Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”, and the principal Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The title of this bill has been a long time coming—we’ve traversed this quite a bit on this side of the Chamber. It has been over a decade in the making with a number of stakeholders at various levels. Local and central government, iwi, hapū and whānau, conservationists, the fishing industry have all come together over a long period of time, and this is one part of what was agreed to, but the sea-change process has led to this bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, as it claims to be and as it was prior to the eleventh hour amendments that this Minister has brought to the House and that we have debated.

All this Government has done is delay the passage of this bill, one that they said they were going to accelerate prior to the last election. All they’ve done is delay it over the last two years. They have weakened it as a result of those eleventh hour amendments. We have drilled into the rationale, the evidence, and the justification for weakening protections within supposed high protection areas that are meant to enhance the biodiversity objectives in a gulf that is degrading. The Minister in the chair has been unable to respond to those questions and provide any sort of justification that would give those of us on this side of the Chamber or, indeed, outside of this building any comfort that it was actually justified, the weakening of protections that were laid out in a bill was worked on and then considered in detail by the Environment Committee.

The recommendation to this committee was to pass the bill with no substantive change. For that to then change in the eleventh hour, we would have thought that there would be some strong justification from the Minister, but we have not seen any of that, so I would argue that the name of this bill is no longer justified. While it does go some way towards, or a significant way still towards, protecting the Hauraki Gulf, all of the protections in the bill that was drafted and introduced by Labour in Government—the only step that this Government has taken is to weaken it. What they’ve done is to put the fishing lobby interests before marine protections, and that’s down to the conservation Minister in the Chamber along with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. All they’ve done is pander to the interests of the fishing lobby. All they’ve done is take us backwards on marine protections.

I would argue that the name of this bill should be changed to the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Weakens Marine Protection Bill”. While, in our entirety, we are supporting this bill because it goes some way to protecting the Gulf based on the changes that we brought in and based on the work that many have done over the years, this Government cannot take credit for that, because the only contribution that they’ve made to this is to delay the passage and weaken the intent of this bill. It could be the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Puts Fishing Lobby Interests Ahead of Marine Protections Bill”. I would probably accept that as well.

I’m sorry to the speaker. I’ll have to now report progress at this time. The member will have the opportunity to resume her speech when this bill is considered next. Time has come for me to report progress.

Debate interrupted.

Progress to be reported.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave to correct the vote on amendment 260.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. There’s no objection. You may correct that.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thirty-four votes were cast in favour, and they should have been cast opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Do we know what we’re talking about here? Let’s make sure that we’ve got the right amendment. This is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 260 be agreed to. The result should have been—

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No. Thirty-four votes opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That will be amended accordingly. Actually, I did note that it is already recorded as opposed—68 for and 54 against.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: We’re all good then.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Belt and braces perhaps.

House resumed.