Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Right. Members, we now come to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 9A—“Preliminary provisions”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is the culmination of many, many years of collaborative hard work. Labour, in Government, built on the work that was done through the Sea Change—Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan with a number of stakeholders that were brought together: iwi, hapū, local and central government, and various other entities that had interest in the Hauraki Gulf. There was then a Government strategy that was developed in response to the marine proposals in the Sea Change plan; a ministerial advisory committee that was set up to provide independent advice. Various interests in the Hauraki Gulf were balanced very carefully through this decade-long process, and that has led us—

Arena Williams: Ten years.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Over 10 years of work—and that has led us to where we are today.

The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill was introduced to this House, and it had its first reading in August 2023. The Environment Committee considered thousands of submissions and reported back in June 2024. Members unanimously recommended that this House passed this bill with no substantive change. The second reading happened in November 2024, but, of course, prior to the second reading in November last year, the Minister of Conservation signalled that there would be some amendments.

Here we are today—and we know why. At the eleventh hour, this Government has decided to turn over or overturn or interfere with years and years of collaborative work, to bring in a change that will weaken this bill, and here we are today.

Now, the Minister in the chair tried to take credit for this bill during scrutiny week at select committee, and that’s why I wanted to start by laying out that there has been many years of work by many players, and all this Government and this Minister has done is to delay it and weaken it.

Since there’s been no select committee process for the amendments, I want to read a few of the comments that we’ve seen in the media around these particular amendments. Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea says, “We see once again that money talks and that we are left with a degrading moana,”— because, of course, this is a bill that could have been passed in 2024; should have been, but it wasn’t. While that delay happened, while Ministers were lobbied by the fishing industry to weaken this bill, the moana has been degrading, and we’ve all seen that.

Environmentalists are questioning the economic basis for the Government’s decision to weaken proposed marine protections in the Hauraki Gulf. We know that both Department of Conservation officials and fisheries officials were opposed to these changes on the basis that it will undermine the biodiversity outcomes and objectives, and that it would actually also lead to significant inequity.

Over 32,000 people have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, asking that this Government reverse the rash changes—these amendments that we’re debating today—that allow fishing in the high protection areas (HPAs). Labour, if re-elected, will reverse these changes.

What I want to ask the Minister is, really: why? That is the question that everyone out there, outside of the fishing industry, is asking. What is the economic basis for this? All we’ve seen is about $14,000 of fishing revenue across all of the HPAs, which means it will be significantly less, given the amendments allow fishing in two HPAs. So what is the economic basis? What advice, what evidence, has the Minister seen on that? I also want to know what evidence, what advice, the Minister has seen on the impact on biodiversity objectives, specifically as a result of the amendments that he’s bringing to the House today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a short call on Part 1 and indicate that I will have a lot more substantive comments to make and questions to ask in Part 2. A lot of the parts of this bill that I want to dig into are covered off in Part 2. I’m just signalling that right now. This will be just a short introductory call.

I have a really specific question to the Minister of Conservation. It’s off the back of a Cabinet paper that was put forward by him. I’m just going to reference it. In the beginning of that Cabinet paper, his own Cabinet paper from earlier this year in relation to Government priorities, the National Party Blueprint for a Better Environment states that the National Party will accelerate initiatives like the Hauraki Gulf marine protection.

Why it’s important that we take time today in this committee stage is that the Minister has tabled an amendment today that has not been through the select committee process. So members on this side of the committee—in fact, all members, including members of the National Party and the ACT Party who unanimously agreed to the Environment Committee report and are now part of a Government putting forward changes to that select committee report. We have not had the chance to look at that at a select committee, which means that we do need to dig into, today, in the committee of the whole House stage, as to why these changes have come forward.

So this is a Cabinet paper that was put forward earlier this year, in the name of the Minister for Conservation, Tama Potaka, that talks about Government priorities. And here it is. I’m just going to show it to the committee. Here it is, the National Party Blueprint for a Better Environment.

