Speeches 

Hon Chris Carter

8/07/05

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for the invitation to join you today to discuss the sensitive subject of marine protection.

This is the first time I have attended your annual conference, but my presence here follows a number of meetings with your representatives, and at least two meetings with your Executive Board over the past year.

Those meetings have been informative and constructive, and I hope today is the same.

I know many of you will have questions for me and I will be happy to answer them shortly.

Before that though, I'd like to spend a bit of time discussing marine protection, where it has got to in New Zealand, and more importantly, where I think some of our processes around protection can be improved.

As you will be doubtless aware, the Labour government has a goal of placing 10 per cent of New Zealand's vast marine area (including the exclusive economic zone) under some form of protection by 2010.

Our view is that our marine area is as deserving of protection as our land area.

On land, we have 14 National Parks which are now recognised as social, economic and scientific assets that almost all New Zealanders enjoy and celebrate.

The same is not the case in the sea.

Despite the fact our sea area is 15 times larger than our land area, we have not taken the same precautions with our marine environment as we have with our terrestrial one.

The area of ocean we have protected is a tiny fraction of the area celebrated in our National Parks.

Labour's policy is simply to improve this situation.

It is not a policy of confiscation, as claimed by some, it is simply a policy that says it would be prudent given we know so little about what is going on beneath our waves, to set aside 10 per cent of our sea for the protection and study of our biodiversity.

I'm confident that if you took this policy out of its current political context, it would be regarded as modest.

That is particularly true when you consider that some of the protective mechanisms likely to be used over this 10 per cent will continue to allow limited fishing.

Doubtless, some of you won't agree with me, and I understand why.

Although I am a big proponent of marine protection, and marine reserves in particular, I am the first to acknowledge that some of the processes around marine protection have fostered conflict and suspicion.

Yes, the government believes it is important New Zealand as a country aspires to a target for marine protection.

But the government also believes it is important we give all groups with an interest in the sea greater input into how protection is achieved.

When I became Minister of Conservation, a head of steam had built up behind marine protection; frustration was evident on all sides of the issue.

Some reserve applications had languished for up to 10 years.

I took a decision to fulfil my statutory duty and progress some of these applications, but at the same time examine what had led to the kinds of stalemates that seemed to characterise the issue.

With this in mind, Fisheries Minister David Benson-Pope and I sat down about a year ago and we examined the process of marine protection, particularly the creation of marine reserves.

Most often criticism focuses on the ministerial decision-making processes built into the Marine Reserves Act. I often hear fishing groups complaining they have been ignored at this stage.

Realistically, they are not.

The law requires that recreational fishing groups be consulted about marine reserves.

There is a specific legal test ministers must consider which asks if a reserve were put in a particular spot would it have an undue impact on adjacent landowners, recreational use or commercial fishing?

This is a test, a matter to be considered by the decision-maker, not a right of veto for fishing groups, and nor should it be.

Nevertheless, it can and does have an effect. Take just three of my recent decisions on marine reserves.

In approving a marine reserve proposal in Whangarei Harbour recently, I removed one of three proposed sites following concerns from recreational fishers.

Just last month, I adjusted the boundaries of a reserve proposal at Volkner Rocks following new information about the significance of a reef to fishers, and I lopped 500 hectares out of the Great Barrier Island proposal because I was concerned about the impact on local residents.

Change does take place in response to your concerns, and those of others.

But this is not say there isn't a weakness in the system.

It is my view that there has been insufficient systematic and open planning about which areas should be suggested as reserves in the first place, before any proposals come before ministers and trigger a statutory process.

Some planning has gone on in certain regions in the past but it has not been comprehensive nationally.

Let me put this another way.

Rather than you guys fighting marine reserves in your favourite fishing spot all the way to the minister's door, it makes much more sense for you to get round the table with a host of other community groups, councils and government agencies, and work to influence which particular spots are actually proposed for protection in the first place.

Giving you and other groups that opportunity, whilst achieving real and tangible progress, is a central part of Labour's marine protection policy.

We're looking for a process that selects sites for protected areas only after taking full account of the needs and aspirations of all marine users.

How this might be achieved in practice was laid out in a draft Marine Protected Areas Policy, circulated for consultation last year.

We're now at the stage of considering the public response to that document but the gist of what is proposed is as follows.

