10. Question No. 10—Oceans and FisheriesHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and FisheriesQuestion No. 10—Oceans and Fisheries10. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Will he commit to further action in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems such as seamounts in light of the United Nations workshop under way in New York and relevant United Nations resolutions including 64\72 66\68 and 71\123?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The purpose of the UN workshop is for States to have a technical discussion on approaches to bottom fishing and marine management. Here Fisheries New Zealand and the Department of Conservation have established a multi-stakeholder forum on managing the effects of trawling on the benthic environment and New Zealand's exclusive economic zone. Impacts on seamounts and seamount-like features are being considered as part of the forum deliberations. Following the forum and public consultation the Government will consider whether to impose additional restrictions on bottom trawling in New Zealand waters.Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he satisfied with progress made in protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems when fisheries observers reported that commercial fishing vessels dragged up 29 different species and 8.9 tonnes of coral in their nets in the 2018-19 fishing year which is likely to represent the destruction of much more coral on the seabed and if he is satisfied why?Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no doubt that bottom trawling has adverse effects on benthic environments. We should be always striving to do better and we should be always doing better and we should be doing all we can to both minimise the level of impact and to limit the geographic extent of it. That said trawling is an integral part of fishing not just in New Zealand but in many many other countries around the world.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand's approach of using a spatial model to manage bottom trawling effectively allows the fishing industry to smash and destroy unique assemblages of species and habitats on individual seamounts as long as there are other seamounts in the vicinity which aren't trawled and if not why not?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not going to get into my opinion on the detail of that because as I've said in my primary answer there is a multi-stakeholder process occurring around bottom trawling and seamounts and I'm not going to prejudge the outcome before it's concluded.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the statement in the 14 July 2020 report of the United Nations Secretary-General that Given the importance of habitat-forming species and the high biodiversity associated with vulnerable marine ecosystems it is likely that all VMEs contribute in some way to a range of important ecological functions in the deep sea at least when assessed on a local scale." and if so why is his Government allowing deep-sea trawlers to smash and destroy corals and other marine life on some seamounts?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I would need to consider that quote in a bit more detail. But at first blush in respect of there being clearly local impacts of local trawling that would seem to be axiomatic.Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he concerned by the statement by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor in her February 2021 report on commercial fishing that "Even decades after bottom trawling has been halted there can be little to no recovery in a benthic community." and if he is concerned why has he failed to protect more seamounts and features in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone?Hon DAVID PARKER: I did read that report. I have explained the work that we have going with a stakeholder grouping. I would also note that terrestrial environments are not totally protected either and I don't think it will ever be the case that all marine environments are protected either.Hon Eugenie Sage: If he doesn't think that all marine environments should be protected does he agree with Karli Thomas of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition who likens New Zealand's position of allowing some seamounts to be damaged or destroyed by bottom trawling to allowing Tāne Mahuta and Waipoua Forest to be bulldozed because there are other kauri forests left elsewhere and if not what is the difference?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I don't and I certainly believe that protecting some seamounts from bottom trawling is better than not protecting them."