My question for the Minister is that the National Party promised to accelerate the Hauraki Gulf protection bill—promised to accelerate it—yet they have been in Government for nearly two years. The select committee reported back one year ago. What we are seeing now, one year later, is an Amendment Paper from the Minister which, essentially, has delayed this bill and it has weakened this bill. My question to the Minister is: has he; has the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon; and has the National Party broken their promise to New Zealanders? I put that they have. They have not accelerated this bill, and they have weakened this bill. That is my question to the Minister on the record today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go straight to the purpose of the Act and keep this call very short, because I want to outline that, as we’ve heard from my colleagues, the implication of the Government’s amendments, which were put in place post the unanimous support of the select committee, have implications throughout the entire bill. We’ve just been into the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, and I’m very conscious that, at times in both of those, but particularly in the resource management bill, there were allegations of repetition when it was not actually repetition, because it was actually relevant to that very clause. We’re going to see the same thing with this bill, but it’s in very different aspects of the bill. I would really appreciate the patience and the allowance of us to do our due diligence in terms of this process.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the member points to the clauses at that particular time, that makes it that much easier for us to see.

LAN PHAM: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. What I want to ask, when it comes to the purpose of this Act—and I’m really pleased, actually, that we have this purpose in place. But my absolute concern, and what I would like to hear from the Minister, is that, given the changes that have been put in place with the Amendment Paper, particularly when it comes to the exemptions for commercial fishing in the high protection areas, and the fact that we know, from the advice given, that these had the ability to directly undermine the biodiversity objectives of the bill, does the Minister still believe that the purpose of this Act can be upheld given the amendments that are now in place? I’d like to really clearly hear the Minister’s response to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister, the Hon Tama Potaka, which relate to Part 1, particularly to his Amendment Paper 260. They begin at clause 4 of that Amendment Paper. I’m asking these questions upfront in the debate because I hope that the Minister will answer some of our questions and concerns before I can ask about the specific parts.

My first question is: why have references to whānau and hapū been stripped from the bill, when they remain the first responders in dealing with environmental hazards, particularly Caulerpa and monitoring shellfish beds in the Hauraki Gulf?

My second question is specific but relates to that; it is about why Ngāti Manuhiri and others, who conduct vital restorations around Kawau Island, have been excluded, given they are a hapū and not recognised as an iwi group within this bill. Or is that not the case, because their trust board is Ngātiwai Trust Board, which is not based where they are? If the Minister could help us to understand that, that would be useful. Ngāti Manuhiri play a role of customary guardianship. Are they expected to down tools in their work that is actively protecting the gulf from the invasion of Caulerpa while commercial access is being expanded into these areas?

I ask those two questions first, because they are illustrative of the approach that we will take with further amendments that are on the Table, to reinsert whānau and hapū and make it clear about these groups, which are actively engaged in protections within the gulf currently, who may not fall within the Minister’s new definition, which has excluded whānau and hapū from it. It would also be helpful if the Minister could contextualise these changes with what the intentions of the Government are with its policy towards Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) claims, which are all based around the rights of whānau and hapū in this area. The Minister will know that around 44 MACA claims are live and active in the Hauraki Gulf area, so it’s important that we consider those changes alongside this change.

This Amendment Paper and the questions that I have about it, to Part 1, are made in the context of eleventh-hour changes after 10 years of careful negotiation with stakeholders and various interests in the gulf. Why I ask for the Minister’s clarity before we get into the specific parts is that we have to understand that a number of hapū, a number of whānau, are actively engaged, not only in consultation about the precursor of this bill but also the general policy in Tai Timu Tai Pari Sea Change. That has been a collaborative, collegial, and empowering process for those groups. Recognising Crown obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires us to engage not only with iwi, not only with fisheries rightsholders at a trust board level, many of which are creatures of legislation themselves and have existed since the 1990s. These whānau, these hapū who go out every day and monitor the shellfish on Waiheke, monitor the Caulerpa invasion at Great Barrier Aotea, are not included within the definition of what you might expect for an iwi trust board and are certainly not the fisheries rightsholders themselves.

I want the Minister to clarify whether it is his intention to exclude them from the process and to only prioritise the rights of Māori who are the holders of fisheries assets at the level of the legal body which holds those assets, which is the trust board or iwi level. The Minister needs to be very clear, with not only environmental NGOs but with iwi Māori, whether it is his intention to exclude those voices of the people on the ground, who get up every day to get into their moana—they put their dive gear on, they look for the crays, and they are doing the work for all of us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Like my colleagues, I think most of us will be focusing on the Minister’s big Amendment Paper 260. I want to start and, like other people who have made contributions, I too will be focused on the Minister’s amendments, but, of course, they do relate to the rest of the bill, as Lan Pham just pointed out with the purpose of the Act and whether or not his changes actually now undermine that.

