Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Members, we now turn to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 25—“Marine reserves, seafloor protection areas, and high protection areas”—and Schedules 2 to 4. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am the MP for Auckland Central, which includes two of the Hauraki Islands—Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier—and I therefore take it as an immense privilege and responsibility to also speak for that part of the ocean, Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. I actually just want to commend some of the former Ministers who are in the House: the Hon Rachel Brooking, who we actually worked with quite closely to ensure that we had that high protected area, particularly around The Noises.

What we have presented in this massive Amendment Paper from the Government is unfortunately a situation that has completely blind-sided all of the incredible conservationists and community members—many from my community, particularly on those Hauraki Islands, but also many in the central city who have long advocated for the protection of this jewel in the crown of Tāmaki-makau-rau. We have a complete blind-siding of all the work that they have done being seemingly unwound and undermined by this Amendment Paper chucked on the Table at the last minute. We have heard loud and clear from those conservationists, from community, from iwi, and from hapū that this is simply not good enough.

We have some really basic, fundamental questions that we believe the Minister must answer, because there will be no other meaningful opportunity for him to be held accountable to these questions in particular. The questions that we want to ask are particularly about the carve-outs that are being made, particularly for ring net fishers. And I would really appreciate if this can be a meaningful engagement and back and forth, because I’ll note that I also have tabled amendments in my name, which we’ll get back to. The Minister needs to answer this very basic question: just how much resource—if it can be at all, in any way, shape, or form, quantified by his officials—has been poured, over months and months and months of work, into producing this Amendment Paper, to get us to a place where this Amendment Paper will end up saving approximately, based on the official advice that we have access to, just $14,000 a year in revenue for ring net fishers?

This Government likes to preach a lot about cost-benefit analysis and social investment and about saving money, so my basic question for the Minister is: how much of our collective capacity, channelled through Government decisions, has been wasted to get us to a place where we are now undermining a decade-plus worth of work by community conservationists, iwi, and hapū to get to the place of these high protected areas in Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, just for the Government to turn around and say, “We’re going to whack this massive Amendment Paper on the Table, which undermines all of that mahi, to save $14,000 worth of revenue.”? I’d additionally ask: how many ring net fishers are we actually talking about? We’d like some real clarity from the Minister about the trade-offs and the intentions with those trade-offs that the Minister is making. Those very basic questions to the Minister—and I’d appreciate him rising to his feet after I sit, so that we can have this meaningful and proper engagement—how much resource has been wasted in producing this Amendment Paper to save $14,000 in ring net fishers’ revenue?

Let’s go a step further than that and also ask what the trade-offs actually are in terms of long-term sustainability of our fish stocks. Has there been any economic quantification—or cost-benefit analysis, if you will—about the exploitation and the continual extraction that this Government seems to be intent on enabling from our natural environment and how that will ultimately have a knock-on effect to the sustainability of those fish stocks, which, in turn, might actually deplete even more than that $14,000 per annum from ring net fishers, in terms of our totality of our fisheries? Those basic questions for the Minister: how much resource—how much of the taxpayer money that this Government likes to wax lyrical about—has been wasted in producing this Amendment Paper that undermines the will of the people of this country, especially of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and especially of Auckland Central? In turn, how many ring net fishers are actually going to be impacted, and has there been any broader economic analysis whatsoever about the detrimental economic impact that the likes of this amendment will actually have on those high protected areas and on our fish stocks?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, too, to the member for Auckland Central for reminding me that when we did introduce this bill, it was part of a package, and that included changes to the fisheries plan, and I was doing that as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I think that all of that has been put to an end. Related to the previous contribution and asking what analysis has happened around this $14,000, what also has happened in relation to work that was on that fisheries plan and the relationship between the fisheries plan and this bill?

Now, going to clause 19A—the new clause 19A in the Amendment Paper—this is the one where “ring net fishing for authorised [person] in certain high protection areas” is, well, authorised. In the commentary about this bill that I’ve heard reference to, there have been questions around grandparenting and how many of these fishers this exclusion or the authorisation will apply to. The way that this clause works is it says that a “person is authorised to undertake ring net fishing by the Director-General in accordance with subsections (3) to (5);”. Then, if you go down to subclauses (3) and (5), it must be in writing. But subclause (4) is really important here: “The Director-General may authorise a person to undertake ring net fishing only if—(a) the person is a commercial fisher; and (b) the person has, before the commencement of this Act, undertaken ring net fishing in 1 (or both) of the following high protection areas:”. That would appear to be the grandfathering clause, but I’d really like the Minister to engage in this question and this clause.

Presumably, the people who are fishing at the moment, who are doing ring net fishing in these areas, will be able to apply to the Director-General to continue, but nobody else will be able to apply to the Director-General to continue. That might be where the Government’s coming from in terms of talking about grandfathering this provision, but later on in the bill—and it is in Part 3—there is a clause 34, which is the ability to transfer permits. The question here is—and noting that is in Part 3—is there anything to stop these grandfathered people, once they exist, from transferring those permissions to fish in an area where otherwise it would be prohibited?

