Dyson Ruth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just begin by wishing you Mr Deputy Speaker and all members of the House and their families a very happy NewYear. I think it is going to be a very busy one ahead of us and a year in which many of us go through our 3-yearly job interview process and one which you will happily—by the look on your face—avoid this year by your own choice.Can I next commend the Minister of Conservation for this legislation the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is not very often that we get bills in the House that are supported by every speaker but this is one of those measures. It really is an indication of the passion and commitment that New Zealanders have for the better protection of our environment including our marine areas. But it is not always the case that we get a Minister of Conservation who does those things and who pushes them along and who I have to say—he would not say this but I will—pushes them along against the tide of his own Cabinet. So that shows a bit of political nous and a bit of courage. Whatever other trickery that was used to get this past the Steven Joyce radar I want to commend the Minister of Conservation because it is very good stuff.I am very fortunate to have been to some of the Subantarctic Islands—of the three we are offering better protection to tonight only one Campbell Island—and they are just extraordinary. They are mind-changing when you see life in the subantarctic and the Antarctic. So I am particularly pleased to be supporting this legislation as is Labour.There are some other areas though on which I think the Government and the Minister of Conservation need to do a bit of rethinking and recalibrating and some of it needs to be done with some urgency. There are two areas that I just want to make comment on before I return back to the key points in the legislation. The first point is what has been a very controversial proposal and debated with some heat in this House and in relation to which I have to express the opposite of what I recently commented on in terms of the Minister of Conservation and his actions. Although I supported him in this legislation I feel exactly the opposite in terms of the role of the Department of Conservation in the proposal for the Ruataniwha Dam. That dam in the Hawke’s Bay uses an entirely new model called the Tukituki River In-stream Model (TRIM model) where the proponents of it the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have said that changes to the nitrate level in the river that are caused by the dam should be disregarded. That is new. It is frustrating scientists—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member is saying NIWA’s wrong?Hon RUTH DYSON: —and the board of inquiry process has not been able to give enough time for robust discussion and consideration of that new model. That is not a criticism; that shows the ignorance of the Minister of Conservation on this particular matter. He would be wise not to have comments like that said in a way that they can be recorded inHansard because they will come back to bite him and I will guarantee that they will come back to bite him. So he is advised not to do that from my perspective although I would enjoy it politically if he put some more of those ignorant ill-informed comments on the record inHansard. So the board of inquiry has not got the ability to give the time because of the constraints that are put on it by the Ministers who set up the board of inquiry. This is not—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The law says 9 months.Hon RUTH DYSON: That is how Ministers make instructions—through law. This is not a criticism of any individual members of the board of inquiry. They are doing what they are required to do but it means that on a brand new model which has never been considered in New Zealand before which has the potential to turn the Tukituki River toxic because of the level of nitrates caused by the dam the Minister of Conservation has supported his department having no role at all to play in that proposal other than a very minor one. This is despite the fact that his department had spent a lot of money a lot of time and had put very high-quality expertise into preparing a submission that challenged the model. That has to be wrong in my view. If we havepublic servants who know what they are doing who are competent to express a view and who are stymied by some sort of political process from doing that because it does not suit the political irrigation agenda of the Government that is wrong. We should not have the good people of Hawke’s Bay not only subsidising the dam for 120 farmers but risking their river being turned toxic as a result. So for all the praise of the marine legislation for all the proposals that we support in this bill creating the three new marine reserves it pales into insignificance which is a tragedy because we should be able to celebrate good progress in this House—if only it was consistent.There is another area that I want to talk about and that is in the area of dolphin protection. There was a protest a little while ago outside the front of Parliament. There were more people at that protest than there are Māui’s dolphins left on the planet. Yet when all the submissions to the latest extensions were being called for the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries went for the least possible protection extension—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not true.Hon RUTH DYSON: It is an extension. But in my view when you have only 55 dolphins left—not just 55 around here; 55 on the planet—what bit of “critically endangered” does the Minister of Conservation not understand? There cannot be fewer for that species to have a future. So we should take the precautionary approach. Every possible measure that was supported by the best marine scientists should have been picked up—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We have.Hon RUTH DYSON: The Minister is once again giving me a fantastic political opportunity because again he is showing his lack of understanding of the very submissions that were sent to him. I do not think he has read them. I do not think the Minister read the submissions that said we need the best possible protection and that the precautionary approach must apply when we have a critically endangered species that it is our responsibility to protect.Hon Dr Nick Smith: We have.Hon RUTH DYSON: There were 21000 submissions on that proposal. Did the Minister read the submissions?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes I did but they were standard submissions.Hon RUTH DYSON: Did the Minister read 21000 submissions on the—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not 21000 identical—Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh so did the Minister read 21? Did the Minister read 21?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I read all the submissions.Hon RUTH DYSON: No no. I just asked that and you said “No I did not read 21000.” but actually there were 21000. There have never been more submissions on any proposal according to a Ministry for Primary Industries senior staff member. On the public record they said we have got more submissions about this issue than ever before. So we missed the opportunity in my view to adopt the most responsible position possible and—Hon Dr Nick Smith: So what’s Labour’s position? Tell us—Hon RUTH DYSON: Well there you are. The Minister should have read my submission because that outlined Labour’s position. Actually that would have been a big help. The other issue that our lack of protection risks is the future of the fishing industry in New Zealand. In my view we should have the Government backing not just the Māui’s dolphins but also the fishing industry. If we were able to support our fishing industry to transition to sustainable fishing we would not only save the dolphins and we would not only save the seabird bycatch but we would be able to say that we have the first sustainable fishing industry in the world. What an export brand advantage thatwould be. So then we would be winning. Then our whole country would be winning. The Māui’s dolphins could be saved. A large number of seabird bycatch could be saved. We could have a brand label of sustainable fishing which would make our fish popular instead of currently where international experts are calling for a ban on people buying our fish. How can the Minister for Primary Industries let that proceed? It is irresponsible and it is tragic.Just going back to the bill I want to again commend the Minister of Conservation. He does show courage he does show passion and I believe he has got a strong personal commitment to conservation issues. That is well reflected in this legislation which I am delighted to support.