I want to go to the interpretation clause. I’m interested in some changes here around both the department and the Minister. I see that we’ve also got definitions for “grey mullet” and some other fish as well, which is lovely, but that is not my focus. My focus is on “department” and “Minister”, in the amendments set out on Amendment Paper 260. I am, of course, interested in this because when this bill was introduced in 2023, I was the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, and we were very pleased to introduce this bill to get it under way before the election.

But the bill was always in the name of the Minister of Conservation, and the bill at the moment is in the name of the Minister of Conservation, but I’m wondering if these changes to the definition of “department” and “Minister” are really setting up the Act—and we’ll get to it in a later section about who gives our permits and who does regulations, but that’s not in Part 1—to be administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, so the fisheries component of that, rather than the Department of Conservation. That would be a large change. My question is: why is this changing? I have some other questions on Part 1, but I will come back to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As my colleagues have pointed to, we do have a number of questions that relate particularly to Amendment Paper 260, but just before I get into the detail of that, I have three specific questions for the Minister, given, again, that these amendments have a bearing—have an impact—on the bill in its entirety, as well.

Firstly, I want to know what advice the Minister has considered, what evidence he has seen, that has led to his claim that the amendment to allow fishing in high protection areas (HPAs) will not undermine the biodiversity objectives of this bill, given that his own officials and environmentalists have been very clear that they will undermine the biodiversity objectives of the bill?

The second question I have is in relation to the Minister's comment that his rationale for allowing fishing in HPAs is this Government's response to the cost of living crisis in New Zealand. He has said that this helps people facing a cost of living crisis, many of which don't have the ability to access this fishery. Now, his claim—his rationale—has been met with heavy criticism, including from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, whose island, Motutapu, is one of two areas where fishing will be permitted as a result of the changes in Amendment Paper 260. They have said, “To claim that this decision has been made in response to the impact of cost of living increases for Māori and Pacific whānau, and then specifically for South Auckland, as a justification for allowing commercial enterprise in this area, it’s weak”. They have then gone on to say that this is the first that they have heard of this rationale and hoped that the claim can be backed up by the Ministry for Primary Industries’ FishServe data. That’s my second question to this Minister: what data backs up this Minister's claim that this is the Government's response to the cost of living crisis?

The third question that I would like to ask the Minister is around a claim that has been made in the media by Seafood New Zealand. We know, of course, that they have lobbied Minister Jones for this change, and the conservation Minister has had to now backtrack and ensure that the amendments brought to this House that we are considering today will actually back the promises that this Government has given to New Zealand to accelerate this bill and to improve the health of Tīkapa Moana—Hauraki Gulf, neither of which they have actually delivered. So my third question is: Seafood New Zealand has said that these exceptions are grandfathered, meaning that once these fishes leave the profession, no one else can fish where they fish. Where in the bill—where in the amendments, Minister—are the provisions to grandfather these permits?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions go to clause 3 and the purpose, and I would be interested in the Minister’s experience in working with his colleague in tourism and the role that sustainable tourism and protection of the natural environment work together. A number of the submissions to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, particularly when they were unaware of the recent changes, did talk about the opportunities for sustainable tourism, and I wonder whether he feels that the purpose, in some ways, is still a little narrow, in that it’s not talking about the restoration of economic opportunities as well for well-protected marine areas. As our moana connects us to the rest of the world, I had an example that maybe, in my view, is quite an inspiring example: very recently, earlier this year, Argentina expanded its marine protected areas in a Patagonian area which has got low tourism numbers—unlike, of course, Cathedral Cove—and they really felt that integrating regenerative principles into tourism would optimise economic benefits for those coastal communities while safeguarding natural resources.

I feel that this bill is, to some extent, still a siloed approach. It doesn’t refer to the wider benefits. I wonder if the Minister feels that some mention of those opportunities that were referred to in submissions would help us see how we can actually manage those really low-impact activities—I’m talking about kayaking, snorkelling, scuba-diving, without the catching aspect of it—and whether that aspect has been overlooked in the purpose of the bill, and to what extent those changes that have come in after the consultation—not having had the enjoyment of being on the Environment Committee to see this all its way through, I went back and looked at them, and, of course, there are so many organisations saying, “We stand by this bill; this is a wonderful bill; we agree with it”, and then those changes came in later. I look forward to elucidation from the Minister on those points.

Thank you. I’m going to take a call from the Minister. Just before I do, I wanted to clarify the questions that have been asked about whānau and hapū: technically, they’re in Part 3, but I’m going to allow the Minister to answer that question because it fits in the interests of iwi that are in this Part 1. I think it will help to clarify that early rather than having to wait until Part 3 for that to be clarified. Thank you.