A couple of questions there: one is whether he can take us through exactly how the grandfathering is supposed to work and what the parameters are on that, and the earlier question was about what the relationship is with the fisheries plan that had been consulted on. Consultation was all go when the election was happening. That would have restricted a good number of areas. If he can comment on that at more of a high level and how that interacts with this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I want to take us back for a minute to clause 16 in Part 2. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister, partly in response to some of what he said when we were previously debating this bill in the committee stage. Clause 16 lays out the purpose of the high protection areas (HPAs), which is “to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity within the high protection areas and, if that biodiversity is degraded, [to] restore it.” So parking that as the purpose, the overarching purpose, of this bill, I want to make some comparisons between, of course, the bill that was reported back to this House by the select committee and the changes that have been brought in by the Minister through the amendments.

Firstly, customary non-commercial fishing now no longer needs to meet biodiversity objectives. I will park that and I’ll come back to that in terms of questions a little bit later. But we know, of course, that there were a number of conversations that were had between the fishing industry and Minister Jones that then led to a Cabinet note on 26 September where it was stated that Minister Jones had some potential amendments that were raised with him by the fishing industry, the seafood industry, to which the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, replied he was not interested in progressing. Great! But between then and October, when the announcement was made, things changed, and those amendments are the ones that we’re debating here today.

I would like to know the rationale for those changes. The Minister spoke previously of the need for balance, which I accept. He made the point that if that weren’t a requirement, then when we were in Government, we would have just turned the entire of the Tīkapa Moana / Hauraki Gulf into a marine protected area. I get the need for balance. We didn’t do that, for obvious reasons. I get the rationale for retaining customary non-commercial fishing. We would have retained it for those similar reasons. But I want to tease out the responses behind that rationale.

It has been mentioned in media reporting that the Minister did not respond to—so I would like a response here in the committee today. It has been laid out that under $14,000 is the revenue of catch from across all HPAs, which means the potential revenue from the two HPAs will be a lot less than that. It is also set out in the Cabinet paper that less than 10 percent of the total catch from existing fishers happens in the HPA. The economic argument there, from my point of view, is very weak. If the Minister wants to defend that as the rationale for making the changes, I would like to hear whether there is other evidence that shows that the revenue is actually higher or that the total catch percentage is higher, and I would like the Minister to point to that evidence.

Now, there’s also been in the media some reporting—and also Seafood New Zealand has pointed out that this is about saving the livelihoods of the fishers who are allowed to now continue to fish in the two HPAs. I want to echo the questions by my colleagues, both Chlöe Swarbrick and Rachel Brooking, around the number of fishers that would be captured by this, because there are parameters in the amendment, but not the number of fisher people who would be allowed to continue. It says in the Minister’s own Cabinet paper that, based on the nature and current distribution of ring net fishing activities in the Gulf, it is likely that ring net fishing activity that usually occurs within these HPAs could be relocated elsewhere in the Gulf with minimal impact to the fishers. My colleague Rachel Boyack has raised that previously, but there’s been no response from the Minister on that point. If the argument is saving livelihoods and the Minister’s Cabinet paper says that that could actually take place in other areas of the HPA, then that is also a weak argument. If it is not, I would like to hear why not from the Minister.

The third argument is food for South Auckland—again, it has been reported on in the media. Ministers have not commented on that. I would like to know how will the Minister ensure that the fish that is caught in the Gulf in the HPAs will actually feed the communities that Minister Jones has alluded to in the media; if not, why not? The Minister previously responded—the Minister laughs. The Minister previously responded that it was “vibes”. I’m not sure that we should be making law based on vibes, Minister, that it is going to the communities, given that you are degrading the health of the moana to allow this to happen. I think it is a fair question to ask where that food is going to go and how the Minister will ensure—I’ve got more questions for the Minister, but I’ll leave it at this for now.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the genuine concerns that have been conveyed amongst the polarising verbiage this morning. I remind members opposite that the protection offered by this bill and the amendments therein being proposed today is the result of a series of compromises over time. We all know that for many, many years, many communities, iwi, fishers, sea cleaners—a whole bunch of people—have been really triggered to get something across the line, and that’s what we’re going to do today. We will not be reverting back to the mediocrity of repetitive noise when we’ve got a job to do, and that’s to protect and triple the protection of the Hauraki Gulf, and that’s what we are focused on.

Environmental pragmatism is exactly what Raewyn Peart of the Environmental Defence Society appreciated and acknowledged in recent articles saying that actually we’re doing a good thing by getting this over the line rather than resorting to six years of ideology.

In response to some of the musings and questions of members opposite—welcome back to the Central Auckland MP to this discussion—the fisheries plan is one that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is responsible for, and he has conveyed that. I understand that there were monitoring and indicator frameworks that have been established. I’ll also remind members opposite that Central Auckland is not the only electorate adjacent to the Hauraki Gulf.

The second thing is that I really acknowledge and appreciate the mahi of Minister Shane Jones around the rock lobster ban. It’s absolutely fantastic. I understand that some of the members who are not here today—I’ve mentioned three—in a recent Facebook post were seen eating, perhaps trevally, at the Toby’s Seafood market in Auckland recently.

Clause 19A on some electorate campaign: clause 19A, five fishers, no one else; review after three years, and the ability to transfer? No. No ability to transfer—not transferable. Identified by the director-general by way of their fisheries client number, and the director-general will issue letters to the five fishers who are involved.

