Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill

I move, That the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

The purpose of this bill is to regulate commercial shark cage diving operations. The penultimate shark, the great white, inhabits our waters around New Zealand, but, partly due to the prevalence of fur seal breeding colonies, Stewart Island and the Chathams are two places where you’re virtually guaranteed an encounter. Shark cage diving is for the intrepid. From the safety of a cage that is lowered into the water, cage diving involves fee-paying divers viewing sharks in their natural habitat. The sharks are drawn to the area, mainly using berley, which is ground so fine that it provides scent but no food.

The issue of shark cage diving was first brought to my attention in 2014 while hearing submissions on the Health and Safety at Work Bill. PauaMAC5, which represents commercial pāua divers, made representations about shark cage diving and some of the practices that were used to entice sharks to the area for viewing—some of them, allegedly, reckless. There are allegations of measures being used, including tuna bait, heavy metal music, and decoys, which has been attributed to the anxiety and tension between shark cage diving operations and other users—pāua divers and swimmers in the vicinity—and the fear that these activities are changing the behaviour of sharks, making them even more aggressive toward people.

With that in mind, my member’s bill acknowledges and addresses those tensions that have developed within the small community of Stewart Island over shark cage diving. It provides much-needed best-practice regulations for the activity.

Shark cage diving began in 2008 off the coast of Stewart Island and quickly grew in popularity. Tourists travelled worldwide for the opportunity to come face to face with great whites. These businesses built an eco-tourism opportunity, instilled an appreciation of nature and, in some cases, adrenaline, and created jobs and opportunities for those in Bluff and Dunedin.

On the flip side, the concern of locals at Stewart Island and divers was that the use of berley and decoys was changing sharks’ behaviour, so much so that sharks were allegedly following vessels in expectation of food, putting divers and all those who entered the water at greater risk. In particular—and a concern that is easily understood—is locals at Stewart Island feeling unsafe while they or their children swim at a popular beach within 10 kilometres of the operating area. While there may be no scientific evidence that these operations are changing the behaviour of sharks, it is not difficult to comprehend the concern of those using waters in the vicinity of the activity. As the businesses grew in popularity and tensions rose, an anti - shark cage diving Facebook page was created, and, in June 2015, a petition was even presented to Parliament calling for the activity to be banned.

Legal challenges, however, also form a backdrop to my member’s bill, and, even more so, after the recent Supreme Court ruling, it shows that Parliament needs to step in and provide some much-needed clarity to this grey area in the law.

The reality is that this was an issue that continued to grow. No one really knew how to deal with it, and the same can be said for those who held responsibility for the activity. In brief, Maritime New Zealand handles the regulation of vessels, WorkSafe New Zealand looks after people on the job, the Ministry for Primary Industries is in charge of fisheries, and the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) mandate is to protect sharks. In light of the growing tensions and conflicts, it was the Department of Conservation who eventually stepped in. It released interim guidelines in 2013 as a means of engaging the dive operators and other interested parties. Off the back of this, then conservation Minister Nick Smith announced in February 2014 that tourism businesses viewing great white sharks would be required to have a permit, similar to how they’re required for whale, dolphin, and seal watching. A code of practice was introduced under the Wildlife Act 1953, and, in December 2015, tighter permit conditions came after an operator was warned over bait use.

Attempts to regulate the industry ultimately proved unsuccessful. PauaMAC5 first filed proceedings against DOC and the Director-General of Conservation that same month, arguing divers were put in danger and also challenging the director-general’s powers to issue authorisations. Contrary to PauaMAC5’s position, DOC maintained that public safety matters and issues arising between users competing for space were not relevant considerations under the Act.

In the High Court, Clark J reasoned in June 2017 that shark diving was not an offence under the Wildlife Act, finding therein that the director-general did not have the jurisdiction to control it, but this wasn’t the end of the matter. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision in September 2018. They deemed shark cage diving to be an offence under the Wildlife Act and also stated that the director-general had no power under the act to authorise the activity. In a further twist, the Bluff company Shark Experience successfully appealed the decision in the Supreme Court late last year.

To cut a 41-page judgment short, shark cage diving is no longer an offence per se, and therefore New Zealanders face once more with the prospect of people swimming with these apex predators unregulated. Yet it would be wrong to say that the Supreme Court’s decision puts the matter entirely to bed. This is because while the court ruled on the correct approach to interpreting section 63A of the Wildlife Act, focusing on the definition of “hunt or kill”, it declined to make a determination on the limited facts before it.