Ngā mihi e te Tiamana, and I respect and appreciate your kindness in that regard. Kia hora te marino, kia whakapapa pounamu te moana, kia tere te kārohirohi ki mua i a tātou. May the widespread be calm, may the oceans glisten like greenstone, and may the shimmer of light guide your way.

There are a number of people I can acknowledge, from those who were involved in the initial work around sea change in the time of the Key-English Government through to those legislators, some of whom are still inside the House today, who embarked on this mission to increase the marine protection in Te Pātaka-kai a Tīkapa Moana, Te Moana-nui-a-Toi-te-huatahi [the food stores of the Hauraki Gulf and the Bay of Plenty], but particularly those community, iwi, commercial, business, charitable organisations that were involved over time to ensure that the marine protection of this iconic and majestic place is elevated, and indeed accelerated, hopefully this week and next week to receive the Royal assent soon thereafter.

There have been a number of questions that have been asked, particularly around the ring-net fishing, which I think is in Part 2, but I’ll deal to them right now in order to enable a more focused line of questioning when we get to Part 2.

Of course, the questions around ring-net fishing in some ways reflect the environmental pragmatism that this coalition Government is bringing to a number of environmental laws, and the difference between ideology and implementation, excitement and execution. And whilst there are views—strong views, strong assertions—that there is unanimous support across the House, as evidenced by the select committee comments, I might represent that not all parties in this House are represented in that select committee. So let’s not fall for perception but get back to reality.

The acceleration of this legislation is critical. After six years of a previous Government seeking to progress this legislation, we have now got the ball, and we’ll take it over the line. Despite the majority Government that existed for three years—and legislators across the other side of the House know this—they were unable to secure the final readings which will come in the next week or two.

In terms of the amendments proposed, will the purpose be upheld? Absolutely, the purpose will be upheld, but let’s not get caught in the extremities of an ideology that might not be able to procure an enduring solution for these matters.

In terms of the ring-net fishing, there were questions that were asked around the impact that it will have on biodiversity objectives. And as you know—as members of this House who voraciously read the Amendment Papers, amongst other things, know—it’s not the only fishing that takes place in the high protection areas, is it? No, it’s not. In the high protection areas there is fishing that takes place.

Hon Member: Customary.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: You got it. So let’s be careful not to assume that there is no fishing in the high protection areas; there actually is fishing there. In addition to that, I’m advised that there will be limited impacts on the biodiversity objectives by this very narrow and acute provision for ring-net fishing. There are practical thresholds that we work with and we seek to facilitate in the engagement and consultation and liaison processes around not only iwi, whānau, and hapū engagement but also community engagement, hence why the elevation of iwi rather than whānau, hapū, and iwi has been proposed. That does not mean whānau and hapū miss out, as the member would understand, but there are ways to channel that in a more efficient and deliberate posture than what was earlier proposed. That is why we have used the iwi in the amendment rather than whānau, hapū, and iwi, but whānau and hapū continue to participate at an iwi level because, as members know, all whānau and hapū have iwi.

The allegation that Ngāti Manuhiri is not an iwi I don’t think will fall very kindly on the ears of the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, Nicola MacDonald, or her thick-as-thieves partner Mook Hohneck, who continually remind us that Ngāti Manuhiri are an iwi. But I need not resort to Te Kāhui Māngai and the list of iwi that exists on the Te Puni Kōkiri website.

In relation to the rationale for allowing fishing, and the comments made about the great iwi of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I actually talked to the leaders of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki—unlike some other members of this House—and I’m well ensconced in their views around progressing the marine protection that is currently articulated in the bill and the Amendment Papers. They are absolutely enthused by the approach that has been taken to get this bill to a third reading and over the line rather than ongoing pontification about the ideological extremes of environmental radicalism. So we will get this moving. Seafood New Zealand—yes, they’ve made comments, but they are not the legislators, we are. They do not have parliament.nz or parliament.govt.nz on their emails.

However, we will have a three-year review, and that three-year review will check in on whether or not the ring-net fishing is appropriate. I’m sure that it’ll be one that is topical and will go long into the evening.

There were other comments around guaranteeing that all fish caught within the areas will supply local communities—those that are interested in Kahawai, Trevally, and Grey Mullet, typically of low interest to the export market. Again, whilst we cannot trace where every single fish caught actually goes, we do know that these types of fish are generally destined for domestic consumption and more affordable than other protein options, whether or not that’s pea protein, whey protein, or fish protein.

