Professor Tasman Crowe:

That is a really good question. I saw the phrasing of head 6, which is about the international requirements, and I note head 6(3) lists the current international laws and treaties, but does not say "including". I think there is something a little later that says that other policy frameworks and instruments should also influence the ocean policy statement.

It is very much a changing field and the balance between flexibility and specificity is a real challenge. As things are changing in the way we think and approach marine protected areas, I think some provision for that review and adaptation in how we move forward makes sense. My understanding - I state again that I am not a political scientist - is that it is a pretty big process to change legislation, as such, and there may never be another opportunity to do that, or not for ten, 20 or 30 years, so I would lean towards building in some flexibility to enable approaches to change as it becomes evident that they need to change because they are just not working.

I agree with the Deputy about the clarity. Reading this as a citizen, one would want a sense of some of the harder, more serious points that are perhaps hidden behind the scenes. There does seem to be quite a lot of ministerial power and discretion in this. It struck me that there are lots of "may" phrases rather than "shall" phrases.