The 1953 Wildlife Act is therefore clearly ineffectual. The Acts entanglement with shark cage diving shows it to be out of date and unsuitable for modern wildlife management. In fact, the extension, retraction, and variation via the courts of section 63A of the Wildlife Act, being the definition of hunt or kill, puts in jeopardy the legality of issuing permits for even scientific activities, such as some methods of bird counting and other studies. The Wildlife Act 1953 is an Act that requires modernisation and, with respect to the specialised activity of shark cage diving, separate legislation. Therefore, despite its best intentions and expending time and resources, the Department of Conservation was rendered impotent and does not have the tools to properly resolve the issue.

My stand-alone bill helps provide clarity for shark cage operators and DOC as well as answering the concerns of local residents. Sending it to select committee would enable the bill to be further honed, allowing local residents to have their voices heard and for operators to have their say. Select committee is also the forum to test the information and resolve this issue, as, once New Zealand moves through the COVID-19 risks, tourism will again thrive and this opportunity will be on offer. In particular, this bill provides an ability for permit conditions, if granted, relating to the geographical area within which an operator can occur, frequency and time frames, and how the activity should be conducted. I again reiterate that at the moment this activity is unregulated.

This is an issue that has dogged Stewart Islanders and operators, one that New Zealand First campaigned on in 2017, and one that has been brought to the attention of Labour and the Greens. The smaller communities, such as Stewart Island and Bluff, that I represent, should not go unnoticed, and, even more so, the threats that they face should be taken seriously. This is a time when parties should come together to send a practical bill which seeks to overcome a conflict to select committee. I am confident that this bill can provide a win for all of those involved. I take this opportunity to thank representatives from PauaMAC5, tourism, and the operators; Stewart Island locals; and department staff for their advocacy relating to this issue. It is one that I have taken seriously in my time as member for Invercargill, and I believe wholeheartedly that this is the best course of action to resolve this issue. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, thank you. Pleased to speak to the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill and do commend the member for Invercargill, Sarah Dowie, for the serious effort that she has made to address this issue.

So the Wildlife Act is the major mechanism in New Zealand by which we protect wildlife and also by which we regulate hunting. It’s part of our responsibilities under an international Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to prohibit the taking—which includes hunting, fishing, capturing, and harassing—of great white sharks. As Ms Dowie noted, prior to the Supreme Court decision in Shark Experience Limited v PauaMAC5 Inc., which came out on October 2019, Department of Conservation (DOC) sought to manage great white sharks and shark cage diving under the Wildlife Act by requiring operators to abide by a code of practice and also to gain a permit and also to comply with Maritime New Zealand’s vessel safety guidelines. But it was a series of court decisions in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and then, finally, the Supreme Court which determined that the provisions in the Wildlife Act don’t enable the Department of Conservation to authorise shark cage diving. So the effect of that decision was that there is currently no mechanism under the Wildlife Act to regulate shark cage diving. It’s an uncontrolled activity, both in relation to its effects on sharks and to the safety of other users of the sea, including recreational fishers, commercial fishers, pāua divers, and the others. So acknowledge that this is the gap which Ms Dowie’s bill seeks to fill.

As the Supreme Court noted and so did the Court of Appeal, the Wildlife Act, which is an Act from 1953, had become difficult to use over time because of piecemeal amendments. These are magnificent animals. They were made famous by Jaws. They’re one of the few species which are actually protected in the Wildlife Act in one of the schedules, along with four other shark species, and great white sharks are a threatened species. The population in New Zealand and East Australian waters is estimated at being fewer than 800 animals.

So as Minister of Conservation, I want to protect both sharks and people. I think the most simple and effective way to do this—to manage the risks to public safety and to protect the sharks—is to prohibit shark cage diving, except potentially in defined areas. Because shark cage diving does interfere with the sharks’ natural behaviour. As Ms Dowie noted, operators put berley or bait in the water to attract the sharks. Australian researchers have noticed that there are detectable changes in the behaviour of great white sharks where there’s shark cage diving. They tend to spend more time at the surface and more time at the dive site than they would otherwise.

What we have now, near Rakiura / Stewart Island is a small—it was originally two operators, but potentially it could expand. Some of the risks to sharks from shark cage diving include them becoming seriously injured if they get entangled in the cage, and there is at least one example in New Zealand where a shark has got caught in a slot in the cage and been injured. They can get entangled in the ropes which are put out. They can collide with the cage or the boat, and there have been instances where they’ve been seen to have abrasions on their skin from colliding with the cage. So shark cage diving, while it only occurs currently at Rakiura, could also occur around the Three Kings Islands at Kapowairua, Spirits Bay, East Cape, Fiordland, and the Chatham Islands, where operators may seek to target blue sharks and shortfin makos, as well.

