Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary BillFirst ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill and I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 2 August so that we can put the sanctuary in place by November. This bill delivers on the proposal announced by Prime Minister John Key at the United Nations last September to create a fully protected marine area around New Zealand’s most northern territory the Kermadec Islands.The bill is anchored in the philosophical view that humankind does need to put some limits on its development and have the wisdom to set aside areas for nature. New Zealand was a global pioneer in this thinking when Tūwharetoa chief Te Heuheu in 1887 with the support of our parliamentary forebears created the Tongariro National Park. It was the fourth such park in the world and since then Governments have progressively protected over 30 percent of our land in public parks in reserves and in sanctuaries.The new frontier for protection is the marine environment. It makes up 71 percent of the globe and is facing the stresses of overfishing of pollution of increased pressure for resources and of climate change yet less than 1 percent nationally and internationally is protected.This bill is part of this Government’s ambition to be a world leader in the management and protection of our ocean environment. We started in 2009 by addressing the obvious anomaly of having no environmental regulatory system in our huge exclusive economic zone and we set up the Environmental Protection Authority to undertake that role. We have got on with protecting specific areas creating 11 new marine reserves in our territorial sea. We have a discussion paper out on comprehensive reform of our system of marine protected areas. Our Government has been pulling out all stops diplomatically with the US in trying to secure support for a huge marine protected area in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. At the UN last year we also successfully sponsored a resolution on strengthening ocean protection in the high seas which are beyond national jurisdictions.The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is the most significant of these initiatives. The 620000 square kilometre area is twice the land area of New Zealand or about the size of France. This amounts to 15 percent of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and New Zealand is one of the few countries overreaching the global 10 percent target for marine protection. This area is 35 times the area of the total of all the existing 44 marine reserves and 50 times the size of our largest national park in Fiordland.It is not just the size that makes this initiative significant but the outstanding geological and biological diversity of the Kermadecs. The Kermadec area contains the longest arc of underwater volcanoes anywhere in the world and it descends to a depth of 10 kilometres deeper than Mt Everest is tall. The depths of the ocean combined with the underwater volcanic activity makes an extreme environment of pressure of temperature and of mineral content where unique forms of life exist that are almost as fascinating as studying life on another planet. The marine life includes over 6 million seabirds of 39 different species 35 different species of whales and dolphins three species of sea turtle—all of which are endangered—and over 150 species of fish.The Kermadecs also have a rich history. They were a crucial stopover point for the migratory waka that made the long and treacherous journey between the Pacific and New Zealand. They were the only part of New Zealand that got caught up in the horrific global slave trade of the 19th century with the atrocious deaths of 160 Pacific slaves destined for South America on Raoul Island in 1863. The recognition of the area for natural values gained momentum in the 1930s with a nature reserve gazetted in 1939 and the territorial sea was protected in 1990.The details of this bill prohibit all fishing all mining any disturbance of the seabed dumping and any harmful vibrations from the likes of seismic surveys. The intent is to protect the area to the fullest extent possible while being consistent with our legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Pew Charitable Trusts has noted that New Zealand is setting the gold standard internationally for marine protected areas with this bill. The bill provides for scientific research as such areas are invaluable in benchmarking the broad estate of the oceans. The Environmental Protection Authority will be responsible for regulating such work while the Department of Conservation will be responsible for its day-to-day management with the support of key partners like the navy.The bill provides for a new conservation board to be responsible for developing a conservation management strategy for the total area—i.e. the new sanctuary in the exclusive economic zone the existing marine reserve in the territorial sea and the nature reserve on land. The board is proposed to include a representative from Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri the two iwi with a statutory acknowledgment as well as a third member to be appointed by the Minister for Māori Development noting that other iwi also have an interest and connection with these islands. Four members are to be appointed for their skills their knowledge and their experience to support the work of protecting the Kermadecs.Let me address the three criticisms that have been made of these sanctuary proposals. The Greens have asserted that it is contradictory of the Government to be promoting the sanctuary while also supporting development of our fishing our aquaculture and our oil gas and mineral resources at sea. This misunderstands our blue-green approach of providing for areas of economic development as well as protection both at sea and on land. It is about balance and ensuring New Zealand is both economically and environmentally successful.The other criticism from the opposite end of the political spectrum in New Zealand—from ACT—is that somehow this protection is meaningless because 20-odd tonne of fish caught each year may well be caught in other areas of our exclusive economic zone. On this basis you would not protect any geographical areas. I challenge ACT to visit the long-established Leigh Marine Reserve and others and observe the stunning size of crayfish snapper and other marine life because they are living proof that marine protected areas work.I want to conclude by generously acknowledging those who have long advocated for this protection: Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri the Kermadec initiative partners the Pew Charitable Trusts and its tireless advocate Bronwen Golder World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. I also want to acknowledge those hardy workers and volunteers from the former Wildlife Service and the Department of Conservation including those who have died doing this work for their contributions to this special part of New Zealand.This sanctuary initiative is about New Zealand raising the bar on ocean protection globally and working with our partners in the Pacific like the forum countries—the US the UK and Chile—on building a network of marine protected areas in our region. This bill is about securing a better future for our oceans and I commend it to the House.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and to register Labour’s support for this bill to go to the select committee. I want to acknowledge our previous spokesperson Ruth Dyson because she long believed in extending the Kermadec Marine Reserve into the exclusive economic zone well before it was National’s policy. She also believed that it was important if we were going to lead in this space that by having a sanctuary going out into the exclusive economic zone it would send a very clear signal that not only are we a country that is surrounded by water but we believe that the protection of the marine ecosystem is a priority and that we of all countries should take leadership in that space.It would be trite to make that comment in the absence of pointing to some of the aspects of the bill that I think will provide an opportunity for submitters to contribute to improving what is already there. The Minister made comment on the Kermadec Islands and the role of Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri in being represented on the management model. They refer to the Kermadec Islands I understand as Rangitahua. It is an area that is well-known within our navigational stories throughout the Pacific as a place of stopover. It also was a place where migratory mammals—marine species—would often pass and people noted those stories and the times of the seasons.But let us come back to the bill. This will be the first time that an ocean sanctuary has been extended into the exclusive economic zone. As the Minister said all around the world other countries will be looking at this particular model as an opportunity to gain greater understanding about what they could do to take leadership in the area of protecting geological and marine biological diversity. As was mentioned the area includes the world’s longest chain of underwater volcanoes. As I said it is a migratory pathway for marine mammals home to a significant number of threatened and endangered species and also an area where a number of species of fish that are fished commercially are