Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19865] 
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Preamble agreed to.  
Part 1 Preliminary Provisions 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 4 “Interpretation”. We want to ensure that the primary Minister responsible for the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act and for that area will be the Minister of Conservation not the Minister for the Environment—not that we have anything against the Minister for the Environment. In fact the whole reason why the Minister for the Environment is the primary Minister involved is simply that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment got funding from the Ministry for the Environment to do the work it did. 
All other marine reserves are the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation. The Department of Conservation and the Minister have the greatest level of expertise and existing responsibility and know best how the marine reserves process works. They can see the whole marine reserves structure throughout the country as a single whole. There is absolutely no reason why the Fiordland marine reserves should be treated differently from other marine reserves in this country in any way. So we strongly advocate that the Minister of Conservation be primarily responsible for ensuring that the reserves are treated the same afforded the same level of protection and given the same respect and position as other marine reserves. 
Of course these marine reserves ought to have that same level of protection and respect throughout the community and from Ministers and from this House because this area is incredibly precious and valuable to the whole of the community. It is absolutely unique so it is entitled to the same level of protection. That is one of our major concerns with this bill as a whole—that so many of the provisions in it treat the Fiordland marine reserves as if they are different from others but they simply are not. 
We urge the Committee to support the amendment. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Just very briefly with regard to Part 1—and in particular with regard to matters that have just been raised—I think it is one of the strengths of the bill that for the first time it recognises the need for an integrated management albeit at this very limited stage. When we read in clause 4 that the Department of Conservation the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Fisheries and the Southland Regional Council are all involved along with the Fiordland Marine Guardians we can see that this is an excellent model that we should be endeavouring to pursue. I know that the Fiordland Marine Guardians in particular welcome this model. In actual fact they favoured that the regional council should be the lead agency and I can quite understand why. A regional council should be a lead agency but for various reasons that was not to be. 
This is the first stage as I said earlier. There is a recognition that in legislative matters there is not yet the ability to go beyond this first cooperative stage. This bill takes into account existing arrangements statutes and facilities and New Zealand First strongly supports this first step in what we see as a development in years to come not only for the Fiordland area—as important as it is—but for any marine park reserve area in the rest of the country. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from the definition of “ 
Minister 
” in subclause (1) the words “for the environment” and substitute the words “of Conservation”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Marine Management Measures 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This debate includes debate on schedules 1 to 12. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I take a call on Part 2 to discuss the issue surrounding marine management measures and the establishment of the eight marine reserves set up under this bill. As the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee went through its process people from various sectors of the community came before it often with a different slant on what was being done. The environmental groups said that the bill was terrible and that eight marine reserves were not enough because the reserves represented the protection of only 1 percent of Fiordland’s marine area. We heard on several occasions from Metiria Turei this morning that they represent only 1 percent of the marine area. In actual fact those reserves represent 13 percent of the area contained within the fiords and therefore a significant chunk of the fiords area is going under protection. But of course the environmentalists do not tell us that—they always want to put a different spin on it. 
In respect of the 1 percent of the external area as I said earlier much of that coastline down there will protect itself. I think too that the Fiordland Marine Guardians and the people of Fiordland have made a huge contribution by giving up 13 percent of the inner fiord area to those marine reserves. 
The thing that came under quite a bit of challenge at the select committee was the agreement for a moratorium so that no further marine reserves would be established for a period of at least 5 or 6 years until the first review of the Act has taken place. Many submitters said that that was terrible and that they should have been able to start applications for more marine reserves the next day. Those submitters just never stop. They seem to think that the only way forward is to have the whole country locked up with marine reserves. The committee had to resist that pressure very strongly because there is a gifts and gains process. 
Yesterday we had some discussion in the House about marine reserves and today I see that theRoyal Forest and Bird Protection Society has put out a press release overnight stating that United Future is anti-conservation because we are trying to stop the Marine Reserves Bill from going through the House. We are pleased to be able to stop that legislation this term because it is an ill-conceived bill and still allows for the Department of Conservation to take too many heavy-handed measures in providing marine reserves all over the country. 
The press release also said that Australia is a great country because 6 percent of its marine area is in protection as marine reserves but that ignores the fact that the major part of Australia’s protection relates to the Great Barrier Reef which is an enormous reserve. If we took that out of the equation Australia would not be much further ahead than we are in New Zealand. Australia has only a few other little spots on its map under marine protection. 
That is what concerns United Future. Unless we allow locals to be in charge of the process as this bill sets up we will constantly have the Department of Conservation pressured by lobby groups such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other environmental groups pushing for more and more marine reserves. Ultimately they seem to win the battle and get those things established without the real consent and consultation processes that are necessary at a local level. 
I had a long discussion with people from Environment Southland and they said that they could have established protection even without marine reserves. There are sufficient avenues under the Resource Management Act process to give some protection and that may have been a better way to have approached it. But in the end marine reserve lobby groups seem to have won out so eight new marine reserves are being established under this bill. 
United Future will support this bill. We are pleased that only eight marine reserves are being established and that the moratorium is in place. That gives people a chance to take a deep breath now that the major consultation process is over and not to have to face more and more applications coming in each year. Every application just opens up a whole can of worms again in a community. 
It is nice to see peace descend in Fiordland. With the passage of this bill this week I believe there will be a great deal of rejoicing—probably some cod will be eaten some rock lobster will be cooked on a few barbeques and even a few bottles of local wine will be opened to celebrate. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I say just very briefly that indeed as we were told the protected area within the proposed marine reserves equates to 13 percent of the area enclosed by the recommended habitat lines—in other words a significant increase. Secondly with regard to this legislation although the marine reserves in this case were marked out along habitat lines and others would have wished them to be marked out along other lines that was seen by the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee as a start. 
