Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. When the committee was last considering the bill, we were debating the preliminary clauses, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As we come to the title of the bill, this is an important debate. It is the only debate in which, if it is voted down by the committee, then the bill is considered to have been defeated too. It’s right that we will spend some time being clear on both the title and the commencement provisions of this.

I would like to propose an amendment to the title, which is the “Hauraki Gulf Saying One Thing and Doing the Other Bill”. That happens twice in this bill. The first time is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper that was brought to the committee at the final stage possible. The change that was made by the Minister was to remove every reference to “hapū” and “whānau”. It doesn’t matter where it was; it doesn’t matter what it meant; “hapū” and “whānau” are out; only “iwi” is in. The problem with that is that we might accept, from this ideological Government, that all references to anything Māori must go, but, no, that’s not what the Minister said. In fact, he claimed over and over and over again in the committee stages that it would make no difference to those hapū out there every day, monitoring the shellfish beds that clean the pollution from our ocean, monitoring the Caulerpa that is a serious threat to the health of the Hauraki Gulf.

“No”, he said. “It won’t make a change. It will be fine. Those hapū and those whānau don’t need to down tools. The marae who have been working for generations to protect their seabed do not need to worry.” What is it, Minister? Are we getting rid of the whānau and hapū references at every stage; doesn’t matter where they are, doesn’t matter what they do, we’ll just get rid of it? Does that have a point or does it not? I think it does, Minister.

I think you’ve told the House over and over again that what you want to be remembered for is for protecting Māori rights and interests in the Hauraki Gulf, but what this law does is something completely different. You have name-dropped over and over again those people who you have consulted with, who have told us that they are uncomfortable with the way that those references are removed because it leaves them in a position where they do not know whether their projects and protections will continue under this law and that there is an uncertainty for them, which causes them pause and makes them very unclear about whether they have a place around the negotiating table to make sure that biodiversity outcomes and environmental outcomes are still part of this law. We should be clear with people who protect our Hauraki Gulf what our intentions are in this House. Yet after committee stage questioning, after all sorts of interrogation on this bill, we still are none the wiser what the status of whānau and hapū is under this law.

There’s the second issue of saying one thing and doing the other in this bill, and it is that the Minister has tried to claim credit for passing a law which protects the Hauraki Gulf when, in fact, he has introduced an Amendment Paper which undermines the protections within it for high protection areas. They’re called “high protection areas” still. “High protection” in which there can be fishing, in which there can be environmental degradation, in which boats will be able to put down anchor in areas of Caulerpa and spread that around the Hauraki Gulf—which is something we should be desperately prohibiting—which the local council wants to protect, which local politicians are standing up for but in this Chamber. We have a completely different approach, and we’re still calling it “high protection area”. It should be called “low protection area”. It should be “go for it and don’t worry about it because this generation of Aotearoa New Zealand won’t have to deal with it”, but our kids and their kids will have to. Our kids and their kids will have to deal with Caulerpa taking over in the Hauraki Gulf. Our kids and their kids will have to deal with the locking out of the whānau and hapū who do great work now and won’t be able to any more.

The “Hauraki Gulf Say One Thing and Doing the Other Bill”—that is what this Minister’s record is as the Minister of Conservation, and that is what he should call it. He should be clear with Aucklanders that this is another broken promise.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is really important that we do look very carefully at the title of this bill, because this bill really matters, and it particularly matters to the communities and iwi and hapū of Tīkapa Moana Hauraki Gulf. It matters because they literally spent over a decade—closer to 15 years, actually, but definitely over a decade—of blood, sweat, and tears to actually nut out and understand the issues of Tīkapa Moana, put heads together, and actually come up with a way forward.

What’s really worthwhile remembering in this title is they did that because of the ecological losses. They did that because of the environmental dysfunction that people were seeing and observing in the gulf, and all that effort went into it to actually enable this bill to be developed from the grassroots. That’s why it is so disappointing to have these Government amendments which change it.

Why we need to really carefully look at the title of this bill is because it is literally called the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. Now, protection, we know, means different things to different people, but certainly, on the whole, protection means specific things when it comes to, in this case, actual evidence-based biodiversity objectives. That’s the whole thrust of this bill. We want to protect those marine biodiversity objectives. We want to protect the life of the gulf. We want it to return and restore so that our communities can get out there, enjoy nature, fish and swim, practice mahinga kai, and actually be part of that in the way that they have in the past and hopefully will do in the future.

I want to pick up and suggest some particular amendments to the title. First and foremost, we heard through the committee stage, on the impact of particularly these amendments that allow commercial fishing in these high protection areas, that it was somewhere between being incompatible with the purpose and undermining biodiversity objectives to minimal impact. I propose that we call this bill the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Somewhere Between Being Incompatible with the Purpose, Undermining Biodiversity Objectives, and Minimal Impact) Marine Protection Bill”.

Jenny Marcroft: Oh, too long—too long.

Ryan Hamilton: Too long, and frivolous.

