Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill

on behalf of Jacqui Dean (Waitaki): I move, That the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a second time. It is my pleasure to represent Jacqui Dean, who is overseas at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, and deliver her speech in the second reading of her bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. She starts by saying that she extends her thanks to her colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee, who willingly applied their minds and provided useful insights to enhance this bill. This bill has had wide-ranging support across the parties, and the member said it has been a pleasure to work so constructively on issues that we all seem to agree on. We all care about our special places, plants, and animals, and we all want to ensure that they are protected.

From the Alps to the ocean, Jacqui Dean’s electorate—that is, the Waitaki electorate—has a diverse range of precious ecosystems, valuable productive land, the vast Mackenzie Country, our awe-inspiring Southern Alps, and our special coast. The member’s electorate is a special place filled with special people, who value hard work and the environment. It is home to a range of special critters, plants, and places.

Rare and precious geckos have been smuggled from the member’s electorate to supply an international black market trade in rare and endangered species. Television New Zealand’s Sunday programme broadcast the story of the damage being done to the species and the shady methods used by these smugglers. The member’s constituents are concerned, and so is she. They are not willing to stand by and let our natural heritage disappear simply for the gratification of a small number of international collectors.

Jacqui Dean will outline more of her reasons for sponsoring this bill in her speech on the third reading, but tonight I will concentrate on explaining the key changes recommended by the select committee. She is asking members across the House to support this bill. It is in our national interest to do so. The bill provides solutions to a problem that transcends party politics, which is the need for protection of one of the cornerstones of New Zealand and of us as Kiwis: our natural heritage.

The select committee recommendations were made unanimously. I would like to inform the House of the key changes it has recommended. The bill will result in a comprehensive, consistent, and effective penalty regime across conservation legislation. The current provisions are inconsistent and are purely accidents of history. A person felling a magnificent, original-growth tōtara tree today would face maximum penalties of a $500 fine if the tōtara happened to be growing in a reserve, a $2,500 fine or 3 months’ imprisonment if it was taken from a national park, and a $10,000 fine or 12 months’ imprisonment if it was felled on land held under the Conservation Act. This bill amends those inconsistencies.

The bill as introduced applied to the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. These are the key pieces of legislation that govern land-based conservation. During the select committee process the committee considered whether it should also apply to other conservation legislation, and it determined that marine mammals—that is, dolphins, whales, and seals—should also have the benefit of higher levels of protection. The committee recommended that the bill incorporate the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and Jacqui Dean would like to thank the Labour member the Hon Maryan Street for her promotion of that amendment. Having consistent penalty levels across the legislation will ensure that like values are accorded the same degree of protection.

The bill does not incorporate the Marine Reserves Act or the Trade in Endangered Species Act. Although both pieces of legislation are key pieces of conservation legislation, the committee was advised that changes are being made to the Marine Reserves Act through a separate legislative process. It was also advised that the existing penalty levels in the Trade in Endangered Species Act are higher than the standard conservation penalties and that changes to that Act should be considered carefully to ensure consistency with our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The recommended penalty levels will deter potential offenders from carrying out illegal activity, result in similar offending facing similar consequences, be consistent with other relevant legislation, be consistent with international best practice, and provide serious consequences for serious offending against our natural heritage. In order to achieve these objectives, the new penalty level is a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment or a $300,000 fine, or both, for offending that is commercially motivated. For serious offending that is not commercially motivated, there is a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine of $100,00, or both, for individuals, and a maximum fine of $200,000 for corporations. For less serious offending that is not commercially motivated, there is a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine of $100,000, or both, for individuals, and a maximum fine of $200,000 for corporations. For breaches of regulations or by-laws, there is a maximum fine of $5,000 generally, or $10,000 in some specific cases.

These penalty levels are broadly consistent with the Resource Management Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Animal Welfare Act. The member wants to stress that these penalties are the maximum penalties. These levels of penalties could be applied in only the most serious offending situations, and only where there are absolutely no mitigating factors or circumstances that would warrant a lighter penalty being given.

Our job in Parliament is to set the highest level of penalty that those committing a particular type of offending could face. We do not set minimum penalties or average penalties. We set the upper boundary and provide the courts with the flexibility to design an appropriate sentence within that boundary. The courts are bound by the Sentencing Act and case law to develop an effective sentence by taking into consideration the seriousness of the particular offence that has been committed; the circumstances of that offending, including aggravating or mitigating factors; and the circumstances of the offender.

The member acknowledges that a lot of conservation offending may be in the lower range of seriousness. However, we are determined to provide the courts with a suitable upper level to ensure that serious offending is treated seriously by the court. We have seen too many examples in recent times where penalty levels may have been insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offending that happened.

The new higher penalty levels will provide courts with broader parameters for sentencing, which will have most effect on serious offending. The bill also increases flexibility and provides broader sentencing options by providing for community work as an alternative sentence. New penalties with an option for imprisonment also allow for sentences of imprisonment or a fine, or both. This provides the courts with maximum flexibility to determine what is fair and appropriate in any particular circumstances.

Although the bill changes penalties, what it does not do is change powers. Enforcement officers will not be able to act in any different ways as a result of this bill. The bill does not change offence provisions other than to make some minor, purely technical amendments to existing offence provisions. There may be value in improving powers and offences across the conservation legislation, as well. However, that is beyond the scope of this exercise. The member is confident that the changes made to penalties through this bill will have a significant effect on increasing the protection of our protected places and species. Thank you.

I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I want to begin by expressing my disappointment that Jacqui Dean is representing our Parliament overseas and was unable to deliver that speech herself as a result. I think the time and effort that she put into it to enable Nicky Wagner to present it on her behalf was well worth it, but I want to put on the record that I think the work that Jacqui Dean has done in getting this bill to the select committee and the way she has listened to the contributions of other parties at the select committee and also to the submitters has been a credit to the parliamentary process, and she should be acknowledged and thanked for that.