So what’s the regime overseas? Well, generally, in areas like Australia, South Africa, Mexico, and California, shark cage diving is prohibited except in specific places. In Australia, for example, it’s only allowed in the Neptune Islands Group in South Australia at a site more than 30 kilometres from the coast. In Mexico, it’s only permitted within the Guadalupe Island Biosphere Reserve that’s some 260 kilometres from the mainland coast, and it’s restricted to a small area there. In California, it’s only permitted at the Farallon Islands and they’re 45 kilometres off the coast, and things like chum or baiting and decoys aren’t permitted. There’s no work that has yet been done in New Zealand to identify areas where shark cage diving could occur without conflict with other users and where it was safe for sharks. So I prefer the approach which has been adopted overseas of a general prohibition and legislation which protects both sharks and people, and the Department of Conservation is developing policy with the intention of introducing legislation to do this.

This legislation—the legislation DOC is developing—would respond to the concerns of the Rakiura / Stewart Island community. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2015 when Helen Cave and 768 others presented their petition to the committee. Ken McAnergney and others spoke of the very real fear that they felt going out in small boats near Oban, of having people swimming there, because they believed that having shark cage diving had acclimatised sharks to boats, had got sharks to associate boats with food, and they were able to cite instances where sharks had followed small boats, and that was creating quite a lot of concern and fear in the community.

So this bill is an effort by Ms Dowie to fill that gap with the Supreme Court decision, but it is not the appropriate bill because it deals largely with human safety. It has no provisions in it which actually protect sharks, it doesn’t look at that bigger picture, and it doesn’t deal with Treaty issues. There is no Treaty clause in this, and that is really important because sharks are a taonga species and because there was a comprehensive report by the Waitangi Tribunal making significant recommendations about how the Wildlife Act needs to be amended to provide that—no one owns wildlife, to provide for shared management of protected species in line with the principles of Treaty partnership. This Government has determined that we will adopt an integrated approach to the Wai 262 recommendations, and that means that any legislation which deals with sharks has to be based on that Treaty partnership. This bill does not include anything in that regard. It misses out on providing more effective protection for sharks, and that is the reason why the Green Party is not supporting this bill. Instead, as Minister of Conservation, I am working with the department to develop some more comprehensive legislation—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Doing nothing.

—which will protect both sharks and people. Now I hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith shouting in opposition. The reason this hasn’t been done today is because this Government was waiting for the Court of Appeal decision and the Supreme Court decision to rule on the interpretation of the provisions in the Wildlife Act, which the department had previously thought provided a mechanism for permitting. It wasn’t until October 2019 that it became quite clear that there wasn’t that mechanism under the Act, and the Supreme Court made that ruling. So we are now addressing that gap, but we believe we need more comprehensive legislation that deals with Treaty principles—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: When will your bill come?

—that protects both sharks and people. When will it come, the member says. It will come when this Government is re-elected, and we will do it after the election.

Well, what an appalling disgrace the Minister of Conservation is on this bill. There she was this evening in the face of a very good, measured, well-presented, logical, and practical bill presented by my friend and colleague—the member for Invercargill, Sarah Dowie—and the Minister of Conservation can only enhance her already famous reputation for doing nothing by again telling the House that she’s going to do nothing yet again. This is a Minister of Conservation who has been Minister for nearly three years, and her reputation falls before her. She is the Minister of Conservation who has done the least in that role of any previous Minister of Conservation to have ever held the role.

Now, here we have a very good, practical, sensible bill that simply regulates shark diving activity in situations where there is a tension between public who are concerned about the potential risks, versus the challenges and tensions of an active tourist adventure business that wants to go about its lawful business. This is a case that has actually gone all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s hard to believe that so much litigation could have occurred around something that my friend and colleague Sarah Dowie has found a simple, practical solution for.

This is a system that would simply require a permit to manage the conflicting local tensions. It’s a good idea. It’s sensible and it’s practical. Unlike the Minister’s solution, which is just to defer to textbooks and advisers and actually do nothing, here we have Sarah Dowie, who brings to the House—and I want to congratulate her for bringing this bill to the House—a diligent, hard-working local member of Parliament who is confronted with a local issue that has caused angst and concern in her electorate and for those visiting her electorate.

She brings a member’s bill to the House—that’s exactly what a good, hard-working member of Parliament should do. She brings it to the House and the Minister of Conservation swats it away, dismisses it arrogantly—as this Government is so famous for—while offering no practical solution of her own. With literally only a month or two to go of this Government’s term in office, she offers no protection to the people who have a problem down around Stewart Island and who want to run a simple business. So I’m very disappointed to hear that the Minister has done this.

