Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 26 to 69, “Permits, enforcement, and regulations for protected areas”, and Schedule 5. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question of the Minister about Part 3, clause 67, which is around the “Regulations for restrictions and conditions that apply to authorised persons undertaking ring net fishing”. Madam Chair, if you will allow me, this clause is referenced in Part 2, clause 19A(5)(b), which is a section I was going to ask some questions about in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not allowing you to go back to Part 2—only as the clause relates to Part 3.

RACHEL BOYACK: This is as it relates, so I’m asking as it relates.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as it relates to the specific wording in Part 3, I will allow it.

RACHEL BOYACK: That is exactly what I’m doing, Madam Chair. In clause 67, it says, “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister responsible for administration of the Fisheries Act 1996, make regulations that prescribe restrictions and conditions that apply to an authorised person undertaking ring net fishing in accordance with section 19A.” It refers back to clause 19A.

I’ve got a question to start with, and I’ll probably have to come back because there’s a number of questions in this clause, around that “authorised person”. What happened during scrutiny week when the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries appeared before the Environment Committee, he advised the select committee that there would be three authorised people who were going to be allowed to undertake ring net fishing in the high protection areas as he said that they would be named in the legislation. My question to the Minister today is: this is specifically talking about an authorised person; who are these authorised people? Why has the Minister chosen to go against what the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries advised the select committee?

Now, I’m not suggesting either way which way is a better option. I think that it’s actually unusual to name parties in legislation—unless you’re the Government and you’re naming fast-track projects. It’s unusual to do that. However, the reason I’m asking this question is that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries did actually state that those authorised people would be named in the legislation. My question to the Minister is: why have they not been? How many authorised people will there be, is my next question. There have been various numbers thrown around, and I understand the kind of common number of people that’s thrown around is three—three—people who will be authorised. Again, this doesn’t stipulate the number of authorised people. Will there be three? Will there be six? Will there be 10? And what parameters will be put in place to ensure that it can’t continue to expand, is my other question to the Minister. There is concern about the sheer number of people who may be able to access this exemption and be granted an exemption and be considered an authorised person. I will come back. I’ve got more questions for the Minister, but that’s my first one.

I’ll repeat the answer that I gave earlier: these fishers will not be named. It’s not the current intent of either myself or the Minister of fisheries to name those people. As I’ve mentioned before—and the member may not have been in the Chamber—there have been some concerns around the abuse and violence levelled towards various fishers across this space. Those fishers who will be eligible to go ring net fishing are set out in clause 19(1)(a).

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are directly relating to Part 3, subpart 1, and clauses 27 and 28, so both around “Application for permit” and “Director-General may seek further information”. Now I’m wondering and really keen to hear very clearly from the Minister about what was—or is there—a due diligence process when it comes to permits or exemptions under this bill. Now, I’m asking that because it’s not quite clear from the information what the scope is of what the director-general could ask for, because it’s extremely broad. Is that the intent?

Secondly, does any company or individual with permits or exemptions under this bill have any record of poor compliance records or Fisheries Act prosecutions? I think it would be really comforting for the public, particularly all those who are really concerned about the ring net exemptions, if the Minister could confirm that there has been due diligence that has been applied to this bill as a whole, but particularly as pertains to permits and exemptions under the bill, which are in these clauses.

I think, as well, what would be really good to know is: if it did emerge that there were any poor compliance records or even prosecutions that have been made against individuals or companies that are given these permits or exemptions through this bill, what that would mean in terms of if they do have existing permits or exemptions? Would the Minister actually take action in response to those, to ensure that the community can trust that there are, essentially, actors doing the business and not acting in bad faith when it comes to permits or exemptions under the bill? I’d really like to hear a response from the Minister on those things. Thank you.

Tēnā rā koe, Madam Chair, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, waihoki ētehi o ngā mana whenua o Hauraki.

[Thank you, Madam Chair; indeed, thank you, Minister. Greetings to us in the House. I stand to convey the statements on behalf of Te Pāti Māori today, and furthermore some of the iwi territorial authorities of Hauraki.]

I also represent the Māori electorate seat of Hauraki-Waikato. That geographically covers the whole Hauraki and the whole of Waikato from Papakura all the way down to Te Awamutu.

