Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill

I move, That the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. There are several populations of very attractive jewelled geckos on Banks Peninsula and also a population on the Otago Peninsula. They are attractive to us because they are the most wonderful creatures—green, with yellow and white markings. They are pretty unique as well, giving birth to live young and also being active during the day. These geckos, endemic to the South Island of New Zealand, are highly protected and it is illegal to disturb or capture them. Unfortunately, jewelled geckos are also attractive to wildlife smugglers, who, if they can get them past our borders, can make an extraordinary amount of money from them.

Smugglers come to New Zealand often posing as tourists. Some of them are acting as agents for overseas collectors, and have maps and global positioning system points provided by overseas syndicates, with the detailed locations of where to find our geckos. They might hire a campervan and they might visit, and then revisit, the same site on the Otago Peninsula or Banks Peninsula over a number of years, targeting our iconic species over and over again, and literally ripping off our heritage. The smugglers are driven by the big money that they can get at the huge trade fairs overseas, held in Europe. These trade fairs are where our native wildlife, such as jewelled skink, are openly sold, and if you go on the internet, which is easy enough to do these days, you can see pictures of them in plastic containers like Tupperware or GladWare containers, sitting there on perhaps a paper towel, and they are easily identifiable by way by their markings, which are pretty individual to them.

So they are openly sold, both on the internet and also at these large trade fairs, reaching prices often of more than $10,000 each and more if it happens to be a pregnant female. Just recently, a pregnant female was caught in the hands of a potential smuggler at our border in Christchurch. She was pregnant with two young inside her. I do not know the price of that female, but the loss to New Zealand and to the native population is a—

💬 Scott Simpson: Priceless loss to New Zealand.

Well, it is a priceless loss to New Zealanders and is pretty keenly felt by those of us who are neighbourly with these skinks in Otago and, indeed, Canterbury. For the Otago population of jewelled gecko, poachers are now a larger threat than even cats and ferrets, and it is estimated that the population has been decimated by up to one-third over a period of 5 years, leaving a population of fewer than 5,000 in Otago.

The Wildlife Enforcement Group, which was set up by the Government, is doing wonderful work. It is based in the Customs Service, together with the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation. In 2010 a German gentleman, Manfred Bachmann, was caught in Christchurch by the Wildlife Enforcement Group with 16 jewelled gecko in a backpack on his person. He pleaded guilty to being in possession of absolutely protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act and was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail, and, in my view, that is not enough. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does not only apply to the jewelled gecko, of course. Plenty of New Zealand’s precious and protected flora, fauna, and natural and historic resources are under threat. The new penalties proposed in the bill, relating to animals, will also cover the poaching and smuggling of tuatara and of parrots. Some penalties in the current legislation are far too low. Upon sentencing German national Manfred Bachmann, who was found guilty of smuggling jewelled gecko, Judge Farish, who was presiding, noted: “Given the value of these creatures, perhaps the penalty needs to be increased to deter you and other people from thinking it’s appropriate to come here and steal these valuable creatures from our country.” I could not agree more with those sentiments.

This bill proposes amendments to the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Instead of a sentence of 15 weeks in jail for smuggling jewelled gecko, the likes of Mr Bachmann would face up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $200,000. Maybe that would send a strong message to him and his like in the international smuggling community, and they will know that they are not welcome here in New Zealand with their smuggling ways.

The bill not only increases penalties for offences but also provides a consistent approach across a number of Acts. Under the bill, fines for reserves and national parks will come into line with each other and will provide clarity across the main regulations administered by the Department of Conservation.

The message we want to send people through this legislation, should it be passed, is that New Zealand is not, should not, and will not be a soft touch for overseas smugglers coming to New Zealand to steal our natural heritage. So this bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand wildlife and our natural areas very seriously. We New Zealanders pride ourselves on our clean, green image. It is imperative that we look after our natural environment, because it is our greatest asset. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishment, and enforcement.

I want to finish my contribution tonight and my introduction to this bill by commending the commitment and the work of the Department of Conservation. I also want to commend the commitment and the work of the Customs Service and also those personnel in the Ministry for Primary Industries in their work with the Wildlife Enforcement Group, and I hope that this bill will give them more teeth. I commend the bill to the House.

I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat, Jacqui Dean, and say that her presentation of her Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill was spoken with some insight and passion, and I commend both. I am very pleased to say that Labour is supporting this bill.

Mrs Dean said she wanted to see better protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources, and she talked about the jewelled gecko on Banks Peninsula and Otago Peninsula. As the member of Parliament who used to represent Banks Peninsula before it was stolen unkindly from me by the Hon Amy Adams and put into the Selwyn electorate, I was privileged to see those geckos on a number of occasions and I really enjoyed them. I know that a former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, was part of those experiences, as well, when he was not kayaking in Akaroa Harbour, waiting for a reserve to be put there. The reserve still is not there, Dr Smith, so get back in that job and let us get it progressed.

