Carter Chris: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
Carter Chris: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:14438] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I thank the New Zealand First list member Edwin Perry for his very positive comments about my recent work at the International Whaling Commission promoting the New Zealand position on our commitment to conservation of marine mammals particularly whales but also dolphins dugongs and other marine mammal species that are under threat internationally. I am proud to say that New Zealand is the staunchest country on conservation at the International Whaling Commission. It is something that has been unique not just under this Government but under the previous Government as well. It is something we can be very proud of. We are recognised as world leaders in our commitment to conservation and the preservation of endangered species. 
The member raised a number of issues and questions about how much work we were doing funding the protection of our indigenous biodiversity species—iconic species like the kiwi the kakapo the kea and others. We can always do more but I am proud to say that since this Government came into power in 1999 the budget for the Department of Conservation has increased by 40 percent. We have recognised that there are specific problems with some bird species. I have set up Operation Ark which is an intervention programme. It is an emergency response programme to bird species that are endangered such as the orange fronted kakariki whio or blue duck and yellowhead. We have identified all of those species as being under particular risk. We have a special $600000 fund—Operation Ark—as an emergency response programme. At the same time we are funding extensively kiwi recovery. The Okarito sanctuary for example which I know that a number of members have visited is a very good example of the really intensive pest control management programmes that the Department of Conservation is setting up and running. 
The member asked what we were doing about weed control. The Department of Conservation spends $10 million on weed control which is more than any other agency or individual in the country. We manage one-third of the land area of our country. Much of that does not need weed control on it. It is mountains glaciers and quite thick indigenous forest. There is not a weed problem there. However in areas that are undergoing restoration or recovery there is a weed problem. I remind members that the Department of Conservation spends $10 million and it has budgeted another $18 million for the management of lands that will be passing into the department’s management through the 10-year review process. 
Earlier my colleague John Tamihere spoke of the 10-year review process. He reminded the House and I will reinforce that that the 10-year review is an entirely voluntary process. The 304 properties that could enter the process—and some two-thirds of them have done so—do that at their own initiation. They can withdraw at any time. I am very sceptical and cynical about some of the claims Opposition parties have made in this House about how the land 10-year review process is a sort of land grab. It is not at all. It is entirely at farmers’ instigation. The farmer can at any time withdraw from it. 
We have also had some comments about the purchase of strategic properties. Of course approximately half of the land that goes through the 10-year review process will enter into Department of Conservation management. What do we do with that? The Government has signalled its intention that it will have a network of parks and reserves through the high country of the South Island. That is a sensible way to deal with that sensitive natural environment with its unique biodiversity. It has great tourism opportunities. The previous speaker spoke about tourism in a sort of cynical way. I remind members that tourism has now replaced dairying as our largest source of foreign revenue. We have visits to the conservation estate. Last year there were 28 million individual visits. This year there have already been 33 million visits to the conservation estate. Tourists come to New Zealand for its natural environment. They do not come here to go to the casino or just meet lovely New Zealanders. They come to New Zealand because of its natural environment. 
The Department of Conservation in its management of that one-third of our land area looks after that natural environment. It is the custodian of our greatest economic asset. This land is not locked-up land; it is protected land. It is land that offers not only vast potential in biodiversity protection and recreational opportunities—33 million visits to national parks this year alone—but also enormous economic opportunity through tourism. That opportunity for tourism is something that I am really keen to develop. I meet with my colleague Mark Burton the Minister of Tourism every 6 weeks or so so that we can synchronise better the synergy between conservation and tourism. 
As Minister of Conservation my statutory duty is to be an advocate for the biodiversity of our country. I have to make sure that we will not compromise that through any activity and that includes tourism. However I do recognise that tourism now our primary source of foreign exchange is an incredibly important industry to New Zealand. I want more tourists and more New Zealanders to be able to enjoy our natural environment. However we have to also balance that with protection. So working with the Minister of Tourism every 6 weeks or so we will look to develop new tourism opportunities in the conservation estate and at the same time provide adequate protection for the integrity of that estate. 
The previous speaker raised the question of marine reserves. He made a statement that the Government wanted to lock up 20 percent of our coastal area. That is not true. The aim as stated in the Labour Party’s policy programme both for the 1999 election and the 2002 election is that it seeks to protect 10 percent of our marine area. The marine area of New Zealand is the third-largest in the world. It is 15 times larger than our land area. It is approximately the size of the continent of Australia. It is a vast vast area. We seek to protect 10 percent of it. We do not seek to have it in marine reserves only. We seek to have a variety of protections. They might be marine mammal sanctuaries and areas for recreational fishing only. Of course the core of that protection just like in our national parks will be no-take areas—marine reserves. We currently have 17. We are lagging far behind the ambitious programme of our Australian neighbours to protect their marine environment. For example just recently the Australian Government made one-third of the Great Barrier Reef—a natural ecosystem that stretches over 7000 kilometres—into a vast marine reserve and a no-take area. That has been a fantastic achievement by the Australian Government in protecting its natural environment. 
I asked the Australian Minister for the Environment Dr Kemp how he managed to achieve that because we had such enormous resistance from selfish recreational fishers who kept saying: “Yes OK marine reserves might help to restore the biodiversity but we are not having them in our favourite fishing spot.” I asked him how he achieved one-third of the Great Barrier Reef as a protected marine reserve. He said: “Because Minister tourism in Queensland is more important than fishing.” That might have been a cynical approach but there was a powerful message that biodiversity is in itself intrinsically important but it offers enormous tourism opportunities too. The Australians recognise that by protecting that one-third of the Great Barrier Reef in marine reserve they are creating protecting and reinforcing an economic asset. 
Sometimes I wonder about the attack by the ACT party in particular but also National on the Department of Conservation and its programme of protecting the natural environment; it is so short-sighted. If they really believed in economic progress and opportunity they would be seeing the protected estate that we have both terrestrial and marine as an enormous economic asset. That is what it is. That is what brings millions of visitors to our country. It is what defines us as a people. It makes New Zealand a special place and it protects our unique biodiversity. What a fantastic package! All parties in this Parliament should be embracing the idea that protection and encouragement of our natural environment is the best investment we can make for future generations.