But what’s even more disappointing is the role of New Zealand First, who I’m told are going to oppose this piece of legislation. I can see Clayton Mitchell nodding, because it was interesting that he attended a meeting in April 2015 with none other than the Deputy Prime Minister—who wasn’t, of course, Deputy Prime Minister at that stage—one Winston Peters. At that public meeting, Winston Peters said, “I don’t know how they”—and what he meant was the National-led Government who were in Government at the time—“could have made this decision.” And Winston Peters went on to say, “If I saw a hall this size and I was in Government, I would listen to what they have to say.” “I would listen to what they have to say.” said Mr Peters. Well, it seems now that—like so many things—when he’s in Government, he conveniently forgets the promises and assurances that New Zealand First made while they were in Opposition, because New Zealand First find talk to be cheap and action to be slow and non-existent, just like the Minister of Conservation.

So I’m sorry to hear that the Government are not going to be supporting this bill. It’s a good bill presented to the House with a pragmatic, sensible solution by a hard-working member of Parliament representing her electorate in a diligent and thorough way. For the Government just to dismiss it—as they have become so famous for—I think is an appalling tragedy and a disappointment, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from this Government.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie. This is a really important piece of legislation, and it will become a legacy piece of legislation for her. Shark cage diving is obviously a business, and she has constituents who have asked her to advocate on their behalf. I want to acknowledge that this bill seeks to provide that the Department of Conservation (DOC) develop standards and, via a permit, enable shark cage diving operators to provide this type of adventure tourism. Why would they want to do that? Well, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, such as South Africa, South Australia, California, and Mexico, it has the potential to bring up to $28 million into that community. So behind what Sarah’s been fighting for has been an opportunity for her community, and I want to acknowledge it.

But we do have to contrast that with the pāua industry. I find that interesting, because, really, this is a business-versus-business issue. The value of the pāua industry is $60 million. It’s a lot of money, and, actually, a lot of pāua is being consumed not only here but the export market for pāua is huge, and therein lies the issue. These pāua divers are freedivers, they don’t use tanks, and it’s a health and safety issue which drove the pāua industry to go through the court system.

One of the questions I asked in preparing for my contribution tonight was: can sharks be harmed by shark cage diving? Obviously, the Minister has articulated it, but DOC did commission a report in 2015 by Barry Bruce, who works for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Tasmania, and it’s titled A review of cage diving impacts on white shark behaviour and recommendations for research and the industry’s management in New Zealand. So the Department of Conservation have been engaged in this issue for a long time, because they actually permitted it. What we have to acknowledge is that the Department of Conservation developed a code of practice in 2013. They started permitting in 2014. Business had been practising since 2008 unregulated. They reviewed the code, and therein became the issues. What’s interesting in this report is that great white shark cage diving occurs in areas—and I quote—“where the species naturally aggregates with all current operations focused around … seal/sea lion colonies.” That’s why the great whites congregate in this particular part of New Zealand.

But what there isn’t a comparative analysis about is whether or not there are other seafood-gathering species like pāua, and that, in fact, is the conflict. It’s a business conflict, but it’s a conflict between the sharks and what happens with the sharks—and if you have a look at that court determination, essentially it said that the department didn’t have power, because under the Wildlife Act of 1953, as Minister Sage has articulated, there’s proof that sharks suffer physical and mental agitation and there is a risk to the sharks. So I think this bill is before its time, Sarah, and I think there will be an opportunity for a resolution to be sought, but it’s not through this bill.

To be honest, I think the Treaty issues are significant. I think that you would want buy-in from mana whenua. I don’t know what consultation you did with your bill. And yes, I mean, some would say just send it to select committee, but it would be much better to get all those relationships, all those consultations, in place so when the bill did come, actually it came with an understanding that it would be supported and passed so that we find resolution, because we absolutely need a pathway forward.

I agree that shark cage diving—some people are prepared to pay up to seven hundred bucks for the adventure of staring a shark in the eye. So I think you’ve started us as a Parliament on a journey. I do have faith in Minister Sage, and I think the legacy of this bill and the work that she’s doing and the Department of Conservation’s doing will ensure that your community and other communities around Aotearoa New Zealand will have the opportunity to benefit from this type of adventure tourism. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand up and speak on this subject. It’s not the first time we’ve stood in this House and gone around the mulberry bush, discussing this very issue.

In fact, the first time I became a member of Parliament and first heard of the story of what was going on down there in the South Island, it was via a gentleman who came to the select committee that was the same select committee as I was on with Sarah Dowie—a gentleman called Storm Stanley, who’s from PauaMAC5. I couldn’t believe my ears and what I was actually hearing about the danger that he and his divers were facing every day via this practice of diving with great white sharks, albeit they were diving for their livelihood to support the community and create jobs in the pāua industry. These shark cage divers were, obviously, creating some adventure tourism without the support of their local community, and after talking to Storm Stanley and others at the select committee, I decided to go and investigate the situation and we went down to Stewart Island, not once, not twice, but three times—and, yes, I did go down with the Rt Hon Winston Peters—firsthand, so we could see this problem.