LAN PHAM: You’re right, you’re right—that is too long. That is too long, so I think we could shorten it to the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Compromised Marine Protection Bill”. That would be in line with the Minister of Conservation’s absolute reiteration that this bill, for this Government, is a compromise. We’ve heard it time and time again, so let’s reflect that and not pretend that this is some kind of high protection, which it’s not.

We could also call it—and this is particularly when it comes to Minister Jones’ influence in this bill—the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Flawed Justification of Plunder for Profit) Marine Protection Bill”, because this is what is happening when we are opening up these parts of the bill in the high protection areas to commercial fishing. It’s a really shameful disappointment when it comes to the genesis of this entire process, the communities that have been a part of it, and I would really like to hear the Minister consider these titles. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this important part of the bill, which is the title and commencement. I want to talk specifically to my suggested amendment to the title of this bill. I propose that the bill name be changed to the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection (Deceleration and Weakening) Bill”.

There are some reasons why I want to talk about how this bill has been decelerated and how it has been weakened. As we’ve mentioned in previous debates on previous parts of this bill, Christopher Luxon and the National Party have broken their promise to New Zealanders on this bill. Let me show you exactly why they have broken their promise to New Zealanders and why it relates to my proposed amendments to the title of this bill.

This is the National Party’s blueprint for a better environment. In the section specifically related to the Hauraki Gulf, it says that National will accelerate initiatives like the Hauraki Gulf marine protection and Kermadec ocean sanctuary bills. Well, let’s not even talk about what happened with the Kermadecs, but let’s talk about the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill and the National Party’s deceleration of this bill.

The National Party came into office nearly two years ago, and instead of accelerating the bill and having it passed really quickly, it reported back from select committee last year unanimously—one year ago—and then it stalled. It sat on the Order Paper—it sat around on the Order Paper. Why did it sit around on the Order Paper? Well, it turns out that the New Zealand First Party wanted to weaken the bill. Alongside decelerating the bill, the National Party has weakened the bill, which is why I am proposing today that the title—

Hon James Meager: You’re still drafting your policy. Draft your policy—policy one.

RACHEL BOYACK: —of the bill change to the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection (Deceleration and Weakening) Bill”. I hear people interjecting about a policy for oceans and fisheries. I mean, if there’s an interjection and you genuinely want me to talk about that, I’m happy to talk about why National cut funding to Moananui, to the blue economy cluster that will grow—the money that I got as the local MP to grow the blue economy—

Hon James Meager: Where is the policy?

RACHEL BOYACK: —in the Nelson-Tasman region. What I can assure you of, Mr Meager, is that those kinds of initiatives to bring millions of dollars of investment into the Nelson-Tasman blue economy sector are a priority for me as the MP for Nelson and as a spokesperson for oceans and fisheries. I’ve been very pleased, Mr Meager, to thank you for the question you posed as an interjection, which I am now going to respond to, bringing it into the debate. I am very pleased to have met with Moananui. Five times, the iwi would like to meet with you. The two iwi leaders told me last week that they’ve asked to meet with you, and you haven’t met with iwi. You need to meet with iwi.

I am going to ask members to keep their interjections rare and reasonable.

RACHEL BOYACK: I met with two iwi leaders at Picton this week who both assured me they have asked you to meet with them and you have not, and I’d suggest you do that.

Please just address the Chair.

RACHEL BOYACK: Coming back to this important bill and the National Party’s broken promise to New Zealanders and Christopher Luxon’s broken promise to New Zealanders, where they said they would accelerate this bill; they have decelerated it. It should have been passed nearly two years ago. The people of Auckland and the people supporting the Hauraki Gulf protection—all those people who have worked on this for years, for decades—have been pushing for this bill to pass. It will finally pass, but it will be weakened.

Even in the Minister’s own Cabinet paper, it stated that there were other parts of the gulf where ring net fishing could occur with minimal impact on those fishers. Instead, the Minister chose to ignore his own paper and to include the ring net fishing inside those two high protection areas that have been listed in the bill.

It is a bill that breaks its promise to New Zealanders, it breaks its promise to Aucklanders, it decelerates the introduction of this bill to the House, and it weakens it, so I propose that a much better title is the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection (Deceleration and Weakening) Bill”.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s notable the vocal—

Rachel Boyack: They want to meet with you. I’ll send you their names because there are eight.

Hon James Meager: I literally met with them three days after I got the job.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold on a sec. If you want to have a conversation, step out into the hall.