I also want to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is not a big bill, it is not a complex bill, but it is a good bill, and the committee did take it seriously and worked really constructively together. So I acknowledge Nicky Wagner as the chair of that committee, and the other members on it. I also want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Maryan Street, who I hope will have an opportunity to speak later in this debate and who moved an important amendment, one that made an already good bill even better. That was in regard to the extension of the penalty regime to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. That amendment was well worthwhile putting into the bill, and I am pleased that it got the support of the committee and hopefully of the House. It may well be that this is a bill that gets the total endorsement of Parliament. Phil Heatley is very envious of that. I might recommend to the member, should he want the entire Parliament to support a piece of legislation in his name, either as a member’s bill or in the future should he return to a ministerial portfolio, that he brings in something that is good, that does some good. Actually, that would be the starting point.

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: First time for everything.

That is right. There is a first time for everything. And also if he could improve the standard of the morning teas that he contributes to the Local Government and Environment Committee, I am sure that that would get the unanimous agreement of the House. Back to this bill—as I said, it is not a big bill, it is not a complex bill, but it does increase the penalties for breaches of the Conservation Act, and it also ensures that there is a more consistent approach in the application of penalties. For that reason alone, I think it is good. It has been a while since this has been updated.

The disappointment, however, that I feel in relation to the fact that we are talking about the Department of Conservation and the work that it is able to administer is that we are having this discussion with barely any recognition of the fact that the department has been put through such traumatic and stressful times over the last 5 years. Conservation has taken a sideways and then a backwards step under this Government, and I think that is a real shame. As we have done with this bill, we have shown that conservation could be a whole-of-Parliament issue that we all recognise as being our moral responsibility. But, instead, what we have seen is significant slashing of the budget of the Department of Conservation. We have seen, as a result, massive losses of staff. The staff who have been lost are often the people who do the front-line engagement with the communities in provincial areas. That is actually where understanding and support of conservation, which we have seen as part of our DNA in New Zealand for so long, have been nurtured. It has been started by the local Department of Conservation person who goes out into the schools, out into the communities, and out to the service organisations and gets the community involved in local projects—things that people feel great pride in when they have been involved in them. It strengthens the link of the community and therefore extends the ability of the department to do its work. The more people who understand conservation work and values, the easier it is for the department to do its work. Instead of having those people working in our communities, doing a fantastic job—and I am sure many members in this Parliament have spent time with Department of Conservation workers on various projects—they are losing their jobs. There have been huge staff cuts, which, of course, are not going to have any direct ramifications for this legislation until we get down to the actual enforcement officers. If they end up losing their jobs, then the whole purpose of this bill will be for nought.

I am disappointed that the Government has chosen to move the Department of Conservation sideways and then backwards in terms of its funding. We have had some significant pieces of work presented to Parliament—for example, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who highlighted the lack of ability of the Department of Conservation to do quite basic work, which is pest control. She talked about our forests being silent in the future if we do not up our game on pest control. That should be a massive wake-up call for all New Zealanders. Every one of us in this House, I am sure, knows and values the native birdlife in our forests. If we do not start responding better to the threat of possums, stoats, and rats, we will end up with very little, if any at all, native birdlife. That would be a loss not just to our generation but to future generations. It would be a loss to our tourism attraction. People come here because of our nature and because of our environment. They come here to hear our birds and enjoy our forests. When the department that is charged with the responsibility of pest control is not able to do its job, then you know that you are not funding that department adequately.

The Department of Conservation, in the most recent restructuring, set up a business unit. I think it called it a partnership programme, or some such public relations spin to what it really is. It is the begging bowl department. It is the group of people in the Department of Conservation who take around a begging bowl so that they can do their jobs. I am worried about this not only in terms of how we fund core services that we want performed by departments but also because I know what would happen to those programmes should any of the sponsors or the donors pull out. We had that not long ago with the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters, which said that it did not know whether it would continue to fund support for the kākāpō. There is no other money available for that kākāpō work. In the same way as the energy company that I remember the former Minister of Conservation talking about supporting the blue duck, we have got another company funding support for takahē. These programmes are totally dependent on those companies continuing their sponsorship. So it is a begging bowl approach. It is not a Government department that is strong, proud, and able to perform its core functions within its own budget.

There are very few of our threatened species that the department is now able to actively manage. Only 250 out of 2,700—so, fewer than 10 percent—of our threatened species are able to be under active management by the Department of Conservation. This will be a generation that will see the demise of threatened species because of underfunding. That is something that this Parliament should take more seriously than it does. There is money to be found for lots of things. There is always more call on it, but, actually, the protection of our environment, our public estate, is something that should not take a back seat.

I am pleased to see the progress of this legislation. I just want to repeat and acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did with it. I think the amendments that it has made are sensible. I hope that every party in Parliament is able to support the legislation. I hope that it gives the Department of Conservation staff, particularly those who have over the last few weeks and months lost their jobs, some flicker of hope for the future that the conservation values that have for so long been supported by this Parliament, regardless of who is leading the Government, are again restored. We have seen the advocacy role, we have seen the decision-making role of the Minister, and we have seen the core competency of the department all whittled away. It is really time for a rethink of that because it will do damage that will not just cost us in the short term but also do long-term damage as a nation.

This bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, is a good bill. I again commend Jacqui Dean for her work on it and look forward to its further progress.

I also commend Jacqui Dean and the Local Government and Environment Committee for the Conservation (National Heritage Protection) Bill. A lot of forethought has gone into it, and, of course, work, since it came to the committee. Members were very enthusiastic once they heard the basic facts around what penalties were being administered and the punishments in respect of jail terms that were being applied when it came to those who thwarted the law and damaged our flora and fauna in New Zealand or, indeed, stole it both for sale domestically and to export illegally.

The law is administered by the Department of Conservation. What is going to happen is there is going to be an increase in penalties with the passage of this bill. It will also implement a consistent approach to penalties across the amended laws. So, essentially, two things are happening: the Department of Conservation, which essentially uses and administers these laws and the Conservation Act—what we are going to do here is raise the penalties on one hand and then, on the other hand, apply them more consistently across various Acts.