Whilst we’ve received a bit of a lecture today about the economics of the situation, I’m here to respond to some of the ideological fever by saying this: there is going to be a tripling of the marine protection and the Hauraki Gulf, notwithstanding the six years that members opposite have sought under their leadership to get this across the line. Actually, the sea change kaupapa had been going for years before you turned up. Years before you turned up, there were people who were seeking an increase in protection, the dealing to the kina barrens, and a whole range of other activities. That’s where we’ve landed today. I’m very enthusiastic about the energy that’s come to this issue but also as we reach the denouement of this conversation. Thank you.

I’d just really like to draw the attention of the few people who may be tuned into Parliament TV—sorry for your time—to the fact that that is supposed to be our Minister of Conservation, currently defending eroding legislation that was first introduced to this House which does do all of the things which he alluded to in his contribution in terms of tripling the protection in the Hauraki Gulf. But he has not done anything to progress that. In fact, if anything, all he has done is actively undermine it.

My earlier contribution at the beginning of Part 2 of this debate was asking the Minister to engage in a meaningful back and forth because, God forbid, the people of this country deserve some answers to some really bloody basic questions. The Minister did not engage substantively in any of those questions. Instead, he just sought to attack the Opposition and he called it “ideological fever”. How dare we ask about the economic analysis that this Government has undertaken! The only facts that we have to go off—based on the official advice that we have access to, that this Minister has received—is that this massive Amendment Paper, which makes carve-outs on the behest of the fishing lobby and industry, is only going to save ring-net fishers revenue—not profit; revenue—at $14,000 per year.

The Minister can give us no insight, despite the very specific questions, about how much resource was wasted in the public sector to get us to that point; nor can he provide any meaningful information, data, evidence, or—I don’t know—even opinion on what the contrast is with the potential economic impact of allowing the undermining of these high protected areas and allowing these carve-outs for ring-net fishers. Ultimately, hopefully, the Minister of Conservation understands that ecology and economy are deeply interconnected. If you allow our resources to not renew because you deplete them to the extent of extinction, then you’re going to destroy this thing that you say that you care about growing, Minister. Frankly, I think that anyone who calls themselves a Minister of Conservation and is currently priding themselves on bringing forward Amendment Papers which actively undermine the intention which he outlined in his contribution just then should hang his head in shame.

There are some more really basic questions that I hope the Minister addresses, because not only is this bad law; this is bad law made badly. The Amendment Paper that the Government decided to drop on all of us did not have the typical requisite official information provided with it, in the form of the likes of regulatory impact statements with bills that are first introduced. Instead, they decided to go through a back door after what has been publicly reported as engagement with the fishing industry, and then drop this Amendment Paper on all of us—again, completely blindsiding the community, the conservationists, iwi, and hapū that the Minister has the gall to cite as advocating for in progressing this legislation today.

The basic questions that we have for the Minister remain—if he’d like to address them—about the actual contextual economic analysis here. How much resource was wasted to put this Amendment Paper on the table to ostensibly save $14,000 in revenue for ring net fishers? That is a basic question, and if the Minister cannot answer that, then the public should be rightfully ashamed of him in this position. The second basic question is: what is the long-term economic impact of enabling these high protected areas to be undermined by further exploitation from these ring net fishers? Again, just for saving $14,000 in revenue; apparently—from the best that we can make our heads or tails of the official information—$14,000 across all of the ring net fishers. It blows the mind.

We also really want to ask the Minister because, as members from the Labour Party have cited, we have heard time and again from Ministers of this Government that this is apparently about more affordable fish—and they have dared to cite people in South Auckland for that purpose. How exactly is this Amendment Paper going to get us any guarantee whatsoever of affordable fish, especially when he is allowing for the undermining in the long term of our fishing stocks? Basic question to the Minister. Please answer.

Yes, thank you for the rogue superfluidity that seeps through the sorcerous rage of members opposite. We are of the environmentally pragmatic space on this side of the House, and Raewyn Peart—again, one of the most well-known commentators and enthusiasts around the Hauraki Gulf—is absolutely in the headspace that we are in. Back it, be happy, move forward, and get ready for more protection. One fulltime-equivalent in the Department of Conservation has basically been working on this space for the last year. And as members opposite know, I might have a little bit of experience in the Hauraki Gulf that they may not have had experience with, so when iwi and Māori are thrown into random comments around what they want in the Hauraki Gulf, I would recommend that this committee be absolutely careful and prudent around the selective use of narratives and polemics that actually may not recognise reality.

In relation to the rationale for removing biodiversity objectives from the requirements for customary fishing, as I mentioned—three times—in the previous committee of the whole House session that we had—

Ryan Hamilton: One more time.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ll remember this one more time: I do not consider it appropriate for customary fishing to be regulated by the biodiversity objectives. I do not think that it’s up to the Director-General of the Department of Conservation or even members opposite to tell mana moana what their customary fishing should be or shouldn’t be. That’s why we have been very carefully listening to iwi and Māori, listening to the very people that members opposite use as a sword to attack this debate and this committee of the whole House.

They have said to me, actually, “We don’t want our tikanga to be subject to a discussion around biodiversity. That’s a matter that’s for the Fisheries Act. We don’t want even more green tape or blue tape wrapping around the exercise of tikanga. No, we don’t. What we want to have”—this is what I’ve been told—“is customary fishing intersecting with the Fisheries Act and not another blue-tape weight on our shoulders when we are exercising our tikanga.” That is what I have heard, and we have channelled that into amendments accordingly.

