Mackey Moana: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15574. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): We will be supporting this bill the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. We welcome the creation of three new marine reserves: Moutere Mahue or the Antipodes Island Marine Reserve; Moutere Hauriri or the Bounty Islands Marine Reserve; and Moutere Ihupuku or the Campbell Island Marine Reserve. As the Minister of Conservation said these are indeed incredibly unique ecosystems World Heritage sites and they deserve the protection that this bill will be affording them. It is important coming out of the select committee to note that the majority of submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee did want the extension of those marine reserves. I do not think I have seen the creation of a marine reserve where people have not wanted to see it extended. There are always good reasons and we need to be mindful of those.We have a particularly successful marine reserve at Puoawa up off the East Coast where over time that marine reserve was actually extended over the reef at Whangarā because of the unique ecosystem there and in fact in the meantime the locals and the local fishermen—and anyone who worked in that area actually—abided by an unofficial marine reserve because they could see the sense of that. I can tell you the best fishing on the East Coast is on the borders of the marine reserve. Anyone who says that no one will know where those borders are just needs to look at where the fishing boats are and that will tell you.I remember going with the Hon Chris Carter when he was the Minister of Conservation to have a look at the success of that marine reserve. It had been highly controversial. There is this idea of locking up the ocean which I always found slightly odd given that fish are going to freely move in and out of the marine reserve. But we have had some serious issues with crayfish stocks on the East Coast and with the overfishing of that particular species. There was a PhD student there and she was doing her PhD on this particular marine reserve. It had been in place for only 4 years. Outside the marine reserve she was finding about half a kilogram of legal-sized crayfish per pot and inside the marine reserve it was 30 kilograms of legal-sized cray per pot. I do not know how the crayfish knew to stay within the marine reserve—I am not quite sure what kinds of communications were going on there—but we also saw the restoration of stocks that we had not seen on the East Coast in a while in numbers that were significant. So hopefully I do not think you need to convince anyone in this House of the benefits of marine reserves and for our part we are very pleased to see this extension and we would like to see further extensions of marine reserves.Can I also say how nice it is to have a piece of legislation at the Local Government and Environment Committee that is not diabolically awful and damaging for the environment. So on the one hand the Government giveth and on the other hand it taketh away massively. It is a balance I guess which seems to be a phrase that comes up constantly in environmental law and environmental protections. But it was nice to havea really positive piece of legislation notwithstanding that some people wanted it to go further and to be able to look at the photos and the images and learn more about a part of the world that most of us will never go to but is incredibly important to the entire marine ecosystem. So that is the good stuff.I cannot let the Minister’s comments go without commenting on the protection of Māui’s dolphins because although I am quite happy to acknowledge that this is a bill that is going to strengthen marine protection and the marine environment on the other hand we saw in September last year the Government’s decision to oppose further protection measures for Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins some of the most endangered mammals on our planet. New Zealand was one of just two countries to vote against new protections for these dolphins at the International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Korea.For New Zealand to stand up on an international stage and oppose a motion to protect one of the most endangered dolphin species in the world kind of runs up against all the really good stuff the Hon Dr Nick Smith was saying right now about marine conservation protecting marine ecosystems and protecting the marine environments. The actions as the Minister will be aware did cause environmental concern and they do not make economic sense. Our future is not in unsustainable fishing practices at all.Just as we have this debate between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House about our “clean green” branding generally across our environment and climate change issues we see that same branding being incredibly important to our fishing industry. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealand really does have an opportunity to be a truly sustainable fishery and the protection of Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins absolutely has to be at the top of that. So again Minister here we are debating a very good piece of legislation where—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’re extending the protection for Māui’s.MOANA MACKEY: Yes Minister but we voted against proper protections on an international stage—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No we didn’t.MOANA MACKEY: Yes we did. The protections have not gone as far as every single expert who is working in the area of the conservation of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins has told us we need to do if we do not want to see a native species die out and become extinct on our watch—die out and become extinct on our watch. And so I think that it is highly unfortunate that the Government cannot extend this wonderful ethos that we heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith about marine protection right across all areas of policy and not just have it in one area—cynically perhaps—because it is election year. Maybe that is cynical but you get that way in this place.I want to come back to another issue as well that I think flies against the very good ethos we have heard here about the protection of marine environments and that is actually the protection of our other waterways which feed into our marine environment all of which is part of one great big ecosystem. It does worry me sometimes when I hear National Government Ministers just say that we should not have any kind of water from rivers flowing out into the ocean because it is a waste; we should put it all in a dam. I mean water storage is a fine idea—Louise Upston: That’s outrageous.MOANA MACKEY: Go back and have a look at what the Minister said. It is a great idea but having water go out to the ocean is not a waste. It is actually a really important part of an ecosystem. At the moment we have a very important process going on to decide about a water storage system in the Hawke’s Bay that would turn the Tukituki River catchment toxic. It will turn the Tukituki toxic. That is the concern of the many environmental groups and experts who have appeared before a truncated board ofinquiry process that has been geared against community organisations. The Department of Conservation for some reason—and maybe the Hon Nick Smith can enlighten us as to what that reason was—saw fit to produce a large submission on the Dunedin City Council discharging more stormwater but did not see fit to provide a submission on whether or not the Ruataniwha Dam scheme would turn the Tukituki River catchment toxic. I am not sure why that is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Maybe you might have more of an idea about that than me. So the burden has fallen—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The department decided that.MOANA MACKEY: Oh the department had decided that! No one believes that for a second. So what we have is that the burden has fallen to community groups to individuals to local iwi and to NGOs to pick up where the Government has slacked off and has not done its job in protecting the conservation of our waterways. So we have got a truncated process. We have NGOs community organisations individuals and iwi who have not been properly consulted who were messed around before Christmas given days in the lead-up to Christmas to change the times that they were doing their submissions and were given mere days for rebuttal.We have a process that is not protecting our waterways and that the public can have no confidence in. There is no doubt that a number of these schemes are going to be controversial. That is why the process is so important. That is why the Government’s role is to ensure that the best analysis is done of water quality issues and that any issue that goes through this board of inquiry and the Environmental Protection Authority process is done to the highest standard and highest transparency and is not just a rubber-stamping exercise that is going to turn the Tukituki catchment toxic. That is what it is going to do. That is what the experts are telling us it is going to do. We should be having a far greater look in that scheme at the single nutrient management system that is being proposed.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is Labour opposed to the scheme?MOANA MACKEY: We are opposed to an absolutely dodgy process that is not going to ensure that the environment is protected Dr Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Ah! She’s not saying.MOANA MACKEY: No I am waiting to see what the board of inquiry comes out with and—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh so are we.MOANA MACKEY: Well I think we know. I think we know but I am prepared to give the process its shot. But from everything I have heard from people on the ground Dr Smith we know what the result is going to be. You know what the result is going to be. That is why you refused to put anyone with a water science speciality on to the board of inquiry—because they might actually know what they are talking about.I want to finish up by just referring to Dr Nick Smith’s comments about the exclusive economic zone legislation. Here is another example where National thinks that it can put something incredibly weak in place and use it as an excuse for not doing something that would actually protect the exclusive economic zone. There were eight deep-sea wells drilled before the exclusive economic zone legislation came into place. When we went and had a look at them they were under National Governments in the 1990s and in the 1980s. [Interruption] Yes they were in the exclusive economic zone. So when the bill first came to the House we thought: “OK maybe the better-than-nothing argument actually is a good one.” But when we read through it the bill was such a dog and such a developers’ charter that we could not give the National Government the excuse of saying that this had complete and total support in Parliament because it was not adequate. It is so much weaker than the Resource Management Act. So we have drawn a line in the ocean a line that is jurisdictional only and said that on this side we aregoing to have proper environmental protections and on that side we are going to have pretty much no environmental protections no right for the public to have their say no right for the public to go out and protest—