So, as introduced, amendments are proposed to, yes, the Conservation Act 1987 but also to the National Parks Act of 1980, the Reserves Act of 1977, the Wildlife Act of 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act of 1977. The penalties will be increased for a number of offences where wildlife has been endangered or protected natural habitats have been damaged. That will then extend across various Acts. One of the questions the committee put to officials on this was how it actually works in with other Acts that are more modern in terms of the penalties and offences that they list, such as the Fisheries Act and those Acts that essentially affect marine reserves—how those penalties align with the ones that we were looking at making changes to or that Jacqui Dean was proposing to make changes to. So there is much more alignment. We have done some investigation on the Fisheries Act and some of those other pieces of legislation that are regularly modernised in regard to penalties, and we have come up with some significant numbers now that we believe are about right.

We received eight submissions and had a good round with advisers on several occasions, getting things right. So we have divided it into two types of penalties, one targeted to those people or entities who are substantially not motivated by commercial gain or reward. So they are doing damage, they are causing death, or they are stealing wildlife or fauna, but not for commercial gain or reward. So for the lesser offences we are recommending that an individual’s term of imprisonment would not exceed 1 year or a fine not exceeding $100,000; for bodies corporate that are not motivated by commercial gain or reward, the fine is not exceeding $200,000; and for continuing offences there is a further fine not exceeding $10,000 per day. So those are significant funds—$100,000 for an individual, $200,000 for bodies corporate, and then $10,000 per day if the offence is continuing.

For more serious offences—not for people pursuing personal gain but for more serious offences such as discharging a firearm, injuring or attacking or somehow abusing official personnel, such as obstructing an officer, taking plants, and those sort of offences—we have decided that there would not be an increase in the dollar amount, but we are looking at increasing the term of imprisonment by a further year, but to no more than 2 years. The penalty would go from 1 year to 2 years if there is much more serious offending.

Then we have got the second tier of those offences, and that is where offences are committed for commercial gain or reward. For individuals, it goes from $100,000 to $300,000 and from a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment to a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment; for bodies corporate, the fine goes from $200,000 to $300,000; and for continuing offences, for those who are after commercial gain, it will be not $10,000 per day but $20,000 per day. So that is a significant lift to what is there currently. As indicated by Jacqui Dean and others in the debate tonight, and people will see it referenced in the Hansard right through the second reading, we have made sure that they are aligned across various Acts, not just the Conservation Act—so the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. Members of the public can be assured they also align with those Acts that control offences in marine reserves, marine parks, and, of course, under the Fisheries Act as well. So there is significant consistency right across government there.

This bill sends a very, very strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very, very seriously. The bill will complement further smuggling deterrence measures that are soon to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation, which will increase penalties for wildlife smuggling, as I say, to 5 years in jail and a $300,000 fine.

The bill also complements our efforts since being elected to boost the conservation estate, better protect our great outdoors, and make sure that more New Zealanders get use from it. Although members from the Labour Party do spin the line regarding the vote—or the amount of finance that goes into the Department of Conservation each year, to be distributed and used by it—the reality is that Vote Conservation is now $444 million. It is in the books. It is clear there for everyone to see. It has almost doubled from the $226 million that was there in 2001-02, just over 10 years ago. It has had a significant doubling there. We are investing in recovery programmes for 36 percent more threatened species, and we are focusing on what matters. I commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this bill to House. I commend her for all the support she has in this Parliament and outside Parliament. There are very sensible changes being made here, and I commend the bill to the House.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Jacqui Dean’s bill, the Conservation (National Heritage Protection) Bill. I add my congratulations to those of other colleagues to her on advancing this bill.

We have seen in the last few years numerous pictures on our televisions of the senseless clubbing of seals and the smuggling offshore of creatures that are precious to our country and that are unique to our country. I think there were a number of incidents that provoked Jacqui Dean into bringing this bill forward, and they cause as much anger amongst other members of the public, apart from those who seem to perpetrate these acts.

I am absolutely certain of what the vast majority of New Zealanders would consider about anybody who takes to doing that—even if they are a famous rugby player, a well-known hooker. Most New Zealanders would see the kind of senseless act of killing and maiming animals, defenceless animals, as something that needed serious, serious penalties to act as a deterrent for that kind of behaviour. If there are still some people in our country—and there would appear to be, given a court case that is on the moment, which I will not refer to any more—who do not seem to understand that harming animals, harming livestock, and harming birds says a lot about their own attitudes towards people, this bill might have at least some corrective effect, so that we do not see so many of those bloody scenes on our televisions, where animals have been senselessly butchered and maimed by people who really have trouble relating to human beings, and so vent their wrath and their anger on creatures that are more vulnerable than they are. I cannot think of any other reason why somebody would do these things. I understand hunting, so I am not criticising that in any way. What I am criticising is the senseless attacks, particularly on protected species, but on any animals.

This bill, as Phil Heatley has just catalogued, proposes a two-tier penalty arrangement for people who offend. It does take into account that there might have been unintentional offences. You did not mean the dog to get loose and savage that seal on the beach. You did not mean something to happen in quite the way it did. But even so, if a person did not intend to commit an offence, they are still liable to imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of up to $100,000, or both, depending on the severity of the incident. Bodies corporate that might inadvertently, or otherwise, commit offences against the animals protected under this legislation would be fined up to $200,000. If people are continuing to do it on a daily basis, then they are fined $10,000 per day. That is something of a deterrent.

I am pleased, however, that we have gone a little bit further with the intentional offences, where people senselessly go to the Kaikōura Coast, track down those little baby seals that have gone up to the waterfall—and have been a delight to many visitors who have gone past and to tourists who have stopped and been told about these seals up on land—and they bludgeon those animals to death. There is no excuse. Although the financial penalties remain the same, those people are liable for an imprisonment period of up to 2 years.

The other ones that really disturb us are those shots we have seen on TV recently, where people take tuatara, geckos, skinks, and other small creatures that are unique to New Zealand and are amongst our protected fauna, and they strap them to various parts of their anatomy and try to smuggle them out of the country. Sometimes they might put them in tubes in suitcases. But however they do it, their intention is to smuggle them out of the country, for commercial gain. The penalty for those people acting as individuals is up to 5 years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines, or both, and for bodies corporate it is a fine of up to $300,000. The fine for a continuing offence, happening more than once, is up to $20,000 per day. So here are some deterrents against this reprehensible behaviour.

