Dyson Ruth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15658. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all express my disappointment about our agreement not to have this bill the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill taken as 11 separate parts and say that that would have provided us with a lot of opportunity to discuss in depth the matters within this bill. But we agreed to having it taken as one part because we agree with the bill. It is a very good bill. It extends the marine protection for three of the Subantarctic Islands: the Antipodes Island the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island. I have had the pleasure of going to Campbell Island but not to the other two yet and I want to say that having the whole of Parliament agreeing to these provisions which is what I expect will happen in the third reading is a very good message to future travellers there.I also want to extend my congratulations to the Minister who is sitting in the chair the Associate Minister of Conservation who has recently been appointed again as a Minister and I want to acknowledge that and congratulate him. He is I guess Associate Minister of Conservation in his current capacity as Minister in the chair amongst other things—or perhaps because other Ministers had urgent matters of public business to attend to rather than coming to the House. I actually think that it is very good for the recently reappointed Minister that his first task is to shepherd through a bill that has the support of the entire Parliament. I think that this is a good step.There are a few issues that I want to raise—Chris Hipkins: Stop with the sucking up.Hon RUTH DYSON: It is actually manners Mr Hipkins. I do not know what has happened to the younger generation. In my day we would have thought that that was just good form and manners. But I do not know—these young ones today. On a serious note though the primary issue that I want to raise in my initial contribution on this bill is a matter that is raised in the interpretation clause clause 3 which looks at the role that the Minister of Conservation has but also looks at the role that the Minister for Primary Industries has. I think that in this bill the tension that exists in other examples is not so bad but in other examples it has provided a dysfunctional process and a very flawed outcome.Let me give you two examples. The first one is in an area where I think the Government should have absolute shame and that is the lack of application of the precautionary principle when it looked at provisions for protecting theMāui’s dolphin. There are only 55Māui’s dolphins left—not just in the North Island not just in New Zealand but on the planet. There are 55 adultMāui’s dolphins left in total. When theMinister of Conservation had the job of looking at extended protection 21000 submissions were made on those proposals and every single one of them—there were half a dozen exceptions to be truthful but nearly every single one of them—wanted exceptional caution to be applied. They also wanted widespread protection to be given to theMāui’s dolphin’s territorial area like where theMāui’s dolphins crossed Cook Strait where they settled in the inner harbour and where they were clearly going out beyond the nautical miles that are in the current provisions. But the Minister of Conservation was not able to adopt what that overwhelming number of submissions said. He was not able to do that because he was tripped up by the need to make that decision with the Minister for Primary Industries.Unfortunately just at the current time—but only until the beginning of October when we will have a new Government elected—the current Minister for Primary Industries does not have a lot of confidence or vision let alone a bold approach to the future of the fishing industry.Moana Mackey: Who is it?Hon RUTH DYSON: That is a very good question. Mr Guy is his name.Moana Mackey: I thought that it was Phil Heatley.Hon RUTH DYSON: No. Oh yes it might be Phil Heatley. So the Minister for Primary Industries does not have a bold vision let alone the courage to put forward a new approach to take the fishing industry not just into the future but into a much better future. We had the opportunity through that process for the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries to come out with a solution that was a win-win for everyone. We had the opportunity for a win for theMāui’s dolphin which we could have saved but is now at real risk of being extinct within our lifetime; we had an opportunity to have a real victory for the fishing industry; and we had a real opportunity for a major victory for New Zealand.Just imagine the marketing opportunity if the New Zealand fishing industry was able to say that we fish New Zealand waters in a sustainable way. Just imagine the pride that the Minister of Conservation could have had if he had been able to say that we have done every single thing possible to save theMāui’s dolphin. But oh no—we will just tinker at the edges. The fishing industry is unhappy because it has lost a bit of its fishing but theMāui’s dolphin remains critically threatened and our fishing industry is in danger of being subject to a boycott.The people who buy New Zealand products overseas are looking at the labels more and more. They want to know where the produce was grown where it was caught in what manner it was produced and in what manner it was harvested. If they see that fish was caught in New Zealand waters and threatened theMāui’s dolphin they are going to say: “To heck with that—we’ll buy our fish from somewhere else.” That is a lose-lose situation. In the interpretation clause of this bill there is exactly the same lack of clarity about whose job it is to make the proper decision. I think that is a fundamental flaw.The other example where that joint decision-making creates a tension that is unable to be resolved sensibly is the example that I used in an earlier debate and that was the proposal by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to build a dam inRuataniwha—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is nothing to do with this.Hon RUTH DYSON: It actually is Mr Chairman in regard to the joint decision-making in the interpretation clause of this which is between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries. In theRuataniwha Dam proposal it is a joint decision-making process between the Minister of Conservation again and the Minister for the Environment. Unless you have clear leadership from one Minister with a vision about what is proposed you will end up with the total mess that we have in the Hawke’s Bay—actually if the dam goes ahead we will have more of a mess. TheTukituki River is at risk of being turned toxic because of the model they are using in that dam proposal.This is the only concern that I have with the provisions in this legislation. The bill itself offering better protection in the subantarctic is excellent but having the joint decision-making that is in other legislation—in here made slightly weaker by the requirement to consult with the Minister for Primary Industries—is I think a fundamental flaw The Government should decide that if something is worth protecting in a marine reserve in a national park in schedule 4 land or in conservation land then it should be protected. That should be the message that should be the bottom line and that should be the process that is set out in regulation and legislation.This is another example where the Government cannot quite get it right. It tries to have a dollar each way and I think it ends up giving unclear messages to the sector which is foolish and unfair particularly if it is given to the business community. But it also means that we are less likely to have that vision of protection for some of the most pristine and important waters in our jurisdiction offered to the fullest extent. In my view that tension is something that should be avoided. We should go back or go forward to a time where the Minister of Conservation has a clear mandate to be an advocate for conservation and to be an advocate for better marine protection and not for that advocacy or vision to be watered down by any responsibility to consult.I just want to conclude by saying that it is always good to see marine protection supported. New Zealanders have a very strong affinity with the sea. We are surrounded by it. We are an island at the bottom of the world. We love the protection. We want to enhance the quality of our water that goes to the sea. Hopefully we will be able to do that through other legislation that is not yet before the House. But in this particular instance it will be a pleasure to cast our vote alongside the Government and—I know—every other party in support of this bill.