caught.When the bill gets to the select committee it isan opportunity I think to hear some of the concerns. I would just note the concern of Te Ohu Kaimoana with regard to the fisheries settlement and the fact that the Minister is not entertaining any compensation for the loss of rights in fishery management area 10 yet that is in direct contrast to the approach for the marine protected areas discussion document and what it was proposing there. It will lift the recognition and participation of iwi and kaitiakitanga in the greater marine space to a whole other level. Minister you proposed to set up a management committee with representation of iwi which I understand falls a little bit short of what they were hoping for but it is a start in their minds. On that note I want to acknowledge both Rick Wītana and Harry Burkhardt who represent Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Kuri respectively and have made very positive comments in terms of an enduring relationship to promote marine protection from their particular perspective and in their part of the world.The issues around marine scientific research are provided for albeit by way of a process. We are anticipating that there will be submissions in relation to the transitional provisions—in particular on the issues that have been recognised in the departmental disclosure statement. I want to just comment on that. In particular it says that “there is no proposal to protect area-specific Māori commercial fishing interests awarded under the Fisheries Deed of Settlement or any customary fishing interests from the impact of the Sanctuary’s creation. This lack of protection is likely to be criticised as failing to uphold Māori interests protected by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Both Matiu Rei and Peter Douglas have commented on that. However Shane Jones did make the comment that very little fishing is happening in that part of the world. I anticipate that the select committee will be able to ask questions on this particular point and gain some clarity on some of the issues.On the issue of the marine scientific research obviously we believe that the balance of opinion should be in favour of protecting the marine ecosystem but it will come down to the process that is being proposed and that is outlined in Part 2 clauses 13 to 22 of the bill. I anticipate that there will be a lot of discussion around the way in which for example consultation occurs and the information goes to the Environmental Protection Authority before a decision is made.I want to come back to a comment that was made around illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zone and the extent to which it may or may not impact on this bill. The point was well made that unless you are monitoring what is happening wide out in that part of the world anything could happen. So although I definitely applaud the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill including the exclusive economic zone for all the right reasons—and the fact is it is taking a leadership stance and covers 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone so it could be just the start—it really is about how the monitoring and management of that particular area is going to be undertaken with a level of rigour that gives us an assurance that what we think we are protecting is being protected well.With that said Minister I note with respect that many of the issues that affect Treaty rights in particular have not been dealt with very well by you. The housing right-of-first-refusal approach where you totally ignored Treaty interests that were expressed the marine protected areas proposal that cuts across fishing interests and the Kermadec bill in relation to the 1992 fisheries settlement interest are I think all areas where through the select committee again I anticipate that there will be some submissions that address this particular area.Once the bill gets to the select committee it will receive a very robust hearing from all quarters. Labour will be very open to many of those concerns but again I come back to the primary matter of having an ocean sanctuary that extends into the exclusive economic zone. It is a positive step it will lead the world in marine area protection and it has been viewed albeit at its very initial stage as a positive step forward for New Zealand. Kia ora.Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation):It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill as the Minister of Conservation. This does represent one of the most significant achievements of this Government and it is something I think that all New Zealanders should be very proud of. Not all New Zealanders will be able to visit it but I think it is a tremendous and significant step under the visionary leadership of our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key that we have been able to make this happen.I commend the hard work of Dr Nick Smith; the Pew Charitable Trusts led by Bronwen Golder;World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand; Forest and Bird; the Department of Conservation; and many others who have made this sanctuary happen. This bill is going to honour our commitment to protect 620000 square kilometres of ocean. Size does count in this case and I will talk a little later in my call about the international response to the naming of this Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary and the international response of others who would seek to follow our lead. It is going to be one of the world’s largest marine reserves and it will make us leaders in international efforts to protect the waters of the Pacific. We will be working alongside the United States Australia Great Britain and Chile. So we are joining forces with other nations in this tremendously significant project.As has been pointed out many times the Kermadecs are a pristine environment but it has not always been that way and they are not totally pristine. Sadly the misguided colonisation that resulted in many eco-invaders taking over New Zealand—the possums the rats the stoats and some of the feral cats—has also devastated the forests and severely depleted the seabird populations that were once so abundant on the islands of the Kermadecs. The Department of Conservation has led the efforts to eradicate the rats and the cats from Raoul Island which is the largest of the chain and the staff who work for the Department of Conservation now run a year-round eradication campaign for weeds and it is ongoing challenge. The logistics are enormous. It is a remote place and so the challenges in that regard cannot be underestimated.When this bill passes twice a year the navy will be involved in sending a ship with supplies and equipment to the island to keep the base there stocked up and safe. Twice a year the Department of Conservation will also charter vessels to transfer staff to and from the islands—staff and volunteers. I commend the extraordinary work that they do and their dedication to the vision of having predator-free—and that is weed-free as well as pest-free—islands.The main focus of the groups that go through is currently weed eradication. They target things that in New Zealand we would not mind too much—or would we—such as black passionfruit yellow guava purple guava Mysore and African olive. These are things that were introduced as I said in less enlightened times and they now need to go because they are upsetting the biodiversity of these wonderful islands.The Department of Conservation staff on Raoul Island play an important role as part of our national scientific network. They collect water samples and they send them to GNS Science. They also take air samples to contribute to the international measurements of carbon dioxide and global warming and to assist with the annual whale survey for Auckland University and the research on the 6 million seabirds that inhabit this general area. But it is really in the ocean and what lies beneath the waves that the truly global significance and importance of the Kermadecs becomes apparent. Many of us will have seen the stunning images—teeming marine life in all its many weird and wonderful form the 30 undersea volcanoes with their billowing plumes of black smoke and the colourful and abundant reef systems.The Kermadecs lie on the migration routes of whales and dolphins including the gigantic blue whale. They support within their waters more than 6 million seabirds 150 species of fish and three out of the seven sea turtle species that are known to science. The Pew Charitable Trusts has described this as the gold standard of reserves and it is correct. That means that nobody can fish there. No yachtie who passes through can stop and throw a line over the side nobody can mine or dredge there and nobody can exploit and degrade the natural beauty of this place.The Department of Conservation will manage the Kermadecs as part of the Auckland Conservation Management Strategy and once the sanctuary is up and running it will work on a new conservation management strategy specifically for the islands and their waters. In the same way that the Auckland Conservation Board and the other boards around the country manage their specific areas we will create—as my colleague Dr Nick Smith has outlined—a new Kermadec conservation board once that sanctuary has been established.We have worked closely with iwi to reach agreement on the governance arrangements. The Department