Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1149] 
11.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What advice or reports has he received or asked for on the ecological values of the areas proposed by the fishing industry to be closed to bottom trawling in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and who provided that advice? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 The fishing industry mainly the Fisheries Council with expert advice developed a proposal for extension of the areas to be closed to bottom trawling—that is in our exclusive economic zone—based on achieving coverage of closures broadly representative of the classes identified in the marine classification report prepared by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and released in 2005. After being approached by the industry I sought advice from the Ministry of Fisheries on the proposal and it provided advice in consultation with scientists from the Department of Conservation. As a result of that advice I asked the industry to consider adjustment of its proposal to improve the representativeness of the closures. The industry subsequently submitted a revised enhanced proposal which I now strongly support. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the areas proposed are genuinely the areas of greatest ecological importance rather than simply areas in which the industry has no commercial interest? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am satisfied that the areas are genuinely representative and that is confirmed by the scientific advice that I have received. I am advised also that the areas proposed for closure are virtually untouched with only a small amount of fishing having occurred previously. We would rather preserve representative and undamaged environments than those already modified by bottom trawling. It is untrue for anyone to suggest that the proposed areas have no value to the fishing industry. The proposed closures include areas that the industry could have developed and in fact did want to develop. For example the entire Kermadec zone is proposed for closure and this zone is potentially very productive. It has not been fished yet simply because it is too far from ports. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the merits of the industry proposal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have. This morning the Christchurch  
Press  
quoted marine biologist Dr Steve O’Shea whom I understand is a consistent adviser to the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and is the director of the earth and oceanic sciences research institute of the Auckland University of Technology. He said: “In my wildest dreams I never thought they would take something like this as a starting point. This is usually where you end. It’s a totally commendable proposal”. The  
Press  
also stated that Dr O’Shea was “blown away” by the proposal the likes of which he had never expected to see in his lifetime. According to the report Dr O’Shea would have to rewrite many of the speeches and university papers that he had prepared in the past that were critical of the industry but he did not mind doing so. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the proposed benthic protection area set aside from bottom trawling a type of marine protected area and how does it fit into that definition? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This is a unique proposal. It is the largest area ever put aside by any nation in the history of this issue of fish conservation alongside economic development. It goes through the exclusive economic zone and it is side by side of course with the marine protection policy that the Government is developing now and will announce later in the year. I know that my colleagues in the environment and fisheries areas are very supportive of this as a productive forward-looking and visionary proposal but it sits alongside the marine protected area proposal which will be finalised this year. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government be picking up the costs of enforcing these closures or recovering the costs from the industry or will industry compliance with the closure areas be voluntary? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No area of economic activity has such stringent user charges as the fishing industry. The Government however has the Project Protector programme in which it is investing $500 million of capital and part of that will be operational in terms of agencies like the Customs Service and the Ministry of Fisheries. Fisheries and customs officers will be on those ships and they will be monitoring and holding to account anyone who is transgressing these areas. That will of course add operational expenditure for the Government but the fishing industry knows that it shares costs with the Government in a variety of ways. The details of that are yet to be worked through. I just advise and remind the member that these are draft proposals. They go out for full consultation and then officials from both the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation will advise the Government further. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What consultation process will his ministry be undertaking and with which stakeholders before backing the industry proposal and will all the ecological reports he referred to be made public? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: To answer the last point first the fishing industry prepared very full details of its proposal and they were made public yesterday. The consultation will include all stakeholders—non-governmental organisations as well as fishing partners. All that material and the official advice that comes to the Government as a result will of course be made public.