One of the things I am really pleased about is the way the Local Government and Environment Committee, under the chairpersonship of Nicky Wagner, addressed some of the issues behind this legislation. I think collectively, across the committee, we made some improvements to the bill, but one of the things I am most pleased about is the possibility of expanding the coverage of the bill to cover the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978 and also the Wildlife Act of 1953. The Wildlife Act is amended by removing from section 67 a fines provision that sits in that Act. The amendment takes that out and makes the fines provisions in that legislation consistent with this bill, which I hope we will advance further this evening. So there will be a consistency of approach across all of the penalties. It is entirely possible for the people who bludgeon seals for fun to get off with a lesser penalty, depending on the piece of legislation under which they have been brought to court, and that does not seem fair.

I was pleased to engage with the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, and to ask him about the application of the Marine Mammals Protection Act and the Wildlife Act and how they might be put into this piece of legislation. He was very pleased to make that recommendation to Jacqui Dean, because it was her bill, but he was onside with that. Jacqui Dean was onside with it, the select committee was onside with it, and as a result we have got a consistent framework across all pieces of protective legislation in this area, and the select committee passed it unanimously. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill at its second reading. That is not just because the Green Party supports the bill but also because it has been a very pleasant change in terms of the way in which the select committee works and the way in which the Parliament works. We have had, on this bill, such cross-party agreement on how we improve the protection of our common natural and historic heritage, the indigenous species, and the wild places in New Zealand. It is a rare bill too because it received only eight submissions. They were virtually all in support, and because for a change the select committee listened to submitters it was able to make changes to the bill, which puts in place some of the suggestions that they made about improvements. I certainly commend Rod Burgoyne for his submission because it was him who pointed out that the penalties in the Marine Mammals Protection Act had not been updated since at least 1996 and that they had been significantly eroded by inflation. That is why we had the change that Maryan Street talked about, which she took up, to make those penalties consistent.

This bill is about productive tinkering with conservation legislation, rather than making any substantive changes, and that is one of the reasons why we support it. It does not create any new offences. It simply creates a more consistent and more up-to-date penalty regime across the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, the Wild Animal Control Act, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. But as Charles Chauvel noted at the first reading, it is a bit strange that parliamentary time has to be used to do this, and there is not some mechanism to provide that financial penalties are increased in line with inflation. But it is a good bill because we had that cross-party agreement and because it should encourage compliance with conservation legislation. Like others, we would certainly like to acknowledge Jacqui Dean for the work she did on developing it, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, and also the officials from the Department of Conservation, the select committee, and parliamentary counsel.

It is a useful bill because the existing penalties in those six pieces of legislation are old and they are often very low. The penalties in the Reserves Act, for example, have not been updated since 1977, and when you get low penalties that often suggests to the courts that the offences are minor or trivial. Indeed, in some of the wildlife-smuggling cases, the courts had asked that the penalties be increased because they have been somewhat frustrated by the small penalties that they were able to have access to. When you have got laws that were passed by the Parliament at different times, they have got different levels of penalty and they are inconsistent. There is an example where if someone felled a single tree in a national park, which, of course, are our premier protected areas, they would be liable for a fine of $2,500, whereas if that tree was in a conservation area the fine would be $10,000. That does not make sense, so the bill makes sure that there is consistency. It also means that if you have got low penalties, there is no deterrent, because the fine is less than the benefits that are gained. That is particularly the case with the issue of wildlife smuggling, where with species like the gecko, smugglers have been able to get very lucrative returns internationally for smuggling, and they have been faced with only a small fine in New Zealand. One of the important things that the bill also does, as Nicky Wagner pointed out, is that it provides more flexibility in terms of sentencing, so that the court can impose either a sentence of imprisonment, or a fine, or a sentence of community work. It does make that differential between offences committed by companies, which have more than twice the penalty that individuals are subjected to—that is put in the bill as well.

We would just like to encourage the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nick Smith, because he is proposing changes to the Conservation Act later this year. We encourage him to take a similar approach as Jacqui Dean has taken, and that is to do some useful tinkering with the legislation. Where this Government does more than tinker with our conservation and environmental legislation, it is a disaster. We would like to see the Minister copy Jacqui Dean, rather than his colleague Amy Adams with her sweeping changes to the Resource Management Act, because they tilt the playing field against nature and in favour of development. Where the Government has made major changes—as to the Resource Management Act, and as it is proposing to do in the third tranche of changes to the Resource Management Act; and to the Crown Minerals Act, where it has given the Minister of Energy and Resources a joint decision-making power on applications to access conservation land for mining—we have seen the balance go against nature. So, useful tinkering, yes; sweeping changes, no. That is because we also need the same sort of cross-party agreement that we have seen on this bill around any further changes to conservation legislation.

The Minister holds those lands on trust for all New Zealanders, both now and future generations. It is not just 20 or 30 years hence; it is 200 or 300 years hence. They are common resources that we all have a stake in. So it is much better where we can get agreement across the Parliament on what changes should be made to the legislation, which influences how these wild places, landscapes, and indigenous plants and wildlife are cared for, than if we have the more normal adversarial debate on legislation. The cross-party agreement that we have got in this bill acknowledges the collective interest that we have. It is also a basis for much better lawmaking, because this bill will endure past this Government because it has the support of all the parties in the House.

But, as Ruth Dyson noted, although this bill is about improving protection for certain species, it is very much at odds with what is happening with the Department of Conservation, and with the major restructuring we have seen in response to the $54 million cut in its funding over 4 years that this Government introduced. In just this year we have seen 110 jobs lost and we have seen a decline in morale. There is huge churn in the department as a result of the restructuring and there is some new wave management theory about how the department should be organised, which has managers in one location being responsible for staff hundreds of kilometres away in another location. So we have seen staff voting with their feet and the department haemorrhaging. The people with professional skills, expertise, dedication, and commitment to our threatened species are leaving in droves. There has been a huge overshoot in this restructuring. As of last Friday there are 250 vacancies that the department has yet to fill. That is a huge loss of expertise. So if this Government wants to do more than ensure that wildlife smugglers and those that harass marine mammals are effectively prosecuted and penalised—if it really wants to improve the prospects for our threatened species, like kiwi and kōkako and our native fish—then it has got to better fund the department so we can better look after the species, the habitats, and the ecosystems that they are part of.

