Professor Tasman Crowe:

That is a good question and it is an interesting and important aspect of the Bill. The reason it is of value is that developing an effective and efficient network of MPAs needs a lot of perspectives. As for its constitution, a model that is similar to the expert advisory group that produced the report in 2020 would be appropriate in that we had a mixture of experts from the natural and oceanographic sciences concerned with the biology, ecology and environment in which the organisms and the features operate. We also had experts who focus on the socioeconomic dimensions, understanding the interplay between society and economic activity and the marine environment. We also have people with expertise in the cultural dimensions because that is also an important consideration. It is a matter of being able to help shape the way in which we think about the MPA network, what it can achieve and so on. That kind of composition works well. The sort of task the group would have would be not dissimilar to the task the advisory group took on board, which is to gather and review all the available evidence from those different perspectives as to the way in which the MPAs should be identified and managed and also to draw on international best practice in doing that. That kind of expert advisory group is one important facet feeding into the decision-making process. As I said, there is also provision in the Bill for ad hocgroups, which I think is intended to mean stakeholder input because an expert advisory group alone should not be the only voice around the table.