Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 25, “Marine reserves, seafloor protection areas, and high protection areas” and Schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been waiting for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. This is where we do dig into a little bit more detail about the amendments in the Minister’s paper that he has tabled that make some changes around ring-net fishing, in particular. So I’m looking at Part 2, new clause 19A on page 16 of the Minister’s tabled Amendment Paper 260.

I do just want to note again that we haven’t had the opportunity to have discussions about this particular amendment in select committee. There hasn’t been an opportunity for stakeholders or for members of the public to make submissions to a select committee or for MPs such as myself to be able to ask questions of officials, so we are looking forward to having some comprehensive answers from the Minister. Mine is quite specific: I just want to come back again—I’ve already referenced it today and, forgive me, while I find it; I might have lent it to somebody else, the Cabinet paper. Good times! Yes, I have. I’ve loaned it to a friend and I’ve got it back, so that’s great.

There’s a section in the Cabinet paper—so this is a Cabinet paper put together in the Minister’s name, and this obviously pre-dates the Amendment Paper, because the decisions from this Cabinet paper informed the drafting of Amendment Paper 260 by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I’ll just reference the piece I’m particularly interested in—new clause 19A(4)(b). Essentially, what this part does, in my understanding, is it allows those ring-net fishers who have been fishing within Kawau Bay high protection area and Rangitoto and Motutapu high protection areas—if you go back and look at new clause 19A(2)(a) and(b), they will be able to seek an authorisation from the director-general in order to be able to continue operating ring-net fishing in those two high protection areas. My specific question is: what advice did the Minister receive and why did he agree to include these two high protection areas (HPAs) not just where they were fishing but specifically where they can continue to fish using this method of fishing? Why did he make that decision? What advice did he receive on that decision? And what other options were looked at?

The reason I raise this is that in his own Cabinet paper with his own name on it, this is what he stated on page 9 of the Cabinet paper, looking at ring-net fishing in two HPAs. It says, “Based on the nature and current distribution of ring-net fishing activities in the Gulf, it is likely that ring-net fishing activity that usually occurs within these HPAs could be relocated elsewhere in the Gulf with minimal impact to the fishers.” So the point the Minister has been trying to make in the public domain is that it is important for this practice to continue, to continue providing fish to communities. What his own paper says is that those fishers could be relocated to other parts of the Gulf, not the two HPAs that are listed in the legislation that are required to be considered for the purpose of where those fishers have been fishing and where they could receive an authorisation to continue fishing.

So what advice did he receive? Did he receive advice saying, “Here are some alternative areas where they could be allowed to continue fishing that are outside of the areas contained within the legislation.”? What advice did he receive? Why did he proceed with this particular amendment given his own paper? And this isn’t advice he received. This is a paper in his name signed by the Hon Tama Potaka, Minister of Conservation. His language, his words, state quite clearly that the work of those fishers could be relocated elsewhere with minimal impact. So why has he proceeded with this? What advice has he had about alternatives? I want some specific answers, and I will come back to it, because, again, I have not been able to ask these questions of the Minister or of officials at select committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Scott Willis.

Steve Abel: Steve Abel.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel. I’m so sorry.

Thank you so much. He has a little more hair than me—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): He does indeed.

STEVE ABEL: —but not on his face. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that. I’m also speaking to Part 2, obviously, and it goes to the question of the purpose of high protection areas in clause 16. For context, I think it’s useful for us to understand why we have high protection areas. It is because if you exclude extractive activities—if you don’t take out fish, if you don’t dump waste, if you don’t dredge, if you don’t mine, if you don’t destroy the benthic environment—then that area recuperates. It recovers, the fish species increase, and you get what’s called the “halo effect”, which is the areas outside of that marine protected area get the spillover benefits of a recovered ecology.

There’s very good evidence that what this amendment does by allowing ring-net fishing—of multiple studies of how marine-protected areas function—that where you allow extraction or fishing, you seriously diminish the ability of the marine protected area to fulfil its purpose, which is to allow that area to fully recover in an ecologically healthy way.

