Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21902] 
4.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf regarding the marine reserve application process that “if it can be demonstrated that there is undue effect on any one of a number of categories then the proposal will not proceed.”; if so how does he reconcile this with his approval of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes there was strong public support for the proposed marine reserve and after modifying the reserve boundary to mitigate some areas of concern the Minister of Conservation was satisfied that none of the objections should be upheld under section 5(6) of the Marine Reserves Act on the basis of undue interference. 
Larry Baldock 
: In light of the Minister’s disregard for the opposition by the Ngati Rehua hapu of Ngati Wai the Auckland City Council adjoining landowners the Recreational Fishing Council Option 4 and the Big Game Fishing Council does he plan to rename the Department of Conservation the “Department of Confiscation”; if not when will he rename it to bring it in line with public perception? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There was an extensive amount of consultation. At least 27 meetings were held with the general public and others and at least 12 meetings with iwi. I reject entirely that member’s assertion that this is confiscation; it is conservation. It will preserve a unique part of New Zealand for future generations. 
David Parker 
: What concerns raised in objections did the Minister respond to in amending the boundaries of the reserve? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The area around Whangapoua Beach was excluded which reduced the size of the reserve by some 508 hectares. The adjoining estuary had already been excluded from the proposal by the department. Taken together these exclusions ensure an opportunity is retained on this remote north-eastern corner for local residents recreational fishers and tangata whenua to take fish from the estuary and the sea for recreational and customary purposes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister been advised by the Minister of Fisheries when concurrence is likely to be received for the five marine reserves that are still awaiting decisions and would we not already have five new marine reserves if the Government had been prepared to proceed with the Marine Reserves Bill stalled in the select committee which removes the need for this concurrence? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not able to give the member clear advice on the status of the concurrence by the Minister of Fisheries but I will undertake to have that to her in writing after question time. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister stand by his statements repeated in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 18 June that the Marine Reserves Bill which United Future stopped in its tracks needs to be rewritten because “every proposal becomes a major battle” and also that it is “more sensible to do the negotiation at the beginning.”; if so why does he show no respect for those who have opposed the Great Barrier marine reserve by trying to ram it through and confiscate this area from New Zealand recreational fishermen? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Every respect has been shown to the people who put in submissions. Their points of view have been listened to carefully balanced and weighed. On that basis the marine reserve proposal has been amended. In respect of the bill it will be enacted next term and I can assure the House that it is the Minister’s intention to make sure that all the key principles in it are retained. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister any indication that the Minister of Fisheries whose consent and concurrence are needed for the marine reserve will join in his plan for confiscation of one of Auckland recreational fishers’ favourite fishing spots; if so will they be mad enough to do it before the election? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: My answer to that question is in part the same as the one I gave to Jeanette Fitzsimons in that I do not have precise advice on the Minister of Fisheries’ position but I will get it and will forward it to him. The second point is that this application was lodged under the existing legislation and it should proceed on that basis. The third point is that surveys have been done of the number of fishers in this remote location and it is not densely fished.