If the Government genuinely wants to do something about conservation, then it has got to make more decisions like the one that the Minister made on the Routeburn tunnel to protect the national park, and it has got to make fewer decisions—or no decisions—like the Denniston one, where we see a coal plateau damaged and climate change contributed to by the emissions that will be associated with that mining. The Minister has a choice on things like the monorail in Southland to protect Snowdon Forest. It would be a gross injustice if this bill, which increases the penalties for cutting down a single tree on conservation land, goes ahead, and yet the Minister authorises the destruction of thousands of trees—old growth red beech, and silver beech forest in Snowdon Forest—for the very financial risky and very destructive Riverstone Holdings monorail application. It is not enough just to increase the penalties for smuggling wildlife. There has got to be a real commitment to the protection of our indigenous plants, wildlife, and habitats.

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by Nicky Wagner initially and others who have spoken on this bill tonight that this is indeed a bill that has real harmony around it. The changes have been made unanimously, as others have pointed out. I think that when we look at the substance of what the bill is trying to do, where Jacqui Dean, as the local member, has succeeded so well, is that she has kept it simple. It is a bill whose time has come, really, to sum it up that way. Some of the penalties that have been in place have been far too low, and there are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Her bill has done that very neatly.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received eight submissions in support and no opposing submissions. Submitters raised many of the points that other speakers have alluded to tonight on the value of higher-penalty levels and the need for consistency, not only in the way that the fines are administered across land but also against the environmentally related Acts. This piece of legislation neatly encompasses five of those Acts, and there is more to come. We will leave that for another time. I guess when I heard the submitters, and read through the submissions of those who did not want to appear before the select committee, one of them summed it up in one sentence, really. Stephanie Reynolds said: “I support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill and ask that it be passed, only with penalties strengthened enough to be an effective deterrent.” As other speakers have indicated—for example, with baby seals being clubbed to death—there is the shock of people watching on the television news, reading in their newspapers, and listening on the radio about the fact that poachers have come in and done inhumane and cruel acts for no apparent commercial gain.

Then there are the smugglers. Then there are those individuals who have come here from other parts of the world, and who see New Zealand as a soft touch because our legislation has been too soft. One example we were given at the select committee that resonated with me was the example of gecko poaching—jewelled geckos in particular. Jewelled geckos are fascinating and unique creatures, and they deserve to be protected. That is what our legislation sets out to do. But when the poachers come in—and we had a look at some of the websites in places like Germany, for example. These little creatures are getting ridiculous amounts of money overseas. A 6-month-old jewelled gecko, for example, can be sold for over $100,000, and smugglers can get $5,000 for an egg. I guess these are the kinds of inducements to people with a bad state of mind who will come out here. As we have seen in the news, they pack them on to all parts of their body and the poor creatures are not likely to even survive the journey.

These people are well-organised and they are greedy. It is a bad combination. The penalties we have put in place are going to make these sorts of people think twice. They might go to countries other than New Zealand if they want to poach in this way. But there is a very real market for it internationally, and I think Jacqui Dean has recognised that from the feedback she has had from her own community and from people whom she spoke to when she drafted this bill.

When I have spoken to others about this and talked about the work that goes on in Parliament, there has been a universality of approval around this. Everybody is sick of hearing about acts of cruelty, and one of the points that was made to me recently—in Timaru, actually—was that if people are going to club baby seals to death and commit acts of cruelty on animals, not only is that a very bad thing for the animals concerned, clearly, but also where does it stop if it is not checked? What kind of a society are we if we allow people to think that they can do this sort of thing and not have the full force of the law land upon them? This bill really does make sure that people will be absolutely aware of the penalties that will come their way. When we look at the recommendation for the penalties—for individuals, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $300,000, or both—I think these are substantial deterrents. The higher penalties have been put in place, again, as others have indicated, for the commercially motivated offences. So this is a bill that I think sends a strong message to international smugglers, and to people in New Zealand, who might, whether they are being unthinking, uncaring, or quite what, think twice. It is a very important piece of legislation to have across a number of different Acts.

I do note that although there has been an unusual amount of, I suppose, harmonious attitude among the parties in this House to this, there have been in the debate tonight a few cracks about what is happening to the Department of Conservation. I would point out that the budget for Vote Conservation is now $444 million, which is almost double the $226 million it was back in 2001-02. It is not quite as bad as the Opposition paints it to be—in fact, it is not correct at all, but that is not unusual.

💬 Scott Simpson: It’s par for the course.

It is par for the course. We are investing in recovery programmes, as well, across National’s conservation programmes, and we want 35 percent more threatened species. Those species are the ones that we need to protect, and we are moving to do that. We are also, as a Government, intending to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework, because we know and we understand only too well, as Jacqui Dean does with this excellent member’s bill, that our natural environment is a very valuable resource. We need to protect it and preserve it, and this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does that very well.

So I join others in commending Nicky Wagner, our very good and fair and balanced chair—loves them to death. Nicky Wagner has done a very good job of shepherding this through. I commend Jacqui Dean for putting it together in a very sensible way, which really denotes the fact that she is a very experienced politician and knows how to make these things work. I would also like to mention the advisers, because I think that the individuals who did the work on this bill really took it to heart. I know that all advisers work very hard and they are very committed and passionate about what they do, but the advisers that we had on this bill were particularly involved, and I think they fired us all up with the passion that we all shared. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. It is a great pleasure to rise to discuss these issues of endangered species immediately after the North Shore MP, Maggie Barry. In that regard, this bill is very much about putting in place new penalties—increased penalties—to get round what has been somewhat of a problem over many years in terms of international trafficking of endangered and rare species.