of Conservation will continue to authorise scientific work on the islands themselves and within their coastal waters and the existing marine reserves as well around each of the islands. The Kermadec Biodiscovery Expedition 2011report—it was about 5 years ago now that it was released—has indicated a very exciting frontier of conservation in these waters. We are still discovering more about this region and its extraordinary treasures. There is much to be found. New species of plants and animals are perhaps lurking in the depths of the world’s second-deepest ocean trench—new taonga for all of us as New Zealanders to protect and cherish and be proud of for ever.This is indeed a powerful symbol of New Zealand leading the world in conservation and environmental protection I think when we look at how the world has reacted to this. This weighty tome that Bronwen Golder sent through to my office and I think to Nick Smith’s office last October details the extraordinary response. The media ran out of superlatives really. We had “enormous” “giant” “gigantic” “vast” “huge” and “massive”. We also have announcements in here that compare the size of the Kermadecs with the state of Texas—that was the Americans of course. The Europeans chose to reflect the fact that it was the size of France. These things have not gone unnoticed.Again I commend the spirit—the wairua—and the intention of what the Prime Minister first announced at the United Nations last September as being part of the vision that we have as conservationists and environmentalists on the world stage. We are but a small country this is twice the size of our land mass and it is a remarkable contribution to the way that the world will work and the exciting prospects that lurk beneath the waves which will I think help secure our future. In order to manage what is happening beneath the waves we need to be able to measure and understand it better.As Theodore Roosevelt the President who of course protected more than 230 million acres of land in the United States—and I will conclude my call on this note—once said of the Grand Canyon: “Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.” The Kermadecs will be left as they are protected in perpetuity and as a legacy for all of us as New Zealanders to cherish and to value. The ages can continue their work free of human interference. I commend this bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a great pleasure for me to rise and join the calls of support for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. I want to begin by making a genuine commitment of acknowledgment for the hard work and passion shown by the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Nick Smith. We are in different parties but we share a passion for the protection of the marine environment and on this particular occasion I think the tributes that have been paid to him his drive and the fact that this is regarded as the gold standard have been well-earned. So I want to place on record my acknowledgment for his work and our support for this legislation.The Kermadecs are a pretty amazing place. The drive for the sanctuary has been driven not from within this Parliament although it has certainly been Labour’s policy for a little while to support legislative protection through a sanctuary bill but from people outside this Parliament and they deserve a tribute equal to that that I have given to the Minister because they have been absolutely fearless consistent passionate and factually based and have moved the whole of Parliament to this position. I hope it is the whole of Parliament. I have not heard the ACT contribution yet and you never know actually when it comes to that party but I hope the whole of Parliament is able to give its support.So I want to acknowledge not only but in particular the Pew Charitable Trusts represented in New Zealand by Bronwen Golder; Forest and Bird represented on this issue particularly by Anton van Helden; and the World Wide Fund for Nature again represented particularly on this issue by Alex Smith. There are others who have worked on it as well but those three individuals and organisations certainly deserve tribute. They have been amazing.The launch of the legislation held in the western foyer of the Beehive which is a pretty noisy place at the best of time—it has a lot of traffic going through. It was abuzz with excitement last week and I really enjoyed the fact that so many of our political parties were able to join with those organisations that I have just noted and celebrate such a good decision.The bill will not be without controversy I am sure as it goes through the select committee and I look forward to hearing from the chair of the select committee Scott Simpson—who I am sure is keen to take a call soon—and also to the second reading here after the deliberations because a piece of legislation like this will not be entirely without controversy but I certainly hope that the select committee is able to give it the consideration that it deserves. It warrants it. It warrants coming back to this House in a better shape if that is possible as a result of submissions that were made.The Kermadecs—the area that we are talking about—has 11 percent of the world’s seabird species. That is a lot. That is a lot in just one area although it is a big area. There is a 10000 metre depth in the Kermadec - Tonga Trench and it has 32 different New Zealand fish species within it. A lot of people do not know that the Kermadecs is a New Zealand territory. They think it is somewhere else. I would like to pose a question to the Minister and to the chair of the select committee because I have not yet been able to get an answer and I assume they will know the answer to this question: who is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs? I am really disappointed that neither the Minister nor the chair of the select committee at this stage of the debate knows the answer but I bet that by the end of the third reading we will have it.I used to be the member of Parliament for the Chatham Islands. It was a great privilege. That area was stolen off me rather unfairly in boundary changes and now it comes under Rongotai and there are a few other beautiful islands that we are fortunate to have. I know that the member for Coromandel has quite a few of them in his patch because he is often boasting about them and I know that Jacinda Ardern has often told with some pride of the islands that are attached to the Auckland Central electorate. But I do not know who the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs is so I would like that to be the first challenge—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I volunteer.Hon RUTH DYSON: The member for Nelson is offering but I cannot yet see a geographical connection. I suppose the same water touches the beaches around the Nelson area as in the Kermadecs but seriously it is an interesting question and I know that a number of us would really like the answer.One of the issues that have been under debate is whether the governance structure of the sanctuary is going to be that of co-management. That is what was originally proposed but that is not what is in the legislation and I am sure it will be raised again during the select committee consideration. I want to acknowledge Rick Wītana from Te Aupōuri and Harry Burkhardt from Ngāti Kurī who spoke at the launch of this legislation and who have long been involved and have had very open and serious discussions about the governance structure.This is not a marine sanctuary that is set up in the same way as many others are. It is more along the lines of the Fiordland protection that the guardians of Fiordland set up under separate legislation but this is different again in that it has both Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri represented as part of that structure. There will be as I said some debate about that.There are a couple of other points that I want to make in relation to the administration. The first is that even though the Minister for the Environment introduced the legislation and I know did all the hard work to get it to this stage the Department of Conservation will actually administer and manage the sanctuary. That is appropriate and that is good. I am very concerned though because in recent reports in the media the Department of Conservation is quoted as saying to its Minister—not the Minister responsible for this bill but the Minister responsible for the Department of Conservation—that it is so short of money that it is likely to be unable to fulfil its statutory obligations. And here we are giving it in this legislation a huge amount of more work to do—monitoring a marine sanctuary.It is appropriate as I said for the Department of Conservation to have this role. It currently has amazing staff and volunteers who work on Raoul Island—and I want to pay tribute to them. I also want to echo the words of Minister Nick Smith in paying particular tribute to those who have lost their lives on Raoul Island particularly the young volunteers who did so recently—one by drowning and one in a volcanic explosion. Those are tragedies. They are people who are so passionate that they dedicated part of their life to do this conservation work and they paid the ultimate price for it. So they should be acknowledged as well.But if we are expecting the Department of Conservation to manage this huge marine sanctuary where is the money