A national classifications framework is being developed outlining the different types of marine environments in our waters.

At the same time, a series of regional forums are being formed comprising different community and government groups with an involvement in the marine environment. These will include recreational fishers.

The forums will be tasked with identifying and compiling the interests in the sea of the different groups, such as fishing spots, and the knowledge each of group has on the different marine environments.

Using this information, these forums will then identify which places in their region have already been protected, which still need to be protected to ensure the full spectrum of marine environments is secured, and how the region might go about doing that.

My expectation is the process will allow trade offs and compromises to be made among competing interests.

Applications for protection will only go forward to ministers from the forums, and marine reserves will be just one type of protection available for use by the forums.

We need a graduated approach to marine protection, one that involves the use of core protection tools, such as no-take marine reserves, as well as tools where fishing is permitted.

By taking a regional approach we can best figure out how we might achieve this graduation, and we will ensure we are not considering each particular area around a particular coastline in isolation from all other areas.

As you know, there is a Marine Reserves Bill before Parliament. It's been there since before I became Conservation Minister, and has been delayed pending more discussion.

Whether it is appropriate for the forum approach to be acknowledged in this Bill is something we're thinking about at present.

I'm open-minded about it. I'm also open-minded about some of the other changes that have come forward during discussions about the Bill.

For instance, I am aware there is a concern that DOC makes recommendations to the minister on marine reserve decisions in the current process.

There's a proposal doing the rounds for an independent panel to be formed in the new Bill to assess and make recommendations to the minister instead of DOC.

I'm prepared to consider this idea, but I think it needs to be fleshed out some more first.

My initial reaction is that it probably won't change much and realistically the forum approach is going to be far more valuable to all concerned. None-the-less, I will look at it.

In summary then, what does Labour's policy offer you as recreational fishers?

It offers you the opportunity to participate in the planning of marine protected areas in a systematic and comprehensive way.

It offers you the opportunity to put your knowledge of the marine environment on the table because none of us has a monopoly on knowledge.

It offers you the opportunity to influence which protective tools are used where in sea, and for what.

And it offers you the opportunity to make trade-offs and compromises across each of your regions to best protect both the marine environment and your interests.

What our policy does not offer is an opportunity to stonewall marine protection in New Zealand. The Labour government does not believe the country can afford to allow that. The health and vibrancy of our ocean is too important to our wellbeing, and the wellbeing of future generations.

I note with interest comments from Keith Ingram's President's Report to this conference that I am, and I quote: "demonstrating a track record of ignoring overwhelming public comments and objections" about marine protection.

I'd urge you think carefully about these kinds of statements because there is plenty of evidence of widespread support for marine protection out there in the public.

There were 3500 submissions on the recent Great Barrier Island reserve proposal, 2200 of which were supportive.

There were 571 submissions on the Whangarei Harbour proposal, 467 of which were supportive. Even taking into account a petition opposing the reserve with several hundred signatures there was still more support than there was opposition.

Not all reserve applications are as popular as these, but many are.

When a Colmar Brunton survey was commissioned earlier this year by WWF, it found 90 per cent of New Zealanders overestimate the percentage of the marine environment currently protected.

More than 50 per cent think the area protected is above 10 per cent already, and 95 per cent of people think a greater percentage should be protected. Some 60 per cent of people actually thought we should be protecting more than 16 per cent.

I'm not surprised by these kinds of findings. New Zealanders are fundamentally sensible people. They want lots of places to go fishing but they can also see the wisdom of compromising a little and setting aside a modest proportion of our marine environment for the future.

Let me read this comment from one of the submissions to the Great Barrier Island proposal:

" as a recreational fisherman of some 30 years I can surely attest to the decline of our inshore fisheries. ...The creation of this reserve has the potential to not only protect the marine inhabitants for their own sake or future study, but to ensure the continued access by fishers to desirable fishing activities in surrounding areas."

The sentiments expressed in this submission are pretty typical of a lot of correspondence that comes in to my office.

Most fishers care deeply for the ocean. They want to look after it; they just want to be involved in where and how that is achieved.

Labour's marine protection policy seeks to balance marine protection with the importance of recreational fishing and the economic needs of our country.

We can have it all. New Zealand has the fourth largest marine area in the world. We're not strapped for space.

Once again, thank you for the invitation to be here today, and I am happy to answer your questions.

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US