown in sort of a farmed environment and then sold on. And it was the previous National Government, unfortunately, that refused to provide any research dollars so that Mahurangi Technical Institute, for example, could break that 12-day barrier where young eels can actually feed off their own egg sac, and then we wouldn’t have to deplete from the wild stocks, but we could actually have a highly profitable eel farming industry here in New Zealand without depleting our wild stock. So it is interesting that it’s something that Ms Dowie loves but, unfortunately, none of them could fund.

So, with that, I will give the floor over to other colleagues. But, as I say, New Zealand First hopes to work constructively, as we always do, with our Labour Party coalition partners, with the supply and confidence Green partners, because we know on this side of the House that when you talk with each other, anything can be solved. Kia ora.

What we just heard from Tracey Martin was the payback for the Greens voting and supporting the waka-jumping bill, wasn’t it? Because we heard that New Zealand First said, “Yes, we’ll support it to the first reading, but we’re not quite sure whether we’ll support it thereafter.” Well, I’ll tell you what’ll happen. That was a speech written by Shane Jones, because he’s the true fisheries Minister. So the Minister standing in for Shane Jones, Tracey Martin, had to come down and deliver that speech. I thought what was really fascinating was she spent more time talking about ripply culverts on the Northern Gateway—she seemed quite an expert—but what she failed to mention is that New Zealand First are dead against a four-lane highway carrying on from there through to Whangarei, which I think is really disappointing.

Focusing back on this bill now—this is a very important bill, the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. It provides more tools for fisheries management of indigenous fisheries and, of course, the threat to fish and, in particular, noxious fish. We have heard numerous contributions this evening and, actually, some concern from this side of the House. And I want to run through some of those concerns that we do have.

We are cautiously supporting this bill to hear the debate in the select committee. We look forward to hearing from iwi. I wonder if the Minister of Conservation has already spoken to iwi about this bill. I wonder if the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations has bothered to pick up the phone and let iwi know that this bill is coming. All the heads are down on the other side—even Willie Jackson’s not even sure, in the back row, and you would’ve thought that he would’ve picked up the phone, being connected to iwi, and said, “Hey, this bill is coming. You may want to be alerted to it and spend some time focusing in on the deal.” Was there any pre-consultation done by the Green Party Minister Eugenie Sage? That’s a live question. It’d be great to hear the response from the next speakers. I doubt that there has been any. Iwi will be a bit concerned about this bill, in particular their Treaty settlement and the obligations that this bill—this bill is, basically, going to give Department of Conservation (DOC) officials more power, and I’m a little bit concerned about that.

It also has an aspect to do with—it gives the director-general the right to declare any specified land to be a spawning ground for freshwater fish, and prohibit or impose entry restrictions on to that land. These are wide ranging powers that need to be explored and fully debated in the select committee. That means the director-general can, basically, go on to a landowner’s property and say, “This is a very significant waterway for spawning of native fish species, and we need to put a closure on it.” Well, then who’s going to—if it’s not fenced—cover the cost of the fencing? Who’s going to cover the cost of the signs? What about compensation for that? These are all the questions that need to be explored through the select committee.

Also this bill proposes, effectively, to outrank and come in over the top of the sports fish and game management plan. These plans have been in place for a long time. It’s interesting seeing the political power play, because normally these environmental NGOs—whether it’s Greenpeace, Fish & Game, Forest & Bird—they all tend to line up with this Government, but there’s quite a bit of factionalism that’s actually playing out in the background at the moment, and that will play out in the select committee. So Fish & Game have gone as far as paying a QC to give them advice on the wide-ranging nature of this bill. So there’s quite a bit of concern from Fish & Game, and they represent—as we know—a hell of a lot of people.

It was interesting to note that Horizons Regional Council, covering the area that I represent—Iain Lees-Galloway and Ian McKelvie, both MPs in the House this evening, where Horizons represent the areas that they are constituency MPs for—wrote to the Minister in April. They wanted clarification from Minister Sage on trying to balance the interests of protecting trout and native fish species. The Minister said, “Oh, don’t worry, I’ll come back to you in several months.” Presumably, this is her answer. We know that trout are a very invasive species. I think what’s going to play out in the select committee is the Resource Management Act section 6, that has particular regard for the protection of trout and salmon, where this bill is fundamentally about protecting native fish species and giving more wide-ranging powers to DOC officials, that I have some concerns about.

Also it’s interesting, and it’s not covered in any of the speeches so far, to note the work that farmers are doing, and, in particular, Fonterra farmers who have signed up with DOC, and they’re on the crusade with a plan that covers off Living Water, which is a partnership. And I have seen numerous examples where Fonterra farmers have worked in partnership with DOC to protect fauna and also do more to protect waterways and native fish species.