I just will be referring to some of the amendments and asking questions that I have made on Part 3, clause 28 and clause 29. Some of my tabled amendments today are around clause 28 and clause 28(1): replace “the Director-General may” with “the Director-General must”. In clause 28(1)(b), after “consult”, insert “relevant mana whenua, including”. Then, in clause 29(d), after “activity”, insert “through engagement with relevant mana whenua”.

These amendments ensure that there is a mandatory consultation process and when, giving permits, this process must consult with mana whenua, because I know for a fact that when whānau go for a dive or are fishing together for kaimoana or kai for kaupapa or tangihanga, they will be the ones that will be criminalised and fined rather than the big corporate commercial fishing companies who exploit our taonga and kai.

These amendments are designed to ensure mana whenua have input into these applications for permits to undergo fishing and diving throughout the moana. These amendments follow on from points raised in submissions by a number of Hauraki iwi and also consider critical feedback on the bill by Te Ohu Kaimoana. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill, in line with concerns raised—for example, Hauraki Māori Trust Board and Te Ohu Kaimoana. These amendments proposed in response to the need to ensure that new breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi occur for Hauraki iwi towards a sustainable management of the moana.

I do have quite a long set of questions that I want to ask the Minister as well, on mana whenua involvement. They all relate to clause 29 and clause 28 in Part 3. On mana whenua involvement, how does this bill, in its current form, ensure that mana whenua have genuine input into decisions about activities in the moana? Why should mana whenua not be explicitly named as groups the director-general must consult with, rather than leaving it to discretion? What safeguards exist in the current bill to protect whakapapa relationships with the moana?

On decision-making powers, why is the director-general only permitted rather than required to seek further information and consult mana whenua before granting permits? Should such significant powers be exercised without mandatory engagement with those who hold kaitiakitanga? On Te Tiriti o Waitangi, what steps have been taken to ensure that no new breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will occur under this bill? Given the concerns raised by Hauraki iwi and Te Ohu Kaimoana, how can the Crown justify proceeding without stronger Tiriti-based protections? How does this bill recognise the rights and responsibilities of mana whenua, as granted under Te Tiriti?

On proposed amendments, why would Parliament resist changing the wording from “may” to “must” in clauses that deal with consultation and information gathering? How does inserting “relevant mana whenua” into clause 28(1)(b) strengthen decision making? Why is engagement with mana whenua not already required when considering biodiversity impacts and other effects under clause 29? On accountability and sustainability, with the last 30 seconds: what mechanisms in the bill ensure accountability to iwi and hapū, who will most be affected by these decisions?

Without these amendments, how can Parliament guarantee sustainable management of the moana that is consistent with tikanga and kaitiakitanga? The last question for the Minister: do current provisions go far enough to balance Crown authority with iwi rights and responsibilities? Tēnā rā koe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, have some questions specific to clause 27 in Subpart 1 of Part 3, particularly to clause 27(2)(c), and that is around “the anticipated effects of the proposed activity”. Subpart 1, clause 27, around the “Application for permit”, lays out the process by which a person applies to the director-general for a permit to be authorised to undertake the prohibited activity within the protected area, and subclause (2) sets out what the application needs to include.

My question is around whether the director-general would be required to look at the impacts around bycatch. I specifically raise this because conservationists have said in the public domain that ring netting is also indiscriminate when it comes to a form of fishing; that while it targets small bait fish—which in itself is an issue, because species like snapper rely on the small bait fish, so that’s a separate issue—but that there is bycatch. Other species, like sea birds, rays, and other fish species, are often ensnared in these large nets and killed. The purpose, again, of the high protection area is to protect the biodiversity within it, so my question to the Minister is whether he would consider a change to require the director-general to look at the anticipated effects that include the bycatch in those areas—anticipated bycatch—before a permit can be granted.

My second question is to do with clause 28(1)(c), which allows the director-general to commission any report that the director-general considers appropriate when deciding whether to grant the permit or not. Again, I would like to ask the Minister, firstly, what reports he would anticipate a director-general would require or commission, and whether he would move to or consider an amendment that would require the director-general to commission a report to look at the impact on biodiversity objectives, including anticipated bycatch in that area?

My third question to the Minister is on clause 28(2). This is the subclause where “The applicant must pay the costs associated with the Director-General’s inquiries under this section in the manner provided in the regulations.” That has been deleted, and I would like to ask the Minister why that has been removed?

