Mackey Moana: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I want to start off by following on from my Green colleague Eugenie Sage and her question around the status of this piece of legislation the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill in terms of the schedule 4 protection that would normally be accorded to marine reserves under the Crown Minerals Act. It certainly was not something that we picked up at the Local Government and Environment Committee either. I think it is something that probably should have been raised at the committee given the numerous pieces of legislation that we have had through Parliament around this very sensitive and contentious issue. I suspect that the fact that it was not raised with the committee answers the question. I suspect that if some kind of level of protection at the level of schedule 4 was being accorded to these marine reserves as it would have been under the Crown Minerals Act we would have been told that and it would have been trumpeted in every speech from Government members. But I would ask that the Associate Minister of Conservation in the chair clarify that point. If in fact we are saying that this is a lesser form of marine protection then that is deeply concerning.That is not to take away from what is on the whole a good piece of legislation and a piece of legislation that Labour will be supporting. But if mining activities are allowed to be carried out in the waters surrounding the three islands where these marine reserves are being created then that is of deep concern because that is not in the spirit of themarine reserves legislation. That is not in the spirit of the policy that has certainly been followed by Labour Governments and purportedly from speeches in the House that we have heard on this bill by National Governments. So I would really appreciate the Minister in the chair even if it is only a 20-second contribution letting us know whether or not that is the case—whether or not in fact this is a lesser form of marine protection.Our understanding given the advice we were given at the select committee—and I want to acknowledge the work of officials on this—was that in fact the Marine Reserves Act is very outdated and clunky. It is a very long process. It takes a lot of time and certainly we do not disagree with that at all and so this is a way of making sure that we get this protection in place as quickly as possible through a separate legislative process. We took that on board and thought well it does raise the bigger question of what we are going to do about the marine reserves legislation in New Zealand. If our marine reserves legislation is actually preventing the creation of marine reserves in and of itself then that is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed and a debate for a different piece of legislation. But certainly we supported a stand-alone bill if it meant actually getting some protection afforded to these very ecologically unique and significant World Heritage sites. So I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on that particular issue.I want to come back to this issue of shared decision-making power and responsibility between the Minister of Conservation and what was formerly the Minister of Fisheries but is now the Minister for Primary Industries. This is particularly relevant in this piece of legislation because in clause 8 we have a process within the bill to review whether or not the marine reserve that is currently partially surrounding Campbell Island should be extended further. The select committee decided that that review should occur after 3 years not 5 years. Submitters who came to the select committee were asking for a review after 1 year of marine protection. As a select committee we thought 3 years was a compromise. But the process that is outlined in this piece of legislation is not a process that I am aware occurs in any other piece of legislation in terms of these decision-making powers and in particular with relevance to marine reserves. What we go through in this process that has been outlined in clause 8 is what the review must take into account.Of course this is an issue because there is a deep-water crab fishery around Campbell Island and obviously the Government had concerns about the impact on that particular fishing industry so it did not include the part of the marine area round Campbell Island where that activity was taking place. So it has to consider the value of that additional area that is not going to be in protection the impact of that deep-water crab fishery in that additional area on the marine environment and ecosystems and the biodiversity values in the additional area that is proposed to be added if that review deems it should be.The review must include consultation with relevant stakeholders. Then the Minister of Conservation must after receiving that review report provide the report to the Minister for Primary Industries. Clause 8 then goes on to say that the Ministers must consult each other about the report which is fine and then no later than 90 working days after receiving the report the Minister for Primary Industries must provide to the Minister of Conservation his or her response to the report. Well that all seems you know very fine and OK. But it does go on to say that the Minister of Conservation may recommend the making of the Order in Council only with the agreement of the Minister for Primary Industries. So again we have this decision-making power where a power—and there certainly should be in terms of marine reserves consultation between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries absolutely. But againwe have this kind of veto power that we are seeing time and time again once again undermining the role of the Minister of Conservation.We have seen that in terms of mining on the conservation estate where the decisions as to whether or not to grant a Department of Conservation concession for mining activity on the conservation estate used to be held solely with the Minister of Conservation; that is now a responsibility shared with the Minister of Energy and Resources. I remember that the former Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson when that was announced was sitting alongside the then Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee trying to convince us that this was an equal relationship and an equal decision-making capacity. Minister Wilkinson was not allowed to say anything and Minister Brownlee controlled the entire press conference.Here we are seeing it again. Here we are seeing it again where again we have the Minister for Primary Industries having this veto power. I do not know what kind of precedent there is for this kind of process that we are putting in this legislation. I do not know who trumps if they cannot agree—if the Minister of Conservation says: “Well actually I disagree with the Minister for Primary Industries that this should not go ahead.” and the Minister for Primary Industries says: “Well actually I think it should go ahead so I disagree with the Minister of Conservation that this should be protected.”The wording of this bill really worries me because it makes it sound like it is the Minister for Primary Industries who has the final call. It actually says that the extension cannot go ahead without the agreement of the Minister for Primary Industries. So let us be quite clear that that is who is making the decision about the extension of the marine protected area around Campbell Island. It is not the Minister of Conservation; it is the Minister for Primary Industries. That is not how it should be. That is a further undermining of the role of the Minister of Conservation under this particular Government.I think the other issue that we have is that when you put these processes in place—and we are seeing it right throughout environmental legislation—you need a process that really does do away with the kind of natural hierarchy that exists or the bias that exists within Governments for one group over another. You want a process that gives everyone fair input and that reflects the relative power of the various groups and I do not believe that this process meets that test. Certainly with the undermining of the Resource Management Act with the exclusive economic zone legislation and with the changes to the Crown Minerals Act—we could go on and on and on—what we are seeing is an injecting of the Government’s natural bias for its preferred supporters and preferred submitters into actual legislation. That is also extremely unhelpful and actually undermines public confidence in these processes which should be there to ensure that that bias is accounted for and does not become part of the decision-making process.To finish on a positive note I think the select committee enjoyed working on this bill. It was nice to have a piece of legislation at the Local Government and Environment Committee that was not environmentally destructive for once so we enjoyed working on it. I think there is scope for parties across the House to work far more collaboratively and closely—Hon Peter Dunne: Work together.MOANA MACKEY: —working together thank you Minister—on marine protected areas because I think there is some common ground. I take on board the points that Eugenie Sage raised about how these areas are not valuable for fishing or mining and that is why we have gone ahead. At least we have gone ahead. You know if we can get common ground at least on those things then let us do it and let us really ramp this stuff up and then in areas where there is more contention we can have votesacross the House where we disagree or where the National Government does not want to stop mining or fishing in a certain area. But I think there is a lot of common ground and there are a lot of areas where we could really make great progress in this area. I notice the Minister is consulting his officials and hopefully we have some clarification. That is all we need so I am happy to sit down now and I am happy to support this bill.