Adams Amy: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5282] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise tonight to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. I think it is no surprise that National will be voting against the bill but I want to give some context to that decision because if one looks at just the decision itself one does not get an explanation of the picture. 
I think after listening to the debate in the House it is evident that there is a strong level of support and agreement on the importance of our marine environment and the importance of marine mammals and seabirds. None of us is disputing that importance or disputing the need to deal with these issues. I am definitely a supporter of biodiversity and marine reserves in particular. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Hollow words. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I point out for members who dispute that that I have spent the entire time I have been a member of this House working incredibly hard with the local members of my communities to get a marine reserve in the Akaroa inner harbour where one is absolutely needed. That has been an ongoing piece of work for me which I continue to support. I support it because I recognise as do the other members on this side of the House that marine life marine mammals in particular has a very special place in our natural environment. The Hon David Parker talked about it before. 
We have 41 species of cetaceans in the New Zealand marine environment and nine species of seals. In addition to that we all acknowledge the important part that marine mammals play in our cultural identity. I take on board the words of the Maori Party members in that regard. If we look back there was Opo the dolphin in Opononi in the 1950s and just lately we have Harbour Hector the Hector’s dolphin in Wellington Harbour. We all have memories I would suggest of swimming with dolphins in the Bay of Islands off Kaikoura or in Akaroa or of watching them swim alongside the ferry. 
I freely acknowledge that marine mammals are significant players in our tourism sector. I take on board what Kevin Hague said in that regard. He is quite right. The marine environment is an important factor in our economy. Certainly in Akaroa which is part of my electorate it is a vital part of the tourism economy. 
Equally we have to be fair and acknowledge that New Zealand already sits at the forefront of marine mammal conservation. In saying that I do not resile from the fact that there is certainly more we can do and this Government supports doing more. But we do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that any additional regulation must be a good way to go. We have to look at whether it will be right for the purpose and whether it will achieve what we need to achieve. 
I mentioned that New Zealand is already at the forefront of marine mammal protection and it is. All cetaceans are already fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and anyone who chooses to breach that Act faces 6 months’ imprisonment and fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars including an extra $10000 fine per animal. We have the  
Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005-2010 
The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 
 which is the foundation document on these arguments and the set-net ban which came into force over the east coast of the South Island and in many other parts of the country in May of last year. The national plan of action on seabirds is now under review to ensure fishing does not have an unacceptable impact on any of those species. 
The point National is making is that the protection of iconic and threatened marine species is something that we take incredibly seriously but—and it is a but; it is the reason we are not supporting this legislation—the tools already exist to manage the situation and if the issue is that Ministers in previous Governments have not used them sufficiently or effectively then let us address that. If it has not been done to date then that does not necessarily mean that the tools are not there. I would suggest that the tools are there and that we have to ensure that they are used. 
The compliance burden imposed by this bill is unworkable. In this House Opposition parties badger the Government daily about jobs. Well this bill is a very real example of where the rubber hits the road because passing this bill would cost jobs and suddenly all those members’ strong talk on jobs goes out the window. It will cost jobs in the fishing industry but those members do not care about jobs any more. Now that they are wearing their environmental hats they say: “Stuff the job market.” All of that was just rhetoric. 
This issue is about the economy partly. It is about maintaining the fishing industry partly. But we believe that we can do this in a collaborative and community-based way. This is not about the Government imposing its will on a sector that will not accept it. More regulation is not the answer. The answer is working with stakeholders and that is what we will do. Thank you.