Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

I do not specifically object to the clauses in this part, but I think there is a question surrounding the Department of Conservation’s role in its wider advocacy, if you like, on behalf of conservation. Of course, live aquatic life is very much a part of that. But there appears to me to be a significant conflict of interest within the Department of Conservation when we realise that it has not just an advocacy role, not just a management role, and not just a governance role, but all three roles. I am at something of a loss to understand why that is still the case. Whether it is to do with live aquatic life, which this particular part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) refers to, or whether it is to do with the wider conservation field, it is widely accepted by any of us who have some experience of the Department of Conservation that the combination of all three of the department’s roles is totally inappropriate. We know that in any corporation or organisation each role is absolutely independent—absolutely separate one from the other, and one accountable to the other. For example, in the role of governance, the role of a board of governors or of the board in control is to set the rules, and it is for management to apply those rules and get on with the job of managing the organisation.

But in this part the department has an advocacy role, as well as a governance role. Anybody with any modicum of understanding of the business world and of best practice knows that one cannot combine all three roles. I think that has caused significant problems for the department, as well as for those who have land neighbouring the conservation estate, the sea, or whatever it may be. Tragically—and I say this genuinely—the department is becoming known as the neighbour from hell.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Clauses 5 and 6.

I hear I am being pointed back to the particular clause about the transfer or release of live aquatic life. But if there is an application to transfer some live aquatic life, say, from the North Island to the South Island for a farming purpose—and we are increasingly moving into aquatic farming—then it appears to me that there is a conflict immediately. The department has the role of ensuring through its advocacy that the purity, if you like, of that life stays the same in the North Island, but if it is shifted to the South Island there is the question of whether the strains would remain pure, and so on. It seems to me to be totally inappropriate for one department to be able to have that sort of overarching control of that wider area. I say again that the issue is not just about live aquatic life; it is reflective of life right throughout the spectrum. But that certainly is an issue, and it is one that we will no doubt hear a lot more of in future.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take it we are looking only at Part 2 on its own, and that Part 2A is a separate part that will be looked at separately.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it is—most certainly.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 2A Constitution Act 1986