Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19886] 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 3 Fiordland Marine Guardians 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system by statute at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised particularly in regard to the review process. 
Firstly changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation who will in turn consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly and probably most importantly of all the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members rather than two who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party in the name of Metiria Turei has moved some amendments to this part all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch. 
The final form of the plan on which this bill is based recognised in a modest way the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited being completed within a year of its start. 
In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas. 
Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6 7 and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Does that not include the schedules? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is schedule 13 only. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill and welcome the recommendation by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to change clause 14 so that when the Minister appoints the Fiordland Marine Guardians he or she needs to ensure that at least five members are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions whereas the original bill required only two. It is important that the focus is on the local area and I think the change will strengthen those provisions. 
Initially I think the Minister appointing the guardians is the necessary way forward. It is a process that began in the local area and those who first became involved were those who were willing to put up their hands and volunteer their time for what was going to be quite a long process—one that would require a considerable amount of self-sacrifice in terms of their time and energy to see it through. 
So we are comfortable for the Minister to continue with an appointment process after this bill is enacted but in the long term United Future would like to see communities choosing representatives in their area similar to the process we now have with our district health boards where we have elections for a number of the board members then the Minister can appoint a few others perhaps to fill in a few gaps where he or she sees that the board does not have representation. That would be a good step forward and perhaps with the implementation of clause 21 “Ministerial reviews” that recommendation may be made in the future as the guardians bed in and settle down. Perhaps in the years ahead communities will have an opportunity to elect their guardians’ representatives. We in United Future believe that would work very well for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the 13 conservancies around the country that are at this stage ministerial appointments. We think there could be a balance between elections and ministerial appointments to fill in some gaps where there might be a lack in experience or representation of community interests. However at this stage United Future is comfortable with the appointment process and we will look forward to that review occurring in 15 years’ time. 
We also welcome clause 22A “Protocol between management agencies and Guardians” which we think will strengthen the important role of the guardians so that the process continues to be a locally-managed one that Government agencies must take account of work with and take note of the advice the guardians give. That was the whole genesis of this project anyway—working together with Government agencies but not being led by them and allowing local residents to take care of their own marine environment. We believe most residents are capable of doing so. We want to see it not just applied in Fiordland but also adopted in other regions around the country. I think that New Zealanders are conservation minded. They know how to take care of the environment and when engaged properly there can be a win-win situation both for Government agencies and for the community. United Future wishes to commend this part to the Committee and we will be supporting it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (e) of subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (2) the expression “Minister of Conservation”; 
to omit from paragraph (d) of subclause (2) the expression “.” and substitute the expression “: and”; and 
to add after paragraph (d) of subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(e)ensure that one member is nominated by the New Zealand Conservation Authority. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the word “at” and substitute the words “not earlier than 3 years and not later than 5 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add after the words “section 7(1)” the words “subject to obtaining a concession in accordance with Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987; and the said Part IIIB shall apply as if references in that Part to conservation areas were references to the marine reserves established by section 7(1) and with any other necessary modifications”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.  
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 6 be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 3 the following clauses: 
4Activities prohibited in Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve described in  
clause 5 
. 
5Area of Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in  
clause 4 
 is prohibited is described in  
subclause (2) 
. 
(2)All of that part of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 07’18.3808’S and 167º 08’08.8363’E (being at the southern end of section 3 of map SO 344884); and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 07’28.7038’S and 167º 08’29.3518’E; then 
(ii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides to the seacoast in a generally southerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’03.0454’S and 167º 08’34.5196’E; then 
(iii)in a generally south-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’05.1081’S and 167º 08’15.5893’E; then 
(iv)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 6 agreed to. 
Schedule 7 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 7 be agreed to: 
to add after clause 1 the following clauses: 
Activities prohibited in Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve described in clause 3. 
Area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2). 
(2)All of that part of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commending at the seacoast at a point 45°19’08.0172’S and 167º 10’10.4736’E; and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)in a generally northerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 18’50.1402’S and 167º 10’22.1454’E; then 
(ii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides around Shoal Cove in a generally easterly direction; then 
(iii)across the mouth of the Camelot River; then 
(iv)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally westerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
4Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum 
The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 7 agreed to. 