It’s heartening to see that Springston farmer down near Christchurch, Phil Musson, a dairy farmer, who won the working with nature environmental award on behalf of North Canterbury Fish & Game—he restored the Powells Road drain, which is a tributary into the Selwyn River, and very important for a trout spawning area. So we have progressive farmers that are out there doing their bit to enhance these particular native fish species that we are all so concerned about.

What’s also interesting—in the last couple of moments—is to have a look at the recent media commentary around Federated Farmers indicating that farmers should be out putting their hands up to stand for the Fish & Game Council, which I think’s very appropriate, isn’t it? The elections are coming up in a couple of weeks’ time. Farmers, on most occasions, when someone rings them up or knocks on their door, let recreational users, anglers, duck shooters, or hunters come on their property. You should have seen the negative comments that came back from Martin Taylor, who’s the relatively new chief executive of Fish & Game. He said, “The idea seemed to be to get less progressive farmers on the councils”—this is the Fish & Game councils throughout New Zealand—“in order to stop Fish & Game pointing out that the intensive farming emperor has no clothes.” And I could go on and outline other negative comments from Martin Taylor that really disappointed me, because you would have thought that Fish & Game would want to have councils that are inclusive. Myself, a dairy farmer and an avid and very excited duck shooter, in every duck shooting season I go and buy a licence. What’s wrong with me or my colleagues putting their hand up to say, “We’re interested in fishing and hunting. We want to have our voices heard on the Fish & Game regional councils.”? Potentially, they could get elected on to the national body, where there’s 12 gentlemen sitting on there at the moment.

So I think there are challenges for Fish & Game, who will no doubt be coming into the select committee saying, “We’ve all got concerns about our fish and game management plans.” The biggest concern that they’ve got is about being inclusive and getting farmers democratically elected on to their regional councils so that they can actually bridge the gap and the divide, because these are the people that let hunters and anglers on to their property.

I call Dr Deborah Russell.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Next Minister of Conservation.

Ha, ha! This bill is small fry in terms of what it does—in terms of what it concerns itself with. It is actually only tidying up some small matters in the Conservation Act. You know, the scales have fallen from our eyes in terms of what might actually be in the Conservation Act. We’ve seen the holes in the net of protections around our precious fish and come across problems, such as that native fish in national parks and in scenic reserves were protected, but native fish in conservation parks were not. It was a slippery set of rules that people found hard to understand. So this bill is a bit of a grab bag of measures. It is not a dredge, scooping up everything on the ocean floor. In fact, it’s a set of tools—you know, a set of flies, of hooks, of rods, of sinkers—each targeted at a specific purpose to try to catch exactly the right problem. To snag the particular problem, to untie the knot, to sort it out—this is what this bill aims to do.

In fact, for all the cries from the Opposition side of the House that there was no detail in this bill, I tell you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that in fact there is a lot of detail in this bill, and it tries to sort out some very specific problems. If we look at clause 5 of the bill, something that it makes very clear is that sports fishing will be permitted, but not at the expense of freshwater fish. So in other words, there’s a balancing of provisions there. Clause 5 amends a particular definition. It inserts a provision saying that where there is a provision in a freshwater fisheries management plan and a provision in a sports fish and game management plan, then the provision in the freshwater fish management plan prevails. It’s a really straightforward ordering rule, there.

If we go to clause 7, it inserts new sections 26ZHA and 26ZHB into the Act. What it is doing is it is making it very, very clear that a person can take indigenous fish from a fishery if it is taken primarily for food consumption, including for sale of food, and it can be taken if the fish are taken in a manner that does not lead to their injury or death. So it does allow for sports fishing, provided that those fish are returned to the waters as soon as practicable after being taken. That sort of detail is present in this bill.

If we want to have a look at some of the real detail that’s in here, if we go to clause 13 of the bill, it replaces section 26ZP(1) to (3) about closed seasons. Instead of having a closed season that may be imposed for any length of time, it limits those closed seasons to five years. That’s the kind of detail that has been put into this bill by the very careful and conscientious Minister of Conservation. So I say to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that the Minister has been very, very careful with this particular bill, trying to catch exactly the right rules and trying to catch exactly the right regulations to make it clear what this bill would apply to.

So for all the cries from the other side of the House, I think this is a very careful bill. There has been one objection raised, in particular for the Fish & Game councils. And I think this is quite an important objection, talking about how Fish & Game has perhaps been excluded from this bill. But if we look at what Fish & Game’s objectives are, their objectives are “to manage, maintain, and enhance” sports fish and game birds. In other words, it’s an objective that conflicts with the objective of protecting our indigenous fish. That’s something we need to think about long and hard.

As a final word, may I pay a compliment to my former colleague at Massey University, now at Victoria University, Dr Mike Joy, whose work on fisheries has been so important.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.