Now, in relation to the targeted kahawai, trevally, and grey mullet species typically of low interest to the export market, whilst we can’t trace every fish caught we do know that these types of fish are primarily for domestic consumption and more affordable than other options.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The arrogance of this Minister is outstanding. The fact that the conservation Minister cannot provide a rationale for weakening protections to the Hauraki Gulf—that is already degraded, and the degradation is laid out in great detail in his own Cabinet paper. He has no remorse that he’s weakening these protections. All he tries to do in this House is to take credit for work that wasn’t even his, that was the culmination of 10 years of work by stakeholders. All he sits there and does is take credit for this. He cannot give us a rationale, despite repeated questions and requests for an economic rationale. Tell us why fishing cannot be moved to different parts of the Gulf when your own Cabinet paper says it can. Tell us how degrading the Gulf is actually going to be beneficial to anyone. He cannot give us answers to this, and so it is very clear that all this Government is doing is pandering to the demands of industry lobbyists. That is literally the only answer that we on this side of the House can come to, because the Minister will not answer any questions in a way that is substantive.

Let me ask again a couple of questions—[Interruption] All members opposite can do is heckle. Take a call! Take a call and tell us why your Government is weakening protections in the Gulf. Try and give us a rationale that makes any sense. I dare you to.

I’ll leave the point around customary fishing, although the Minister—actually, no, I won’t, because I would like some answers from the Minister as to who he’s consulted with when it comes to mana moana. There were submissions that those of us who were on—the Minister’s not even listening. So much care for conservation, the Minister’s not even listening to our questions, let alone giving us any extensive responses here. All he’s doing is having a chat with the hecklers on the other side of the Chamber.

Anyway, give us some answers, Minister. Who did you consult with when it comes to mana moana asking for customary non-commercial fishing not to have to meet biodiversity objectives? We heard the opposite on the Environment Committee as well. I know that many of them made the point that it goes to the social licence, and that is an important point whether the Minister thinks so or not. There was also part of the amendment that actually took out the requirement for regulations to be made collaboratively with mana moana, from memory, and it’s weakened that to just consultation with mana moana. I would like to know where that came from as well. But, going back to my point, who did the Minister consult with?

I also have questions that the Minister has not answered when it comes to new clause 19A in Amendment Paper 260 around the substantive detail around ring net fishing for authorised persons. Who are they? The Minister named one seafood outlet. Does he want to name the other fishers who would be benefiting from this?

Arena Williams: Why is he naming fishers?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, why is he naming one and not the other? If he’s going to do that, then tell us who these fishers are. Tell us why they cannot fish in another part of the Gulf and that protections in two high protection areas have to be weakened in order to allow them to do so.

Can the Minister confirm that new clause 19A is a grandfathering? The grandfathering of this particular provision has been alluded to in media reports. Is this the provision that grandfathers it and, if so, how? It’s not very clear to me in that clause.

I would be very, very cautious before I start questioning my experience in the Tīkapa Moana. Unlike others who speak from advocacy and the confines and privileges of this House, I have been responsible for actually establishing aquaculture in the Hauraki Gulf: mussels, ecklonia restoration, and scallop restoration. I’ve also been responsible for progressing and processing a variety of tourism concessions in the Gulf. I’ve also been responsible for encouraging a whole range of coastal restoration, particularly around places like Ōmana. So the undermining attacks on my experience I would treat with severe caution, in relation to the types of representatives that I’m sure members opposite know very, very well.

Shall I list them, just so you know the types of people that I engage with around the imposition—now rejected through this amendment—of rogue biodiversity objectives over and above customary arrangements? Whether or not that’s Herearoha Skipper and others from Ngāti Pāoa, Paul Majury from Marutūāhu, David Taipari from Marutūāhu, Nicola MacDonald from Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Rehua, Mook Hohneck from Ngāti Manuhiri; Ngarimu Blair and others from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākai, or Billy Brown, Laurie Beamish, Jada MacFie, and others from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I could list 50 people very carefully and their view that actually the encroachment of Kāwanatanga and regulation on customary fisheries is not supported.

Hence why we have said that, no, customary fishing already has an interaction with the Fisheries Act. We’re not going to go and double down on blue tape over and above that through imposing biodiversity objectives not created or determined by Māori, but by a range of individuals and organisations, on that tikanga—we aren’t going to do that.

So, again, it’s 10 years of work—actually, it’s been a lot longer than that—and if the members opposite had taken the time to read through a variety of reports from 25 years ago, they would also see that the aspiration to deliver better protection of the Gulf continues to be channelled in different ways. But, in light of what we are trying to progress today, absolutely we are committed to tripling the marine protection of the Gulf and to ensuring that tikanga is actually acknowledged but not controlled, and that’s the difference of ideology in this space. We are not trying to impose more regulatory impost on the exercise of tikanga; we are just recognising it for what it is. It has its interaction and, actually, we’re very comfortable with that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to pick up specifically on the Minister’s admission—you know, it’s clear, with the bill, that he said a number of engagements and compromises have been made. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions about that, particularly in relation to the timeline of the decisions that led up to this amendment bill.