Hon James Meager: No, I’ll do it in Nelson when I’m there next time.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No, if you’re going to have a conversation, step out into the hallway. I don’t want this cross-Chamber chat.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s notable that the Minister for the South Island is so enthusiastic about the Hauraki Gulf. I wonder if the Minister has visited the Hauraki Gulf and seen the soberingly sad destitution of that jewel in the crown of Tāmaki-makau-rau. This is a place that has been very poorly treated over decades. This is a spectacular ecological location for our nation, and it has had pollution poured into it; it has been exploited excessively through dredging and overfishing; it has piled up with silt and contamination; and through collective, significant effort, multiple parties have come to the table and have come up with a solution by agreement that the gulf be protected with these high protection areas. That was by unanimous agreement. As my colleague pointed out, at the end of the last term, the committee recommended it to the House, and this Government came in and has delayed it two years and has explicitly made a compromise to the primary purpose of the bill. That is what I will speak to now, in terms of my proposed title for the bill.

To understand the scale of how grievous it is to take a high protection area and allow ring net fishing into it, perhaps an analogy is useful. It’s like saying to someone who has suffered a thousand cuts when you have put them into bed to recover, “You will no longer suffer any more attacks. Oh, but wait; we’re going to keep cutting you while you’re trying to recover.” That’s, basically, the effect of taking a high protection area which we’re setting aside to allow it to recover and to recuperate—“Oh, but we’re going to keep fishing in it.” It completely defeats the purpose and the logic of why you have marine protected areas. The permission of ring net fishing in these high protection areas will actually go against the halo effect, where you get this amazing recovery occurring and where you have no fishing allowed. The halo effect means that the fish spill over into areas outside of the high protection area, where fishing is still permitted, to the benefit of the fishers—the recreational fishers, the subsistence fishers, and the people in this country who go to the sea with a fishing line to catch their kai for their meal that night—and to the benefit of those people that these high protection areas serve.

This compromise, as the Minister so frequently called it, undermines the fundamental benefit of having high protection areas. I think it is appropriate that the defining effect that this Government has had on this legislation has been that compromising—of permitting ring net fishing—so I propose that the bill should be correctly called the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Ring Net Fishing Protection Bill”, because that is what it does. It protects commercial fishing in the high protection areas, and that is the stark impact that this Government has had on this bill. There was a collective agreement across the Chamber, across the community, across iwi and hapū, and across fishers—noting, of course, that recreational fishers are very unhappy with this, because they agreed to not have fishing there. A compromise was made to allow the ring net fishers to keep fishing, so that’s my proposal: “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Ring Net Fishing Protection Bill”. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, which was the title given to this bill when we introduced it quite some time ago now, was the culmination of over a decade of various stakeholders coming together to reach a consensus on what needs to be done to improve the health of the Hauraki Gulf. The State of our Gulf reports over the last 20 years have shown that the Hauraki Gulf is in an ongoing state of environmental decline. This was the work that was done by so many to get to this point of increasing marine protections for the gulf.

Now, as my colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, there’s been quite a delay between the introduction of the bill to the House, the consideration by the select committee, and the select committee reporting back—unanimously—that the House should pass this bill with no substantive changes. Then, as we have traversed in the committee stage, there have been various steps at which we know that the Minister in the chair did not want to progress the amendments suggested, or potential amendments, at the time, suggested by Minister Jones. But here we are, where they are being progressed. The only contribution that this Government has made to this bill is to delay the passage of the bill, which they said, and have said in their own Cabinet paper, they would accelerate. It’s been delayed. It’s been delayed considerably. Then, as my colleague Rachel Boyack pointed out as well, it has been weakened. Allowing any fishing in a high protection area—or HPA—goes against the intent of the bill, which is to increase protections for the gulf.

The point that I want to make here is that, if you’re going to do this, you should at least be able to justify and provide a rationale that is strong for doing this. Now, we asked the Minister whether there was an economic rationale for this, and he couldn’t answer us. There was no strong economic rationale. The best figures we’ve seen is under $14,000 of revenue from catch across all HPAs, and in two HPAs, it will be much less. We asked if, as Seafood New Zealand has said, it is about saving the livelihoods of the fishers. The Minister couldn’t confirm that, because it says in the Cabinet paper that they could fish elsewhere in the gulf, outside of the high protection areas. We asked whether there was a way that the Minister would ensure that the food would go to the communities in South Auckland that Minister Jones claimed this was all for. He said it was “vibes”; there was no real way to determine that it would do that. So there is no rationale for this lowering and weakening of protections.

I would argue that the bill should actually be called the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Weakens) Marine Protection Bill”, because that’s all this Government has contributed to. Alternatively, it could be called the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Lowers) Marine Protection Bill”, because, again, that’s what it does. It could also be called the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Puts Fishing Lobby Interests Before) Marine Protections Bill”. It could be the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana (Taking Us Backwards On) Marine Protections Bill”. All of those, I would argue, would be more reflective titles for this bill, given the contribution, or lack thereof, of the conservation Minister and this Government more broadly.

The final point that I will make is on the commencement date of this bill. It should really be 2024. I suggest that this Minister backdate the bill to when the Government said they would be passing the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. Had it been left to the rest of us, it would have been passed by now. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting the words “(deceleration and weakening)”, is ruled out of order as being not an objective description of the bill.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2, set out on Amendment Paper 349, be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.