I do have a few more questions, but those relate to parts that are further on, so I will stop here and hope the Minister answers these questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague, I’m also asking questions about subpart 1, regarding permits. For context, in clause 27(1), “A person may apply to the Director-General for a permit authorising the person to undertake a prohibited activity within a protected area.” To understand what those are, we need to go back to Part 2. Those prohibited activities are: “set netting”, “potting that occurs within Area A on Survey Office Plan [etc., etc.] shown as the area with diagonal lines”, and “bottom longlining that occurs within Area A …”—so, set netting, potting, and longlining.

Now, if we go further down Subpart 1, we find “Decision of Director-General”, on page 22, clause 30: “[The Director-General] After considering an application for a permit and any further information … may grant the permit, if satisfied that …”—among other things in clause 30(1)(b)—“the activity is necessary;”. I want to prosecute the word “necessary”, Minister. Whenever do you envisage that it will be necessary to permit set netting, potting, and bottom longlining in a high protected area? What is the definition that you will use to evaluate that it is necessary to do those things? It completely contradicts, surely, the purpose of the legislation.

My question is: what are the things that you would deem as rendering it necessary to allow not only ring net fishing in these areas but also set netting, potting, and bottom longlining?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few questions from me on Part 3. One is the continuation of a discussion we were having in Part 2 around the grandparenting of the ring-netting—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But a new point relating to a clause in Part 3.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: But it is related, because the bill is just one bill—it’s very definitely a new point. The Minister said that the director-general would write to them, but I’m wondering if he would also consider, in clause 34—so on pages 24 and 25 of his Amendment Paper 260—adding a new paragraph (c) to say “and the permit holder is not authorised under section 19A” to make it clear that those new clause 19A authorisations cannot be transferred under what will become section 34. So that’s one question, if he’d consider that. That, I think, would be clearer than his answer, which is on the Hansard—which I appreciate—that the director-general would write a letter about that issue.

Now, moving on then to offences, at what will be new section 41, “Offence to undertake prohibited activity within protected area”, the punishment has changed quite dramatically here. It was “a fine not exceeding $100,000:”, and now there’s an option of still having that fine, or “a sentence of community work.”, and, of course, the sentence of community work seems quite different than a fine of $100,000. So I was wondering if the Minister could comment on why that change has been made. Those are two questions.

Moving on now into regulations, and these start at page 36, there’s a general regulatory power that hasn’t changed at clause 65, but then there are some changes at clause 66, which is “Regulations for biodiversity objectives and associated restrictions”. The one that I’m particularly interested in, and it relates back to questions I’ve had on both Part 1 and Part 2, but this is specifically on Part 3, is at clause 66(2). There’s been a change so that the Minister must be “satisfied that”, and there’s a deletion of paragraph (a), which is the requirement that the Minister has to consult with the Minister for fisheries. Why I’m interested in this is that the Minister hasn’t clearly answered my other questions about whether or not this—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you just repeat the last piece of what you said you were specifically referring to, as the Minister is just looking—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, I’m on page 37 of the Amendment Paper, and there was a requirement at clause 66(2)(a) that the Minister for fisheries be consulted, but that has been deleted on the Amendment Paper and I’m asking why it’s been deleted. Is that because with the other changes in the definitions of who the Minister is, the Minister administrating this Act can now be the Minister of fisheries, and is it, in fact, the intent that the Minister administrating this Act is the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and not the Minister for Conservation? Is that the reason for paragraph (a) being deleted, because if it is the changes in Part 1 and Part 2 that enable the Prime Minister to decide who the Minister in charge of this piece of legislation is—if that enables it to be either the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, or some other Minister, then shouldn’t there be a requirement for whoever that Minister is to consult with the other one?

So if the Minister in charge of this legislation is the conservation Minister, then they must consult with the oceans and fisheries Minister. But if this bill now enables the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries to be the Minister in charge of this bill, shouldn’t there be a requirement, then, for that Minister to consult the Minister of Conservation? That is my question on that regulation.

I’ve got some more questions. But I see that the Minister is eager to answer, so I will defer to him.

Madam Chair, thank you for this chance to respond to various questions. In relation to clause 27, the information required will be provided on the Department of Conservation (DOC) website. It is an operational matter, but the form of the application or the materials that will be needed will be set out on the DOC website.

In relation to whether or not the director-general is required to consider bycatch impacts, no, not for issuing an authorisation for ring net fishing, but they will be considered at the three-yearly review.

The types of reports the director-general might consider when considering a permanent application, that’s on a case by case basis that is relevant to that application. It’s not required by the bill.