I remember not very long ago having a bill that made quite a small amendment to the Resource Management Act, but it was one that in my view was quite significant because it changed the part of the Resource Management Act that allowed for private enterprise to compulsorily acquire land in order to progress their projects. I thought it was something that really deserved cross-party support in the House. I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in that debate—

💬 Grant Robertson: They’re always memorable.

Perhaps my colleague Grant Robertson is correct—they are always memorable. I certainly remember this one because he said that we should not do little bits of changes, even though the bill was a member’s bill. He said we should look at the whole issue—we should look at a comprehensive approach. He was talking about the Resource Management Act. So I am looking forward to Dr Smith’s speech tonight when he, with the same consistency of principle, refuses to support his colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill, on the basis that it is not even a tinkering. It is not worthy of even the description of tinkering. It is such a small amendment. But it is significant. It is very comparable to the Resource Management Act amendment I introduced, which Nick Smith railed against and then led the vote against. So whilst supporting this bill, I look forward to his contribution, because I will be giving him marks out of 10 for his consistency and I would like him to score highly on that point.

This bill ensures that not only are the penalties for, as the member described, trying to smuggle our precious gecko etc. out of the country, or releasing pests into natural reserves, which is another one of the penalties, increased but actually they are made more consistent, and I think that is a very good thing. At the moment, if someone released a stoat into a nature reserve, the highest penalty they could receive would be a $500 fine or 1 month’s imprisonment. That in itself is quite bizarre because $500 does not seem all that much actually but 1 month’s imprisonment seems like quite a lot. So I think there is some inconsistency within even the existing penalty regime. Under the National Parks Act, if part of a national park is carved off and converted to pasture, or to a stand of trees that then is milled, the highest penalty is $2,500 or 3 months’ imprisonment. So there is quite an inconsistency between those offences. But if those same offences happened in a conservation area such as the Kaimanawa Conservation Park, the maximum penalty for the same offences would be $10,000 or 12 months in prison. So, again, how did all of this come about? Well, it came about because we did not have an overview in the way that the member has provided for in this member’s bill. And we know that the areas that national parks protect are typically of higher value than conservation areas, so it is even more foolish.

So while Labour will be supporting this bill, and I certainly look forward to the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee, if that is, indeed, where it is referred to after the vote, I have to say that out of all of the things that are happening in the conservation space, I would have thought that a member of the Government might have used the opportunity of a member’s bill to make sure that the fundamental role of the Department of Conservation was secured and perhaps even—it might be a bit dramatic for the National Party—enhanced, not just left as the status quo. The Hon Nick Smith’s eyes are lighting up, because I know that is what he would want to do with it; not just retain the status quo but strengthen the role of the Department of Conservation. What we have seen over the last 4 years is a real dumbing down of the department. I think that is a huge shame and it is something we will pay for over the longer term, quite significantly.

The National Party sees the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced, rather than seeing them as dependent on each other, or two sides of the one coin, which is the way Labour sees those issues. So the Department of Conservation has lost its place as a critical player in our public policy. We do not have the advocacy role. We certainly do not have in the Minister an advocate for conservation issues. We saw the Minister just stand back and watch Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce bowl over her views in terms of mining of schedule 4 land. It was not really until thousands of New Zealanders got on the street and protested against the possibility not of mining—the protest was not against mining—but of mining in our most special places, the pieces of land that are protected under schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Those pieces of land are there for a particular reason, and they should be protected. That is why they are put under schedule 4 of that legislation.

We know that the Department of Conservation has had massive staff cuts. During the submissions on the Game Animal Council Bill we heard a lot about the relationship the Department of Conservation has with local people in provincial areas in particular. In some parts of the country the Department of Conservation works alongside recreational hunters, works alongside iwi, works alongside community groups, works alongside schools, to make sure that those conservation values are seen as part of the ongoing resources and win the support of the community. But what we have seen in other areas is that, through the staff cuts that the National Government has imposed on the Department of Conservation, the staff have been centralised, they have been moved to other parts of the country, and those relationships are just not possible. There are not local people doing that job any more. We know that over the next 12 months we are going to see further staff cuts in the Department of Conservation.

One of the areas that are of most concern is the lack of scientific research that is now available as a core function of the Department of Conservation. If we want evidence-based research, if we want best practice, if we want to be really confident that the decisions made in regard to conservation are made on the basis of evidence and on the basis of good information, we need that scientific base. We have seen good scientists—some of the best scientists—leave the Department of Conservation because the work is not there for them. Even when there is some work available, they do not get the satisfaction any more of knowing that that work is going anywhere.

