Sage Eugenie: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Yes it is certainly time for this legislation to pass and the fact that it has taken nearly 6 years before we get marine reserves in the Subantarctic Islands shows—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This barracking across the benches is unacceptable. I am going to ask the member to start again.EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you Mr Chair. It is certainly time for this legislation to pass and the fact that it has taken 6 years for these marine reserves to be established in a World Heritage area I think highlights some of the flaws with our marine reserves legislation. We had the multi-stakeholder forum as the Hon Phil Goff noted being established in 2008. That forum went out to public consultation in 2009 it made recommendations to the Minister in 2010 this bill was introduced in 2012 and it will come into force in March of this year. That is 6 years. The fact that we have got special legislation being needed to establish them rather than their being done under the Marine Reserves Act itself again shows the urgent need for an overhaul of that Act. This Government has made promises that there will be new marine reserves legislation. We have not seen it yet. One of the flaws of the need for special legislation is that we will not see these marine reserves in the subantarctic protected from mining because the legislation is not specifically referred to in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act which I will talk about in a minute.The Green Party is supportive of this bill and it is because the Subantarctic Islands are as other speakers have noted really distinctive. They have got a whole raft of marine life and seabirds that are found only there and really important breeding and feeding areas for the New Zealand fur seal for the New Zealand sea lion and for a range of albatross and petrel species. Because they were recognised in 1998 as being internationally important with World Heritage status our obligation to protect the Subantarctic Islands is not just to other New Zealanders and to the species themselves but to all of humankind. So we are very pleased to see the legislation proceeding.As others have noted we already have a marine reserve round the Auckland Islands. That was established in 2003. This bill will establish marine reserves round MoutereMahue the Antipodes Island; MoutereHauriri the Bounty Islands; and Moutere Ihupuku Campbell Island but in the Green Party’s view it falls well short of providingthe protection that the outstanding and internationally important biodiversity values of the Subantarctic Islands actually deserve. The Government has been too cautious and that is because although it protects the full extent of the territorial sea round the Antipodes Island it protects only 58 percent of the territorial sea round the Bounty Islands and 39 percent of the territorial sea round Campbell Island The Minister has said that he wants the Government to establish a record number of marine reserves this year but if they are all like these ones they will fail to protect all of the habitats and all of the biological diversity that deserves to be safeguarded for its own sake and for present and future generations and to ensure that our fisheries are sustainable.As Phil Goff noted we had the chance to be a world leader. Here in relation to the Subantarctic Islands I do not think we have been because of the truncated nature of the reserves. One of the reasons that the Green Party believes that we should have all of the territorial sea round both the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island protected in a marine reserve is that all of these islands are separated by large expanses of ocean. That means that their geology their geography and their biology are quite different. They are quite distinctive in each of the island groups and they have a number of endemic species which again deserve protection. On the Bounty Islands you have got theSalvin’smollymawk. There are at least five species of albatross that rely on Campbell Island and there is a huge link between their habitats on the islands and their feeding areas at sea so it would make sense to recognise this interdependence of land and sea by protecting all of the territorial sea.Doing that round the Bounty and Campbell Islands would have also included the core breeding and feeding area for the second major population of the threatened New Zealand sea lion as well as the feeding areas of several albatross and petrel species. By including all of the territorial sea we would have recognised the endemism—the fact that some of these species like the Bounty Island shag are found nowhere else in the world—and it would have had minimal impact on other users such as fishers because of the very limited commercial fisheries in the area. There is no customary fishing.NgāiTahu supported full protection of the full extent of the territorial sea. So what we have got is one reserve round the Antipodes Island which encompasses the full extent of the territorial sea but we have reserves with big bites out of them where fishing can continue round the Bounty Islands and round Campbell Island.Again this fails to take account of the views of submitters. The Tourism Industry Association said in its submission there was “a unique opportunity to fully protect the marine environment and in doing so to show environmental leadership” and demonstrate “a commitment to the environment and long-term sustainability.” In the view of the Tourism Industry Association where you have got about 800 to 11000 visitors a year making a full marine reserve to encompass all of the territorial sea would have enhanced its attractiveness as a destination. It would have given scientists the opportunity to study undisturbed ecosystems and it would have reflected the option that the environmental groups put forward to Ministers from the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum. So it was really disappointing that the Minister and Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee refused to take that extra step and that they were so cautious and only wanted to go with the original boundaries that were supported by the fishing industry.One of the reasons that the Government is even prepared to create reserves here in the first place is the very small amount of commercial fishing—there is a limited amount of ling fishing around the Bounty Islands—and the fact that the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association said that its members had very little interest in the area. They are not interested in deep-sea oil exploration in this area and there are no proposals for mining activity. If there had been the slightest interest from the miningindustry or from the oil-drilling industry Ministers would have run a mile from establishing marine reserves given the record of this Government to open up our deep sea to oil exploration and to seabed mining over large areas of the seabed.One of the problems with this bill which I alluded to earlier is that schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act as amended last year protects marine reserves and restricts the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources from granting access for mining. Schedule 4 refers only to the Marine Reserves Act. It does not refer to specific legislation like this Act. So I would ask the Minister in the chair whether he could comment on that—certainly the select committee should have probably picked this up but we did not—and whether there could be a Supplementary Order Paper that makes sure that the outstanding biodiversity and ecological values of the Subantarctic Islands marine reserves that the bill will create will be protected from mining through being recognised in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act because they are not at the moment.I would just like to go on and talk about clause 6 of the bill which sets out the boundaries for the Bounty Islands reserve. Therelongline fishing is going to be able to continue because of the small nature of the reserve round the western and south-eastern part of the territorial sea. Yet why is the Government allowing this when in recent years the average ling catch has been 129 tonnes within the territorial sea worth about $500000? So the impact on fishers of having a proper marine reserve here would have been minimal. That amount of fishing is equivalent to about 20longlines a year—potentially only one ling fisher Forest and Bird has calculated. So it is hardly essential to the fishing industry and the Government could have easily established a reserve over all of the territorial sea. If the Government had chosen to do this it would have protected seabirds from becomingbycatch in that fishery.We will be supporting this bill but it does not go far enough because of the big areas that are missing round the Bounty Islands and the Campbell Island group. We do congratulate the Minister on actually progressing the legislation to coincide with his trip south the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner on the process that she has organised for this and also officials particularly from the Department of Conservation and the Parliamentary Counsel Office on their contribution. We look forward to the legislation passing. Thank you.