Cost recovery: why was that deleted? It was deemed not necessary, as the ability to cost recover on the bill is actually set out in the Conservation Act 1987. There are a number of questions in regard to safeguards around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and various kaitiakitanga aspirations. There have been changes made into the Act that’s set out in clause 4(2) around signposting and signalling how we would like to see Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities—Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities—carried out, and you’ll see them well articulated both in clauses 4, 5A, and 8.

Yes, iwi—oh, sorry, a comment on Te Ohu Kaimoana. The advice I’ve received is generally that Te Ohu Kaimoana is comfortable with the direction of travel. Of course, they’ve written or communicated with officials and others around their expectations going forward, and many of those expectations, I understand, have been met. There is a significant commitment, within the coalition Government and within this bill, to uphold Te Tiriti settlements. That’s in clause 8A.

The information the Director-General of Conservation can ask for when considering a permanent application in relation to ring net fishers is all set out in clause 19A. How many authorised ring net fishers will there be, and will this number grow in the future? For the 16th time around these discussions, we’ve said it’s up to five, because that’s the number that have the fisheries number now, and that’s set out in clause 19A.

Hon Members: No, it’s not.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, the fishers that are able to apply are set out in clause 19A.

Now, you want to know the number and the identity. I’ve said four times today that we will not be giving that to you. We will not be announcing that. Of course, there are privacy issues that are attached to that.

In relation to clause 41, there is optionality given that it’s a strict liability arrangement, so the amendment enables a little bit more granularity of response in the enforcement process, particularly given the strict liability arrangements therein.

There are a couple of other questions that were asked. The expectation around consulting with mana moana or mana whenua: I think that the practice of the decision maker, in that regard, will be influenced heavily by the references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi in both this proposed legislation and also the Conservation Act 1987.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick clarification on what the Minister just said in his response around clause 28(2), which is the removal of the cost recovery requirement. So is the Minister saying that the taxpayer now has to pay for individuals to get a permit to fish in a high protection area? I think that is quite unfair, but I just want clarification around that.

My second question is to do with clause 32, which lays out the revocation of permit or amendment to permit conditions due to adverse effects and other grounds. This clause lays out the grounds under which the director-general may revoke a permit at any time if certain conditions are not met. So clause 32(a) states that the director-general can revoke a permit if it’s “causing adverse effects to the protected area that are greater than those anticipated at the time the permit was granted”. That relates to my previous question around the anticipated effects of the proposed activity and whether that will include a projection on the bycatch that will be caught in the method of fishing that is allowed now in these two high protection areas (HPAs).

My second question around that, though, is how would the director-general monitor this, because the review period for the specific permit regime is, from what the Minister said previously—I can’t find the clause in here, but from what the Minister said, it’s three years. So if there are specific changes that contribute to a further degradation of those two HPAs within that three-year period, and before the review takes place, how will the director-general be able to determine this in order to be able to then revoke a permit based on those adverse effects?

That actually also relates to clause 32(b), which states that it could be revoked if it’s inconsistent with the biodiversity objectives for the protected area in a manner that wasn’t anticipated. So, same question there: will bycatch be involved in that determination as well, and if so, how will the director-general be able to reasonably determine that?

My next question is around clause 41, which is under “Offences”, and I note that clause 41(3)(b) is new. That is around the sentence of community work: a person who commits an offence referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (2) is liable on conviction to just a fine not exceeding $100,000, but it could be either a fine or a sentence of community work. That seems to be a weakening of that particular offence protection, and so I’d like the Minister to answer why that is.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I responded to the question around the offences before and the fines or alternatively a community-based sentence, and it was omitted by mistake. I understand it was already approved by Cabinet. However, a strict liability offence providing optionality for responding to that is a very good thing.

There was a question around whether or not the Minister of Conservation would need to consult with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. The Minister of Conservation is the Minister responsible for this bill, and this drafting aligns with the Legislation Act.

Amendments to ensure permits can’t be transferred: the ring net fishing provision is set out in Part 2. Clause 34 would not allow for a ring net fishing provision to be transferred. The director-general authorises it. It’s under a different regime in the bill.

In response to members’ questions about what might be considered necessary in a high protection area (HPA), there could be research, there could be restoration activities and a number of things that may be necessary in an HPA that is enabled through that.

In terms of cost recovery and taxpayers, no, there’s no cost to the taxpayer for ring net fishing authorisations. They are not permits under Part 3 of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to come back to clause 67 because I have some further questions for the Minister of Conservation on a different section of this clause.

