Hobbs Marian: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19856] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to thank my colleague Damien O’Connor for moving that the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be read a second time. This bill gives legislative effect to a strategy for the management of Fiordland’s marine development developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The bill as introduced was really a work of compromises among a number of Government departments also trying to fit in the vision of the guardians. I am really pleased that during the committee process the balance was corrected more again in favour of the guardians’ original strategy. 
It has been a very difficult job to do. The Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee received 21 submissions on the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the issues raised by submitters and for reporting back on the bill within such a short time frame. The committee reported to the House on 1 April recommending by majority that the bill be passed with amendments. The proposed amendments will align the bill more closely with the vision and objectives of the guardians and that is great. 
In response to the submissions of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu the committee recommends that the title of the bill be changed to “Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill”. Accordingly the area that is subject to the bill becomes the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. The committee recommends that the purpose of the bill be amended to recognise the local importance of Fiordland and the area’s distinctive biological diversity. These changes address some of the concerns of the Fiordland guardians and of environmental groups about the purpose of the bill. 
A key objective of the bill is to facilitate better integrated management of the Fiordland Marine Area. To strengthen the bill in this regard the committee recommends that a clause be included that “requires” the chief executives of the management agencies to enter into a protocol with the Fiordland marine guardians. They are really being lifted upwards in the air as regards official involvement. I envisage that through the protocol parties will make commitments on such issues as the exchange of information and the resourcing of and attendance at meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. With regard to the latter the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee recommends that a clause is included in the bill that states that employees of management agencies may attend meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. Some submitters were concerned about the status of the advice provided by the Fiordland marine guardians and the extent to which it could influence decision making. The committee therefore recommends that the requirement for Ministers and management agencies to “have regard” to any advice and recommendation of the guardians be changed to “take into account” which is a higher legal obligation. I would have to say that I was extremely happy to accept this recommendation from the select committee. It was more in line with my original thoughts. 
The committee received a number of submissions from environmental groups and individuals expressing concern that the area protected as marine reserve was insufficient and that it did not protect all ecosystem types. The select committee in its commentary has noted that the bill is not the final word on protection in the Fiordland Marine Area but that it is a very good start. I endorse this. As a result of the bill the number of marine reserves nationally will increase from 18 to 26. This is a significant increase. The Government acknowledges that some gaps remain in terms of ecosystem protection. But I expect that this is a matter that the guardians will turn their minds to when the current management measures are reviewed 5 years from the commencement of the legislation. 
The member from United Future Larry Baldock who sat on the select committee has raised a number of issues with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and with me regarding the change to the bag limits for recreational fishers. He supports the bill and the approach of the guardians for which I am grateful but he has requested that the ministerial advisory panel on recreational fishing soon to be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries consider the bag limits set in the guardians’ strategy which are to be implemented by this bill and the regulations made under it. I have discussed this with the Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. He is happy for the advisory panel to consider the bag limits and to report to him and any recommendations of that panel will be fully discussed with the guardians advisory committee. 
While I accept this procedure of considering bag limits I am mindful that the particular beauty of this process is that of the gifts and gains made by the different local groups which included local recreational fishers as they set up the strategy. This is the same situation when the ecological groups argue that this is not as tight as they would say in the ecosystems. This piece of work is truly local decision-making at its very best with its inevitable compromises among parties. 
The committee received submissions from Ngai Tahu seeking an amendment to the provision in the bill relating to the take of pounamu within the marine reserves created by the bill. The bill exempts Ngai Tahu from the need to obtain an access arrangement under the Crown Minerals Act for the taking of pounamu by hand within those marine reserves. Ngai Tahu sought an extension of its exemption to allow it to remove discreet boulders by mechanical means. The committee considered that this was inappropriate given that the purpose of the marine reserve is to maintain areas as close as possible to an actual state. 
It was preferable that the removal of such boulders be dealt with on a case by case basis. This will enable access to be granted only where the effects on the marine reserve would be minor. However the committee recognised that the current provisions in the bill were somewhat anomalous and that the exception from the need for an access arrangement for hand-taking did not apply in parts of the Fiordland Marine Area outside the marine reserves. It also considered that outside of the marine reserves there would be no difficulty in applying an exemption relating to the mechanical removal of boulders. 
Because of concerns that this was potentially outside the scope of the bill the committee recommended that a Supplementary Order Paper be considered to provide for this. I subsequently arranged for further discussions with Ngai Tahu on the proposed Supplementary Order Paper and Ngai Tahu noted that Fiordland is likely to have only a small amount of pounamu relative to other areas. Its preference was not to proceed with the Supplementary Order Paper but rather to have discussions with the Government on access arrangements over all the areas within its takiwa where pounamu is found. Accordingly there will be no Supplementary Order Paper related to this. But to keep faith with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act clarification has been made in this bill that nothing will affect those two Acts. 
In order to address some technical drafting matters I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper making some minor amendments to the bill. The passing of this bill along with the fisheries regulations will implement the statutory component of the guardians’ strategy. Planning is well under way relating to a number of other measures recommended by the guardians relating to enforcement and compliance monitoring biosecurity information and education. With the commencement of the Act I will be appointing the new guardians group provided for in the bill and look forward to involving it in the implementation of these other measures. 
Again I take this opportunity to thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their hard work in developing the strategy and for their input into the bill through the select committee process. The guardians’ process has been innovative and forward thinking. It has demonstrated how different interests can work together to define a common vision for an area and work cooperatively to reach that vision. It also demonstrates the reality of using local knowledge to make positive and sustainable local decisions. I am hopeful that some components of the guardians’ approach will provide a model for future local management and problem solving. 
It is worth noting that yes the guardians have worked for 10 years but for the last 4 years at least they have worked with Ministry for the Environment funding and support. This was a real partnership with a group that came to us and said: “To do this successfully we need Government support; and more than just fine words we actually need the cash to do this.” and we have done this. I also thank the Southland Regional Council for its cooperation and assistance throughout the bill’s development.