We were in Opposition at that point in time, and we could not understand how the then Government had let this situation continue to the level that it had gone to with without intervention. Now, the reason why, as Scott Simpson has just asked why didn’t we do something about it, was because when we got into Government, through the advocation that the members in this House, from across the House—you know, I’m not calling out anyone in particular. But I can tell you right now that New Zealand First strongly went out in support of the local community on Stewart Island. A legal action was taken against the diving group and, in fact, that went through over 2½ years of backwards and forwards until it went to the Supreme Court, which didn’t give us any room, once we got into Government, to change anything. That ruling hasn’t been out that long.

I’m telling you now that what this bill does is it legitimises the act of diving with great white sharks in a situation where you’ve got a protected species. Now, that would be like me saying to a few friends of mine, “Let’s go out and see some kiwis. We’ll introduce some kiwis, we’ll get a bit of food, we’ll get the kiwis to come up to us, and we’ll pick them up and we’ll pat them.” We can’t do that—they’re a protected species. What makes us think that we can go and do this with an apex predator while they’re operating right next door to divers? And it’s not just pāua divers. We’re talking about salmon divers. It’s the salmon divers who are also dealing with this situation, as is the community of Stewart Island. To legitimise the practice of shark cage diving at a time when the community is struggling and they’re under siege, where these sharks have been documented to come right up to the pier at Oban—where kids are jumping off the pier and are in rubber dinghies, paddling around in the harbour—is not a good thing to be doing.

There is a lot that needs to be done. Myself and Minister Eugenie Sage have had a number of discussions on this topic. There is a solution that is on its way, and it’s not, unfortunately, in this bill here. Although good intentions you may have, this is not going to fix the problem, and better locations, potentially, need to be looked at around the back of the island. But when you can sit on the shore of Oban and look out and see the boats that are diving with cages and enticing sharks to come into their community and then follow those boats back into the harbour, it is not a good practice, and the small regulations that you are proposing to put forward are not going to make a difference to those people that live on Stewart Island.

So, with good intentions and congratulations on having your bill pulled out, Ms Dowie, this is a bill that’s not going to see the light of day because far more than what you’re proposing here needs to be done to amend this situation. If what we’re looking at doing is introducing an ad hoc regulatory regime for shark cage diving, and it’s not even actually clear how the bill is creating the permitting regime or what it’s actually going to entail, who’s going to be overseeing that, and how you are actually going to be enforcing it—

💬 Sarah Dowie: It’s the director-general. Read it.

At one page, it’s pretty easy to read, I’d have to say. It didn’t take up a lot of my time. But, in actual fact, the point is that the three vested interest groups here are the sharks themselves, because they are a protected species; the community as a priority to the citizens of New Zealand that live on Stewart Island that have been tormented by these operators operating where they’re operating, and how that needs to continue; and, of course, the wider environment, to make sure that we are doing our bit to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the public, the public good, the local people, and, of course, the sharks themselves.

So we won’t be supporting this bill. Our apologies for your fine effort in trying to do something, but the National Government did have nine years to sort this out and didn’t do anything in that time. We will sort it.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting to hear the debate in the House today because this bill has been introduced by my colleague Sarah Dowie in the face of a community and legal stalemate around commercial shark cage diving—something that is causing a lot of anguish and pain in the area. Now, this bill is designed to regulate—to regulate—shark cage diving and to strike that balance between the needs and the demands of a unique species of shark and that of the people who share its marine environment. It will require commercial shark cage operators to get a permit and to adhere to best-practice regulations. Permits will be managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), and the regulations would protect both the sharks and the people who live, work, and play in the area. That’s exactly what the Minister of Conservation said that she wanted.

There are valid conservation reasons why people should have the opportunity to see and admire great white sharks. They are a protected species. We know that species thrive best when people understand them, empathise with them, and appreciate them. People protect and conserve species that they value. And furthermore, as it’s been mentioned, this is a regional development tourist opportunity. It provides jobs in the community. It’s another reason for New Zealand and international tourists to come visit and spend time in one of our most beautiful, untouched, and isolated parts of the country.

There’s about a hundred sharks that visit Foveaux Strait every year between December and June. There’s a stable resident population around the island. We’ve heard about the beginnings of shark cage diving back in 2008, and how the community was actually polarised from the very beginning, and particular concern from commercial pāua divers. Because of these concerns the Department of Conservation engaged with the community, they discussed the risks, they looked at the intensity of the operations, and they understood the need for rules. They made an attempt to make an evidence-based decision, and they did that by getting an international review about the risks conducted by Barry Bruce from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. What he concluded was that there was no evidence that shark cage diving increases the risk to water users. So the scientific evidence with an international review said that there was no greater risk with shark cage diving.