Schedule 8 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 8 be agreed to: 
to add after clause 1 the following clauses: 
2Activities prohibited in Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve 
Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve described in clause 3. 
3Area of Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited 
(1)The area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2). 
(2)All of that part of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line— 
(a)commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 26’19.6158’S and 167º 06’54.6080’E marked “DB14” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; and 
(b)proceeding— 
(i)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to a point 45° 25’44.2680’S and 167º06’40.3333’E; then 
(ii)in a generally north-easterly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’30.8977’S and 167º 07’14.5776’E; then 
(iii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly then northerly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’28.3879’S and 167º 07’30.5427’E; then 
(iv)in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 25’29.3402’S and 167º 07’40.4304’E; then 
(v)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’26.2960’S and 167º 9’31.6229’E marked “DB18” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(vi)in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’00.9921’S and 167º 08’43.1654’E marked “DB17” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(vii)along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 26’40.0269’S and 167º 07’53.6795’E marked “DB13” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then 
(viii)in a generally north-westerly direction to the point of commencement. 
(3)The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks. 
4Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum 
The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 8 agreed to. 
Schedules 9 to 11 agreed to.  
Schedule 12 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 12 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule 12 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 13 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill be now read a third time 
. One of the main features of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves in Fiordland—a total area of nearly 10000 hectares. Although the bill creates reserves they are to be managed under the Marine Reserves Act. Special conditions apply to those reserves. For example within the reserves Ngai Tahu will be able to take dead marine mammals and remove pounamu by hand and fishers will be able to store rock lobster pots and live rock lobster within designated areas. Also anchoring will be prohibited in particularly fragile areas within some of the reserves. 
Those conditions are a result of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment’s “gifts and gains” process whereby stakeholders gave up certain benefits in the interests of achieving the overall protection and sustainable management of Fiordland. That the guardians secured the support of recreational fishers commercial fishers and iwi for those marine reserves is a remarkable achievement. A key aspect to achieving that support was that there would be a moratorium on the creation of new marine reserves in the Fiordland marine area for 7 years or until a ministerial review of the management of the Fiordland marine area as required by the legislation is completed. 
The legislation also creates a new body—the Fiordland Marine Guardians—to provide advice and make recommendations to management agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland marine area. Ministers and agencies must take into account any such advice. In total there will be between five and eight members. I assure Mr Baldock and Mr Jim Peters that to maintain the local flavour of the initiative five of the members must be resident in either Otago or Southland which is great and one member must also be nominated by Ngai Tahu. 
In addition to this legislation the Government is committed to several Fiordland-specific work programmes to give effect to other aspects of the guardian strategy. The work programmes will cover monitoring compliance and enforcement; information and education; and biosecurity. They will involve the guardians and key agencies with management responsibilities in the Fiordland marine area including the Southland Regional Council. I am pleased to announce that the Government is providing the necessary budgetary funding for those programmes so that they can now get under way. Along with the legislation they will contribute to achieving better integrated management of Fiordland’s marine environment. 
I give particular thanks for the work that has gone into this legislation. Firstly I thank the House and in particular the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee for honouring the work done by the Fiordland guardians by reviewing the bill with efficiency attention to detail and speed. I also give thanks to the officials in Wellington from the Ministry for the Environment Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries for their work in converting a local and brilliant plan into legislation. That has involved compromises not only among the different ministries but between central agencies and the guardians. In fact the notion of “gifts and gains” has spread not only from inside Fiordland but between Fiordland Wellington and central government. 
My thanks also go to the officials from those departments who worked at the local level with the Fiordland guardians. In particular—and I know that one is not necessarily meant to do this all the time—I pay tribute to Alisdair Hutchison from the Ministry for the Environment. He was the officer who worked so well. In fact one of my first trips as Minister for the Environment occurred because Alisdair Hutchison asked me to go down with him to Te Anau to meet the people involved who had been working there so that we could set up the funding necessary to get this project under way. He was a committed regional member of the Ministry for the Environment who wanted to support what he saw was really good work. So I pay tribute to the work that Alisdair Hutchison has done in that area. Those from the South Island will be able to recognise that particular official. 