I hope that the Minister of Conservation, when it comes to the next big decision that she has to make, is able to get some courage, which she has not demonstrated in many recent decision-making processes. That decision is in regard to protection for Māui’s dolphins. The submissions have closed just this week, and thousands of New Zealanders put in submissions calling for protection of the most endangered dolphin, and a dolphin that is New Zealand’s dolphin. There are only 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left. I implore the Minister to use her power as Minister of Conservation and to not be pushed back by the people in her Cabinet who do not care nearly as much about our dolphin or our reputation internationally as they do about so-called economic benefits. There is a bottom line, and I think that the future of a species that we are responsible for protecting should be a big part of that bottom line. I want the Minister responsible for fisheries to put some money into sustainable fishing practices for New Zealand, so that instead of the fishing industry losing out in a decision to protect the Māui’s dolphins, we can get a win-win situation. But at the moment that is not happening. The Minister of Conservation is standing by and letting the Minister for Primary Industries run the place. I think that is a great shame.

The conservation values that we have in New Zealand are important to us. This bill will give us an opportunity to make better sense of our penalty regime, but also to give better protection to some—

I am very pleased to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in the name of Jacqui Dean. I would like to congratulate Jacqui Dean on having two bills in the House this afternoon. It is great work, and she is a hard-working member for Waitaki.

I think we are all concerned that New Zealand’s unique plants and animals are at risk, and we want to be able to protect them better. Our plants and animals are exceptional. They are totally unique, highly desirable, and greatly prized, and a real temptation to the collectors of the world, who are always looking for the unusual, the beautiful, and, particularly, the unobtainable. Unfortunately, there are many collectors globally who are happy to pay big money for these creatures. They will pay for the skinks, for the geckos, for our birds, and, really, for anything that is unique and different, and that comes from the other side of the world. We have also seen a dramatic increase in violence against creatures, as well as the poaching, the stealing, and the smuggling. New Zealanders all find these behaviours abhorrent, because we are proud of our country, we are proud of our plants, birds, and reptiles, and we want to make sure that they stay here. We want to protect our natural spaces and the birds and creatures who live in them.

This bill introduces bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. We need to have a consistency across the 5 Acts amended by this bill. It was interesting that the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned the lack of consistency. That is what this bill is driving at: consistency and penalties that deter unacceptable behaviour. We are serious about this. We are serious about deterring this type of crime. It is not just a crime against our flora and fauna; it is also a crime against the people of New Zealand. So we are introducing a maximum fine of $10,000 or a 2-year jail sentence for offences conducted in both reserves and national parks.

I was horrified to find out that collectors from Asia and from Europe are particularly interested in our unique reptiles, particularly creatures like the jewelled geckos that, as Jacqui Dean has mentioned, live in Banks Peninsula and Otago. These fetch enormous prices overseas, I have heard, of up to $25,000 each. They are actually relatively easy to catch in the remote parts of New Zealand, and they are quite easy to transport as well. Dozens of endangered lizards disappear from their native habitats every year. Many are in the hands of suspected organised criminal groups, who sell them on the internet. New Zealand geckos are particularly prized, because they give birth to their young live, so if you get a pregnant one, you actually get a whole lot of free geckos as well.

In the past 3 years seven people have been caught smuggling protected geckos and skinks out of the South Island. One group, including a German from Uganda who was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail, was caught with 16 jewelled geckos. They were packed in tubes; others put them down their pants or in their clothing. But these 16 geckos were valued at over $200,000, and at least nine of them were pregnant. The geckos usually end up on a German website, where traders claim that they have been bred in captivity. It is not true, and it is not right. I know that the Department of Conservation and Wildlife Enforcement Group are working very hard to protect these geckos and skinks. I support this bill, because it does show how seriously we are taking these issues and how much we value our birds and reptiles. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. As other speakers have noted, there is a lot to be said positively about this bill in the sense that it takes seriously the issues that have been raised about smuggling and about protecting our flora and fauna, by increasing fines and trying to address some of the inconsistency within the various fines regimes that cover our conservation estate, and that cover the flora and fauna that, as the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, has said, we are all so proud of in New Zealand. It always strikes me when we look at legislation that is about fines and regimes for penalties that we find ourselves in the House continuously trying to update them like some kind of inflation index here within the House.

I do wonder at the wisdom sometimes of legislation that sets dollar figures and then expects time to stand still and those dollar figures to somehow mean something. As Ruth Dyson said earlier, when you have a situation where it is a $500 fine or 1 year in prison, that indicates that time has got away on the legislation. I do think that overall there is a question of whether it is wise to be setting in legislation particular dollar figure penalties when, in fact, what we are trying to do is express the will of Parliament about the seriousness of these offences—whether, actually, we are better off with some other kind of system that does not require us to come back as some form of inflation index every few years and make the changes that are being proposed tonight by Jacqui Dean. But that is obviously not in the scope of this particular bill, and the fines increases and penalty increases that are indicated in the bill seem to me to be reasonable. Certainly, from the Labour Party’s point of view, we are keen to see this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee to discuss the wisdom of the penalties regimes as they stand.