I think that’s probably captured most of the questions that have been asked and I’m sure that the Part 2 questions will be a lot more narrowed accordingly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister of Conservation for at least attempting to address these very serious concerns that we have.

The first thing that I wanted to pick up on was the Minister’s comments about the extremities of ideologies and environmental radicalism. He talked about that in the context of what he described as “environmental pragmatism”. A genuine question that I have about that is: does the Minister’s “environmental pragmatism”, as he so calls it, actually align with ecological evidence? I’m interested in asking that because we also just heard the Minister say that, actually, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has advised that the ring-net exemptions will have minimal impact on biodiversity objectives. I’m wondering how that aligns with previous advice that it risked undermining the biodiversity objective. So if the Minister could, please, clarify how that works, maybe DOC has more information or new information that we were unaware of. So I’m really keen to hear that.

I want to also move to clause 5 in the interpretation. My comments and Amendment Paper on this are on page 7 of the Government’s Amendment Paper to the bill. Why it directly relates to the biodiversity objectives question, which I’d be really keen to hear a response on, is because it’s about the very description itself and the definition of these so-called high protection areas. What I would like is direction and information about that, because, from my understanding of it, it would be inappropriate to call these areas “high protection areas”. My proposed amendment is to actually replace the definition of “high protection area” with “compromised protected area”. That could be more in line with the advice that the Minister has given or received from DOC—if that is the case, because we’re yet to hear a definitive answer on that. That would mean that in every mention of “high protection area”, it would then be replaced with “compromised protection area”. I think it would be really valuable for the Minister to directly address how an area allowing commercial fishing can still be considered a high protection area, and is that definition in need of amendment to actually align with the advice that he’s received with the environmental evidence?

What we also know about these high protection areas is that some of them are of huge ecological value. It is areas like Tiritiri Matangi, actually, that the Environment Committee that I was on when we considered this bill actually visited and we got the whole show, including dolphins, and it's of critical importance. If this bill is actually going to achieve the things that it says it’s going to achieve in terms of improving biodiversity outcomes, we need to be really clear about what we’re saying and why and whether these areas are truly compromised or otherwise. I’d be really keen to hear advice from the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Still on Part 1, and very specific questions to Part 1. The Minister didn't answer my question about changes to clause 5, “Interpretation”, around the department and the Minister: are we moving from conservation to fish? Then I'm also interested—he might want to comment on the definition of “ring net fishing”, if it means the use of a ring net for fishing? If that’s specific enough or not.

Then I also want to touch on new clause 5B—this is “How this Act applies biodiversity objectives”—and (d) has been struck out, which refers to another part of the bill, which is “section 67 provides for the making of regulations”. He might want to touch on why that regulation-making power appears to be being removed. Is it because—is it his opinion that everything in this bill is already sufficient to achieve the biodiversity objectives without the need for a regulation, or is there some other reason for that deletion? We can come to it in a later part, as well.

I also want to go, now, to new clause 9A, across the page on page 12, and this is the “No entitlement to compensation”, and this has been struck out. Where before it was clear that the Crown was not liable to pay compensation, now that's gone, so presumably the Crown is now liable to pay compensation. That seems to be a rather large policy change, and it would be good if the Minister could tell the House why it is that he thinks that there should be that ability for the Crown to provide compensation, and, also, if he has any advice on what the magnitude of that compensation might be and when that might have to be paid? That might relate to questions later in the bill about our grandparenting of ring-net fishing, but it seems to be, actually, well beyond the ring-net fishing changes that we've got coming up. This is for, presumably, everything that is happening at the moment that will change because of this bill passing. I'm very keen to hear about compensation.

I'm also keen to note that the Minister, in his wide-ranging contribution before, talked about being “pragmatic”, and it appears that his definition—and it's one that I hear a lot from Government parties—is just to make environmental effects worse. He then says that we on this side of the House are “idealistic”, and I'm wondering if his definition of idealistic is just when people want to improve the environment? Is that what he's talking about—that idealism is wanting to improve the environment, whereas pragmatism is wanting to make the environment worse?

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Did you say my name?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, I did. Sorry.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it is a shame that the Minister of Conservation wasn’t able to provide any evidence around the impact that the particular amendment would have on biodiversity outcomes or how he shores up his claim that this will go to communities in South Auckland that need additional protein.