I’ve got a time line here, which really clearly outlines the stages, particularly of the Cabinet decisions, which led up to this Amendment Paper. What it makes really clear is that the Minister was not accepting of these kinds of exemptions earlier on in the process. This time line makes it really clear. For example, on 26 September there was a Cabinet paper that made it really clear, that literally said you’ve met with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, who’s raised potential amendments, and that you’ve indicated that you do not wish to progress any further amendments. And, then, just four days later on 30 September, we then suddenly had evidence that these amendments had actually been inserted into the Cabinet papers and the Minister was recommending that they actually be implemented.

Now, we’ve heard the Minister say both that he’s accepting of the evidence that these exemptions will undermine the purpose of the whole point of the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, but then we’ve also heard him say that he’s got new advice from the Department of Conservation saying that it will have minimal impact. Now, what I’d really like to hear from the Minister is: will he share with the public and with this committee today what that advice actually is so that we can be much more informed and understand those compromises that have been made? Right now, we’re just in the dark about it and we’re having to take the Minister’s assertions based on not a whole lot. I would love to hear directly from the Minister about his process and whether the evidence about that minimal impact came before or after his decision, and what compromises does he believe he’s been willing to make to allow these specific limited exemptions for these ring-netters.

He talked, just before, about we don’t want to add to this excessive regulatory burden and make it really complicated. How does he perceive the exemptions for the ring-netters will actually operate in practice? What we know is when people are out in their boats fishing—how do they identify and how will authorities identify who can and can’t be fishing in these high protected areas? Presumably, the community is going to be absolutely clued in to where these areas are and they may be approaching or questioning different vessels and what they’re up to and who’s allowed and what not—how is this actually going to work? Some response from the Minister about the pragmatics of that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to the call that I took last week at the beginning of the committee stage on Part 2, because the Minister gave some answers to my specific questions that were, to be honest, far too broad and didn’t actually get into the specificity of what I was digging into. That is the matter of the section of the Amendment Paper that allows ring net fishing in two of the high protection areas (HPAs).

I want to come back to that. Just so that I’m really clear, it’s Part 2, clause 19, “Customary fishing in high protection areas”, on page 16 of his tabled Amendment Paper 260. I just remind the committee that the reason we’re digging in and asking these questions to get detailed answers is that we’ve asked the questions; we actually haven’t had the detailed answers on this part of the Amendment Paper. It hasn’t been to a select committee. In usual practice, these types of changes would sit before a select committee so that we can actually get answers to the questions. So I’ll keep this call quite short because it’s specific, my question.

If you look at the Cabinet paper—which, again, I note again, is actually the Minister’s own words, so this is not advice he received or from any other organisation; his own words. Paragraph 49, on page 9 of his Cabinet paper, says: “Based on the nature and current distribution of ring net fishing activities in the Gulf, it is likely that ring net fishing activity that usually occurs within these HPAs could be relocated elsewhere in the Gulf with minimal impact to the fishers.”

My question was: what specific advice has the Minister received in order to inform the comment he made in his Cabinet paper that specifically states that this fishing activity could be relocated elsewhere? Where, Minister—where could it be relocated to? What advice did he receive? There would be advice that actually forms the guidance for the writing of this paper, that is in his own name. And I note before that the under-secretary, Jenny Marcroft, yelled out that the reason these places have been chosen is because that’s where the fish are—well, actually, the Cabinet paper says otherwise. The Cabinet paper says something entirely different to what she yelled out. So maybe she could take a call and elaborate on the advice she’s received as the under-secretary to show that this is the best place in terms of where the fish are. It specifically states here that that activity could be relocated elsewhere with minimal impact.

That’s my specific question. It hasn’t been answered with accuracy, and I’d like to hear from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the question on who the fishers are: no, we won’t be releasing those names. That’s a privacy matter. Given some of the reported violence against these fishers—absolutely repulsive behaviour—we will not be releasing those names. But I’m sure if members opposite have a view, they too will exercise caution around that.

In terms of ring net fishing exemptions and enforcement, there are proposed to be six full-time rangers, shoreline technology, a collaboration between the Department of Conservation and the two councils—Waikato Regional Council and Auckland Council—and Fisheries New Zealand to ensure that the appropriate enforcement and compliance action is carried out, including on that small number of ring net fishers.

Will we share advice on the ring net fishing decisions? I’ve been advised that the conditions on ring net fishing will mean that the impact beyond targeted species is expected to be minimal. All advice I’ve received will be released proactively.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to be crystal clear in response to the earlier contribution from the Minister in which he cited that members of the Opposition were apparently putting attacks on his experience, particularly in the te ao Māori. I just want to be crystal clear that that’s not what we were doing. Minister, none of this is personal.

This is a matter of principle: the principles of Aotearoa New Zealand. And, actually, we think it’s kind of about what words mean, because you can’t say that something’s a high protected area if you’re then going to undermine that high protection. We would say, Minister, that if you do want to entertain or engage with that previous experience that you yourself noted, we wouldn’t fight you to apply that experience to the work that you do as Minister of Conservation, which I think would be the opposite of saying that it’s too expensive to save our endangered wildlife. More so than that, if you want to talk about how we should not be having tikanga in the space of this legislation subjected to greater regulation, then that, Minister, is an approach that you around the Cabinet table should apply to everything else that you’re doing, whether it be the Regulatory Standards Bill, education, health, Resource Management Act reforms, or the water services bill that went through this House earlier this morning—all of which sideline te ao Māori and tikanga Māori.