going to come from? If we want it done properly it must be properly resourced and if recent media coverage is anything to go by it cannot even do its current work within the money that it has got. Millions and millions and millions of dollars has been slashed from its budget over the last 7 years without any justification in my view and we just to need make sure that we put the Government’s money—the taxpayers’ money—where the mouths of Ministers are in this legislation and make sure that the department is able to fulfil its job.The second point that I want to make which again I am sure will be raised during the select committee process is about the breadth of marine scientific research that will be allowed under this legislation. We are told that research ordinarily would breach the provisions of this statute but there are exemptions that can be made by the Environmental Protection Authority. I think that is a good process. If you are going to have exemptions of course you should have a robust process and I have no concerns at all about the integrity of the processes of the Environmental Protection Authority.But we do know that in some instances the intention of Parliament of legislation and presumably of Ministers is often watered down when it comes to the actions. Again recent reports about the extraction of swamp kauri are an example of that. Something that we all thought in this House was clearly not allowed has been permitted by what I think has been quite a lightweight response by the department responsible. I think in this case it was the Ministry for Primary Industries rather than Ministry of Environment or the Department of Conservation.This is a great way to start the parliamentary week with a celebration of the protection of an extraordinary piece of water of underground volcanoes of birdlife and of fish whales and dolphins. The Kermadecs have got it all. It is a brilliant part of the world and it is with great pride that this Parliament is taking this step and moving to its better protection.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. It is not every day that we as politicians and as members of Parliament get to speak on a piece of legislation introduced into the House that will be so significant so momentous and so important into the future.I wanted to acknowledge and congratulate both the Ministers who have already spoken in this debate on their work effort and contribution not only in the debate but also in bringing this bill to the House in the way it is and in the manner in which it was introduced last week at a function in the west foyer of the Beehive complex. I also want to acknowledge and thank the two Opposition members who have taken part in this debate so far for their constructive and useful commentary on how I think they will see this bill working its way through Parliament.The oceans of the globe continue to face increased pressure from habitat destruction from overfishing from climate change and from pollution. It is entirely appropriate that in the face of those kinds of daunting challenges a piece of legislation as momentous and significant as this should come before this the 51st Parliament. In a hundred years when we are all long gone and when nobody may recall anything of the efforts and the legislative agenda of the 51st Parliament there will be New Zealanders and people around the globe who will remember that in 2016 if those members of the 51st Parliament of New Zealand did nothing else then they did good—they did great—in actually creating the largest no-take ocean reserve on the planet. That is a provision a step that we as parliamentarians as New Zealanders and as citizens of the world can actually be enormously proud of.I am really looking forward to—and cannot really begin to describe to the House the excitement that I have as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—playing what will probably be a relatively small role in the process of getting this bill through the House but it will be something that I think all of us on the committee will be able to take great pride in. I am hopeful that the committee as it always does will work in a collaborative and collegial way on this bill which I see on first reading as already being a very good piece of legislation but who knows? As we go through the submission processes and through the hearing of submissions from members of the public and organisations that want to have a say on it they may want to point out to us some areas where the legislation could be tweaked or refined and improved if that is possible. And certainly I know that the committee that I chair will be open to those suggestions.The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary that will be created by this piece of legislation is truly significant not just for New Zealanders but for all citizens of the world. Most of us will probably never visit there. Most of us will never go there. Most of us will never get to experience the wonders and the magnificence of the marine life that has its home in the Kermadecs and the islands and the water and the sea that surround it but we will all know that we have played a small part in creating something really special really important and really futureproof for ever and for all times. It is with great excitement and great passion and great enthusiasm that I commend this bill to the House because I know that on this piece of legislation we are absolutely and for certain doing real good.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe tuarua ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou katoa.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Secondly acknowledgments to you all members of our House.]The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill establishing a new marine reserve in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone around the Kermadec Islands. We have had a member’s bill in the ballot prepared by Gareth Hughes for some time to establish a marine protected area at the Kermadecs. We congratulated the Government when it announced its intention to create this ocean sanctuary at the United Nations in the run-up to an international oceans conference last year. We are very pleased to support the bill.As with Scott Simpson I have never been to the Kermadecs but everything I have read about this island chain and the photographs I have seen show that it is an extraordinary place of enormous significance to all humankind not just Aotearoa because of its biodiversity and geological and cultural values. Its remoteness has protected it from the impacts of fishing and from mining so as others have said it remains one of the most pristine places on the planet. It is also important because of the complexity of the deep-sea marine habitats that are there. It includes a 12000 kilometre section of the longest volcanic arc in the world which extends from the Bay of Plenty up towards Tonga. You have got two tectonic plates colliding and that means we have got this arc of underwater volcanos active hydrothermal vents and dramatic features like the black smoker chimneys. Those hydrothermal vents produce quite extraordinary conditions where you have got quite strange organisms flourishing in those dark depths in super-heated water where there are quite high levels of quite toxic compounds. We have got in the Kermadecs the second-deepest ocean trench in the world extending up to 10 kilometres deep and it is really surprising to think that fish can live at that depth. Scientists have found fish living at 8 kilometres depth and they have got amazing adaptations to be able to live in darkness and at the extreme pressure that you get at those depths.Even though we have had quite a lot more scientific exploration in recent years the Kermadecs still remain one of the least-understood habitats on the planet. It is an important area for marine mammals with blue whales fin whales and humpback whales migrating through the region en route to and from their summer feeding grounds in the Antarctic. It is a really important place for seabirds with at least 14 seabird species breeding on the Kermadec Islands and another 28 species using the oceans around the Kermadecs to feed. Ornithologist Chris Gaskin described arriving at Macauley Island. He said there were hundreds of thousands of black-winged petrels milling about over the islands. That must have been an astonishing sight.As Forest and Bird one of the champions of the Kermadec sanctuary—along with the Pew Charitable Trusts and World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand—has noted it is one of the only places in New Zealand where you get both tropical and subtropical and temperate species of birds whales turtles fish and corals and other marine invertebrates living together. This whole constellation of biological and geological values means that we would encourage Minister Smith when the bill is passed to consider nominating the Kermadecs for World Heritage status to recognise their importance for all humankind.This bill is significant because although we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—an exclusive economic zone that is 15 times the size of our land mass—at the moment we do not have any effective marine protected areas in it other than the benthic protected areas which of course do not protect the water column. In New Zealand waters in our marine environment less than 0.5 percent of our territorial sea