Parker David: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9679. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Firstly can I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith on introducing this bill. As I was sitting in my chair a moment ago talking to Nanaia Mahuta as to what I would say when I took this call we both sort of reflected on the fact that if Shane Jones was still here he would say “Labour Party policy”. So I do not need to say that for myself; the Greens have also said it. I think there is cross-party agreement that this is a very good thing to do.Can I just refer to a couple of comments from the Māori Party. First of all it says it does not often vote with the ACT Party. It backs every Budget in this House that the National Government passes and were it not for the support of the Māori Party those Budgets would not sail through in the way they do.Can I say there was an interesting comment from the ACT Party. The ACT Party came here and said that you always have to compensate when you are taking away what it defines as a property right. It is interesting that people like the ACT Party would see the value of New Zealand’s fresh water grandparented and tradable amongst those people who currently have rights to use water under the Resource Management Act. I bet you that if National was foolish enough to do that—and I suspect that it has actually seen this one coming and decided that it is now not going to take that particular risk—the ACT Party would be coming along the next day and saying “I’m sorry you can’t have a decent minimum flow for that river.” or “You can’t stop us putting as much pollution into that river unless you compensate us for the property right”. I have a different view of property rights from the ACT Party—I think it over-defines them.I want to refer to something in the regulatory impact statement that goes to the issue of compensation which has been spoken to by the Māori Party. I want to read out paragraphs 47 to 51: “(47) It has been decided that compensation will not be paid in relation to the creation of the Sanctuary on the grounds of sustainability protection and biodiversity. This would be achieved by explicitly ruling out compensation in the legislation. (48) The principle not to compensate for global conservation initiatives of this significance is consistent with previous decisions not to compensate for other measures taken to secure the long-term sustainability of marine biodiversity such as the establishment of marine reserves.” I will not read out the following paragraphs because I will run out of time but I think that is an important point of principle that we should explore because if we have got to the point where around the world the only way that we can conserve things is by compensating for what are alleged to be intractable property rights in respect of those people who have got rights to harvest I cannot see the world making much progress in these conservation efforts.I think I am probably able to be convinced by the Minister—and we will listen to submissions at the select committee—that that is probably right in principle. So I hope the Minister will perhaps take some comfort from us on that because I hope that the Government is not forced into a position of actually giving up on that acknowledgment that sometimes there are actually conservation things that cut across people’s right to exploit resources that none the less ought not to be compensated when we are actually conserving something that ought to be conserved.I think I have probably just about taken the 5 minutes I am sharing with my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor. Suffice it to say that we do think this is a worthy bill. The Labour Party had similar policies; so did the Greens. I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House.