As we know that actually back in 2004 it was a request from the pāua community, the pāua divers’ community, to DOC to issue permits, which they did under the Wildlife Act of 1953. They did that in line with what they do with whale, seal, and dolphin watching. Through that they commissioned the opportunity for two companies to operate at a site, one site only, about eight kilometres away from Halfmoon Bay at Edwards Island. The conditions of that permit were about banning the feeding of sharks, the use of decoys, and the controls of commercial filming—the things that were concerning people. There was a code of practice introduced, and that code was tightened as well in 2015.

But again, the same pāua people came back and challenged the right for DOC to issue these permits. That ended up with nearly four years of legal activity in the courts trying to understand the legitimacy of this activity. Finally, as we’ve heard, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal declaration that shark cage diving was an offence. The result now is that commercial shark cage diving continues with no regulation at all, nothing to control the activities, no rules to mitigate the risk, and no ways of managing community concerns, or ability to deal with problems. This situation should not be allowed to continue, and this bill is the solution—the solution that the Minister of Conservation has failed to deliver. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to speak on this issue in the House, because this is a really, really important issue for the Rakiura / Stewart Island community. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it provides a very simple solution to a very complex area. I think the issue we’ve got is that this bill fails to take into account the needs of the local community in terms of pāua divers, in terms of those entering the water for recreational fishing—anybody that actually wants to use the water and at the moment has been talking about being afraid of doing so because of the risk of sharks.

But it also fails to take into account the welfare of sharks themselves, because in the bill it doesn’t mention the role of sharks in terms of being absolutely protected under the Wildlife Act, and taking those factors into consideration. The other area it is silent on is the Treaty of Waitangi, and certainly down in Rakiura, the Tītī Islands are incredibly significant culturally for Māori in terms of harvesting muttonbird—tītī—each year. So Minister Sage today has just talked about the fact that while this is an important issue, and thanks Sarah Dowie for bringing this to the House, we also need to do further work on this before we can put in place something that will address all of those issues.

So what I’d like to do is just talk through some of those underlying concerns which suggest that we need further work in this area, because I think what this bill does at present is it jumps to a single solution of setting up, basically, a compliance framework. I think a similar regulatory environment was in operation when Helen Cave brought her petition to the Local Government and Environment Committee saying that her request was that shark cage diving be banned. I think the issues she was talking about there were similar—about wildlife concerns, about behaviour concerns, about concerns of users entering the water. I’m just wanting to tease out some of those in a bit more detail, because, as I’ve said, great white sharks are absolutely protected under the Wildlife Act. There have been a number of concerns raised about the impacts of shark cage diving on sharks’ behaviour and also on the wellbeing—physical wellbeing—of sharks, where they may bump up against the cages, ingest ropes, and come into contact with other sharks in quite a concentrated area.

Basically, down in Rakiura, these pāua divers are talking about increased encounters with sharks since the shark cage diving operations were happening, and also others, recreational users talking about increased encounters and sharks following boats, etc. So there are concerns. I think the Department of Conservation went and did a review to see whether this was indeed founded in terms of this changing the behaviour of sharks. I think what the conclusion they came to is that they couldn’t make a call either way on whether it changed the behaviours of sharks in areas that weren’t immediately in the vicinity of shark cage diving but were slightly further away. But what they did say is that what shark cage diving did is attract sharks that were in the vicinity to one place. The problem, then, is that you couldn’t then undertake other activities in close proximity—so recreational fishing, other commercial fishing activities in that same space—because it increased the chance of encounters. So their view was that then you needed a greater separation between those activities. But in the bill, while you can make a submission, there’s no real weighting of the safety impacts of that. So if you’ve got two groups saying, “OK, we would like to operate in the same space.”, there’s no consideration that those human safety risks would be taken into account in any other way compared to other operational issues.

Another concern, as Minister Sage has suggested, is there are no clauses there relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, and Rakiura and the Tītī Islands have, basically, incredibly important cultural significance for Māori, and being able to have a say, as of right, in what happens in the issue of shark cage diving, I think is incredibly important. So that would be an important element of any future legislation in this area.

