Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5137. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What advice has he received on how New Zealand’s Ross Sea Marine Protected Area proposal would have affected the percentage of the toothfish catch landed by New Zealand fishers in the last three years? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The total allowable catch for the toothfish fishery in the Ross Sea region will not change as a result of a marine protected area. I have been advised that the New Zealand Ross Sea Marine Protected Area proposal would change the location in which fish are caught but not necessarily the total amount of fish that New Zealand fishers would catch. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is it correct then that 84 percent of the historical catch has been from areas that his plan leaves wide open to further fishing? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am informed that if you take a historical average over the last 10 years then approximately 16 percent of the catch would have been in the area in the proposed marine protected area—the proposal put forward by New Zealand. So on that basis the member’s assertion would be correct yes. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Does the Minister stand by his comment made in the film  
The Last Ocean 
 about the Ross Sea that he wanted New Zealand to be a conservation leader; if so why did Cabinet reject the stronger protection proposal developed with the US Government? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The submission of a marine protected area proposal is merely the start of a process not the end of it. Amongst the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources nations that will deal with the proposals there are 25 countries represented with a diverse range of interests. Some are more heavily emphasising science and conservation interests; others are more focused on national fisheries concerns. I suggest to the member that if a proposal advances any one of those considerations to the exclusion or disbenefit of others then it is quite likely there will be no marine protected area agreed upon at all and that is the real risk we now confront. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty clear question. I asked why Cabinet rejected working with the US which is what the Government has been doing for the last few years. I specifically asked: “Why did Cabinet reject the stronger protection proposal developed with the US Government?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I heard an explanation. I believe I heard an explanation. A number of reasons were given there. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Did he simply draw a line around the main toothfish area and draw a line around the biodiversity hot spots and is his plan not simply a fishing industry protection plan and not really a marine protection plan? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Can I assure the member and the House that I left the drawing of lines as he puts it to people with significantly greater knowledge and qualifications than I possess myself. Can I repeat the comment I have just made which is that the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources process involves 25 different nations. There will be those who want to emphasise scientific considerations particularly science research those who want to put a stronger focus on conservation and those who are more interested in the fisheries outcomes. Any attempt to focus exclusively on one of those is likely to lead to no agreement amongst those 25 countries. New Zealand has sought to take forward a proposal that captures the best prospects of seeing an agreement made. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table two maps produced by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance which show the Government’s proposal where the biodiversity is and where the fishing occurs and the fact that they do not mix. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.