However, my questions specifically are around particular clauses in Part 1. One is around that definition of ring-net fishing. Given that the Minister did not respond with any evidence around the impact of the ring-net fishing, and given that the definition of it is in Part 1, I do want to draw his attention to comments that have been made in the public domain, bearing in mind that these amendments have not gone through a select committee process. All we can rely on in terms of comments from stakeholders are through conversations or through what they’ve said in the media.

I refer to what has been said by World Wildlife Fund in the media around allowing commercial fishing to occur in these high protection areas. They have said that the type of fishing that is allowed to continue—which is, of course, ring-net fishing and is set out in the definition—is very similar to purse seining and targets bait fish species that congregate in the mid-water and which predator species like snapper rely on for survival. Key species like the kahawai are already overfished in the Hauraki Gulf, and the impact up the food chain is evident when you look at snapper populations and how emaciated they are as well. Given that kahawai is included in the type of fish that will be allowed to be caught in the high protection area, again, I ask the Minister: what is the impact on biodiversity objectives to those types of fish that we’re trying to protect by bringing in a high protection area, which is just below the no-take marine reserve when it comes to the hierarchy of protection? That is my first question.

Going on to clause 5B(1)(d), which is deleted; which is removed from the legislation by this amendment in Amendment Paper 260. My question is: why? Basically, 5B(1)(d) lays out that “section 67 provides for the making of regulations that provide additional management actions relating to [HPAs] where [the] restrictions [that are] imposed by [regs] made under section 66 are [insufficient] to [meet] the biodiversity objectives.” No idea what the Minister’s doing in the chair, but I don’t know how this makes any sense in terms of it being deleted. That’s my second question to the Minister.

The third question that I have, also relating to Part 1, is to new clause 8A. I get the signposting in clause 5, I think it is—well, the signposting of the Treaty settlement. That’s fine and it’s explained in the Cabinet paper as well. But 8A, I understand, is quite unusual. I’d like the Minister to explain why this clause has been introduced and when it specifically relates to existing Treaty settlements. Is it in there because there are some future Treaty settlements that will be exempted—excluded—from this particular clause? If not, why has this clause been introduced?

Thank you for those various questions and one frivolous suggestion around amending the bill.

In relation to the points around which department is responsible for the administration of the Act, I think members will be aware that there have been budgets committing to an appropriation to support the implementation of the Act once passed. They are retained within the Department of Conservation and, of course, the Department of Conservation, particularly with the recent appointment of the regional manager in Auckland, have significant depth around understanding the nation.

Arena Williams: Is that all you got? Alex’ll fix it!

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I don’t know what that outburst was about, but they have significant depth around the implementation of the bill once passed into legislation. That’s my expectation. I don’t think that there’s anything untoward or sinister in the wording of that provision, that clause.

In terms of new clause 9A, the no-compensation clause, there is some consistency with the approach being proposed with the marine reserves legislation, and the economic impact analysis suggests that there’s no situation here that would warrant a claim for compensation. It’s not expected. Well, it’s not expected that there will be claims as the impact of setting out and implementing both seafloor protection areas and high protection areas would not be significant enough to warrant compensation.

In terms of section 67, in new clause 5B(d), the bill proposes that customary non-commercial fishing does not sit within the establishment of the biodiversity objectives and plan. One of the reasons why is because customary fishing is actually managed under the Fisheries Act, and we do not believe that it is warranted or suitable to add yet another layer of bureaucracy on the exercise of customary—or could we say tikanga—responsibilities within the Hauraki Gulf. So I think that, again, people might think that there’s something unusual going on here. It’s not. There’s a degree of efficiency between sections 66 and 67. Now that we are proposing to remove customary non-commercial fishing from the ambit of the plan around biodiversity, there is no longer any need to have both of those sections, and we’ve collapsed them together.

Oh, there’s one more note—I think I’ve touched on that. Standard drafting in relation to the department, the question that the member Brooking had: is the purpose of the bill too narrow as it doesn’t refer to benefits of low impact activities such as sustainable tourism? No, we believe that the purpose of the bill is the protection of the environment and the rights and interests and responsibilities of mana moana, but we do anticipate benefits for tourism and, as someone who’s had the responsibility to apply for, seek, and prosecute concessions in the Gulf for tourism purposes, I have a little bit of understanding around how those processes operate and the potential for those tourism interests to actually increase and enlarge as a result of more environmental protection and marine protection in the Gulf, and also the consequential benefits that come from that, whether or not that’s more fish or molluscs or crustaceans, seaweed, and other things that often attract people to the marine space.