But back to the kaupapa in front of us. That was quite an extraordinary contribution from the Minister earlier, in which he finally responded to one of the three questions that I put to him with regard to economic impact and cost-benefit analysis. He spoke to how the resources that were used to produce the Amendment Paper that is on the Table before us for this bill, were dropped by the Government—completely blindsiding community conservation, iwi, and hapū, who all worked on that Sea Change project for the better part of a decade. The Minister was saying that the only resources that have been used for a year on that Amendment Paper was one fulltime-equivalent in the Department of Conservation. This is brand new information, and what that information tells us, with a cursory google, is that the approximate salary of one public official is around $100,000. We’re talking about around a $100,000 cost, if we’re to take the Minister’s response at face value, for producing the Amendment Paper that is currently on the Table, to save, ostensibly, apparently $14,000 in ring net fishers’ revenue.

A back of the napkin calculation tells us that the cost of that Amendment Paper is seven times more expensive than the money that’s being saved. This from the Government that waxes and wanes lyrical about waste of taxpayer money. That’s not even to touch the issue of the bigger problem that comes with exploiting and exhausting our natural environment to the point that it can no longer produce the resources that we desperately need. The Minister exposed in his lack of answer earlier that there has been no economic analysis whatsoever on the long-term impacts of enabling these ring net fishers to operate in these so-called high protected areas.

This brings me to the two Amendment Papers that are in my name on the Table. I would really invite members of the Government to properly consider—not just vote in the way that they are told by their Ministers but to truly consider—the principles that we are trying to achieve through progressing this legislation; the noble principles that the Minister gets up and cites every time he adds a contribution to this committee about increasing the protection for our biodiversity.

The first Amendment Paper in my name requires that if there are going to be any further exemptions or carve-outs to these high protected areas to this legislation, it cannot be done through the back door—it cannot in any way, shape, or form be exposed to the same kinds of allegations that we have seen levelled against the Amendment Papers in the public sphere with regard to back-door access for lobbyists who can access our Ministers in their rooms in the Beehive and make these kinds of deals.

My first Amendment Paper would require explicitly that any further exemptions, if there are to be any—because we believe there shouldn’t be, but if there are to be any—are brought back to this House for democratic participation and due scrutiny. The second Amendment Paper requires that there is a sunset clause on these carve-outs for the ring net fishing exemptions. We are, I believe, being incredibly charitable with this by saying that that sunset clause should operate with a three-year time horizon, because if the intention is to signal a transition into greater conservation, then that is precisely what this Amendment Paper would achieve.

The Hon Rachel Brooking, but before I take the next call, I want to make it very clear that I would like questions rather than speeches for the next section of this—questions directly to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the Minister for answering one question in his barrage of very long and interesting phrases—I’ll come back to those in a minute because they are relevant—but I asked about the grandparenting and how he was going to be sure that the grandparenting could not be transferred, and his answer was that there would be a letter from the director-general about that. My follow-up question to that is: does he think it would be more robust if that was specified in the legislation or—we’re back on his Amendment Paper; we’re back on new clause 19A, which is on pages 16 and 17—does he think that subclause (5)(c) could be amended so that “contain any other information prescribed by the regulations” and that the relevance of not being able to transfer could be specified there or somewhere else in that clause?

Also, I asked some questions about the role of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries in the Hauraki fisheries plan and, also, the change of the name with the Ministers. I haven’t heard a good answer to that, but I’m wondering, when the Minister uses phrases like “sorcerous rage”, if he is in fact pretending to be the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and if they have now become one?

I’m also interested, when he said that he would “treat with severe caution” questioning his experience, if that was a threat to the members of the Opposition? I know the previous contributor—I won’t repeat what she was saying—was basically saying this wasn’t personal, but the Minister named a long line of people, many of whom I’ve dealt with in the past and I have full respect for these people, but what I want to clarify is: was the Minister saying that in his list of names, including people like Nicola MacDonald and others, they wanted the changes in this Amendment Paper to those biodiversity objectives? Is that what he was saying? That is a very important thing to know. He can make his point that the Minister knows a lot more about this part of the country than, say, I do. I accept that fully, but it’s not relevant to the bill. What is relevant is his Amendment Paper that is changing reference to those biodiversity objectives. Do those people that he mentioned support these changes? Was that his point? Was his point that they support the changes to the biodiversity objectives, or was his point that he knows and talks to a lot of people, or was his point something in between—that they have been consulted on the amendment? That wasn’t clear, and it’s very important because those names are now in the Hansard.

I note that during this committee stage, I have been getting messages from people—I won’t name them—who have been named in this Chamber by the Minister where he has made it sound like those people are in support of the amendments. They are very clearly not in support of the amendments, but they do want this legislation to pass. That is my position as well, Madam Chair. I want this legislation to pass because it is better than the current state, but significant amendments have been made, and it’s unclear why they have been made. I would like the Minister to also reflect that when he is bandying around these names, does he do that in saying that these people specifically endorse his amendments that are on this Amendment Paper, or that these are people who have spent their lives and will continue to spend their lives protecting the Hauraki Gulf both now in the form that it will be in this bill, and that they will want to go further as well?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Taking your guidance, Madam Chair, on wanting more questions, I will—this is my first call today—ask every single question that I have written down diligently and prepared for this committee stage now to the Minister of Conservation.