and exclusive economic zone combined is protected. As the Minister has noted this bill will increase that to 15 percent and that is why it is important—particularly with the prohibition on fishing and mining and the Department of Conservation managing the reserve and the Environmental Protection Authority managing any applications for research for scientific purposes.There was one concern: the departmental disclosure statement did note that because of the secrecy around the project there was not engagement with Māori interests prior to it being announced. That was disappointing but we note that there has been extensive consultation with Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri subsequently. Te Ohu Kaimoana has raised a concern about the potential impact on fishing rights allocated to iwi under the fisheries settlement but I would note that there has been no fishing undertaken in the Kermadec region using the settlement quota in the past 10 years. So Te Ohu Kaimoana seems concerned about the potential fishing rights rather than the actual ones and the biodiversity values far outweigh the fishing values.Other countries in the Pacific have also recognised the importance of having large fully protected marine areas to preserve biodiversity to provide a safe haven for species and to do what Scott Simpson suggested which was to ensure that there are large areas that remain in their natural state for future generations. We have seen Australia protect nearly a million square kilometres in the Coral Sea and New Caledonia protect 1.3 million square kilometres in the Coral Sea. So the major concern we have—not with this proposal but with the accompanying proposals of the Government to reform the Marine Reserves Act—is that the Kermadecs seems to be it. Yes the bill certainly raises the extent of marine protected areas from 0.4 percent to 15 percent but the Kermadecs is largely subtropical and tropical. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not protect representative examples of our subantarctic marine habitats and the species that inhabit those.We need to see in our new marine protected areas legislation the ability to create more marine protected areas in our exclusive economic zone and not just have that done by special legislation such as this bill. The Minister for the Environment has referred to 10 percent of the marine environment being the target but scientists internationally have referred to the desirability of having 30 percent of our marine environment protected in order to ensure that we have healthy seas that we conserve our fish stocks and that we protect important habitats for seabirds marine mammals fish and marine invertebrates.So 30 percent is a much more appropriate target and the marine protected areas reform will not provide a simple process to have further marine protected areas created in the exclusive economic zone. We understand that that has been because of the opposition from the oil-drilling and gas industries but the value of our deep oceans is in conserving species that we have only just begun to understand. Scientists are still finding and describing new species in areas like the Kermadecs. We understand probably more about areas of outer space than we do about our deep deep oceans at the bottom of the trench. So we need to not just protect the Kermadecs but to have a process to establish other deep-sea marine protected areas. That is why there have been several thousand submissions on the Government’s consultation document seeking that there be such a process.So this bill is a very good one which the Green Party is pleased to support but we need a clear process that will provide for not just the subtropics to be protected but also representative examples of all of our deep-ocean habitats given that we have got such a large exclusive economic zone and we have got a responsibility to the world to protect that and not just leave much of it open for fishing mining drilling and exploitation. Thank you.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I take great pleasure in rising on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and I have to say it is wonderful that we have now had 2 weeks in a row when we have seemingly got full cross-party support with legislation coming through the House. In saying that though I am still waiting to hear from the member from ACT because of course we never know where he is going to go on any given day and in fact I am probably quite convinced that he is not sure on any given day how he is going to go. But all that being said New Zealand First certainly will be supporting this piece of legislation through to the Local Government and Environment Committee and hearing submitters’ thoughts and feelings on this bill.I would like to think that the bill in its current state is probably better served by being called the “Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Sieve Bill” because the bill has got a number of holes that need to be remedied and rectified at the committee stage. A question was asked in the House last week of the Minister for the Environment with regard to the enforcement of this bill. The reality is when we asked what his outcome was going to be and how he was going to actually uphold this fantastic sanctuary—we said that in the current state if we are lucky if we have got three Orions fly over once a week and we may be lucky if we have got a frigate that is within the area and a Department of Conservation worker—his answer was “We’ve got more than one DOC worker.”That certainly does raise some serious concerns when we as a country are hearing time and time again about the issue around the lack of policing and the problems that that is causing in our communities. If we cannot police our own country properly because of the lack of funding then we are going to have some serious problems enforcing an area that is twice the size of our country with more than one Department of Conservation worker a couple of Orions and the occasional visit from a frigate.All that being said this is a magnificent area—pristine—and it needs to be kept that way. I think Scott Simpson summed it up quite nicely when he said that most New Zealanders—I would just about suggest 99.999 percent of New Zealanders—will not ever get to go and see this beautiful sanctuary a thousand kilometres off the north-east of the country. That should not be a reason why anybody would want to oppose this bill because of course it is looking after our natural environment and trying to keep it as pristine as possible. We note that it is a category 1 conservation area which would obviously prevent any fishing any mining and so on. But there are some contradictions in that when we move through the bill when we start looking into it further. People can apply for an exemption for research purposes and some of those things need to be run through the two iwi groups to be ratified as to whether or not they can actually receive the ability to go in and do some research in that area.But an area that is of concern which could be a loophole for people to be able to get around restrictions is with regard to naval vessels. The bill it says in the explanatory note about clause 7 “disapplies the Bill to Crown activities necessary for reasons of national security”—I do not know what national security there could be going on at Raoul Island but you never know—“(as certified by the Minister of Defence) and to ships and aircraft of the New Zealand Defence Force and foreign States.” What we could have happening and we have seen it with whaling ships is research vessels could be going in there under the name of a naval research vessel and of course they could do things that we would be unable to stop. So I think we need to look at those as an issue that we need to circumscribe.I think the sanctuary area with regard to how it has come about has happened quite quickly. When I say “quickly” it has certainly been worked on for a number of years. In fact in my first few weeks in Parliament I was given a very good briefing by Bronwen Golder from the Pew Charitable Trusts who was very passionate and gave all the right reasons as to why we should indeed be putting this area into a marine sanctuary.But I do have to take with a pinch of salt the Government’s rushing into this. It is almost like a little bit of greenwashing is required and “We need to tick the box because we said in our pre-election promises that we’re going to do something here.” Yet the Government neglected to talk about and include the exclusive economic zone in the rest of its documentation when it talked about new marine protected areas legislation. The Government promised that it was going to be in there—the exclusive economic zone was going to be included—and now we understand it has been completely removed which is a 180-degree turn which to be fair New Zealanders are getting pretty used to. The Government does tend to change its mind quite quickly on things and dish out promises that it cannot back up. So that is of concern.The sheer nature of the location of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary would indicate that we need to look inshore inside our territorial waters—inside that 13-mile radius—to ensure that we actually have some protected areas close to shore that people of this country can go to and look at and witness and involve themselves in not too dissimilar to those that Australia has with the