I’m going to start with clause 67(2)(a)(ii)—I love reading this legislation when my eyes are starting to get a little bit older. It states here that the regulations made under subsection (1) “must provide for … restrictions relating to the species of fish that an authorised person may target, which may be all or any of the following species only: (A) kahawai: (B) grey mullet: (C) trevally”. I have an amendment to this clause, and this is a really good reason why it’s frustrating to have amendments like this come through the committee stage and not at select committee—because we can dig in with the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) at select committee around whether the actual wording in the clause will reach its intention.

My amendment would be to change in the second sentence the part that says, “which may be all” to “which must be all”. My concern is that when it says “which may be all or any of the following”, could that actually be interpreted to allow for other species of fish to be fished as a fishing activity by those who have been authorised to undertake ring net fishing in one of these two high protection areas? My first question to the Minister is: would he consider supporting my amendment? I’d love it if he could talk to PCO around whether that wording is actually tight enough to achieve the intent, which I believe is that only those three species can be targeted. The use of the word “must” would be a very minor amendment and would actually strengthen it and it would ensure that only those three fish can be targeted with that permitted fishing activity.

My second question is also related to clause 67(2)(b), which says that, again, the regulations made under subsection (1) “may provide for any other restrictions or conditions that apply to an authorised person undertaking ring net fishing that the Ministers consider necessary.” My question for the Minister is: can he give some examples of what those other restrictions or conditions could be? Has he received advice on what they would be? How would they be enacted? Would it be through secondary legislation, through regulation? It’s quite a broad clause. Again, I just note that this is why we get frustrated when large amendments that are quite substantial get dropped in the committee stage. They could even actually go back to select committee just for a week to allow those of us on this side of the House who haven’t had the opportunity to ask PCO what the intent behind that particular part of the clause is.

Those are my two questions to the Minister. Would he consider my amendment, because I think it would strengthen it, would give that certainty that it’s only those three species that can be fished? Secondly, can he give us some more detail around the intent and the advice he’s received under clause 67(2)(b) and how those restrictions or conditions could be applied? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up specifically on quite a substantial part of the bill, which is on page 40, and it’s new clause 68A, which involves “Ministerial review of ring net fishing provisions”. I’m wanting to pick up on this particularly, because there actually is a way within this provision to offer all of those people out there, particularly the communities around Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, some form of assurance and transparency as part of this process. What this specific clause outlines is that the Minister and the Minister actually responsible for the administration of the Fisheries Act 1996 must actually initiate a review of the operations of this ring net fishing, which are contained in this amendment, before the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act. Now, what I would propose to the Minister is to seriously consider changing that to one year.

The reason why I think he should do that is because of all of the concern that’s been going on with the communities and the fact that, as he’s reiterated, he’s had different advice from officials that no longer says that these protections would undermine the purpose of the Act, that apparently the advice now says that these ring net fishing exemptions might have minimal impact on biodiversity. We’re really keen to see that, and we haven’t actually heard the Minister address directly whether he will share that information.

One way he could do that is by actually initiating this review earlier. The key part about it is it actually looks at those costs and benefits of the ring net fishing provisions. Particularly with that $14,000 in revenue that we’ve heard in the media and talked about in the committee of the whole stage, if there is counter evidence, then we would like to be able to see that really weighed up in an actually sound, considered way so that the public and all of those people who have been involved in this process for so many years actually have transparency about it.

The critical part of it, as well, is that it allows, in this ministerial review, those Ministers to then recommend, in response to that, whether these ring net fishing provisions should actually be retained, should they be amended, or should they even be repealed.

The Minister has been really clear all along that this has been a number of compromises that he’s had to make. Presumably he wants to be open and transparent with the public about the actual advice and evidence he’s been given to make these compromises. Would he consider changing the review timetable within this clause to earlier? I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re very confident that a review take place—in answer to an earlier question around a sunset clause, that’s not the position. We will be undertaking a review, and we welcome that as a pragmatic way to get on with the mahi.

In relation to clause 67(2), the proposed amendment will require that all three species should be targeted, whereas the earlier drafting meant it could be limited to one or two of the species.

How will any adverse effects to high protection areas from ring net fishing be addressed before the three-year review? There’ll be enforcement and monitoring of the protections provided by the bill. This includes the high protection areas where the ring net provision is provided for. It takes time for these effects to be clear, and reviewing after three years, informed by monitoring, will help that.