Looking back to some of the news reports in the last decade, we will all recall instances where, for instance, a German tourist was caught with Northland green geckos smuggled in his underwear as he was attempting to leave Auckland Airport. There was another instance in 2010 where a German tourist tried to smuggle 44 live geckos and skinks out of the country. Obviously, the Germans have something about our geckos and they would like to get hold of them. There was another instance where two Czech botanists were convicted in 2004 for attempting to smuggle out 363 wild plants, including 93 endemic orchids.

The list goes on and on, and it is often the case that this is being done for commercial gain and for commercial interests. It is interesting that Interpol estimates the smuggling of wildlife around the world, for instance, to be in the order of $10 billion to $20 billion. The trade in wildlife-smuggling is estimated at $10 billion to $20 billion by Interpol.

We are only a small tip of the iceberg because we are at the end of the Earth. We are an island nation, and therefore it is far more difficult here compared with those countries that are perhaps closer to Europe or Asia, where there are cross-borders and that sort of thing. But in our situation we do have some very, very rare species that are unique to this country. Some of you may have had an opportunity last night to catch on Television One the Wild About New Zealand documentary that was about Fiordland. It showed that wonderful area of New Zealand, our largest national park, and it showed the likes of the New Zealand kea, a parrot unique to New Zealand, which, again, is sought after around the world and which is highly prized. It is those sorts of species and many others that we have in this country that have ended up uniquely New Zealand birds and animals and fauna and flora that we have to ensure that we protect.

I commend Jacqui Dean for bringing to the House this member’s bill in relation to increasing the penalties and making them much more substantial than they were in the past, increasing the likes of some penalties from 1 year’s imprisonment up to 5 years’ imprisonment. That is a significant increase to go from 1 year’s to 5 years’ imprisonment for those who have committed offences that are for commercial gain or reward. Similarly, putting those penalties figures up to $300,000 or $20,000 per day is sending a very strong message to those around the world, or, indeed, any New Zealanders, who might wish to participate in any illicit trade of any flora or fauna.

It is also pleasing to see that this legislation does take into account that sometimes it is not done for commercial gain. It may have been done, as other speakers have mentioned, for some reason such as that they were not fully aware or that they did it carelessly, but they should still be penalised for having not taken due care and regard of the native, natural reserve. In that instance, under this bill, people can be sentenced to community work, and, again, that is a good situation. It is sensible that some people who have offended who perhaps do not require a financial penalty but who should be made to learn from their mistake can be subject to community work to make amends for their wrongdoings.

In this respect, New Zealand First is supporting this bill. But New Zealand First members do echo the comments of some other speakers that although it is very good to be increasing the penalties and making the regime and the governance of our flora and fauna much stricter and sending a stronger message to those who do not abide by our laws, at the same time we are very mindful that the conservation estate is under threat.

We hear figures bandied around by the National Government, which says that there is as much money, if not more, in there today as there was a few years ago. But we have to remember that we have a growing population. We also have growing numbers of tourists coming to this country. The conservation estate is under increasing pressure. There are increasing numbers using our conservation reserve, and as a result we have to be upping the ante, not just trying to tread water with the conservation reserve. Therefore, in that respect, upping the ante in terms of the penalties is going part of the way to helping protect our conservation reserve.

But at the same time we cannot forget that the basis of this country and our supposed “100% Pure New Zealand” image and also the basis of our economy being clean, green, and agricultural based are also dependent on us having a very good, clean environment. The environment is absolutely, without doubt, the jewel in the crown of New Zealand’s economy, and if we let that suffer in any way, then the rest of this economy could well suffer.

So I do just say to the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, and we mentioned it before, that going hand in hand with this bill there is a responsibility on the part of the Minister to ensure that other aspects of the conservation estate and the environment are equally protected and safeguarded. Thank you.

This bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, is brought to the House by that very solid member from Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, in an effort to put a stop to the exploitation and theft of our living treasures in this country and also the environment they live in. It is designed to do this by imposing more severe penalties.

There is a very pertinent piece of, I guess, Māori folklore that goes as follows: toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata.

[Land remains while people disappear.]

It was not very well pronounced, but I will tell you what it means, seeing as I cannot pronounce it. What it means is that the land is always there, and people are merely passing by. I guess that is most pertinent when it comes to this piece of legislation because, in fact, the land will always be there, provided we look after it, and we are merely passing by.

The bill is designed to stop those passing by from damaging, plundering, and pillaging that which has always been there. We, like all other people around the world, have spent generations damaging the environment we live in. We knew not what we did, I guess. Now we have such good information, scientific evidence, visual evidence, and history to understand what we need to do to protect what we have left for future generations. This bill contributes to that effort.

I want to spend a little bit of time tonight, however, talking about some of the treasures that exist in the Rangitīkei, and I will start with the blue duck, or whio, which is endemic and native to New Zealand, with no other duck like it in the world. These ducks are one of only three species of bird in the world that inhabit fast-flowing, clean water. They are amazing to watch, very pretty, and clever. However, they have been decimated by predators—stoats, possums, cats, and, of course, human beings—throughout our history. There are only some 2,500 of them left today. They exist throughout the northern Rangitīkei and, of course, a number of other places in New Zealand. They are about evenly spread, I think, between the North Island and the South Island. They do, however, exist in some of our most beautiful parts of New Zealand and the least accessible parts of New Zealand. The reason they live there is, I guess, that they have been chased there.

There are many enthusiastic volunteers who spend hours and hours protecting these ducks and their environment. This bill will assist them, as smuggling the ducks out of the country will no longer be as easy or as attractive. I touched on the volunteers because I wanted to briefly talk about some of the comments that have come from the other side of the House, in particular, about the funding and staff cuts that those members perceive have happened to conservation. And not only to conservation, I might add; they go on about the same sorts of cuts that have occurred in the Ministry for Primary Industries and the police. Those members entirely fail to take into account efficiency and new technology—that is most pertinent in the police situation—and alternative sources of money. They even fail to account for an improved quality of staff that we now employ in a lot of Government departments. Not only that but also we have a significant lift in volunteer support for many of these initiatives, and I talked a minute ago about the volunteers and the work they do around the blue duck and a number of our other environmental features.