Great Barrier Reef. We want people to enjoy it and we want people to access it but we want to protect it at the same time. That is certainly an issue that we need to look at.We are concerned about the lack of consultation with those affected groups in relation to their fisheries being revoked. So no compensation no consultation—we are just going to remove that. The Government says it is only 20 tonnes—20000 kilograms—of fish. It equates to $165000 worth give or take. I think in a true open and transparent Government we need to ensure that all affected groups actually have that opportunity to submit. So I am sure we will hear from those submitters at the select committee hearings which will be coming up I would imagine rather rather quickly.There are a number of contradictions. When we talk about the naval vessels and the seismic testing and so forth—we are as people sailors sailing up there going on a trip and putting on a depth sounder. That under this bill would be prohibited. Ironically and contradictorily the naval ships can use their sonar which is a hell of a lot more powerful than a little wee sailing ship with a bottom sonar and that is a concern and certainly one worth mentioning.When we talk about the setting up of the new statutory Conservation Board for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary I would have to say that there is a concern about nepotism and cronyism because when we talk about the board that is going to be put together specifically to look after the best interests of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary we see there is one nominee from each of the Kermadec iwi authorities—which by the way back in 1989 and 1992 were both granted control over one-third of New Zealand’s commercial fishing rights. So that is a right for those iwis to be there to be involved in the discussion.The second concern is the nomination “from the Minister of Māori Affairs for the purpose of representing other iwi [interest groups]”. That is where we are concerned that there could be some nepotism and cronyism coming into play because if we go down to the third point when putting this board together the Minister of Conservation is allowed to choose four members—it is quite clearly stated in the explanatory note “4 members appointed by the Minister of Conservation after following a public process calling for nominations and being satisfied as to each person’s skills knowledge and experience.” After that process they can be nominated. There are four places for those nominees but nothing like that process has been put into the decision made by the Māori affairs Minister in relation to whom they choose and how they choose them. That is a serious opening up of the door to cronyism and nepotism which I think reeks of undemocratic processes.We would certainly like that fairness to be spread throughout all decision-making processes as it has been clearly stated here—for the Minister of Conservation to be able to make those decisions as opposed to the Māori affairs Minister who can basically finger-pick whoever he thinks is going to be best on the day.Marama Fox: No faith in the Māori affairs Minister.CLAYTON MITCHELL: No that is—probably you are right too. The exclusive economic zone and the sanctuary that we find ourselves discussing here today is going to be a fantastic area for the future and certainly it is a fantastic opportunity for the world to look at New Zealand and see the cross-party accord and support for a piece of legislation that has everybody’s hearts and minds and has the environment’s best interests at heart.So we would certainly look forward to the discussions at the select committee hearing and to listening to some of those submissions and we have pointed out a number of those holes that we would like to see remedied particularly around enforcement and particularly around nepotism and cronyism and the like. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. I rise in support of this very fine bill the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill introduced by our excellent Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has been a passionate champion of the environment and conservation issues in this country over his long political career.This is a fine bill. It does a number of things that my colleagues on this side of the Househave already canvassed and it is important that we celebrate the fact that we are protecting one of the largest ocean sanctuary areas on the planet an area equivalent in size to France. As a country that has an enormous maritime area—perhaps the fourth-largest or fifth-largest in the world depending on how it is measured—as part of the wider Realm of New Zealand I think this bill is a major achievement of this Government and it will be part of the legacy of this National Government that this contribution to protecting and safeguarding such a precious resource has been made. On this side of the House the wildlife and the sea life that will be protected have been mentioned: 6 million birds coming from 39 different species; 35 species of whales and dolphins; and also three different kinds of turtles.But I want to touch on something that I suppose is of personal relevance to me. Through my father’s mother’s mother I whakapapa to Te Aupōuri and I am delighted to see that Te Aupōuri does have a place on the governance board of this sanctuary under this legislation along with Ngāti Kurī. This is particularly important because of the linkages that the Kermadecs provided in the Pacific to our ancestors and forebears. During that period of migration from Hawaiki or the parts of Polynesia where Māori originated from perhaps a thousand years ago there have been left archaeological remains on the Kermadecs including obsidian tools that show evidence not only of migration but actually of two-way travel for a period of time between New Zealand and the Pacific by our ancestors. I would refer members if they are interested to the research by Professor Foss Leach conducted in the early 1980s which is very interesting and effectively demonstrates that for a period of time the immigration and trade between the Pacific and Aotearoa was in fact two way—a very early example of globalisation.This is a wonderful piece of legislation. It should be celebrated throughout the land. I know the select committee chaired ably by the member for Coromandel Scott Simpson will look at it carefully but it is an excellent piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to begin this 5-minute call with a reference to my colleague Gareth Hughes. Gareth is unfortunately away from Parliament today otherwise I am sure he would have been making this contribution. Gareth has had a member’s bill in the ballot for the last 4 years on providing for Kermadec protection and I know that he would have wanted to stand here today to praise the Government for taking the step of establishing the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.The thing about conservation in New Zealand is that so often the species that we need to protect exist only here. If we are not successful in protecting those species conserving them and preserving the ecosystems upon which they rely then they will vanish from the earth for ever. That is why despite being a small country with a small population we have a particular responsibility not only to the natural world but to the world—to the global population—for conservation of those unique species and ecosystems.Despite being a small country we have a very very large exclusive economic zone—the fifth-largest I believe in the world. The creation of this Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is an appropriate recognition of New Zealanders’ desire to protect those species and those ecosystems and to live up to that global responsibility. I want to express not only praise for the Government’s initiative in taking this step but also the hope that it will consider extending this into further marine protected areas within the exclusive economic zone.Having praised the bill there is one area that I want to express some concern about and that was the decision to not consult with Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri prior to the bill’s creation because consultation prior to the bill would have been most appropriate. I understand that that was not possible because of the secrecy of the project but I believe that the Treaty in fact demanded no less than proper consultation at an earlier stage. I note that both iwi are now fully supportive of the bill and of the sanctuary and I am pleased to see that they will be appropriately represented on the board.Finally I want to draw attention to one of the activities that will be prohibited within the sanctuary and that is seismic surveying for non-scientific purposes. I fully support the prohibition of seismic surveying in this ocean sanctuary. It will add to our ability to love and protect those unique species including whales and dolphins that inhabit the sanctuary or pass through it.One cannot help but think of the Government’s refusal to protect the Māui’s dolphin in its sanctuary from seismic surveying and to wonder whether it is not perhaps that the economic value of fishing that will be forgone in the Kermadec sanctuary is less than the economic value that the Government hopes to glean from oil and gas prospecting in the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary. I wonder whether that is an appropriate basis for making such a decision. Thank you.