Hughes Gareth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is good to rise to take a call on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is good to be voting for marine reserves legislation in our Parliament. I do not think we do enough of it and it is good to see we are getting cross-party support behind this bill.What we are talking about are the Subantarctic Islands—the Antipodes Islands the Bounty Islands Campbell Island. They are special unique pristine parts that are iconic to New Zealanders and iconic for our environment and our biodiversity with incredible species of biodiversity down there. Obviously the islands have played a role in our historical development as a country and as a nation. We have seen livestock run wild. We have seen people shipwrecked there two centuries ago and establish crafts to try to get off. They have got a wonderful tale and it is good to be voting in our Parliament to support greater protection of them.I have not had the privilege to travel down to any of the Subantarctic Islands so I would second the call by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee for an investigation or a trip down there. I think if more New Zealanders could get a chance to visit these amazing parts of our country that so few of us get the chance to visit there would be a greater desire to protect them. I think the work of artists in particular to highlight the special places that we have has been particularly effective. I would like to congratulate all those artists and the groups involved in the Subantarctic artists programme.What this legislation does is set up marine reserves in the territorial sea around our Subantarctic Islands. We see the entire Antipodes Islands protected we see 58 percent of the Bounty Islands protected and we see only 39 percent of the Campbell Island’s territorial sea protected. I would like to touch on the point made by the member Grant Robertson. It is pretty incredible that we have to resort to legislation to enact marine reserves in New Zealand given we have had legislation—world-leading legislation for its time—on our books since 1971. It is an outrage that we cannot get marine reserves in New Zealand essentially without legislation. I think it is an indictment on our law books at the moment. I think it is an indictment of successive Governments that have not tackled it. Hopefully this can act as a catalyst so that we can progress with coherent robust marine reserves legislation.I have got to say before I go into the substance of this speech that although I was heartened to hear that marine reserves legislation was going to be enacted next year I am deeply disappointed that this was the forum that the member Nicky Wagner would take to address this to the country. I had a commitment earlier this year and a week ago from the Minister Kate Wilkinson that we would see the marine reserves legislation this year. It is disappointing to see it delayed yet another year. What we know is that the marine reserve bills currently languishing at the select committees have the silver medal. They are probably never going to get the infamous trout legislation gold medal for the amount of time left at a select committee but we are talking about legislation sitting there stuck there for almost a decade. I think it is an outrage given that we know that on average it takes 12 years in this country to get a marine reserve under our antiquated difficult-to-enact legislation. Although it is good to hear that we will be seeing some legislative action on marine reserves this probably was not the forum to announce that it has been delayed yet another year.But on to the good—it is good to see this legislation passing. What it is going to be doing is adding 435000 hectares to New Zealand’s total marine reserve area. This is a big deal because at the moment we are doing woefully in terms of marine reserve coverage. Nicky Wagner will say: “Look we’ve got 9 percent of our territorial sea in marine reserves. Aren’t we doing so well? We’re so close to our 10 percent target.” But what the member did not point out is that in fact our 10 percent target is not just our territorial sea; it is our territorial sea plus our exclusive economic zone which is the space of water between 12 and 200 nautical miles. What we know is that at the moment we are at 0.31 percent of our combined waters. Only 0.31 percent—that is less than 1 percent—of our waters are protected in marine reserves. Although it is good to be seeing these 435000 extra hectares added this is only going to be taking us up to 0.41 percent I understand on advice from the Parliamentary Library. It is a start and we congratulate the start—that is why we are voting for the bill—but we could be going a whole lot further.We are disappointed that we are not seeing the entirety of these islands protected. What we know is that they are World Heritage sites. It would have been pretty unacceptable I think for the Government to not be enacting this legislation given they are World Heritage sites and given they have been World Heritage sites for quite a while. So we think that there should be greater protection. We think that the 5-year crab trial around Campbell Island is not out of order. We should not be having to go to the ends of the world to get our seafood. The problem is of course that we are fishing too hard and fast around our waters. We should not have to go to Campbell Island. We should not have to go to the Ross Sea. We should be able to sustainably manage our fisheries.A quick legislative point I would like to question is clause 8. The text—and it seems quite odd language—is: “The Department of Conservation (or its replacement) …”. I am not aware of any legislation where we refer to a department by saying: “The Department of Conservation (or its replacement) …”. I guess the question is: why are we using such odd drafting language? Is there an ulterior motive? It would be interesting to explore that in the select committee.This bill has come about as a result of the collaborative process the planning forum. It is really good to see. We saw it on the West Coast as well. But it is disappointing that we have seen only two. It was trumpeted quite loudly by the current Government when it came into Government that it was a great process. It was trying different things such as water management. But why have we stuck with only two? Why is this the last one? Why have they not taken the lessons? Obviously we can get a collaborative buy-in from both fisheries and conservationists. Why have we not seen another one?I guess the question is: if we are going to have real cross-party action on marine reserves why are we not doing more? Why are we not updating the legislation now not delaying it yet another year? Why is the Government delaying and refusing marine reserves now like it is in the Akaroa Harbour? Why is the Government not taking action right now? Tomorrow it could introduce legislation to protect the Kermadec Islands; tomorrow the Government could introduce legislation that would make the world’s largest marine reserve and it would displace on average only $100000 worth of fishing. A Government that has got such a dire terrible environmental track record—which is being run through the mud of the international press for the clean green 100 percent pure myth the sham and has been called to account—tomorrow could introduce legislation to protect the marine waters around the Kermadec Islands. This would be 620000 square kilometres. It would displace as I said only a small amount of fishing. It is something good that I think everyone in this House could support. It is one of those win-wins of which I think the Government has not taken enough opportunities.Likewise we have seen an embarrassing situation with the negotiations over the Ross Sea. The Government could be doing more there. It is likewise with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which the Government benches raised. We have got a real risk of these activities such as deep-sea oil drilling occurring in our oceans. I think the Minister for the Environment should rule out making deep-sea oil drilling a permitted activity. I think it would be outrageous that one would require a consent to build a deck but one would not require a consent under the legislation which is so new that it has been passed only this year to drill in our waters with the corresponding risk that that entails.Under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act the Government has the ability to identify the special areas in our exclusive economic zone—these areas of amazing biodiversity. I think the Government should be more proactive and map out where these will be protected into the future if we have marine reserve legislation that allows marine reserves to be extended out into the exclusive economic zone.Ultimately what we need is a coherent oceans strategy. At the moment we have got a piecemeal approach that is unfortunately putting at priority the interests of deep-sea oil drillers not marine protection. The interests of toothfish fisheries and crab fisheries at Campbell Island are put at priority not marine protection. What we see are dolphin sanctuaries that do not provide sanctuary to dolphins off the coast of Taranaki. We see the benthic protected areas that do not protect from activities like dredging for phosphate on the Chatham Rise. It is good to see progress. We can do a whole lot more. The Green Party is committed to work with the Government if it can to get better marine reserves legislation and a coherent oceans policy which is only going to protect our waters. They are so special and unique and such a part of who we are as New Zealanders. Kia ora.