In the south of the Rangitīkei, the Manawatū River runs to the sea at Foxton, through that estuary area, which is actually in Nathan Guy’s electorate—but I will claim to be his neighbour—and which we have also plundered, historically, by diverting the river and all sorts of other acts. This area hosts birds from the Arctic, rare and migratory birds: the godwit, the red knot, the Pacific plover, the royal spoonbill, and the unique wrybill. Anyone who has seen a bunch of royal spoonbills will realise that they are quite a sight—massive, great, white birds with long, black beaks.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: A flock.

A flock. Thank you.

💬 Chris Hipkins: When’s he going to get to the interesting bit?

Other very relevant features of this area include flax. It would be very useful to have a bit of flax in here at the moment. I could use it productively. But none the less—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see what I am talking about—it is one of the pieces of our history that is most important to us. The Rangitīkei, like many other parts of New Zealand, has those features and bits of our history that are most important to us. It is hugely important that we preserve them, and this bill goes a little way towards doing that.

I want to also just touch on Eugenie Sage’s comment that the Government is moving the balance away from nature and in favour of development. I want to just put a little case to you in respect of the proposed Ruataniwha Dam. We have spent 150 years in that area getting the environment to where we have got it to now. Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent is a matter of opinion, but what the dam has the potential to do, which I think is totally underestimated by its opponents, is to give us the ability to rectify a whole lot of things that we have damaged through the way we have farmed, used our land, and used our country over the last 150 years. If you think about it, putting a dam in that area gives that area the opportunity to significantly increase production, for a start, but also to significantly increase the amenity value, to make the rivers in that area much more reliable, to clean them up, and to make them more friendly for fish, as it will be able to take the peaks and lows out of play.

I think that because of the way we have moved over the last 150 years with our environment, we are not going to fix it by letting it go back from whence it came. We have to help it get back to where it came from. I am a great supporter of the changes to the Resource Management Act and changes to all sorts of processes that will allow us to get our environment going in a manner that I think will help New Zealand’s future, will put our environment back to where it came from, and will create the opportunity for our rarer species to continue to live and to breed significantly. Again, referring to the blue duck, that is one of our rare birds that has certainly increased in population in the last few years, and it is going to continue to increase in population if we continue to manage it in the manner we have.

One gets a great appreciation of one’s own importance in life when you consider that a minute gecko is worth $100,000, and a 60-year-old male is probably worth only food value. I think that really sums up the need for this bill and the importance that it has got in our future. This is a good piece of legislation, and I congratulate Jacqui Dean and Nicky Wagner and her Local Government and Environment Committee on getting the bill as far as they have in such good order. I commend this bill to the House.

About 3 weeks ago I finished a meeting in Auckland and walked along Queen Street, going to my second appointment. I was stopped and asked to sign a petition by a young, quiet, Cantonese-speaking Chinese woman. It was a “Stop shark finning” petition, or a “Ban shark fin soup” petition. I signed it. Walking along with me was a group of Asian business people, who all signed the petition. The young woman thanked me, and I thanked her and the group of Asian business people.

We should really thank those who are behind the petition. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has been campaigning hard to stop shark finning in New Zealand, and so have independent groups like Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature, Shark Fin Free Auckland, New Zealand Diving, and several others, which have formed the New Zealand Shark Alliance.

Sharks are in decline around the world, and New Zealand too is contributing to the problem. Shark fishing in our waters has increased dramatically over the past 15 years. According to the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, on average 24,000 tonnes of shark—the equivalent weight of 300,000 people—is caught every year in New Zealand waters. New Zealand is one of the top 20 exporters of shark fins to Hong Kong, along with Spain, Taiwan, and Singapore. We must do something about that, and the society, Greenpeace, and all the others have been working tirelessly and campaigning hard to protect those endangered species and their environments, and they deserve a big thank you. In a similar vein I would like to thank the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, for sponsoring this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. We support this bill, and we support the initiative.

As I said at the very beginning, the petition will increase awareness and draw a fine line there. I simply cannot get my head round why on earth shark fin soup is so popular in Hong Kong and some other places. If we increase the awareness to such an extent that people would feel sick just by viewing or imagining the photos of those injured or maimed sharks, that would help to stop shark finning. The unsustainable killing of these creatures and the inhumane practice of shark finning are drawing these creatures closer to extinction.

The purpose of this bill is to see New Zealand wildlife and its natural and historic resources being better protected through enhanced penalties, effective implementation, and by standardising penalties across conservation legislation. The bill as introduced would amend five pieces of legislation, being the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Those Acts are pretty much between 26 and 60 years old. The existing penalties under those five Acts are also old and extremely low, and that can send an unintended signal or message to the offenders and to the courts as well that the offence is minimal or trivial. For example, the maximum penalty in the Reserves Act is 1-month imprisonment or a $500 fine, plus $10 a day if the offence is ongoing, and that has not been amended since 1977.

These low maximum penalties provide little deterrence, if any. As the departmental report says, District Court judges have noted the low penalties under the Reserves Act and the National Parks Act in their oral comments during sentencing. Four District Court judges also encouraged Parliament to consider increasing the penalties for poaching and smuggling wildlife, noting that the commercial value created incentives for the offending, and the existing penalties did not appear to be providing an effective deterrence.

In addition, the existing penalties can be exceeded by potential financial benefit from commercially motivated offending, which creates an incentive to offend or reoffend. The penalties are not proportionate to the importance of the value of the protected area or species, and the costs of prosecuting often far exceed the resulting sentence. So collectively these problems make enforcement more difficult and inefficient.

For companies, or bodies corporate, should I say, because bodies corporate will include corporations and unincorporated legal entities as well, the existing maximum penalties provide little or no deterrence at all, as the gain can significantly outweigh the penalties. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has advised that legislative drafting no longer refers to corporations, as the term fails to capture unincorporated legal entities. It is recommended that the clauses that provide separate penalties for companies or corporations be deleted, and the penalties for commercially motivated offending, and for other penalties to be applied to both natural and legal persons. This would therefore simplify the bill and ensure that unincorporated legal entities become subject to this bill as well. It would increase the penalty level that a legal entity may face when acting with commercial intent, which is likely to be the majority of the offences committed by a corporation, and make legal entities, including corporations, subject to the same level of penalty for other types of offending, as natural persons are.