But if we are talking about making things consistent, there is one thing that we can say that is absolutely consistent about this Government’s approach to conservation matters, and that is the fact that from the day its members entered office, they have undermined the operations of the Department of Conservation—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s rubbish!

Dr Smith says it is rubbish. Let us go through the record. The 2009 Budget cut $54 million out from the Department of Conservation—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Over how many years?

—with 400 job losses, Dr Smith. That was projected just in 2009. Dr Smith ask over how many years. It does not matter, Dr Smith. Taking $54 million out of the budget of the Department of Conservation undermines the work. It is all very well for National members to come to this House with bills that look like they care about the conservation estate and that improve the penalties regime, but sitting behind that is a cut of $54 million from the Department of Conservation.

In September last year they announced that they were cutting 96 members of staff at the Department of Conservation. That is staff from 12 conservancies right around the country. Members of this House will know as they travel around the country the impact of those cuts on those local conservancies. It is not like it was the great back-office cuts that we were told about. These are people in regional New Zealand who are charged with protecting our conservation estate whom this Government has cut. These people include the scientists. As Ruth Dyson said before, what the department needs is the ability to be able to provide the information for the evidence-based decisions that Dr Smith and others would tell us that they believe in. But it is those scientists who have lost their jobs under this Government.

The Government has systematically undermined the Department of Conservation, and what we are now left with is a situation where only 250 of 2,700 threatened species are actually under active management.

💬 Louise Upston: Remind me the relevancy to the bill?

Louise Upston asks how this is relevant. What is the point of a penalties regime that involves the conservation estate if the Government undermines the very protection of that estate, and of the protection of the flora and fauna that this Government says it cares about? It puts the penalties regime up, but the department that is charged with looking after it is consistently undermined by this Government. Now we have a department reliant on private donations and groups to fill in the gaps. It is great to see corporations getting behind things like kiwi recovery, but in the end, if the BNZ decides it has got other priorities, there is nothing left inside this department. We support this bill to the select committee, but we do so knowing that this Government has a record of undermining conservation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I congratulate Jacqui Dean on bringing this bill to the House, because it increases and implements a much more consistent approach to penalties for offences that are committed under the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. One of the areas where it does this obviously is by increasing the penalties for offences under this conservation legislation for the smuggling of native wildlife. That is why the Green Party will be supporting the bill, because the existing penalties have not increased for some time, and they are out of step with the prices that are being paid internationally for wildlife that is smuggled out of Aotearoa and then sold internationally. There has been a range of court cases where it is quite clear that the existing penalties of up to a $100,000 fine and 6 months in jail are not providing a deterrent. So we are pleased that the bill will increase the offending penalties where it has been done by individuals for commercial purposes, or by a company—and that is a higher penalty than for offending by an individual.

But I am also somewhat bemused by this bill, because it is a member’s bill, yet in September the Minister of Conservation said that the Government would be introducing the Wildlife (Smuggling Deterrence) Amendment Bill later this year, and the object of that bill was to increase the maximum penalties for smuggling wildlife such as tuatara, parrots, and geckos—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Conspiracy—there’s something tricky going on here!

So yes, Mr Bridges, what is going on here? Because the Minister, when she announced the intention to introduce that Government bill, said that the penalties would be increased to up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a $300,000 fine. So I would be interested in the comments from the member Jacqui Dean in reply about what happens when the Government does introduce the bill that has been promised. How does this bill improve on what the Government and Cabinet had already agreed, and is it potentially duplicating that? Nevertheless, we welcome the bill and we will be voting for it.

As other speakers on the Opposition benches have highlighted, this is a good bill, but the Government is not investing adequately in conservation. We have seen a $54 million cut to the Department of Conservation’s budget, and in the annual report of the department released in September, it showed that there were 114 fewer front-line staff in 2011-12 than in 2009-10, and a total of 181 fewer permanent staff. That reduction in front-line staff gives the lie to the Government’s promises and claims that its slashing of the public sector budgets is not reducing people on the front line.

Of course, it is the people on the front line—the Department of Conservation staff who are out maintaining tracks and huts, controlling wildings and willows, doing predator control, and providing advice to hunters, trampers, and international visitors—who are the front line against smuggling, because it is often those staff and members of the public who are alert to suspicious activities. People go to visit the quite compliant sites and habitats where species like the jewelled gecko are found and then alert the wildlife enforcement group and warranted officers, who can step in and take action. So I pay on behalf of the Green Party enormous tribute to those front-line Department of Conservation staff, particularly in area offices, who are being threatened by their substantial second round of restructuring, which means that they are all going to have to apply for their jobs.