So I think those three main concerns, basically, need to be addressed in any future legislation, because the current legislation, the limitation of it is it’s set up so that any particular operator can go to the Department of Conservation and request a permit to do this, and they need to be assessed on a one-to-one basis, whereas what Minister Sage is suggesting is that we do further work to set up a new regime that balances the needs of the local community as well as the wellbeing of sharks, as well as considerations of iwi under the Treaty, and moves forward in that area. So I’m looking forward to further measures in legislation coming to the House in due course, but in the meantime, we’re not happy to support this bill in the current form. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—a real delight to stand tonight and talk about this bill. I’d like to acknowledge you, Sarah Dowie, for bringing this bill to the House. It’s going to be, I guess, your swan song, my dear, and it is unfortunate that this bill is not going to proceed. However, I do want to offer a little bit of comfort in that this bill has merit but we will be working on this and it will be picked up and it will be continued on.

So I just wanted to talk a little bit, actually, about sharks—great white sharks. Everyone here has talked about the particular issues, and my colleagues are laughing at me down there, but I wanted to talk about the fact that great white sharks are an endangered species. They’re absolutely stunning. They are the apex predator of the sea. In fact, when we change the habitat of a shark, we actually change the whole ecosystem of that sea environment. What actually happens is, when we begin to alter the environment around a shark or shark’s habitat, it actually creates a change in the breeding patterns and a whole pile of ecosystem effects. So, having sharks, having them well and clearly defined within where they are able to operate is really important. It allows for the stability and diversity of the ocean.

So, when we have a business that is putting chum—and this apex predator absolutely has this amazing sense of smell—into that environment, what happens is that the behaviour of those sharks completely changes. So the behaviour is that when a boat comes, those sharks know that food is going to be present. As a consequence, they change their migratory patterns, they change their patterns of habitat, and they actually start to congregate. As a consequence, the pāua divers tell us that in that community, we actually are having more aggressive shark behaviour, there are apparently more sharks in the habitat, and this is also affecting the ecosystem. So it’s really important that, actually, we look at supporting the long-term integration approach of our marine ecosystems. It’s really important that we actually focus on what the marine environment needs.

It’s not just about a business, and I do have to acknowledge that one of the things we need to know much more about sharks in this is that we actually don’t know a lot about white pointer sharks. We don’t know a huge amount, but one of the things that the bill fails to recognise is the ability for those people who are researching to go into shark cages and to look at what’s happening. So this bill is purely focused on business and a business model and giving the ability for a business to operate, as opposed to also looking at other opportunities that might happen. As a consequence, this means that we lose an opportunity to find out more about an ecosystem. We don’t just throw some chummed up tuna into the water and get these sharks to behave like little puppies. We actually miss the opportunity to find out a little bit more about them.

Now, I understand absolutely that this is an exciting business. I have swum with sharks myself, but the thing with those was that I was not in a cage and those sharks were in their natural habitat and we didn’t disturb them. And so, as a consequence, it can be done, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be done in the way that this business is operating. So those are some things to think about in terms of the bill moving forward. We can’t support this bill, but it is a very interesting attempt. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to speak to this member’s bill tonight, the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill. Firstly, I want to start by congratulating the member Sarah Dowie not only for having her bill drawn but for being an excellent member of Parliament for Invercargill and for being in touch with issues that affect her electorate. She’s well connected. She knows the people in her electorate. She knows the tourist operators. She knows the businesses. She knows the locals. She’s undertaken extensive consultation. She spent a great deal of time in the area, liaising with locals, with businesses, with power companies, and with these tourist attractions. She saw a need for change. She’s got her finger on the pulse of this community, which is why she brought this member’s bill and put the bill forward for selection, and was very lucky that it was pulled out. It, frankly, was something that shouldn’t have been a member’s bill, because this Government should have dealt with this already. But aren’t we lucky that we’ve got a member of Parliament who’s got her finger on the pulse, who’s in touch with local issues, and who is doing the Minister’s job for her?

It was very fortuitous that this bill was drawn, because we are in a situation where we are back to square one, where we have a completely unregulated industry that is happening. We’ve got locals that are concerned. We’ve got divers, pāua divers, and swimmers that are all concerned because we are back with a completely unregulated industry—and it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve heard from earlier speakers, including the member herself, Sarah Dowie, that the Department of Conservation tried to intervene, they introduced a permitting system in 2014 to try and forge a path between the locals, the pāua divers, and the shark cage diving industry using section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953, which we’ve all heard tonight was unfit for purpose. It was challenged in the High Court and it was found that the Director-General of Conservation didn’t have the power to issue permits using this Act. We heard from Sarah Dowie earlier that the Court of Appeal then ruled that shark cage diving was illegal, and then that decision was set aside in the now infamous—we’ve all spoken about it tonight—2019 decision of the Supreme Court. So again here we are back to square one where we have a completely legal but totally unregulated industry.

Now, we are known around the world for having these thrill-seeking tourist attractions that bring in tourist dollars, that bring in people to areas like Southland and Stewart Island who, perhaps, wouldn’t see as many tourists otherwise. They create jobs and they create an industry that brings in the tourist dollar.

