Mitchell Clayton: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9673. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I take great pleasure in rising on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and I have to say it is wonderful that we have now had 2 weeks in a row when we have seemingly got full cross-party support with legislation coming through the House. In saying that though I am still waiting to hear from the member from ACT because of course we never know where he is going to go on any given day and in fact I am probably quite convinced that he is not sure on any given day how he is going to go. But all that being said New Zealand First certainly will be supporting this piece of legislation through to the Local Government and Environment Committee and hearing submitters’ thoughts and feelings on this bill.I would like to think that the bill in its current state is probably better served by being called the “Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Sieve Bill” because the bill has got a number of holes that need to be remedied and rectified at the committee stage. A question was asked in the House last week of the Minister for the Environment with regard to the enforcement of this bill. The reality is when we asked what his outcome was going to be and how he was going to actually uphold this fantastic sanctuary—we said that in the current state if we are lucky if we have got three Orions fly over once a week and we may be lucky if we have got a frigate that is within the area and a Department of Conservation worker—his answer was “We’ve got more than one DOC worker.”That certainly does raise some serious concerns when we as a country are hearing time and time again about the issue around the lack of policing and the problems that that is causing in our communities. If we cannot police our own country properly because of the lack of funding then we are going to have some serious problems enforcing an area that is twice the size of our country with more than one Department of Conservation worker a couple of Orions and the occasional visit from a frigate.All that being said this is a magnificent area—pristine—and it needs to be kept that way. I think Scott Simpson summed it up quite nicely when he said that most New Zealanders—I would just about suggest 99.999 percent of New Zealanders—will not ever get to go and see this beautiful sanctuary a thousand kilometres off the north-east of the country. That should not be a reason why anybody would want to oppose this bill because of course it is looking after our natural environment and trying to keep it as pristine as possible. We note that it is a category 1 conservation area which would obviously prevent any fishing any mining and so on. But there are some contradictions in that when we move through the bill when we start looking into it further. People can apply for an exemption for research purposes and some of those things need to be run through the two iwi groups to be ratified as to whether or not they can actually receive the ability to go in and do some research in that area.But an area that is of concern which could be a loophole for people to be able to get around restrictions is with regard to naval vessels. The bill it says in the explanatory note about clause 7 “disapplies the Bill to Crown activities necessary for reasons of national security”—I do not know what national security there could be going on at Raoul Island but you never know—“(as certified by the Minister of Defence) and to ships and aircraft of the New Zealand Defence Force and foreign States.” What we could have happening and we have seen it with whaling ships is research vessels could be going in there under the name of a naval research vessel and of course they could do things that we would be unable to stop. So I think we need to look at those as an issue that we need to circumscribe.I think the sanctuary area with regard to how it has come about has happened quite quickly. When I say “quickly” it has certainly been worked on for a number of years. In fact in my first few weeks in Parliament I was given a very good briefing by Bronwen Golder from the Pew Charitable Trusts who was very passionate and gave all the right reasons as to why we should indeed be putting this area into a marine sanctuary.But I do have to take with a pinch of salt the Government’s rushing into this. It is almost like a little bit of greenwashing is required and “We need to tick the box because we said in our pre-election promises that we’re going to do something here.” Yet the Government neglected to talk about and include the exclusive economic zone in the rest of its documentation when it talked about new marine protected areas legislation. The Government promised that it was going to be in there—the exclusive economic zone was going to be included—and now we understand it has been completely removed which is a 180-degree turn which to be fair New Zealanders are getting pretty used to. The Government does tend to change its mind quite quickly on things and dish out promises that it cannot back up. So that is of concern.The sheer nature of the location of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary would indicate that we need to look inshore inside our territorial waters—inside that 13-mile radius—to ensure that we actually have some protected areas close to shore that people of this country can go to and look at and witness and involve themselves in not too dissimilar to those that Australia has with the Great Barrier Reef. We want people to enjoy it and we want people to access it but we want to protect it at the same time. That is certainly an issue that we need to look at.We are concerned about the lack of consultation with those affected groups in relation to their fisheries being revoked. So no compensation no consultation—we are just going to remove that. The Government says it is only 20 tonnes—20000 kilograms—of fish. It equates to $165000 worth give or take. I think in a true open and transparent Government we need to ensure that all affected groups actually have that opportunity to submit. So I am sure we will hear from those submitters at the select committee hearings which will be coming up I would imagine rather rather quickly.There are a number of contradictions. When we talk about the naval vessels and the seismic testing and so forth—we are as people sailors sailing up there going on a trip and putting on a depth sounder. That under this bill would be prohibited. Ironically and contradictorily the naval ships can use their sonar which is a hell of a lot more powerful than a little wee sailing ship with a bottom sonar and that is a concern and certainly one worth mentioning.When we talk about the setting up of the new statutory Conservation Board for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary I would have to say that there is a concern about nepotism and cronyism because when we talk about the board that is going to be put together specifically to look after the best interests of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary we see there is one nominee from each of the Kermadec iwi authorities—which by the way back in 1989 and 1992 were both granted control over one-third of New Zealand’s commercial fishing rights. So that is a right for those iwis to be there to be involved in the discussion.The second concern is the nomination “from the Minister of Māori Affairs for the purpose of representing other iwi [interest groups]”. That is where we are concerned that there could be some nepotism and cronyism coming into play because if we go down to the third point when putting this board together the Minister of Conservation is allowed to choose four members—it is quite clearly stated in the explanatory note “4 members appointed by the Minister of Conservation after following a public process calling for nominations and being satisfied as to each person’s skills knowledge and experience.” After that process they can be nominated. There are four places for those nominees but nothing like that process has been put into the decision made by the Māori affairs Minister in relation to whom they choose and how they choose them. That is a serious opening up of the door to cronyism and nepotism which I think reeks of undemocratic processes.We would certainly like that fairness to be spread throughout all decision-making processes as it has been clearly stated here—for the Minister of Conservation to be able to make those decisions as opposed to the Māori affairs Minister who can basically finger-pick whoever he thinks is going to be best on the day.Marama Fox: No faith in the Māori affairs Minister.CLAYTON MITCHELL: No that is—probably you are right too. The exclusive economic zone and the sanctuary that we find ourselves discussing here today is going to be a fantastic area for the future and certainly it is a fantastic opportunity for the world to look at New Zealand and see the cross-party accord and support for a piece of legislation that has everybody’s hearts and minds and has the environment’s best interests at heart.So we would certainly look forward to the discussions at the select committee hearing and to listening to some of those submissions and we have pointed out a number of those holes that we would like to see remedied particularly around enforcement and particularly around nepotism and cronyism and the like. Thank you.