It was a senior investigator in the wildlife enforcement group who described wildlife smugglers as “greedy people without any consideration for animals”. That is certainly true where these people are snatching species like the beautiful jewelled gecko from their habitats, stuffing them in small plastic containers, and taking them overseas. It is these lizard fauna, particularly distinctive species like the jewelled gecko, which have been targeted because of their bright green colouring and that very unusual diamond pattern. Of that species, there are only about 5,000 individuals left, and they now confined to small areas of Otago and Canterbury, particularly on the peninsulas. Habitat loss and predation have affected them, and poaching is a huge impact and has caused several of the populations to crash. So the Green Party supports this bill increasing the penalties for those individuals who are taking these geckos out of their habitat.

I think we are all pretty familiar with the very unique range of flora and fauna that exists only in these islands of New Zealand, and that makes us particularly vulnerable to those from overseas who would like to steal either our tuatara, our geckos, or the wide range of bird species that exist only in New Zealand. We have seen some high-profile prosecutions against people from various parts of the world who have tried to profit out of those pretty ugly crimes, and it is appropriate that this Parliament is considering a bill to up both the fines and the criminal sanctions against those people involved in those crimes. I want to join with others and commend Jacqui Dean, a member of Parliament for one of the most spectacular parts of the country, with both South Canterbury and North Otago in that Waitaki area. I think her practical passion for conservation is what typifies this Government’s blue-green approach of wanting to be pro jobs and pro the economy, and wanting to be a successful, innovative country, but at the same time wanting to ensure that we look after that which is precious.

I want to respond to a couple of the challenges that have come from members opposite on this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, firstly, from Green MP Eugenie Sage. She questioned the authenticity of this bill on the basis that the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, who is doing a great job, had said that this was an area that needed to be addressed. Somehow the Green MPs are concerned that a Government MP has taken the initiative and picked up on the work and the comments that have been made by Kate Wilkinson. Well, we are a team. Yes, we have Ministers doing some pretty good work in this space, but we also have strong and capable backbenchers who are complementing that work with this sort of bill. Equally so, we have had the tired, old rhetoric from a couple of Labour members saying “Hey, this is a great bill, but National’s not spending nearly enough on conservation.” Well, I say that is a bit tired. Do they not know that this Government faces huge economic challenges, and that there is no way that anybody could sensibly promote the ongoing increases in public spending?

I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning, and this morning we had the Secretary to the Treasury and Audit New Zealand noting that the huge increase in expenditure—a 50 percent increase in public expenditure—on core departments in the period from 2002 to 2008 was totally unsustainable. It is absolutely true that whether it is the Department of Conservation, or right across the board, this Government has had to pull in Government expenses. That is why it is so unfair and uncharitable of members opposite to give the Minister of Conservation a hard time for pulling her weight and doing her share to get this country’s books back in balance.

The challenge I have got for the next Labour member is this: if you really are serious about increasing the conservation budget, you need to say by how much and you need to say how you are going to fund it. These hollow words, where I have had spokespeople right across the Labour benches—I do not care whether it is on broadcasting, heritage, conservation, education, health, or foreign affairs—all say the Government is not spending enough. My simple challenge to members opposite, whether it be in conservation or any other area, is to show us the colour of your money, say it with conviction, and commit a future Labour Government to increase levels of spending, rather than these weasel words of “Oh, you’re not spending enough.”, but then not being prepared to commit to how much you would spend. It is not good enough for Labour members not to say how they would fund their increases in expenditure. This bill from my colleague Jacqui Dean is part of this Government’s sensible conservation agenda. She should be commended and this bill should be supported.

I call the honourable member Charles Chauvel.

Well, it might be pronounced a bit differently, but it is nice to have the call. To try to make a response to the challenge laid down by the last speaker, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, this is a bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, that has rightly attracted support across the House. It is a sensible bill and I commend Jacqui Dean for her initiative in putting it forward.

The question of whether it is an appropriate member’s bill or whether it ought to be something that the Government advances as part of a technical review of penalties available in the conservation and related legislation, in order to make sure that those penalties work as part of a coherent regime, is another question. I have said before, as have other members, that the thing about members’ nights is that they are special. They are there for members who are not part of the executive to be able to advance matters that they feel passionately about, that cannot otherwise be part of the parliamentary agenda. I am not belittling the bill by saying that it would be the sort of measure that we would support if it was part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, rather than taking up the time of a members’ night. So I think that is the first point that I want to make.

The second point that I want to make is a direct response to Dr Smith. I want to say this: Dr Smith, it is not about splashing money around, actually; it is about commitment. Everybody knows that you have a commitment to the environment. I have never heard anybody in this House question your deep belief that the New Zealand natural environment is one of our treasures. I have heard people speculate about the extent to which your colleagues share that belief, and I think that is fair speculation.