Restrictions or conditions that could be for ring net fishers—well, those are well set up: one vessel at a time, it must be less than six metres, and stay within the vicinity of the net while fishing. Unlike some of the reports with trawlers splayed all over photos, that’s not what it is. It’s just diversionary malarkey.

In regards to considering reducing the three-year review period to one year, well, we’ve got to take time to review the activities and the protection, and it’s appropriate that it takes place after three years.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for answering some questions on this part. I note that I haven’t heard any comment on my suggestion that the transfer clause could be amended to exclude clause 19A. That’s excluding specifically making it clear, in the transfer clause, that the ring net fishing exemption can’t be transferred. I also heard, in the Minister’s responses, that the Minister of Conservation is in charge of this bill. But, back in Part 1, the definition of “Minister” has changed so that it can be whoever the Prime Minister gives the delegation to. Regardless, even if the Minister is right and if he could explain why, then, there’s that change in definition, that would be useful. But why would you not want the Minister of Conservation to consult the Minister for fisheries and vice versa? If the Minister of fisheries has, in fact, got the delegation for this Act, surely you would want the Minister of fisheries to consult the Minister of Conservation.

Moving on, I’m interested in replacement clause 67 in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. This has been deleted, and it’s been replaced with another clause, but it just relates, as the Minister’s discussed, to ring net fishing, which is quite different, so it’s been replaced by something quite different. Clause 67, which has been deleted, allowed for regulations that looked at additional management and was related to the biodiversity objectives. We had some discussion in Part 2 about the biodiversity objectives, and the Minister named a whole lot of people in the Chamber, and I asked and didn’t get an answer, but it’s relevant to this part as well: was the long list of people that he named all endorsing these changes to the biodiversity objectives? That’s relevant to clause 67 as well. Or are they just good people who do good things in this area? These are two quite different things.

Then he might want to comment as well, going further through to 67, which my colleague Rachel Boyack was just talking about. That also requires that those regulations must provide for the period of time—and there’s a season there, being 1 March and ending on 31 August. Is there anything particular to that, or is it standard practice, the season there? You might want to comment.

Then going further, we had some questions from Lan Pham on clause 68A of the Minister’s Amendment Paper, but I’m quite interested in 68B. This is an Order in Council repealing the ring net fishing provisions, and it does seem to be a “King Henry VIII” clause. What that means is that a regulation—so not the statute—suddenly can be made that amends the statute.

Hon Simon Watts: This was discussed at select committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing that it’s been—

Rachel Boyack: It didn’t go to select committee. That’s the point.

Hon Simon Watts: It’s filibustering.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m now being accused of filibustering, and they’re saying that it went to select committee. Of course, I’m looking at the underlined things that are in the—

Hon Simon Watts: The member knows it. She wrote the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m looking at the Amendment Paper rather than the bill as reported back from the select committee. That is the difference. Thank you to the member opposite there for proclaiming that I wrote the bill. Whilst I certainly had some involvement in the progress of this bill and the introduction of this bill when I was the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I cannot claim to have written it. It has, of course, been the work of many people over, as we know, at least a decade. Well done to all of them.

Hon Simon Watts: Here we go. You used to support it. How things change.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m now being told that we should support it, and, of course, we are supporting the bill, but the bill has been amended, and it’s been amended for these ring net fishers but also around these biodiversity objectives as well, so I’m wanting some clarity on whether the people who the Minister named before are supporting those changes to the biodiversity objectives. Are they supporting the changes to the ring net fishing, or do they have the position that I have, which is that we want this bill to pass. It is a good bill, but the Minister has made some bad changes which have delayed this whole process by over a year. Could he answer my questions, please.

As I mentioned earlier, and as I’m sure members will be aware, iwi leaders are quite accustomed to various compromises in legislative and regulatory processes. Iwi leaders that I’ve engaged with are absolutely opposing more regulatory bureaucratic noise coming in over the top of customary fishing. They do not want more regulation from the Kāwanatanga over and above the tikanga practices of going out to gather kai. That’s why we are retaining the location of customary fishing alongside the Fisheries Act rather than keeping more regulatory noise on top of customary fishing by way of this Act. It’s not necessary for clause 34 to say that ring net fishing cannot be transferred, as ring net fishing is not a permit.

