Peters Jim: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19858] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and give our support to this bill. But in so doing I wish to commence my speech by referring to the Minister’s previous statements. I refer in particular to the issue she just referred to which is that representations have been made to the Minister of Fisheries and her with regard to catch by recreational fishers. That raises the whole issue of the Fiordland Marine Management Bill—an area-specific bill—against the backdrop of continued Government inaction and lack of planning with regard to the whole marine area. 
Some of us in this House would have made representations with regard to a so-called oceans policy which was meant to be an overarching policy to cover the total marine life on the near coast. None of that has been seen. When the request came to the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at this bill it seemed to me to be rather strange that we were being asked to look at a bill alongside the unfinished business of a marine reserves bill which has now been delayed further—it has been put to bed till after the election because it is too hard. In actual fact while we strongly support this bill—and I will give other reasons in the forthcoming few minutes—we deplore the fact that this specific legislation is before the House against no ability of the present Government to progress a progressive sequential policy with regard to the oceans of New Zealand. 
Therefore we last year in looking at these matters with regard to marine parks and reserves saw with regard to Mimiwhangata which is an area in Northland the need for a policy that began with consultation and led to understanding. Now in the Fiordland Marine Management Bill that took place. It did not begin by the way because of Government concerns. This bill had its genesis right back in the mid-1990s because recreational and commercial fishermen tourist operators and others knew and had a unique understanding of what had to be done if they were to preserve and have recognised what hitherto they had regarded as their natural right—the natural right of recreational fishermen and the acquired right of commercial fishermen to fish as they were able to under existing regulations in regard to the Fiordland area. That is where it began. Also the tourist operators were interested in being able to maintain their activities. So this did not begin because of some Government bureaucrat thinking it was a wise policy. It did not begin here in Wellington. It began out there in the regions. 
The first point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that one of the reasons we believe this is a very sound progressive bill is that this is a model that we were talking about last year in regard to Mimiwhangata Aotea—or Great Barrier Island—and shortly the Three Kings. 
This is a model that I believe should be adopted against the overarching final provisions of an oceans policy. So we applaud the fact that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment took up the challenge and then realised in the year 2000 that they alone needed to bring in wider community input including those traditional sectors of the community who have a precious regard for the community—and I mean that in the very best sense—so that all the so-called environmental issues were finally covered in the enlarged guardians committee. I acknowledge what the has Minister has said—that that was accomplished after the year 2000 by funding and support from Government agencies. As well I acknowledge the work of the Southland Regional Council which also realised that this was part if one likes of its marine and coastal management and I acknowledge the part that at least two officers played in the development of this programme. 
So we finish today with a sound bill before us; a bill that was changed by the select committee after its representations. The bill contains an acknowledgment that the gifting of what would have been acquired property rights by a segment of the community the long-term right of recreational fishers to have a certain take being reduced and also other areas of concession being made by the community all incorporated into a comprehensive plan. From that plan came an acknowledgment that those unique areas of marine biodiversity which we believe are the basis for a marine reserve fit quite naturally. That brings me to the second part as far as New Zealand First is concerned. 
We see in the wider marine park concept an understanding that if the process begins with consultation in the very first instance with all stakeholders in a cooperative understanding that they wish to achieve a harmonious end—the long-term management of the coast the seabed and foreshore resources in their community—only then will ministries such as the Ministry of Fisheries the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment be able to progress together a sustainable management plan and one that the local community considers to be theirs. Ownership thereby ensues as has happened in this bill. Therefore those measures of enforcement if needed will take place naturally because the local community or the regional community realise that that is to their long-term gain and benefit. 
The third issue about this bill is that in its revised form—after submissions to the select committee—it recognises more fully the fact that the guardians had a real role to play which in the first reading debate we did not see. So we are very pleased to support the select committee’s considerations. The guardians are still a fundamental part of the long-term management. There are issues of regret. The major issue of regret for New Zealand First is not just the fact that this should have been part of an overarching oceans policy and it is not just the fact that this has been taken out of its context and used as an area-specific example; it is the fact that in present Government legislation there is no capacity whatever to allow for integrated management at departmental or ministry level. That concept was one that the select committee wished to advance but we were told very strongly and cogently by officials that at the present time there is no ability in legislation for an integrated role for the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation with regard to aquaculture and the marine farming environment and no ability for there to be a cohesive coherent structure with regard to the matters inherent in this bill. That is just not possible and that is a disappointment to us. That should have been able to be incorporated and that view was apparent in the submissions made to the committee. 
The process this bill went through did include consultation—it was initiated first of all at a local level. The bill does not provide for integrated management. What it does do is almost recognise that the guardians—and this is very important for them—relinquish a variety of rights or so-called rights in the interests their interests of ensuring the quality and sustainable management of the environment and fisheries in the long term. So the bill incorporated a whole range of expectations benefits and activities that New Zealanders have always believed were theirs—and that is the case particularly with regard to recreational fishermen—being incorporated into an agreed understanding of how this can proceed over the next 7 years and with regard to a proper review. The guardians will be a major part of the review as to what had been accomplished and what should be the purpose of any further development in the area. 
We are very pleased to support this real advance in thinking on the part of the Government in accepting an area-specific bill that covers the very aspects of consultation cooperation and responsible thinking by Government ministries in regard to a local issue. I only wish that people at Aotea—Great Barrier Island—Mimiwhangata and the Three Kings could feel the same satisfaction in years to come that they could endorse such a model and that it could be part of their day-to-day thinking and activity.