I have also heard people say—and I think this is right—that we should look at the record. I am very proud of this party’s record on environmental and conservation matters. The fourth Labour Government, under Geoffrey Palmer, marked our first Minister for the Environment, who held a statutory warrant in that post, which was revolutionary in this regard. Yes, the Environment Act 1986 was Sir Geoffrey’s brainchild, as was the Conservation Act 1987. All the groundwork that was done to ensure that the Resource Management Act could be enacted was done under his leadership. And New Zealand’s first steps to respond to the challenge of climate change were taken under that administration, as well. That is an extremely proud record that every member on this side of the House wants to associate themselves with.

Technical reforms of this nature that bring penalty regimes into line with one another are all well and good, and of course we are going to support them. As I say, I am a little concerned that the Government is taking up the time of the House on a members’ night. We could be spending time on non-Government members’ passionately held beliefs that they seek to advance via the member’s bill process, but never mind. Every member has the privilege that Ms Dean is exercising tonight, and she has chosen to exercise it in this way.

But what has to be said, what has to be repeated, is what has been said by a number of Labour members and by Eugenie Sage, and that is this: if you want to talk about record, Dr Smith, then this Government’s record on conservation and the environment is poor. It is extremely poor. If we look at the cuts in spending in the Department of Conservation right through to the decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period so that there are no binding commitments to reduce emissions, and at all the public policy failures to bring about a change in our economy and in our society so that we really do start to act sustainably and renewably—that is the tragedy of this Government. That is the tragedy that we see in this minor measures bill, which is praiseworthy and will be sent to a select committee, and no doubt will pass through all its stages, but it is tinkering. It is tinkering around the margins of the issues that matter. As I say, if we want to talk about records and want to take up the challenge laid down by Dr Smith in the earlier contribution, that is the sad reality of life under National.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the bill brought before the House by the member Jacqui Dean, the Conservation (Natural Heritage) Protection Bill. Can I congratulate her on having two bills in the House on the one day. Should she pull another bill from the ballot today, I think she should be shouting us all, because it is exceptional to have two bills in the House in one day. We are all heading off to Christchurch in the morning—that is, the Local Government and Environment Committee, including Jacqui Dean as a member—and she might be shouting coffee in the morning, at the Wigram airbase, I hope.

But back to the bill. We in New Zealand First certainly do also support this bill. It is high time that the penalties were increased for those who offend in terms of our flora and fauna, our wildlife and nature, and that the penalties are made to such a significant level that, hopefully, it might deter some of the illegal activities that have been going on.

It is pleasing to see, in section 44, in clause 5, that the penalties will increase for individuals “to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and to a fine not exceeding $100,000, and, where the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day on which the offence had continued;”. Where the offence was committed by an individual for commercial purposes the penalty is “imprisonment for term not exceeding 3 years and to fine not exceeding $200,000, and, when the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $20,000 for every day on which the offence has continued;”. Where the offence was committed by a corporation the penalty is “a fine not exceeding $200,000 and, where the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $20,000 for every day on which the offence has continued.” It is also pleasing to see in this bill that a sentence of community work can be imposed where someone has erred and where perhaps a financial fine is not appropriate. Again, we in New Zealand First support that.

We believe that the amendments in this bill to the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 are necessary to bring that in to line. However, there is a downside to all this, and although we are applauding the move to increase these penalties, we concur with some of the other members in this House that at times we are very lax with our conservation. As the conservation spokesman for New Zealand First I also have concerns, and our party has concerns, at aspects of conservation that are being let down in this country. We are so, so dependent on our natural environment for our tourism and for the image of New Zealand as “100% Pure New Zealand”.

Our conservation estate is extremely important, and it flows on into our agriculture, it flows on into our horticulture, and it flows on into other farming aspects in this country. So if we do not have a healthy natural environment, our commercial agricultural and horticultural environment can be affected as well. So it is very important that the two go hand in hand.

Likewise, this week I was somewhat disappointed when it was marked that the Māui’s dolphin, which are endangered, are nearing extinction, with only 55 Māui’s dolphin left, mainly off the North Island coast. I thought that perhaps the Government would also pick up that cudgel, as it has picked up this one, and move more swiftly on the issue of the Māui’s dolphin. I was one of the four MPs who went along to receive a print from artist Sheyne Tuffery, presented by Greenpeace. It was one of 55 prints to mark the 55 remaining Māui’s dolphin that are in existence.

It was a great shame that only four MPs were there, all from Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First, and that there was no representation at all from National. I thought that was a shame. Regardless of your politics and regardless of where you are, these 55 Māui’s dolphin cannot speak up for themselves, they cannot defend themselves, and they cannot protect themselves, and it would have been nice on this occasion for some Government members to at least show some sympathy for the whole thing.

💬 Jacqui Dean: I don’t think we were invited.

Yes, you were invited. Every MP was invited—every MP was invited. So it would have been nice, because I think it is important, and I think we would all have a huge conscience to bear in years to come if we found that the Māui’s dolphin was indeed wiped out and that every one of us in this House, every single 121 of us in this House, had not done more to try to protect it.