I think that might have been most of the questions that have been asked in the past few minutes, so I might take a seat.

The Minister himself just said in his comments that he understands some may think that something unusual is going on, and then he proceeded to defend their stance on the changes they've made. But I think that was a really important point. The point I want to make is around consultation and questions in relation to that.

Given the Minister has introduced eleventh-hour changes to the bill that effectively weaken it, when back in 2022 there was extensive engagement with all those that wanted to make a contribution or add their thoughts to this legislation, I think the Minister really needs to answer to this committee and to the general public, particularly Aucklanders: who were the stakeholders that influenced the eleventh-hour changes that have seen an amendment put up that effectively weaken legislation that had been agreed on, and consulted on, and had a consensus drawn after 10 years of work?

He especially needs to answer to this committee and to Aucklanders who those stakeholders were that have influenced these eleventh-hour changes, given that the change was not supported by officials or by any of the environmental NGOs, and more than 30,000 people signed an open letter urging the Government to reverse its decision, with over 5,000 emails being sent to Ministers in protest.

So, my question to the Minister, on behalf of Aucklanders and all those who care about the Hauraki Gulf, is: who were the very important stakeholders that influenced the eleventh-hour changes that weaken this legislation?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to be able to take a call in support of my colleagues’ questions. The reason I have asked the Minister of Conservation about the exclusion of whānau and hapū in relation to this part is that Amendment Paper 260, in his name, makes changes to the way that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, will be treated in this Act, and we need to be clear how the interaction between his clause 4(1)—“This Act must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi”—should be read, when his changes later in the bill take “whānau” and “hapū” out.

It is well-established law that, when giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Government, its departments, and any agent acting on its behalf should consider not only iwi Māori but also whānau and hapū. That is why I have asked some specific questions about Ngāti Manuhiri, and he has said that that is an iwi—that is good and that should stand on the record, here in Parliament, that they are intended to be considered an iwi under this legislation and that there could be no question of that later on. Then I will ask him about every single hapū who is standing to lose under his changes.

Minister, what are the safeguards to protect Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s 20-year mussel bed restoration at Ōkahu Bay from being undermined by your amendments? What are the protections for the tamariki whānau who have been involved in that restoration project for more years than I have been alive? What is the protection of their legacy and their whakapapa connection to that bay? What are the protections? Because they are not, in the ordinary meaning of the word, an iwi.

What are his protections, given that he has explicitly made a change at the eleventh hour to remove the rights and interests of whānau and hapū, for all of the Māori of Auckland who love the Hauraki Gulf? Aucklanders love our gulf and we need it to be protected. Why is he not standing up to Shane Jones, when it is Shane Jones’ changes at the last minute that have removed protections for the Māori who get up every day to put on their wetsuits and count the kōura, to get rid of Caulerpa because it is invading our gulf and our moana—

Grant McCallum: And you did nothing about it.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —we do that work for everyone. And we have worked for 10 years to get buy-in from stakeholders all around Auckland so they can agree to what is huge and significant step forward.

I hear Government members saying that we have done nothing about it, when we have fought for six years and introduced this legislation and worked with stakeholders so it is enduring. We worked for cross-partisan support for this, because the whānau and the hapū who do this work for all of us should be protected—just to lose it at the last minute to vested interests, to lobbying that has gone on behind the scenes that none of them were included in. Why, Minister, are you breaking the promise that you have made to Aucklanders?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m just noting the repetition that I’m hearing in a very short time, and what I’ve heard from my office. I’m just letting members know that we’re looking for new material and interrogation of the detail within the bill. I call Lan Pham.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I’d just like to point out that there have been a number of questions asked that the Minister has not actually addressed at all.

That’s not a point of order. I call Lan Pham.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just speaking to Speaker’s ruling 66/2, I note that there is a convention that, in committee, members in charge of the legislation should not be chipping from the hot mic in front of them. The Minister in the chair has done that a few times, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry, but I missed what you just said. Can you please repeat that?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m referring to the Speaker’s ruling on page 66, and it’s item No. 2 on the page. It’s a longstanding convention that the Minister in the chair in the committee stage shouldn’t chip from the mic, as is the colloquial term, but he is using the hot mic in front of him to disrupt proceedings, and so I hope you can offer him some guidance.