My thanks also go to the local member Bill English because I found out very early on that he worked very closely with the chair of the guardians John Steffans in order to keep abreast of the progress. When I checked with him he would say that he had met frequently with John Steffans and I appreciated that. I think it is really timely to note that we have a new member in the House from that area Lesley Soper who also will recognise Mr Steffans and continue to work with the guardians on these issues. 
My very special thanks go to the Hon Pete Hodgson who was at that time the Minister of Fisheries. Pete Hodgson and I attended at least two gatherings of the guardians and friends in Te Anau. Together we made a public commitment when the guardians handed over their plan to us to have this work of the guardians turned into special Government legislation and also to give the financial support to back that up. It was really good to have a person from the south who understood the issues involved and the particular processes and who was able to instruct his officials on how important this legislation is. Of course that was continued by another member of the south my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
But my greatest vote of appreciation is to John Steffans the chair of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment and to Laurel Tierney the coordinator because this legislation represents the culmination of years of hard work by the guardians. The chair John Steffans is present I think to witness this third reading and I acknowledge that this legislation is testament to his and the other guardians’ vision and tenacity. The select committee is aware of their tenacity and their deep commitment to Fiordland’s marine environment. 
At this stage I say to some of the members from one particular party in this House who thought that this was just a bill about fisheries that that really casts a slur on people who I have seen stand in Te Anau and say that they want that environment. They live and work in that environment more than any other people in this House and they really honour it. They want it for their children grandchildren and grandchildren’s children. They are absolutely dedicated to that environment. They do not want it “fished out” and they do not want it destroyed—they certainly do not want that special underwater coral destroyed. So they are absolutely careful about it. But they understand the meaning of sustainability and I love them for it. It is about sustainability. It is three legs absolutely in action in terms of economic growth social development in a remote area of New Zealand and care and protection for the environment. Those people have shown how different interests within one community can work together to define and achieve a common vision. 
Through this legislation Fiordland’s marine environment will be better protected and more sustainably managed. It will also ensure that the local community in Fiordland will have an ongoing role in the management of the area’s marine environment. This is not about locals doing it against the world; this is about locals who know and love the area and who know it far better than I think any other people in this House know it. The local people know every corner of those particular fiords. Ministers and officials alike have learnt a great deal from the guardians’ process and we are excited about exploring whether similar models can be used. I commend the bill to the House. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 At the first meeting of the committee Mr White from the Ministry for the Environment laid out for us the values of Fiordland. I think it is worthwhile at this point to go quickly through what those were. He spoke about the unique marine environment and we have heard that aspect being developed in the course of this debate. He talked about exceptional biodiversity and we in New Zealand First sympathise with the issues that were raised by the Green Party. We recognise that that is something to be prized and is precious. The value of marine resources was covered in that opening meeting; also the knowledge that has been gained and developed by the extensive tourism operators in their operations over some time. Very important as well were the commercial and recreational fisheries that have been a core part of that—albeit that at times those who fished in the area came from other places. In both the Maori and Pakeha sense the significant historical and cultural values were covered—in this case enshrined in legislation—as was Ngai Tahu’s role in regard to Southland and Stewart Island. 
We then looked at elements of the bill and picked up on the huge and considerable difference under which the proposal was developed—one that we in New Zealand First find so commendable particularly as some of us have had over 25 years’ experience in dealing with these matters along the coast and we have not found I must say to the Minister the exciting thoughts that she enunciated with regard to at least one ministry. 
May I pause and say as an aside that this will mark an exciting new development in the sustainability of our marine life and coast. We look forward to that happening more and more. But in this case we have the guardians who picked up—originally from a fishing viewpoint we understand but secondly with environmentalists scientists and community representatives and not least the Southland Regional Council—the whole process that has resulted in us being here today. 