Firstly, though he has left on the table any answer to my question about the safeguards to protect Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s 20-year mussel bed restoration at Okahu Bay, can he confirm that shellfish restoration projects that counter sedimentation and pollution in the Gulf that are led by whānau and hapū are not changed by these amendments? Given the removal of “hapū” and “whānau” in his Amendment Paper—which is new material—I want to clarify whether they still should continue, whether there should be a downing of tools on those, or whether they need somehow to have some sort of sanction from the body that sits above them.

The next question is whether the bill dilutes customary rights and kaitiakitanga under the Fisheries Act in favour of commercial fishing. I think he has alluded to that, so my specific question for him is: for those marae at Motairehe, Kawa Marae, and Umupuia, the whānau there have section 168 permits actively to test and manage the shellfish beds there. That is part of a biodiversity requirement in those permits—they are also customary fishing permits. What is the status of those permits now? Are those conservation objectives intended to continue under his amendments? Have commercial fishing interests been given a greater legal weight here than the environmental and cultural stewardship of hapū and whānau? Given that those hapū and whānau that are progressing some of the projects that he himself has spoken about—like the shellfish restoration projects, the mussel restoration projects, the rock lobster restoration projects that he has referenced in this committee stage today—are they now secondary to the commercial objectives that iwi trusts would hold, given that they hold the fisheries rights?

With the Department of Conservation now the lead agency, what is the position of Auckland Council to still be mandated to consult mana whenua and local hapū on marine protection decisions? It is council process that they would engage with hapū in some situations. It is council process that they have taken a view that, though there are 19 iwi in the Tāmaki-makau-rau area with registered rights and interests, they have arrangements specifically to recognise interests of hapū in particular areas. One of those is Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei at Okahu Bay, but there are others. Those are important parts of the way that councils around the country progress their relationships under Te Tiriti o Waitangi with hapū and with whānau. Those exist at a hapū level, not an iwi level. What does his Amendment Paper mean for those councils?

The next question is the bill appears to weaken collective governance envisioned in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed. He has told the committee that he has engaged with Paul Majurey. What did Paul Majurey say about the way that this bill interacts with those claims of hapū, which are not recognised as iwi because they will be recognised in a different way under that collective redress Act? How is it that the hapū that are recognised that have Treaty settlement rights and interests that arise from that collective redress going to be ensured a seat at the council table and a seat at the biodiversity decision-making table and those arrangements in the tai timu tai whenua sea change report that Mr Majurey is an architect of? Is it clear how those hapū will be engaged, or will they now have to work through a new process with what is a recognised iwi?

I think the Minister told us in our last engagement on this that all of them will be iwi. Is that now something that will then flow through to the collective redress way that those customary rights and interests act? I think that would be news to Mr Majurey because, over a long period of time, the rights and interests of hapū have been treated differently to the way that iwi are recognised in these collective redress settlements, and so the Minister should make that very clear to this committee.

The next question is the bill’s interaction with the marine and coastal area (MACA), and the Resource Management Act is unclear at the moment, particularly with those MACA rights under threat by this Government’s advertised work programme—but no legislation that we can look at here. This amendment is clearly in response to that work, but we don’t have any eyes on what the intended legislative reform to the rights of hapū and whānau in MACA are. There are 44 live claims here. There are claims here that have gone back centuries, and they interact with the customary rights and interests that have, at different times, been settled in different ways. The settlement approaches that apply to the Hauraki Gulf in the mid-1990s, particularly from Ngāti Whātua, are very different to the ones that were settled around the 2011 to 2014 collective redress period.

I’m going to take a call from the Hon Tama Potaka, but I will say that I heard a reasonable amount of repetition coming up, so I’m going to take a call from the Minister and then I want people to be precise from here on in.

Madam Chair, thank you for that opportunity to respond to a variety of questions, which I’ll do one by one.

Especially around the hapū and whānau and marae comment, I mentioned this last week a couple of times—if the member’s contention is that 100 or more hapū be seated at the table with the Auckland Council or Waikato Regional Council; that’s probably not what was intended by the question, but what I did say is that, for hapū and marae and whānau, their interests would be treated accordingly through the iwi. I’ve said that a couple of times now, and I’ll repeat again, that the work of various hapū—and I understand that the member might be trying to define what an iwi is; I won’t have that debate again. That was done many moons ago in the fisheries litigation. The work of hapū and whānau will continue so long as it’s not prohibited by the bill.

I expect that any mussel restoration at Ōkahumatamomoe down in Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei will continue accordingly—that sort of monitoring won’t need a permit. The removal or the introduction of mussels in a high protection area is slightly different, and that may need a permit. The status of fishing permits that exist for restoration reasons—again, any activity in conflict with the prohibitions of the bill will need a permit under the bill. The provisions in new clause 19A mean that the clauses can only apply to the five fishers who meet the criteria outlined. In relation to the director-general’s letter authorising ring net fishing to be specified in the legislation, it is—read new clause 19A(4) and (5).

There was a question by one of the members opposite, who’s currently not in the Whare: will any further amendments be done through primary legislation rather than regulations? No.

Steve Abel: Point of order.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Other than the possibility to repeal the ring net fishing provisions following the three-year review, we will not be pursuing a sunset clause; we will be pursuing a review.

