Turei Metiria: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19862] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have supported this bill because we are passionate about marine reserves and are committed to seeing many more of them in place in our seas. We are committed to seeing the marine environment managed sustainably and the non-extractive values given much greater weight. Those values are inherent values—not just the services that the sea provides for communities but inherent values that the sea holds in its own integrity and on its own account. We are delighted that there are to be marine reserves in Fiordland National Park but we have many concerns about the level of protection for the marine reserves that are set out in the bill. 
Fiordland is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in our country and it has a very special interface between the land and the sea. Its national and international importance is so significant that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. Fiordland has ecological features that are absolutely unique in the true meaning of that word. Because the fresh water that runs on the top of the saltwater prevents the light from penetrating through we have extraordinary corals at very shallow depths that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot usually go. Those corals flourish in the fiords. In New Zealand terms and in international terms Fiordland is an ecological treasure. But this bill for all its attempts to protect that treasure also fails in many ways and it therefore puts that treasure at continued risk of damage. The Greens want to remedy those risks. We will be proposing amendments to this bill in order to do that. 
The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee heard a number of submissions about the process by which the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment had achieved its strategy document and about the extent of its consultation. The Greens applaud the guardians’ extraordinary efforts in achieving the level of agreement that they have achieved. But that does not make them perfect and it does not justify the risk that the marine reserves will continue to face. Much was made of the “gifts and gains” approach to the protection of the fiords taken by the guardians and there has been some discussion about that today. Much was also made of the fact that all stakeholders were involved in the discussions. But we know that that is not true. In terms of gifts and gains it is very clear that the marine environment itself has made the greatest contribution in that process and that it has gained only the most minor level of protection in return. Only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area will be protected by the reserves. That is a truly disappointing and minimal level of protection. All the reserve areas are to be within the inner fiords leaving the outer ecologically distinct areas unprotected. 
Many ecologically fragile areas for example those described as “china shops” have lost any protection that they had because the select committee decided to remove the restrictions on anchoring over them. Officials argued that because people did not anchor over those areas anyway no restrictions were necessary. But that is a ridiculous argument. It is unbelievable that that argument was supported by the select committee because now those very precious coral areas have absolutely no legal protection from damage. People will not even know that those areas are there and will not know they should avoid damaging them in that way. The Greens are putting up an amendment to reinstate the anchoring restrictions because it is absolutely critical that those areas have the maximum amount of protection. There is no justification for removing those restrictions from this bill. 
We are also very concerned that aircraft are allowed to land and take off within the marine reserves—within that 1 percent of the area—without any controls whatsoever. No concessions from the Department of Conservation are even needed. In national parks on land around this country tour bus operators need concessions just to drive into a national park and out again. But the Fiordland marine reserves do not even get that very minimal level of protection. It would take only one spill of aviation fuel to wreak havoc with the ecology of the marine reserve. If there is just one minor accident the whole of that reserve area will be irreparably damaged especially since water movement in and out of the inner fiords is very slow and it would be very difficult to mount clean-up responses within those areas. Yet we are placing them at risk by removing any controls whatsoever on the taking off and landing of aircraft. 
The Greens were very disappointed in the guardians’ approach to the bill at the select committee hearings. We acknowledge the guardians are the primary group that has driven this process and for that they should be congratulated. But it is not a question of the guardians owning this process. This area is nationally and internationally precious and we all have a stake in its preservation—preservation which as Mr Baldock mentioned previously is about maintaining the area’s integrity and enhancing the integral values of the area for their own sake. Mr Baldock said that the area would be able to preserve itself but that is simply not true. As we all know all those sorts of areas are very fragile and are subject to damage from human use. We need to have the maximum amount of protection. Given that we are talking about only 1 percent of the whole area being put into marine reserves surely that 1 percent deserves to be given the maximum amount of protection and preservation that we can provide. 
We recognise the guardians’ role but we also recognise that they are primarily a group of recreational and commercial users of the area and we are disappointed that they did not have more respect for the ecological values of the fiords. Their wish to have the bill not refer to the international and national importance of the fiords was particularly disappointing. I have already said that the fiords have world heritage status and that Fiordland is a national park. It is ridiculous to argue that the words “national” and “international” should be taken out of the bill. That request along with the submission that the word “preservation” be deleted from the bill—because the guardians said that it was insulting—clearly demonstrates that the intention behind the guardians’ strategy and hence this bill is to protect the interests of users to the greatest extent possible with the fewest possible measures put in place to protect and preserve the incredible biodiversity of this national ecological treasure. That is a very disappointing approach to take towards the marine reserves of such an important place. 
The Greens have supported a greater role for the guardians in the ongoing management and review of the marine reserve areas. It is absolutely imperative that local communities are involved in that but we argued very hard for a conservation representative to be a member of that group in order to ensure that there is an advocate for the marine environment itself not just the users of it. We are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that will seek support from the House to have one representative from the New Zealand Conservation Authority among the membership of the Fiordland Marine Guardians. That is sought to make sure that the guardians are a broad church and that they represent all the interests that the fiord areas contain. It is really critical that the marine environment has an advocate. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a very long history of involvement in marine reserves. It has extraordinary expertise yet this Government and other political parties in this House refused at the select committee deliberations to have a Conservation Authority member appointed to the Fiordland Marine Guardians for no other reason than that they did not want to. But that leaves that marine environment at incredible risk because no one is there to advocate for it on its own terms and for its own sake. 
The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill and I have discussed some of them. I sincerely hope the House supports those amendments. They are designed to restore to the bill much-needed advocacy of the inherent integrity of marine biodiversity which is sadly and obviously missing from the bill as it is now. We hope the House will give those amendments due consideration and support them if this bill is truly to meet its objectives of protecting preserving and assuring for future generations not just the management of the resources that the reserves will give to our people but the protection of the precious corals and all the biodiversity that lives within them for their own sake and for the sake of future generations. 
Debate interrupted.