But, anyway, in closing, this particular bill is a good move. We support the increase in penalties. New Zealand First always supports things of this nature where they are good policy, practical policy, and will have a result. Thank you.

It was interesting to have the reference from the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, about the National members not turning up. I certainly read about that in the Dominion Post this morning. It was saying that the National members had not responded to the invitation to be given something on the Māui’s dolphin. I went and dug around, and I found the letter, and there was no such invitation to me—that is for sure. There was a letter saying something was happening, but there was certainly no invitation. So you sometimes wonder with some of the messages coming from Greenpeace, whether they are quite accurate or not.

But I just wanted to commend my colleague Jacqui Dean for this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, her second bill this evening—a very hard-working, and implacably hard-working, member of Parliament is Jacqui Dean. It is a timely bill, because we all know New Zealand is unique in the world as the last significant uninhabited land mass in the world to be discovered by humans only a few hundred years ago. I have seen trees growing today that were around before humans arrived in these islands. I have seen trees on which moas have grazed, which are still living now, that were around before humans reached these islands. As a result of that, we were a wonderful, wonderful place in the world with all sorts of species that were unique and had evolved over a long period of time when New Zealand was splendidly isolated from the rest of the world and from humanity. All that changed a few hundred years ago when Māori arrived first and there was a wave of extinctions, and that has continued in recent years—and that is only a split second, of course, in geological time. We are in a time of rapid change, so it is important that we preserve what is precious.

This bill, which raises some of the maximum penalties in this area around precious species, is very useful. I have never met a spotted or jewelled gecko. I do not understand the logic of people who would seek to put these down their underpants, but from what I can understand, this thing goes on. This bill, if it helps nip it in the bud, I think will be very useful not just in New Zealand but to the global effort against smuggling of geckos and those sorts of things.

New Zealand makes a massive effort in conservation. It is often forgotten that about 33 percent of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. That is not a mistake—33 percent. One third of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. We spend colossal sums on conservation—$445 million in Vote Conservation this year—and I am astounded to hear from the other side of the House tales of great woe and calamity that somehow not enough resources have been put into this area. I mean, let us just cast our minds back only 10 years ago, when it was only $226 million that was being spent on conservation. So we have doubled the amount spent in the last 10 years, and that, of course, is not enough.

It is quite right, things have had to be pulled back a little bit in the last few years, but, if you take the longer stretch, there is a very substantial and increased investment in conservation. It all just goes to show, when you hear the likes of Mr Chauvel talking about the fact that we need to just keep pouring the money in, how this country got itself into such a pretty pass as we had in 2008, when this Government inherited a nation pregnant with years of financial deficits coming down the line, because the previous Government just did not have control over its spending. I get frustrated when hearing this great moral high ground taken from the other side of the House, as if those members care more about the environment than we do.

What we are saying here is that every Government has to make that balance between giving New Zealanders the benefit of a well-run economy that can produce the living standards that all families want and aspire to and also the very substantial contribution that continues to be made in conservation. I am very proud of this Government’s record, and I commend Jacqui Bill for this conservation bill, which will—

💬 Hon Members: Jacqui Bill?

Jacqui Dean, I believe. I commend Jacqui Dean for her great effort with this bill. Thank you.

I will take just a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, in the name of Jacqui Dean. I think it is a fantastic bill, to see this increase in penalties around the stealing and the smuggling of native wildlife and plants. It has got particular meaning for me because, unlike Mr Goldsmith, who spoke previously, I am familiar with the jewelled gecko. I remember watching them—but not in my underpants—and seeing them in their natural habitat, at that point in the Nelson Lakes. We are not sure that they even exist in any numbers in the Nelson Lakes now, because the numbers have gone back so much. It is absolutely critical that we find measures to conserve them.

I had a strong interest in lizards, actually, when I was a kid, and they would still probably be my favourite animal. I remember going out to the Wairau Bar, out from Blenheim, and the coastline and other areas, looking for lizards and looking for katipō spiders and the like. I am so aware of the drop in their numbers when I go to show, in turn, my children or my partner what is actually out there. Out there now you could not find a katipō spider. You may still find some lizards, but they are not as prolific as they once were. It is absolutely critical that we use measures such as this bill and the services of the Department of Conservation to make sure that we preserve our natural heritage.

I also lived in the outer Marlborough Sounds and looked out at Stephens Island, which has probably the greatest population of tuatara in the world. The lighthouse would wink at our place, 300 metres up the side of Aorere, Mount Stokes, where we also had kākāriki—another target of those smugglers up there—a fantastic, beautiful little parrot, which not enough New Zealanders get to see.

