King Colin: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5275] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is respected as a genuine attempt to address some of the anomalies that continue to occur around especially our oceans. The Government certainly gives considerable respect to the intentions of the bill. However there are two reasons why we will not support it. The legislation can always be improved but the National Government prefers consultation with the industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements rather than regulating these pieces. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The member knows that doesn’t happen. 
COLIN KING 
: The previous Government—and we hear its members now on the other side of the House—took every opportunity to regulate. A phrase was coined that we ended up with the “nanny State”. On the other hand the National Government would prefer to work with industry to ensure the protection of marine life rather than to regulate it. 
I will come back a couple of steps. My parliamentary secretary gave me a wonderful book on albatrosses and I must admit that it is incredibly gut-wrenching and soul-destroying to see one of those magnificent creatures dragged aboard a boat dead. But I also balance the debate by talking about a Marlborough fisherman. I will not mention his name. After the best endeavours of officials and bureaucrats to regulate he was put into an exceptionally dangerous position where he was duly hooked by one of his lines and dragged under because he was applying rules and regulations that in actual fact did not give any consideration whatsoever to the risks that were involved. Basically our first reason for not supporting the bill is that the National Government prefers consultation with industry sectors to deliver improvements. 
The second reason for not supporting the bill is a bit more of a complex one. The National Government agrees that more needs to be done; however we believe that we will not achieve that solely through legislation. It would make more sense to look at the whole issue as opposed to just the pieces of it. I leave those comments for people to consider. There is no doubt about it. The Government is aware that we have to lift our game. As I mentioned it needs to be in a complete set of circumstances. The bill itself is highly technical. We have some concern that it will be hard to enforce given the massive geographical size of New Zealand’s responsibilities on the oceans. 
I will read one particular part of the bill that I think should focus our attention on how difficult it is to ensure there is that balance between risk and management the needs of the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries and so forth. The proposed new section 2A of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 talks about ensuring that “human-induced mortalities of marine mammals are reduced to insignificant levels approaching zero within 20 years of the coming into force of Part 1 …”. Nobody in this House would disagree with the sentiment of that new section in clause 5 of Part 1. Basically that is where we are all aiming to go. The concern the National Government raises respectfully to the member in charge of this bill—and we appreciate the bill’s intention—is about the effects it will have on the present day-to-day operations of things. I think that in this House we are long past doing things that basically pass the ball as it were to the Department of Conservation to do stuff in the oceans. We are not talking about just sea mammals. We are talking about marine animals and we have a huge inventory of those particular animals. There are issues. In New Zealand we could probably enforce it upon ourselves but then again it would be highly disruptive. 
When we look at the process going forward I do not disregard the photographs that the Green member Metiria Turei held up in the House earlier. I also introduce the fact that whenever a member is emailed and lobbied on whether he or she will support a bill it is not done flippantly; it is done in a considered way. There are some outstanding testimonies to our going forward in a significant way. I quote such things as the Kaikoura dusky dolphin tourism research project which has been going on for 2½ years. It has measured the impact of tourism on dolphins and it will be released at the Takahanga Marae next Monday. It is hugely significant to Kaikoura. It has a huge economic value. It has been entered into in a way that one could call collegial constructive and consultative. I believe that way forward which the Government has adopted is the best way. 
We also have in place—and it was put in place by the previous Government—the set-net ban. We also have the ban on fishing of blue cod in Marlborough. These are quite positive things. We have the Perano family and a collection of people doing whale counting out of Cook Strait. We have the re-seeding of paua the research and development that is going into replenishing crayfish and suchlike and the wonderful model of collaboration and discussion that has emanated out of the Marlborough Sounds where the group Guardians of the Sounds has put together a balanced and publicly agreed outcome around managing a resource in a sustainable way. 
Although we have the utmost respect for the intentions of the bill we see National’s preference as one for consultation with the industry sectors to bring them along together. I would really like to underscore that it is the easiest thing—and I have seen this House do it so many times—to put legislation in place and then wash one’s hands of it. I do not see that as being a permanent enduring solution and I do not see that that will have the best long-term effect on New Zealand’s economy in the future. I commend the intention of the member who is in charge of the bill Metiria Turei. I reiterate for the record the reason why we are not supporting this bill. It is because National prefers consultation with industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements. Finally we believe that significant progress is being made there is a long time to go in this term and the National Government is in a good position to do it. We are about building bridges relationships and trust. It would make far more sense if we were to consider this matter as a whole as opposed to looking at it piece by piece. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.