Most important although there is not the protection that some submitters would have wished for almost all of the fiords are being looked after and the “china shops” themselves are the subject of special provisions within the bill. I believe that that incorporates the other aspect—that is all this area we are looking at here which Ngai Tahu refer to as Te Moana o Atawhenua has been arrived at by natural development from the earlier conceptual thinking developed by the guardians. 
Lastly that takes into account the fact that concessions which are an integral part of the tourist industry will have a longer-term life than submitters believed they would have had at the start and above all that the Southland Regional Council having been part of the process will have no problems with the incorporation of the changes into its coastal plan. That is exactly as it should be. 
As we said earlier this is the beginning of what we hope is the model not only for Fiordland but also for other like developments for our marine life up and down our coastline. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has an amendment to clause 10(2) to omit paragraph (d). That provision states that the amendments to the Southland Regional Coastal Plan indicated in schedule 12 will not require the approval of the Minister of Conservation. We do not believe there is any justification for taking out the Minister’s role in this respect. The amendments will be made to the plan and will come into force when the plan is operative. The other parts of the plan as they become operative will require the Minister to give consideration to them and there is no reason why these particular provisions should not also require that consideration. 
These kinds of deviations from existing process are at the root of the Greens’ concern about this bill. There are continual layers of deviations from process deviations from existing protections for marine reserves that simply cannot be justified except perhaps as some kind of sop to the guardians. Certainly we have an enormous amount of respect for the guardians for the work they have done but in the end this measure is about protecting the marine ecology of that area. 
Mr Baldock’s claims about the marine reserves lobby are not only unfounded but also completely unreal when we consider the fact that only 1 percent of this area is to be protected by marine reserves and that on the entire east coast of the South Island there is only one marine reserve and it is a very small one indeed. There are very very few marine reserves in this country. They are difficult to establish both because of the process and because communities need to be involved and consulted. It is very good that the Fiordland community has lobbied around and worked to achieve some kind of marine reserve in this area but that does not justify the claims that there is such a thing as a marine reserves lobby that is turning the whole of our seas into marine reserves because that simply is not true. United Future on this point is absolutely wrong. In fact we have very few marine reserves and the Greens are trying very hard to ensure that the marine reserves we do have in place are well protected—are given the maximum possible protection—to ensure they are there for the future as a valuable part of the New Zealand culture. 
We are asking the Committee to support our amendment to clause 10 because the Southland Regional Coastal Plan will play a critical part in the further protections of Fiordland’s marine reserves. For example I have mentioned briefly the taking off and landing of aircraft and how that will not require a concession under this bill. The Southland coastal plan currently does not require any form of consent for the taking off and landing of aircraft. That plan is under appeal there is a process going ahead about that particular provision and the communities are working very hard together to come to some resolution. We look forward to that resolution but that issue does show that the Southland coastal plan along with this bill are two critical protection measures that need to work together and be considered together when looking at the full scale of protections that can be afforded the marine reserves area. 
If this bill allows for more and more concessions more and more deviations from process and from the protections that other reserves are accorded then more and more dependence and reliance are placed on the Southland coastal plan to provide those protections for the recreational users and for the marine reserves themselves. Then it becomes very critical that that plan has strong provisions to make sure those areas are protected. If as is set out in this bill there are further deviations from the usual coastal plan process—that is the Resource Management Act process—then those protections become less and less available. More and more the marine reserves will become subject to interference or decisions made by this House that are not relevant and do not take into account the full impact of the resource management considerations and the full extent of protection that the marine reserves require. 
So we are very strongly asking the Committee to support this amendment to ensure that the Minister of Conservation is required to give approval to the plan’s provisions including the provisions that are incorporated into this bill. It is also a very important point because the Minister of Conservation is not the primary Minister responsible for this bill; the Minister for the Environment is responsible. Therefore the role of the Minister of Conservation in this bill is very very minor. It is really really important that the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation have a strong role to play in the management of these marine reserves. Ensuring that the Minister of Conservation keeps his role of at least being required to give approval to the Southland coastal plan is ensuring the Minister is playing a part. If the Committee does not want that Minister to be the primary Minister responsible that is the decision of the Committee but if my amendment could be supported then at least the Minister of Conservation will have a role in helping to ensure and maintain protections through the Southland coastal plan. This will make sure that the marine reserves as critical unique fragile areas of our ecology are given the maximum amount of protection they deserve. This is something this House and the Government can provide for them. Again there is absolutely no justification for affording these areas less protection than any other area. As we are talking about only 1 percent of the fiords—only a very tiny proportion of the sea area around the South Island—it is absolutely essential we do the best we can. 
If this Government wants to go out and tell people that it is doing something for the environment it needs to demonstrate that very very clearly and specifically. Supporting the Green Party amendments is one very easy way to do that and to show that it is more interested in maintaining the value of these precious areas than it is in taking the path of least resistance. Because in effect that is what this bill is about. It has in large part taken the guardians’ strategy which is fine—they worked very hard to get and negotiate a strategy around these areas. But what was missing from that strategy and what continues to be missing is an advocate for the marine environment itself. 
Supporting this amendment and supporting in future the other amendments the Green Party is putting forward is one way that this Government can demonstrate that the marine environment deserves an advocate of its own. It deserves to be protected for its own integrity and its own value and therefore these amendments that the Greens are putting forward which try to restore that approach back into the bill should be supported by this Government. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) of subclause (2); and 
to omit subclause (4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments not agreed to and Part 2 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.