What is also very concerning—and other members of the House have mentioned it tonight—is the fact that earlier we had Nick Smith using the economic woes as an excuse, in my words, to whack the Department of Conservation around the ear. The real economic value of not losing species is not being valued here. It is not being valued by the Government as it depletes the department’s resources more and more, year after year.

What does it look like when we lose Māui’s dolphins? What does it look like when we have less and less of our natural fauna? The people internationally who are interested in the different conventions are measuring them, and are seeing more and more species coming into different threatened and vulnerable categories. That is not good for our brand. It is not good for our selling of anything that comes out of New Zealand. It is not good for our tourism. The real value in the Department of Conservation is much higher than this Government seems to give it. We need a fresh and new green vision that actually values our natural heritage for not only its intrinsic values but also its economic value.

I remember some of my previous activities at meetings of NGOs. Every quarter, or thereabouts, we would have a meeting at the Department of Conservation in Manners Street. Different NGOs and interest groups would meet with the department. I can remember the staff there presenting the latest change in management approach—this new commercial management approach. Man, they were stoic. They were fantastic people, but they were standing there, presenting that as though it was the best thing since sliced bread, and some of them were going to lose their jobs. Department of Conservation staff are dedicated people wanting to make a difference and to manage our natural heritage. We need to really support them.

With the jobs gone and the drop in core work and funding, the Government is expecting the community to pick up the slack. The community was already working pretty much to capacity as it was, so it means only that we are going to have further losses to our natural heritage. Area offices are being totally done over, effectively, and staff are being forced into decisions around their close friends and colleagues—basically, having to choose which ones of their friends are going. I am looking forward to when a Government actually values the Department of Conservation in a better way, and supports things like this bill. This bill is a good move, but the Government also needs to support the department to do its job. Thank you very much.

You know, it is easy enough, I guess, to stand in this House and lament budget cuts to the Department of Conservation and completely ignore the realities of the fiscal restraints that this Government is operating under. And it is easy to sit up in Opposition and say that we should be spending more money. Well, that is what they are doing in Greece. That is what they are doing in the European Union. This Government takes our responsibilities a little more seriously than that. I also want to pick up on the comment of the previous speaker, Steffan Browning, that the real economic value of not losing species is not realised by this Government. Well, actually, it is, because I am bringing this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, to the House, and this bill well and truly values our special creatures in New Zealand. It recognises absolutely the economic value that is brought to New Zealand, as well as all the other intrinsic values, by these special creatures. And it is this party, it is this Minister of Conservation, and it is me, with this member’s bill, who are putting effect to those words. The words from across the House are all very well, they are all very fine, but it is this party, and I am the member of that party who is putting up this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill for the consideration of Parliament and the Local Government and Environment Committee.

You know, bringing consistency into the legislation around our natural heritage, if nothing else, will send the clearest message to those who seek to profit from our most precious creatures. Interestingly, several members have said that they would not go near a jewelled gecko if they fell over one, and some people love them to death. They are little creatures, and if they sit still enough they sit on your hand. They really are the most beautiful little things. They are emerald green with yellow and white diamond markings—and each marking is unique, so that when they are photographed they can be traced if they have been smuggled. On the Otago Peninsula some populations of those jewelled gecko have been smuggled, recovered at the border, and returned to that habitat, but, sadly, that same smuggler has returned the next season and smuggled them again. How do we know that? Because we can identify their markings when they turn up in Europe at the large trade fairs for animals. Quite a bit is known about the smuggling of jewelled geckos, which are pretty remarkable creatures.

So the message through this bill—the clearest message for those who profit from our most precious creatures—is that we are on to you. And the message to the Department of Conservation and to those personnel in the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries who hold the line against this smuggling is that we back you. We value the work of the Wildlife Enforcement Group. We will give you the teeth when you, through your investigation, through your—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Oh, I do beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker.

We will give them the teeth, when they, through their investigation, their observation, their connections, their intuition, and their sheer hard graft apprehend the lowlifes who seek to smuggle our precious creatures and ship them off to offshore markets.

To those Swiss, German, and Russian smugglers who come to New Zealand posing as tourists, well, just do not bother. We not only have the personnel watching you but also when our Department of Conservation, Customs Service, and Ministry for Primary Industries personnel catch you it just will not be worth it. It would not be days in jail—no, under this bill, should it be enacted by this Parliament, it will be up to 3 years. The penalties will be increased for a number of other offences where wildlife has been endangered or protected, where natural habitats have been damaged. So the penalty, for example, for releasing a noxious animal in a national park will increase, as will milling a stand of trees, or converting a portion of national park into pasture. So there are a number of aspects to this bill.

I want to thank members for the debate tonight. I think it has been extremely interesting. I look forward to the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee will go through. I want to thank members for their support of this bill. I would be surprised, given that we are all New Zealanders, if it were otherwise. Finally, I am very proud to be a member of National’s blue-green team, and proud to bring this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.