Oh, I understand—thank you. It was noted, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very quick, direct question of clarification from the Minister based on his response. This is particularly in regards to clause 5 and my proposed Amendment Paper. Now, when the Minister mentioned a “frivolous” Amendment Paper, I’m interested in, firstly, hearing whether he was referring to this one, because I have not heard a direct answer about the actual advice that he’s been given from the Department of Conservation (DOC), because he said that there would be minimal impact on biodiversity objectives. He said that DOC advised that there would be minimal impact on biodiversity objectives, when the information we’ve had—again, DOC’s official advice—is: “Allowing ring net fishing would undermine the biodiversity outcomes of the high-protection areas.” Which is it? What evidence and what advice has DOC given the Minister to back up the minimal impact on biodiversity objectives?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a short call on a specific aspect of this amendment, and that is around the customary non-commercial fishing that the Minister made some points to. I have some questions to him based on his response that was given previously.

I was just looking for the bit in the Cabinet paper that lays out the Government’s rationale for the change here that will mean that customary fishing is only subject to the Fisheries Act and not will not be required to uphold the biodiversity objectives of this bill. I point to bit in the Cabinet paper that just says that it’s removed from the scope and the regulations; there isn’t a lot of rationale as to why.

I have one quick question to the Minister. Submitters had noted that removing the biodiversity objective requirement risks weakening public acceptance of customary fishing in high protection areas (HPAs). That was a point that was raised by a number of submitters to the select committee, many of whom were opposed to the provision of customary fishing within HPAs. Now, I am grateful that the Minister has retained the provision for customary fishing. However, by removing the requirement for it to meet biodiversity objectives and the amendment just pointing to the Fisheries Act, I would like the Minister’s response as to whether he accepts the point that is made by submitters that the social licence for customary fishing is stronger if it is subject to the requirement to meet biodiversity objectives, and, if not, why not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a quick reminder to the Minister that, of course, we have not had any select committee process over his amendments, and I did not hear him talk about the removal of compensation in new clause 9A. I think that’s very important. Well, I didn’t hear a very good explanation then of what analysis had happened about what the consequential cost could be of this removal so that compensation can now be paid.

I also did hear him mention my name in answering a question, but I don’t think he’s addressed the “department” and the “Minister”, unless that was the piece where he was saying that the newly appointed regional boss of the Department of Conservation (DOC)—there’s another name for it that’s not “boss of DOC”, but the regional person—is expected to undertake it. If that answer from the Minister was in relation to my questions about the new definitions of “department” and “Minister”, it would be helpful to clarify that. Thank you.

Can I just make a couple of quick comments and responses to questions. One of them was around what evidence has the Department of Conservation provided to support the statement. Yes, the earlier advice did say that ring-net fishing risks undermining biodiversity objectives, but the more recent advice is that given the work—the diligent work—that Te Papa Atawhai has undertaken with the fisheries teams across Government and the carefully considered and manicured conditions that now apply so that ring-net fishing will ensure that any environmental and biodiversity impacts beyond those species will be very limited. So I think that there’s been some very positive and constructive work undertaken by officials to ensure that the conditions are appropriately worded to minimise the impact. I think we’ve spoken about that maybe four times now.

In relation to the assertions—unhelpful—that there was consensus across the House: not in this term. That has been articulated in a variety of ways in my comments today, particularly around representation on the select committee, but also that this House has a different composition to the House of 2020 to 2023.

There has been a degree of questioning around the Treaty settlements and that there will be no impact. For the avoidance of doubt: no impact. The clauses that have been proposed provide that all settlements, current and future, will be given effect to.

I’ll just look over my notes, because, again, there have been a couple of repetitive elements—oh, there was actually a question, also, by someone who is currently no longer sitting in the House, seeking to have a long list of all the different people that we have engaged. There have been literally thousands of people that have been engaged over the last couple of decades in relation to this important piece of legislation, and we have again received the responsibility to carry it through to an Act. With that, it’s a great privilege for me to stand and respond accordingly. Thank you very much.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “kaitiaki”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “those”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “mana whenua”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “Māori (particularly whānau, hapū and iwi)”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “groups of Māori”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(e), replacing “iwi” with “stewards”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “kaitiaki”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “whānau, hapū and iwi”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “those”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “mana whenua”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “Māori (particularly whānau, hapū and iwi)”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending clause 4(2)(f), replacing “iwi” with “stewards”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 inserting the definition of “iwi” in clause 5 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 deleting the amendment to remove clause 9A be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 260 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to clause 5 are ruled out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.