We in New Zealand First are very very pleased to be able to support the third reading of this bill. We understand where the reserves sit in the national biological picture. We understand that some people may not have been satisfied and they told us so in submissions. They said that the protections with regard to the ecosystems were not as they would have wanted and particularly that although this proposal concerned habitats they were looking at whole communities and ecosystems. They said that this region was unique not only nationally but also internationally with regard to those matters and that therefore the bill when it is enacted will at the beginning be only part of a long-term understanding and process. 
So we commend the bill to the House at its third reading. We commend particularly the developmental role the present role and the role that the committee has now enabled the guardians to have in the future—not to be just a committee of advice but a committee to which “regard must be given”. We look forward to the eight marine reserves being part of a representative coastal marine picture and not something specially set aside. We will therefore be anxious to see as will other members of the House after the 5 years what will be the impact of science and a proper review upon this whole development of a marine park and reserve developed in this sense. 
We recognise that the Southland Regional Council has to make some changes and that it would have wished—and I repeat what I said in my first reading debate—that this opportunity had been extended to allow the whole of its coast to enjoy the same protection and preservation and also use that this legislation will allow the people of Fiordland in the defined area to have. So in these respects we look forward to the future. We hope that the close working relationships that have been developed in recent years will be maintained that there will be goodwill and cooperation and most of all that we will come to realise more and more the uniqueness and real diversity of our coastline—one in which both man and other creatures have a place. So to the new board New Zealand First says kia ora and expresses its good wishes for the future. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is very pleased to support this legislation. We recognise that this is a particularly good example of bottom-up decisions from a number of interested and affected parties on the ground rather than being some sort of centralised bureaucratic answer to what is a very important area for us all. We note that eight new marine reserves 10000 hectares are involved. I was very pleased to serve on the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. I actually urged that the committee travel to look at all those nooks and crannies down there and I am still very disappointed that my other colleagues on the committee were not so keen. I would have been very pleased to look at the area closely on the ground. I think it is important for a member of Parliament to do that especially when it involves such a special part of our heritage. 
It is great that the stakeholders have had such an influence in this proposal and as the point has been made a new phrase has come into the lexicon—“gifts and gains”. It is a very good concept. It acknowledges that there is a place for compromise. Nobody got all that was wanted but it is something everyone can live with and it is a pretty good framework in any open democracy. 
Certainly the fishing industry was rather terrified as to what might happen if exclusive reserves were put right across Fiordland. It now has special areas in which to operate its important industry and to put its crayfish pots. At the other end of the scale one could say that we have very good protection for what are called the “china shops”—these special unique areas. I am reluctant to call anything unique in an ecology but the area certainly has a very special ecology with its black corals and other areas that are very vulnerable to disturbance by anchors chains fishing gear or whatever. They now have the protection they need. It is quite nice in this House to have a bill that seems to have the support of the whole House. I certainly commend it to others. It is a very good framework for a bright future in managing Fiordland. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future on the third reading of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill soon to become an Act. First I echo the comments made by the Hon Marian Hobbs in appreciating all the players who have been involved in bringing the legislation to this point. They include some outstanding people who are real pioneers really in a new concept of the way we may deal with the management of our inshore areas and the precious parts of our New Zealand coastline. I commend them for the work they have done. 
This bill establishes eight new marine reserves—approximately 10000 hectares. It is not an inconsiderable amount of marine area. But it is disappointing that instead of hearing all members in this House celebrating this achievement there is one party that continually whinges about there not being enough in the way of protection. I refer of course to the Green Party. King Solomon many many years ago when he was writing his proverbs said that there were six things that could never be satisfied—and I am sure that if the Green Party had been around in those days he would have said there were seven. We have a Green Party that is never satisfied no matter how many marine reserves are established. 
Many people said that it covers only 1 percent of the area but they did not acknowledge that it covers actually 13 percent of the inner fiords area which is a significant amount to go into marine reserve protection. People often go on about there not being enough marine protection and a press release issued yesterday by Mr Weeber of the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand bemoaned the fact that we are well behind Australia when it comes to marine protection and that Australia has over 6 percent of its marine area in no-take reserves. Now of the two things that are not taken into account in that statement the first is that nearly all of that 6 percent would be in the Great Barrier Reef reserve— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s multi-use. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes and it does not fully exclude fishing in all parts of it anyway. Secondly although in New Zealand we may not have as much area in marine reserves we have a quota management system that is a form of marine protection and extends out to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. If that were not some form of protection I would wonder why we even had the quota management system. So it is not always good to make comparisons of ourselves with our neighbours. 