I’m happy to note that, in relation to clause 68B, there may be an option in time for the Governor-General to pass that Order in Council made on our recommendations to discontinue ring net fishing, and that may happen. Let’s wait and see.

I might just note that interjections from one side or the other normally don’t introduce new material, but when they’re done in a very loud and informed voice it may well be that they are actually adding new material that might prolong the debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We have appreciated having the Minister of Climate Change here chirping away. Last time we saw him in the Chamber, he was reading out a bill to bring back oil and gas exploration. It is funny that it’s the Minister of Climate Change who is complaining about us forgetting what the environment is—but, anyway, it’s nice to have you here, Minister, and thank you, Mr Chair.

I have two very quick points, actually, to make. My first one, before I get to the substantive one at new clause 68A, is to clarify my question, which was not answered by the Minister. The Minister answered as to when permits would be issued and said that the purpose of those permits could be scientific experimentation, for example. All well and good; no one’s going to have an issue with that, I can imagine, so long as it’s done in a way that remediates and doesn’t harm. My specific question was that, in that clause 27(1), there is permission for permits to be issued to undertake prohibited activities in a high protection area, and those prohibited activities are listed at clause 15(1A): set netting, potting, and bottom longlining. My question was: under what circumstances would it ever be deemed necessary to permit set netting, potting, and longlining in a high protected area? That was the specific question. I wasn’t asking about research permitting; I was asking when it would ever be necessary—the word “necessary” coming from Part 3, on page 22. That’s my clarification.

Now, to new clause 68A, on page 40, Mr Chair and Minister, subclause (5): “The Ministers must ensure that, as part of the review, there is reasonable opportunity for interested persons (including Te Ohu Kai Moana) to make submissions on the operation of the ring net fishing provisions.” Why, Minister, is Te Ohu Kaimoana explicitly singled out, and is there any relationship between the naming of Te Ohu Kaimoana and the fact that, on 26 September, there was a meeting between Minister Jones and Te Ohu Kaimoana that preceded your decision to change this legislation to allow ring net fishing, which you did three days later on 30 September?

Is there a relationship between that meeting between Minister Jones and Te Ohu Kaimoana and the Minister’s decision to change to permit ring net fishing in the high protected area and now the Minister’s specific setting out of the requirement that if there is any review of ring net fishing, it must include consultation with Te Ohu Kaimoana? Why are they explicitly named, Minister?

I’ve got two specific questions for the Minister, and they relate to new clause 68A(3)(a)(i) and (ii)—those are the specific clauses and subclauses that I’m looking at. That’s, basically, around the ministerial review of the ring net fishing provisions. This particular clause lays out the detail with regard to that review. With subclause (3), it basically says that the review must assess “the costs and benefits of the ring net fishing provisions and, to the extent practicable, the fishing undertaken in reliance on those provisions; and”— secondary to that—“the effect of the ring net fishing provisions on the relevant high protection areas and any biodiversity objectives for those areas;”.

My question to the Minister is: why is there the hierarchy of those two specific aspects that the review needs to assess, and whether, as the Minister of Conservation, he is comfortable with the fact that the effect on the biodiversity objectives—which, I would have thought, should be the principal focus of the review—is subsidiary or secondary to the cost-benefit analysis? Can he explain the thinking behind that, the rationale for that, and whether, as conservation Minister, he is comfortable with the focus on conservation coming secondary to the cost-benefit analysis?

The second question that I have for the Minister is around new clause 68A(3)(b)(ii), which is what happens if the Minister is not satisfied with the review and the recommendations that could be the outcome of that. Now, I understand paragraphs (i) and (iii), where the recommendation could be either that the ring net fishing provisions are “retained” or they are “repealed”; I don’t understand the second paragraph, in terms of it being “amended”. I ask the Minister to clarify what the options are that he foresees with regard to new clause 68A(3)(b)(ii). In what circumstances does he think that the ring net fishing provisions could be amended, given the outcomes of the review? What are the options for the amendment therein, and, I guess, what does he anticipate would come out of this particular subclause?

In response to why Te Ohu Kaimoana were specified for consultation for a ring net fishing review, Te Ohu Kaimoana were specified for consultation for when it’s in doubt. But the clause provides that all interested parties must be given an opportunity to submit, and we on this side think it’s appropriate for a peak Māori fisheries body who’s responsible for the advocacy of Māori fishing to be engaged in that review.

The fishing season specified in the bill—what is it based on, and is it standard? From 1 March to 31 August is the standard ring net fishing season, and the bill will ensure that that fishing does not occur outside of that timetable.