This bill sees a way forward. As I said earlier, it’s doing the job of the Minister. All of the arguments that have been put up tonight are, really, splitting hairs. This bill does everything that our opposition across there, the Government, say that it doesn’t.

Liz Craig spoke tonight, saying that it doesn’t take into account the community. There are provisions in the bill that set out consultation requirements—in fact, that’s clause 10. So there are already things baked into this bill to make sure that the community are taken into account and their views are taken into account. She also said that the needs of the sharks aren’t taken into account either. Well, this bill sets out requirements for the permit for codes of practice; the Minister has to approve the codes of practice. So if they don’t like certain activities to entice the sharks because it affects the shark’s behaviour in some way—and I am certainly not a shark expert; we’ve had many shark experts up tonight, I’m not one of them—I’m sure the Director-General of Conservation will take this into account. Even if the Government are concerned that maybe it doesn’t take the shark’s emotional wellbeing into account, well, we can put that into the bill at select committee.

I’d just like to point out in my last few minutes that we have a bill in front of the Environment Committee at the moment that’s by New Zealand First—the forestry regulation bill, which regulates forestry advisers and log traders—which is the worst abomination of a bill that we’ve ever seen. The reason for this is that, well, it was rushed, we’ve only had a couple of weeks to look at it, and we’ve had to extend the bill by a week to make it a good bill. This is a good bill; that bill is horrific, and we’ve spent time tidying it up. There is no reason why the arguments that have been put forward by the Government tonight, which aren’t that great, couldn’t be addressed in select committee. All they are doing is purely playing politics, and it’s very sad.

Oh, great. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was waiting for another speaker on the other side, but thank goodness I didn’t, because after hearing all of those contributions, I have to say: Louisa Wall MP for Minister of Conservation. She was the most considered speaker on that side of the House, who actually researched appropriately and put forward considered arguments—more considered than the Minister of Conservation.

I want to address the main points that the opposition have raised for the reasons for declining to put this bill through to select committee. The first that they said is that there was no consultation with iwi. Well, if they knew anything about conservation, they would go back to the Conservation Act in itself, and section 4, which says that with all matters conservation, there will be effect given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that goes for all subordinate legislation. So that would take care of that. But equally, just like the indigenous fish bill that the Minister put forward with zero consultation with iwi, you would take it to select committee and consult with iwi and other affected parties to make sure that the bill was robust and to make sure that everybody had their say and that the information was presented, documented, and incorporated into a bill.

The second thing is that this activity, technically—albeit we are dealing with a post-COVID economy at the moment—is permitted at the moment, unregulated. So, technically, it can go on, and it is going on with no conditions surrounding it, no protections around the shark, no protection around other users, and this bill seeks to regulate that, and there are provisions in the bill. There are provisions that allow the director-general to consult with affected parties; to look at the information that is presented in the application in an objective way; to make sure that the shark is protected; to look at the geographical area in which the activity occurs; to look at the frequency, the timings—all of those sorts of parameters that protect the sharks—and then look to mitigate the adverse effects on any other users in the ocean near the vicinity of that activity.

So I think it’s exactly as speakers on this side of the House have said, in that it is simple that this Government is just playing politics. They don’t like it that a National member has provided a solution to an issue that is ongoing, that it strikes a balance between the competing interests of those interested in shark cage diving versus the community, and they’re simply going to vote it down.

I note that Minister Sage says that she’s going to look at a body of work that will come after the election. Again I reiterate: do they not see the economy recovering after COVID-19? Do they think that we’re going into lockdown again, that we won’t have our tourism businesses up and running? I say if that’s the case, then that’s very poor.

I know in my community, down in Southland, Invercargill, Bluff, and Stewart Island, that people want to get moving. They want to continue to generate revenue and wealth for families, to give them jobs, to put food on the table, but oh no, this anti-business Government wants to see tourism operations, with respect to shark cage diving, prohibited. That goes to the philosophy of Minister Eugenie Sage, who doesn’t like anything commercial on the conservation estate or with respect to wildlife. We know that there are many eco-tourism businesses that are doing very, very well, that have great respect for the environment, and help educate people that go to the conservation estate and interact with wildlife. They take those messages home, and they spread the word about the environment.

So this bill is about that. It’s about celebrating a midway point between the two. I have gone to Stewart Island many, many times, greater than three times. I have liaised with the community. I have liaised with Storm and PauaMAC5. PauaMAC5 are in support of this bill. I have liaised with shark cage operators. I have liaised extensively when it has come to the matters of this bill. The Supreme Court has put a spanner in the works. They have declared that this is activity is legal, and, therefore, we require regulation in the meantime before somebody is hurt.