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I believe that the purpose behind this bill is a very noble one—a recognition that in New Zealand and our economic zone we have taonga in the form of the natural world that are in many cases unique and worthy of preservation. That is why I am prepared to support this bill in its first reading. However I believe that in our Parliament our process of lawmaking offers much opportunity to improve the quality of public policy through the select committee stage and there are a number of changes that could be made to this particular bill that would greatly enhance the quality because let us be honest it has been a rather rushed policy-making process. Cooked up in time for an international announcement the regulatory impact statement was to say the least rather weak. We need to be concerned not only about environmental protection but also about the livelihood of those who make their living from the fishery.The interesting thing from a conservation point of view is as I asked the Minister Smith in the House only a few weeks ago what change to the total allowable catch in New Zealand’s economic zone is brought about by this bill? Being a very experienced Minister he ducked he dived and completely failed—or succeeded perhaps—to answer the question. That is because the Minister knows that the change in fisheries taken under this bill is zero. What it will do is displace those who do catch fish to catch the same amount of fish elsewhere. From a conservation point of view that is not an improvement; it is a small backwards step in the sense that it will mean more concentrated fisheries elsewhere.The second problem—not only a conservation problem but also a commercial problem—is that $165000 worth of fisheries will be precluded from the area. I will not go into the possibility of the fishing that might have taken place in the future. The idea that is in this bill is that if you are not using a property right at a particular point then you lose it. Just focus on that relatively small value of fishing because the premise we are being asked to buy into is that as long as you are picking on only the little guy or girl that is OK—that no compensation is due as long as the person having their property rights appropriated is small. As a concept I find that abominable and I think that this Parliament ought to do better than that.I will be happy to support this bill at future readings because as I say there is a noble purpose behind protecting New Zealand’s unique and beautiful flora and fauna. It also enhances greatly our international reputation where our conservation efforts have been criticised for the lack of marine reserves. None the less we need to resolve a couple of issues. If this House is going to abrogate the property rights of New Zealanders that are legally held under New Zealand’s quota management system then we ought to compensate them for the losses that they experience. If this House is going to try to preserve the fishery then rather than incentivising people to catch the same amount of fish in a smaller area of ocean we ought to say that we are purchasing a public good and we will buy out the people who previously privately benefited from taking those fish. That is good public policy-making in line with the noble conservation objectives of this bill and it is something that I will be happy to support in future readings. The ACT Party supports this bill in its first reading so that we can debate those changes. Thank you.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): It is not very often that I find myself standing up and supporting my learned friend and colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour. Today I find myself in quite a—David Seymour: Oh it’s not that unusual.MARAMA FOX: Well it is quite unusual for most pieces of legislation. So here we are with the legislation about the Kermadecs. I completely agree—it is a taonga not just for the people of Aotearoa but also for the population of the world of the ao. I think the fact that we are able to gift this taonga to the world is a fantastic thing. It is a place that will be held in a sanctuary for all time.However—and there is a big “however”—we are unhappy that the rights of the 58 other iwi who have been granted rights for quota during the fisheries settlement have been ignored. In fact I think the Minister has been negligent in not consulting with them face to face. I fully recognise that he has been to mana whenua the people who border that area—our Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri—and they have been recognised with places on the board. I recognise that my learned colleague and Minister—the very able Minister—of Māori Development and not Māori affairs will be able to appoint someone to represent the rights of those other 58 iwi. However the Minister should have had discussions with them. The reason that the Government did not want to discuss it with anyone or announce it before it was announced to the world just does not wash. You have a contractual agreement through a fisheries settlement for these 58 other iwi who have interests in this area and that should as my learned colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour has pointed out be compensated.So let us have a look at that. We think that suitable compromise achieves sustainability and we need to ensure that iwi are included in that conversation—we have neglected to do that with the 58 other iwi which we could go into but that would take all day. The proposal extinguishes iwi customary and commercial and non-commercial rights which is contrary to the Crown’s duty to actively protect a settlement. This is no small thing. If we think that we can just go back on any settlements that we have had to date then we are going to see a whole lot of furore in this nation over previous settlements that have been done and declared full and final. Yet the Crown has compromised its duty to protect the settlement as part of its Treaty responsibilities in this case. Notwithstanding we agree that this is a beautiful sanctuary and all it would have taken I am sure was to have a conversation with the affected iwi who are involved and who have now had those rights extinguished through this bill.The proposal put to Cabinet states that the quota held by Te Ohu Kaimoana on behalf of iwi is an “administrative quirk”. That is how they have described the fisheries settlement that has been in place for quota in this country for some considerable time—as an administrative quirk. Well I am surely hopeful that when the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa settlement comes to this House it will not on some future date be referred to as an administrative quirk and dismissed as quickly as this has been. That contradicts the process conducted in early administration to analyse where fish stocks should be and were introduced into the quota system in that area. As a result of that process the Maori Fisheries Act provides for Te Ohu Kaimoana to hold quota until commercial catches can be assured. I say it again this was not well done. The Minister should have gone to the people and conducted a full and thorough conversation with them and they should have been adequately compensated because of the extinguishing of those rights.The proposal claims the sanctuary is a sustainability measure that is needed. In fact they have barely caught anything in that area for a long long time which in itself means that it needs to be sustainable not for catch numbers but for regeneration. Mining is one of the issues. The minerals that are found in that area might be something that everybody wants to grab for and I think the fact that we are going to protect it is a fine step again.The Māori Party wants to assure the country that we support the bill. We support the idea of the Kermadec sanctuary but the Government has been remiss in consultation with the other iwi and to describe it as an administrative quirk is simply a failure. It needs to go back and rethink how it does its negotiations and its conversations with our people.The proposal fails to identify the effect on quota rights and the quota management system. It states that the impact on commercial fishing is only small as the current catch is. Against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries it suggests the catch can be caught elsewhere. However the species currently harvested in that zone will then move out. The fish cannot be caught elsewhere at that time. Consistent catch throughout the year is important for the high-value niche markets involved. What it is saying is that not enough consultation was had and against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries the Government says that you are going to be able to catch this fish somewhere else but actually it does not know and the ministry has told it that. The proposal fails to identify the broader impact. The proposal does not reflect the true value of the quota shares.The proposal is likely to contradict international law around no-take zones. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea New Zealand must make access available to other nations to fisheries we are not using. The ring of international fishing around the border of the Kermadec exclusive economic zone indicates a strong desire of other nations to fish in the zone. Whether or not it does are we going to be met with litigation now given that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is coming in? It is wonderful to have a taonga but we should have done our homework and I think Minister that in all fairness the 58 iwi who talk about their claim have rightly stated their issues and to be described as an administrative quirk is simply irresponsible. There is something to be answered here. If you extinguish their rights then compensation surely must be a conversation to be had in the future. I invite the Minister to have those conversations with those iwi.I am happy today that we are going to support this bill at its first reading—the same as my colleague the lovely Rāwiri Seymour—but we would be looking through to the second reading for these things to be fleshed out further. The select committee process under which submissions can be made will I feel be vigorous. I am sure that iwi will take up the opportunity to put their case forward. All of that could have been avoided had the conversation been had in the first place. So it is with some trepidation that we support the bill through this first reading stage. We are happy that we are going to have a taonga for all of Aotearoa to enjoy but let us do our homework properly so that there is nothing to come back on us in the later years and we find ourselves having to relitigate this entire issue.Nō reira e Te Mana Whakawā nā nei te mihi atu ki a koe.[Therefore Mr Assistant Speaker I do indeed acknowledge you.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon David Parker—a 5-minute call.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.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I acknowledge my colleague who has given me an opportunity to speak on this bill. There have been some very generous speeches in the House today and I am perhaps a little less generous. It is not to be small-minded or picky that I say I will acknowledge the work done by the Government rather than praise it because there have been many many parties pushing for this for some time. I would like to acknowledge and praise all of their efforts.The Government does have a tendency towards tokenism across the board. This is not a token gesture in itself—it is one of the largest marine sanctuaries in the world and indeed 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone. Labour has had a policy for many years of 10 percent of our marine areas in reserve status. A lot of people including National have consistently criticised us for that. In one fine swoop—not one fell swoop I have to say—we are effectively putting 15 percent into areas of protection. That in itself is a wonderful thing. There would hardly be a person in this country who would want to criticise this.Indeed from the fishing industry down the fact that we have identified only $600000 or thereabouts of commercial interest does not fully state as was said by the ACT Party the potential for huge economic benefit. That applies also to the fishing industry around this area of protection. As we now understand wherever we have a reserve or a protected area the opportunity for fish species and other biodiversity to flourish and then spill outside the zone also applies to the Kermadec area. So there will be fishing companies around the world in fact—not just in New Zealand—that will be eyeing the opportunity for this in the future. So the question is whether we can ensure that what we are setting out to do here in the House today can indeed be upheld—that is protection of this area and all the ecosystems within it for future generations. I can acknowledge that there will be more enthusiasm for this with the younger people of New Zealand—my daughter in particular—and in what this will do for future generations and the opportunities to explore more what happens in this incredibly diverse area. So we are taking action now to protect their opportunities.But in handing over to the Department of Conservation the responsibility for this what I have to acknowledge in this House is that the National Government has done that with other protected areas in this country on land but has failed to fund the organisation to uphold the values and protect the values that it so proudly speaks of. So the question is will we ensure that this Government and future Governments have the resources to protect the values that we are passing through in this legislation here? We have got a Department of Conservation that is under-resourced. It is talking about bringing in car parking charges and toilet fees no doubt or doing other things to try to fund the basic biodiversity work that is needed on land to protect our kiwis and our other threatened species. This reserve will protect many many threatened species and for that we have to acknowledge the Minister and the Government. But I ask the Minister—and through the select committee process I am sure there will be questions around the resourcing of the department and all the flow-on departments like the navy. When this sanctuary is indeed formed the Government agencies that will now be responsible for protecting the values that we are trying to pass through into legislation here—it is indeed a huge area.Can I come back to one more point I would like to make before I finish here. In protecting 15 percent it is not fully representative of the different marine environments throughout New Zealand. So I ask the Government will it ensure that the other areas or representations of the other areas and marine species will also be protected? I personally support the protected marine areas concept but it is not perfect. Marine reserves are a difficult and tortuous process to implement but we do have areas of marine diversity in this country that need to be protected. I ask of the Government will it ensure that it does not stop here—because it says: “We’ve protected 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone. Therefore haven’t we done well?”. Will it move to protect and work with commercial interests and recreational interests to have a true range of protection across all the marine biodiversity?This is a good piece of legislation. I acknowledge that if I find it difficult to praise the Government as I say it is not to be small-minded; it is to say that this has been a long process to get the bill here. We hope that this will continue smoothly through the select committee but I ask of the Government can it ensure that resourcing for the department that will be responsible for this area and many other areas both on and off land—will it be resourced to carry out its duties and the expectations from the public to protect our endangered species?MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and taking the last call in this debate it is great to hear the support from around the House for this bill. It has thrown me a bit. Normally for me I know a bill is a good bill for New Zealanders when New Zealand First votes against it. So having those members vote for this bill has thrown me a wee bit but it is good to see—it is great to see.I am not sure I am as pessimistic as Damien O’Connor the last speaker. I think this is a day when New Zealanders can be proud. I would like to acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key our Prime Minister for his vision in announcing the sanctuary at the United Nations. I would like to acknowledge the work of Ministers Smith and Barry—Ministers for the environment and conservation respectively.It is a great day to be a New Zealander and this bill has created world attention. When you look at The Guardian in the UK it said that the sanctuary will be one of the world’s most significant fully protected ecosystems and when you look at the Wall Street Journal it described it as “bigger than Texas” and it said that we were the latest island nation in the Pacific to put ecological protection and tourism ahead of the fishing and mining industries. That is great news for New Zealand. And also the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand said it congratulated the Government on taking decisive action to protect this incredibly special area.The Hon Ruth Dyson put a challenge to us in the fourth speech in this debate today. She said to us: “Who is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs?”. So as a diligent backbencher I went away and did a bit of research and I have to say—Chris Bishop: Oh who is it?MATT DOOCEY: Actually no one is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs. But any people living on the Kermadecs—mainly Department of Conservation staff—will go back to the last electorate that they resided in as the electorate that they would vote in when on the Kermadecs.Can I just finish by saying that I once heard the statement “If space is the final frontier then the ocean is the first frontier”. Many New Zealanders love their snorkelling and their scuba-diving—possibly not in the Kermadecs. But when you go under the waves and you see the diversity of the ecosystems—basically on this side of the House you know we love highways and the Kermadecs is basically one big marine highway. If you think of all that marine life shooting its way through—what is it—620000 square kilometres that is something to be preserved.I welcome this bill and look forward to it going to the select committee. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill be reported to the House by 2 August 2016.Motion agreed to.