So I want to put it to the Minister—because I do not believe he has answered this—“The purpose of high protection areas is to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity within the high protection areas and, if that biodiversity is degraded, restore it.” We know the biodiversity is degraded. It’s unquestioned that it is degraded. Ring-net fishing—people at home might wonder what the heck ring-net fishing is. It’s what your grandpa might have called a gillnet. It’s where you have floats at the top and weights at the bottom, and if you hang it in the water, it will catch anything that comes into it: stingrays, fish, dolphins, you name it. Whatever hits that net gets caught. They used to be called a set net—they are a set net. If they’re used like that, they can be highly destructive. They are indiscriminate killers. If you drop it off the back of a small boat, in a specific manner, you might use it to catch kahawai or mullet, and it’s much less destructive than if you use it as a set net.

So this type of fishing, and I would love the Minister to respond to this, is completely contradictory to the fundamental purpose in clause 16. How does the Minister justify allowing ring-net fishing to be consistent with that purpose?

The other thing that seems striking to us—this is the second point, Minister—is the timeline around the decision that was made to make these amendments. I have the entire timeline here and I will spare you going through it. A number of meetings that Minister Jones and Minister Potaka, starting with a bilateral meeting on 17 September at 8:30 p.m.; meetings with Department of Conservation and a bilateral with Goldsmith and Conservation on 19 September; meetings with Jones and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) on 23 September; a Cabinet meeting—I’m not going to run through all of it, but Jones met the High Seas Fishing Group on 23 September; Potaka met with Department of Conservation on 23 September and met with MPI on 23 September. Then we get to a moment where there’s a Cabinet note that says, on 26 September, “the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has also raised potential amendments raised with him by the seafood industry and you have met and discussed these with him and received further advice. You have indicated that you do not wish to progress any further amendments.” That was a note, in the Cabinet paper, that the Minister did not wish to advance amendments.

The reason I’m asking this is I want to understand and respond to the public’s concern and our concern that the changes in this paper, the amendments, are the direct result of lobbying by the fishing industry.

The member’s time has expired.

Look, I think all members, including those opposite, present or absent, understand that the Hauraki marine protection intentions that are well-articulated in this Act are a compromise. In the event that members opposite wanted to enhance to the greatest optimisation the biodiversity, we would have had marine reserves—

Rachel Boyack: Point of order. Apologies, but look, we are just having difficulty hearing the Minister of Conservation. If perhaps the Minister could be closer to his microphone, or if those operating could turn up the audio—it’s just difficult to hear his answers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: OK. I’ll just lean in a bit, or maybe I’ll speak louder.

The members opposite know that this legislation is a compromise between a number of communities. In the event you wanted to maximise the biodiversity and minimise the species that are being taken out of the ocean, previous administrations would have promoted the whole of the Hauraki Gulf as a marine reserve. However, that was not the choice that was made. There have been ongoing engagements and compromises around a number of issues, well set out in this legislation being proposed today.

Now, there’s been a range of tautology and speculation in relation to the ring-net fishing. For the sixteenth time today, I will respond that, ultimately, there is a balancing and a compromise that is undertaken with the legislation. We all know that, over many years, the previous Government sought to enhance marine protection based off work that was done through Sea Change, under the John Key and Bill English - led National Government, and we got to a position where now we have a compromise solution that this coalition Government is very convinced and persuaded we can turn into legislation. The incomplete nature of our legislation is not giving anyone any satisfaction, and that’s why we have got to the space that we’re in where we’re going to progress the bill and, hopefully, in the next week or two, turn it into legislation.

The biodiversity impacts that have caused so much polarisation by some members of our parliamentary community have actually been very well minimised by the conditions that are now upon the ring-net provision. There was advice earlier on, which has been referred to, that ring-net fishing might not be a great idea in terms of achieving the biodiversity outcomes and other outcomes in the legislation. But you know that this legislation is a compromise between a wide variety of parties, and that's why we've ended up in a space where we are convinced that we can get this legislation through with the relevant numbers in Parliament.

However, things aren't perfect in this world, as you know; sometimes, people get called the wrong name in this House.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you for that.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Things aren't perfect, but what we can do is get to an acceptable solution for some of the issues that we are dealing with. I'm advised, again, that the Department of Conservation advice was to limit ring-net fishing to the two high protection areas (HPAs), which this bill does—this is what this bill does: it does restrict it to two areas. We can speculate and get a pen and draw the areas that we want it to be in, as some members want us to do, but these were the two that were chosen and these are the two that are going to progress.

How does the Minister justify ring-net fishing in HPAs? It is limited. Positive biodiversity outcomes are expected as a result of this bill.

Members, I’m sorry, but the time has come to report progress.

House resumed.