Rachel Boyack: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order from Rachel Boyack.

Rachel Boyack: Madam Chair, Steve Abel was trying to make a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m really sorry. I was just engaging with the Clerk for a moment. Point of order, Steve Abel.

Steve Abel: The Minister mentioned the absence of a person from the Chamber, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I didn’t pick up on that, but if the Minister did that, it’s something that we don’t allow in the Standing Orders.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Madam Chair, what I referred to—FYI—is that someone who’s not in the Chamber made a question: the question was here, and then I gave the answer. I did not refer to that person’s name.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That sounds fair to me, so the Minister may carry on with his answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the bill affect Auckland Council’s processes for marine protection? No, but they may consider existing protections when making decisions.

Just in relation to the fulltime-equivalent (FTE)—again, a question that was previously asked—the FTE at the Department of Conservation has worked on the whole bill, not just the amendments. I think there was a conflation, thinking that one FTE has been working just on the amendments. It’s not just new clause 19A; it’s been one FTE working on the whole bill, and of course we have our expert colleagues here today.

Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I’m speaking to new clause 19A in Part 2 of Amendment Paper 260, “Ring net fishing for authorised persons in certain high protection areas”—specifically, understanding a couple of things. In the course of the determinations the Minister made around allowing exemptions for ring net fishing, which are outlined in new clause 19A, the high protection areas (HPAs) which are allowed to have ring net fishing in 19A(2) are Kawau Bay, Rangitoto, or Motutapu high protection areas. I wonder if the Minister can explain to us why those specific high protection areas were selected?

Can he explain in terms of why they’d be eligible for exemptions, when the official advice stated that while the continuation of ring net fishing and HPAs may benefit some ring net fishers, it is likely their catch—that usually occurs in these HPAs—could be relocated elsewhere in the Gulf? It’s not actually—well, the question has not been answered, so I’m trying to put it another way. Why did the Minister choose Kawau Bay, Rangitoto, and Motutapu high protection areas, noting that Seafood New Zealand recommended that ring net fishing is provided for in five proposed high protection areas: Kawau Bay, Motukawao Islands, Pakatoa, Tarahiki, Rangitoto, Motutapu, and The Noises?

The other thing that I would like to understand from the Minister is that, in the course of the process of the decision making, whereby he moved from opposing there being the allowing of fishing in the high protection areas, and he then decided that he would allow it on 30 September: what were the conversations that were had with the Ministry for Primary Industries in his meeting with Minister Jones, himself, and the Ministry for Primary Industries on 24 September from 5 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.? What was the content of the conversation that was had about the pressure that they were under from Seafood New Zealand to allow the ring net fishing? Can the Minister please elucidate on that?

My third question is new clause 19A(4): “The Director-General may authorise a person to undertake ring net fishing only if—(a) the person is a commercial fisher”. In determining to undo the primary structure of this legislation designed to protect the Gulf with high protection areas, part of the negotiation to achieve that was with recreational fishers. And recreational fishers bought into the principle that for the good of the overall health of the fishery, that these areas should be high protection areas—absolutely off limits to any kind of fishing except for customary. Now, rec fishers bought into that.

Why, in his determinations, did he not think that rec fishers had some right to be included in consideration if he was now going to allow commercial fishers? Matt Watson, who is a high-profile New Zealand rec fisher, is one of the fishers who’s very upset about the Government’s position on this. What is the Minister’s response to those rec fishers who are rightly dismayed that they are expected—and many of these people are your everyday common fisherman or fisherwoman who go out to catch some kai to eat for their family table, and they are not allowed to fish in these areas, but the commercial fishers are. In his considerations, why is it that he gave special preference only to those commercial fishers and he did not consider the other people who have an interest in the Gulf, including the rec fishers?

There’s been a number of comments and spurious speculation about what goes down in meetings. I didn’t get any pressure from Seafood New Zealand around the nature of various amendments within the amendment bill presented. I know that there will be some members opposite that would like to throw a Hail Mary about what may or may not have happened; no, we’re not in that space. The space we’re in is getting this matter moving and moving forward. I won’t draw on a long line of speculation.

In relation to the rec fishers: again, it’s comforting to know that members opposite actually acknowledge that there is some fishing taking place in the high protection areas, albeit exhorted off to the other side—that, actually, there is fishing taking place in those high protection areas. And I’ll remind members that there has been a compromise over these matters for many, many years. We have reached a space where, actually, through the democratic process—it’s not me that decides; it’s this House that decides how we progress the amendments through to legislation. It’s not me; it’s this House—and the parliamentary process prevails.

Some members opposite would ban all fishing; we won’t. Some members opposite would like to see a lot less fishing between that line to Hāwere-a-Maki out to Colville. That is the view of some members. That’s not the space we’re in because we acknowledge that there are recreational, customary, and other fishers who seek to continue their mahi—recreational or otherwise; feeding their whānau—within the inner Gulf to Moananui-ā-Toi-te-Huatahi. We are very comfortable in progressing Part 2 to its logical conclusion.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260, amending paragraph (a) in clause 18(1) and deleting proposed new clause 19A, be agreed to.

The question is that the Amendment Paper 260,

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting subclause (4A) in proposed new clause 19A, be agreed to.

The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting new clause 19B, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 260 be agreed to.

Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 18 inserting new subclause (3) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.