SpeechSHARK CAGE DIVING (PERMITTING AND SAFETY) BILLFirst ReadingSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I move That the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.The purpose of this bill is to regulate commercial shark cage diving operations. The penultimate shark the great white inhabits our waters around New Zealand but partly due to the prevalence of fur seal breeding colonies Stewart Island and the Chathams are two places where you're virtually guaranteed an encounter. Shark cage diving is for the intrepid. From the safety of a cage that is lowered into the water cage diving involves fee-paying divers viewing sharks in their natural habitat. The sharks are drawn to the area mainly using berley which is ground so fine that it provides scent but no food. The issue of shark cage diving was first brought to my attention in 2014 while hearing submissions on the Health and Safety at Work Bill. PauaMAC5 which represents commercial pāua divers made representations about shark cage diving and some of the practices that were used to entice sharks to the area for viewing—some of them allegedly reckless. There are allegations of measures being used including tuna bait heavy metal music and decoys which has been attributed to the anxiety and tension between shark cage diving operations and other users—pāua divers and swimmers in the vicinity—and the fear that these activities are changing the behaviour of sharks making them even more aggressive toward people.With that in mind my member's bill acknowledges and addresses those tensions that have developed within the small community of Stewart Island over shark cage diving. It provides much-needed best-practice regulations for the activity.Shark cage diving began in 2008 off the coast of Stewart Island and quickly grew in popularity. Tourists travelled worldwide for the opportunity to come face to face with great whites. These businesses built an eco-tourism opportunity instilled an appreciation of nature and in some cases adrenaline and created jobs and opportunities for those in Bluff and Dunedin.On the flip side the concern of locals at Stewart Island and divers was that the use of berley and decoys was changing sharks' behaviour so much so that sharks were allegedly following vessels in expectation of food putting divers and all those who entered the water at greater risk. In particular—and a concern that is easily understood—is locals at Stewart Island feeling unsafe while they or their children swim at a popular beach within 10 kilometres of the operating area. While there may be no scientific evidence that these operations are changing the behaviour of sharks it is not difficult to comprehend the concern of those using waters in the vicinity of the activity. As the businesses grew in popularity and tensions rose an anti - shark cage diving Facebook page was created and in June 2015 a petition was even presented to Parliament calling for the activity to be banned. Legal challenges however also form a backdrop to my member's bill and even more so after the recent Supreme Court ruling it shows that Parliament needs to step in and provide some much-needed clarity to this grey area in the law.The reality is that this was an issue that continued to grow. No one really knew how to deal with it and the same can be said for those who held responsibility for the activity. In brief Maritime New Zealand handles the regulation of vessels WorkSafe New Zealand looks after people on the job the Ministry for Primary Industries is in charge of fisheries and the Department of Conservation's (DOC's) mandate is to protect sharks. In light of the growing tensions and conflicts it was the Department of Conservation who eventually stepped in. It released interim guidelines in 2013 as a means of engaging the dive operators and other interested parties. Off the back of this then conservation Minister Nick Smith announced in February 2014 that tourism businesses viewing great white sharks would be required to have a permit similar to how they're required for whale dolphin and seal watching. A code of practice was introduced under the Wildlife Act 1953 and in December 2015 tighter permit conditions came after an operator was warned over bait use.Attempts to regulate the industry ultimately proved unsuccessful. PauaMAC5 first filed proceedings against DOC and the Director-General of Conservation that same month arguing divers were put in danger and also challenging the director-general's powers to issue authorisations. Contrary to PauaMAC5's position DOC maintained that public safety matters and issues arising between users competing for space were not relevant considerations under the Act.In the High Court Clark J reasoned in June 2017 that shark diving was not an offence under the Wildlife Act finding therein that the director-general did not have the jurisdiction to control it but this wasn't the end of the matter. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision in September 2018. They deemed shark cage diving to be an offence under the Wildlife Act and also stated that the director-general had no power under the act to authorise the activity. In a further twist the Bluff company Shark Experience successfully appealed the decision in the Supreme Court late last year. To cut a 41-page judgment short shark cage diving is no longer an offence per se and therefore New Zealanders face once more with the prospect of people swimming with these apex predators unregulated. Yet it would be wrong to say that the Supreme Court's decision puts the matter entirely to bed. This is because while the court ruled on the correct approach to interpreting section 63A of the Wildlife Act focusing on the definition of hunt or kill" it declined to make a determination on the limited facts before it. The 1953 Wildlife Act is therefore clearly ineffectual. The Acts entanglement with shark cage diving shows it to be out of date and unsuitable for modern wildlife management. In fact the extension retraction and variation via the courts of section 63A of the Wildlife Act being the definition of hunt or kill puts in jeopardy the legality of issuing permits for even scientific activities such as some methods of bird counting and other studies. The Wildlife Act 1953 is an Act that requires modernisation and with respect to the specialised activity of shark cage diving separate legislation. Therefore despite its best intentions and expending time and resources the Department of Conservation was rendered impotent and does not have the tools to properly resolve the issue. My stand-alone bill helps provide clarity for shark cage operators and DOC as well as answering the concerns of local residents. Sending it to select committee would enable the bill to be further honed allowing local residents to have their voices heard and for operators to have their say. Select committee is also the forum to test the information and resolve this issue as once New Zealand moves through the COVID-19 risks tourism will again thrive and this opportunity will be on offer. In particular this bill provides an ability for permit conditions if granted relating to the geographical area within which an operator can occur frequency and time frames and how the activity should be conducted. I again reiterate that at the moment this activity is unregulated.This is an issue that has dogged Stewart Islanders and operators one that New Zealand First campaigned on in 2017 and one that has been brought to the attention of Labour and the Greens. The smaller communities such as Stewart Island and Bluff that I represent should not go unnoticed and even more so the threats that they face should be taken seriously. This is a time when parties should come together to send a practical bill which seeks to overcome a conflict to select committee. I am confident that this bill can provide a win for all of those involved. I take this opportunity to thank representatives from PauaMAC5 tourism and the operators; Stewart Island locals; and department staff for their advocacy relating to this issue. It is one that I have taken seriously in my time as member for Invercargill and I believe wholeheartedly that this is the best course of action to resolve this issue. I commend this bill to the House."