Mr Weeber identified an opinion poll showing that 95 percent of New Zealanders wanted marine reserves. Therefore we can be sure as we pass this bill today that a great number of New Zealanders will be happy. But that poll brings on for me an inspiration for perhaps another Tui billboard message which would say: “95 % of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their favourite fishing spot—Yeah right”; or “95% of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their backyard—Yeah right”. Of course when we have polls that ask questions about that we have to make sure they ask the right questions. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes but they like them there when they want to sell their property. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes everybody wants a marine reserve somewhere else but if we were to ask whether they wanted one in their area I think we would get a much lower percentage than 95 percent. I think that the very process the guardians have been through which has been a very lengthy process is confirmation of the fact that we may all want marine reserves around our coastline but when it comes to saying where they will be a great deal of consultation is required as well as the “gifts and gains” process that has been part of this whole initiative. We also need always to take into account that concept of “not in my backyard thank you very much”. 
So I again commend the guardians for having guided their local residents and stakeholders through this process and for having been able to decide where the marine reserves would be. Some complained that not a whole sound or fiord was in marine reserve protection but some arms of the sounds—almost complete arms—are in marine protection. I was sorry that Mr Shirley was not able to make it down there but after my having been down there and having a look I think significantly large areas are protected in order to preserve the areas that people are concerned about. 
United Future welcomes the strengthening of the guardians’ position in the bill as it is now nearing completion and going to its third reading vote in a short while. We believe that the guardians are integral to the success of the legislation and we also look forward to the Minister’s review in 5 years’ time. Perhaps as I mentioned earlier we may see a recommendation there that some more democratic process may creep into the future appointment of guardians in the area which we think would be an improvement. 
I welcome the commitment from the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope who has acknowledged through the Hon Marian Hobbs in this debate in the House that he will consult with the ministerial advisory panel of recreational fishermen regarding the regulations to be changed in relation to recreational fishing bag limits prior to making those decisions because normally those regulations would have another consultation period. In relation to his statement that there was no need for that consultation because there had already been consultation I think it is helpful to hear him say that he will at least take some advice from that new panel he is establishing. I hope that further studies to be carried out in the area will give better science on the fish stocks and the habits of fish species there and perhaps will lead to a review of the regulations in due time. 
This bill is a good example of why United Future’s proposals to restructure the Department of Conservation are a good idea. Local people are capable of making good agreements to preserve their marine areas without the department initiating and driving the process. It would be a vast improvement in New Zealand I believe if the Department of Conservation were relieved of its advocacy role to concentrate on managing the conservation estate and marine areas once established through a community process that everyone could own from the very beginning. That is the hallmark of this whole bill and we commend it to the House. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to be in the House for the third reading of this important bill for my region and to hear such cross-party support for it. The bill implements a positive and sustainable local solution created using local knowledge. The Fiordland Marine Guardians to their credit have spent 8 years developing the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy and have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals which will ensure the preservation protection and sustainable management of Fiordland’s marine environment. This bill recognises that Fiordland is a globally unique environment with valuable marine resources and exceptional biodiversity. It is therefore worthy of special protection. 
The bill will contribute positively not only to Fiordland but also to the standing of New Zealand’s entire environmental protection and it is a credit to all those involved. All New Zealand wins from this bill. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I want to make a very brief contribution in my capacity as Minister of Tourism to congratulate the Hon Marian Hobbs and all those involved. As the gallery is full of media which we would expect when this degree of cooperation is being witnessed in the House I just note that this Parliament can from time to time find agreement on a matter that is of huge long-term interest and importance to our nation and to future generations. So I really do want to congratulate Marian Hobbs and all those who have worked with her on this achievement. 
Bill read a third time.