Under what circumstances might potting, bottom longlining, or set-netting be necessary in a high protection area? I don’t anticipate there being a reason to permit. However, the legislation provides for this to be considered on a case by case basis. The restrictions in the bill would ensure that this couldn’t be for commercial purposes.

In relation to the amendment to clause 68A(3)(b)(ii), there might be a range of reasons to amend—for example, the months of the season might be reconsidered in due course. Kia ora.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m not hearing a lot of new stuff coming. But Rachel Boyack is nodding away like she might have found some new—

Oh, Mr Chair, I do have something quite specific, because the Minister responded to my question about a tabled amendment earlier, but, actually, in his response I believe he referenced the wrong use of the word “may” in the clause. So I wanted to clarify this because in that particular clause, the word “may” is referenced twice, and I think he was referring to the first use of it and not the second. The amendment has been tabled on the Table—

Hon Member: New material.

RACHEL BOYACK: —so I’m going to read it out in context, and I do note there’s a bit of chat on the other side. This is a really genuine question to actually strengthen the protections in this bill, and that is what we do at select committee. So I’m just going to read what my amendment would actually change it to. Clause 67(2) would say, “Regulations made under subsection (1)—(a) must provide for … (ii) restrictions relating to the species of fish that an authorised person may target, which must be all or any of the following species only:”.

When I use the word “must”, that is a change from the word “may” that is there. It wasn’t to say that an authorised person must target, which would imply that you’re targeting all three, and I accept that that was what the Minister said. What my amendment would do would state it must be all or any of the following species only, because my question to the Minister was whether it could be read more broadly, and if he doesn’t want to support my amendment now that I’ve just clarified which word I wanted to actually change—because I recognise the word was referenced twice in the particular clause. If not, can he make sure it’s very clear on the Hansard in case it were to come up in the courts, that it would only be kahawai, grey mullet, and trevally that are able to be targeted.

I just wanted to clarify that when the Minister responded to my suggested amendment, I think he probably hadn’t actually seen the written amendment that I’d proposed in context, so I just wanted to give him that opportunity to respond. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a short call from me to clarify two points. One was that I still haven’t got an answer around the Ministers, both the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation, being involved—number one.

The second one is that, I think, in one of the Minister’s answers he was responding to my question about the iwi leaders, the kaitiaki, who he’s referenced in an earlier part of the debate. He said, “They don’t want restrictions.”—is what he said generally. My question actually is a specific one, and that is: the people that he named, those kaitiaki, the iwi leaders, do they agree with all of these amendments that he has made? My question is, then: has he asked them specifically if they agree with these amendments or is he making an assumption that, with his many years’ involvement with this part of the country, they will be happy with his amendments around the biodiversity objectives? It’s a very simple question.

In response to various questions: a hierarchy of the two aspects that the review needs to address—there is no hierarchy.

In response to what changes might be made, I think I mentioned it, but there might be only one—or stricter conditions like only one fish being targeted.

In response to the question around iwi leaders, certainly the iwi leaders want to see a tripling of the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf. They do not want regulators and legislators to be coming in over the top, hot as anything, to say, “This is what you must do to enable biodiversity.” Hence why I’ve mentioned four times now that the customary fishing arrangements will remain within the Fisheries Act and not be inundated with further bureaucratic and statutory noise. We’re here to triple the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf, te pātaka kai a Tīkapa Moana, Te Moana-nui-a-Toi-te-huatahi, te wahine a Huiarangi [the food basket of the Hauraki Gulf, the Bay of Plenty, the matriarch Huirangi]. That’s what we’re here to do, and I look forward to it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending clause 30, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending paragraph (c) in clause 32, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “except” with “including” in paragraph (b) of clause 66(1), be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting new paragraph (a) in clause 66(2), be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting new subparagraph (iii) in clause 66(2)(b), be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, deleting the amendment to replace clause 67, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “which may be all or any” with “which must be all or any” in proposed subparagraph (ii) in clause 67(2)(a), be agreed to.

The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “3 years” with “1 year” in subclause (2) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (2) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (3) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (5) in proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending paragraph (b) in proposed new clause 68B(2), be agreed to.

The Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 deleting proposed new clauses 67, 68A, and 68B is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper No 260 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 349 be agreed to.

The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s tabled amendments to clause 28(1) and paragraph (d) in clause 29 be agreed to.