The New Zealand Law Society in its submission provided a detailed analysis of combined sentences, as proposed under this bill. Combined sentences of different types are the exception rather than the norm in New Zealand. Section 19(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that “No court may impose a combination of sentences of different types on an offender in respect of 1 or more offences except as provided in this section.” I am very glad to note that the Local Government and Environment Committee in its report recommended a two-tiered penalty approach, and I thank Nicky Wagner for being a wonderful chair of that committee.

Although we are supporting this bill, we are also concerned and disappointed that it will do little to address the fundamental issues facing the Department of Conservation. The first problem is that this National-ACT Government has a tendency to see the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced rather than as entities that are dependent on each other, namely two sides of the same coin. Secondly, the Department of Conservation has been consistently underfunded by this National-ACT Government. In the 2009 Budget the Department of Conservation had $54 million cut from its budget, over a period of 4 years, and there have been over 400 job losses so far—around one in six staff—and this has caused serious concern.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Hōmai te kārearea kia toro mahangatia. Ko te kāhu te whakaora, waiho kia rere ana.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The kārearea must be snared, and the kāhu saved—let it fly on.]

To the children of Tāne Māhuta, be vigilant to who is friend and who is foe. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill introduces increased penalties for offences under the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, as well as associated by-laws and regulations. The bill is of interest to all New Zealanders and, more specifically, to councils, statutory bodies that administer any of these Acts, as well as people whose activities will be governed by the Acts—for example, recreational and commercial hunters, developers whose activities might unlawfully kill wildlife, and people who recreate or operate businesses in reserves and conservation management areas.

Globally, wildlife-smuggling was last year estimated to be worth about US$40 billion, ranking third behind narcotics and arms-smuggling. High-profile prosecutions in Aotearoa New Zealand have involved kākā parrot eggs and chameleons. This bill is a response for tougher penalties. This bill sends a clear message that the theft and pillaging of our native animals and native plants will no longer be tolerated. In 2007 customs made two prosecutions, and 3 years later, in 2010, six were laid. This year has so far seen two prosecutions. In 2011 mokomoko, or geckos, rescued from smugglers in Christchurch were thought to have been recaptured again and smuggled out of the country. In that instance, customs became aware of the smuggling only when researchers noticed that animal numbers were below natural prediction.

The New Zealand Customs Service has seen an increase in prosecutions made against people taking native flora and fauna offshore for the black market. This bill significantly increases penalties for offending. Whether the theft is motivated by commercial gain or reward, or even if it is not motivated by gain or reward but by some queer and bizarre desire to have the taonga as a curio piece or pet, the purpose of the bill is to create a strong deterrent and to penalise the most serious offending with some severity. Insects, orchids, and geckos are particularly fancied by collectors, but so too are insects, specifically our wētā. Our native species are for sale on websites all over the world. Insects like our beautiful wētā are hard to breed and may live for no more than 2 years. Worldwide, orchid trade is booming, with smuggling of New Zealand orchids on the rise. Anything different or unusual is collectable.

For individuals, there is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, a fine not exceeding $300,000, or both. For bodies corporate, there is a fine not exceeding $300,000. For a continuing offence, there is a further fine not exceeding $20,000 per day. New Zealand’s mokomoko, or geckos, can be worth in excess, we have heard, of six-figure sums. They have become very popular in Europe and the United States. A reptile fair in Germany attracted 11,000 visitors, and one in Florida turned over US$6 million in reptile sales in a single weekend.

Additionally, the Local Government and Environment Committee recommends extending the bill to include the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and to update the penalty regime in that Act to bring consistency to the penalties administered by the Department of Conservation. This recommendation will interest commercial fishers and people who operate within the limits of New Zealand fishery waters.

This bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of Aotearoa New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife and natural areas put our protected species, good international reputation, and tourism industry at risk. This bill will complement further smuggling deterrence measures that are soon to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation and will increase fines for wildlife-smuggling to 5 years in jail and $300,000. Any overlap between the two bills dealing with smuggling will be addressed and sorted at the select committee phase. This bill also complements our efforts since being elected to boost the conservation estate, better protect our great outdoors, and strengthen conservation across our country. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishments, and enforcement.

New Zealanders pride themselves on our clean, green image. It is imperative that we look after our natural environment. It is our greatest asset. Vote Conservation is now $444 million, almost double the $226 million in 2001-02. We are investing in recovery programmes for 35 percent more threatened species under this Government. We also intend to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. Our natural environment is a valuable resource that we need to protect and preserve. I commend this bill to the House.

I understand that this is a split call, so the member will get a bell at 4 minutes.

Thank you. Well, it is good to follow Claudette Hauiti in this debate, but I just want to note that there does seem to be a condition that is afflicting the National Party benches. It was only last week that Maggie Barry declared how happy she was having heard all the submissions on a particular bill that was being debated. It subsequently turned out that it was a first reading of that particular bill. Unless I heard wrong from the member who spoke before, she said that a number of these things would be sorted out in the select committee. Well, I do not know whether the National Party research unit is not updating its speaking notes very often these days, but I am pretty sure that this is the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. In fact, a number of speakers have commented on the very fine submissions, all eight, that were heard—

💬 Claudette Hauiti: Great that you’re listening to me. What a compliment—you’re listening to me.

Well, it is a compliment. It is a compliment to Ms Hauiti. I think, actually, I was the only one in the House who was listening to that speech, because no one else even raised an eyebrow on this side of the House, that side, or that side. You know, I do have excellent listening skills.

The other thing that occurred to me was that every time we have a members’ day we seem to debate a bill by Jacqui Deans.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Dean.

Jacqui Dean. She brought this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, to the House, but it seems like only yesterday we were debating the Waitaki Reserves—

💬 Nicky Wagner: Four.

The member Nicky Wagner is telling me that Jacqui Dean has had four members’ bills. Well, frankly, I feel like taking a point of order about that, because there are serious equity issues here. Someone is getting far too many members’ bills, and it is not me.

We are supporting this bill for obvious reasons. It is a good bill, and all kudos to Jacqui Dean, I think, for coming up with an idea for a member’s bill that is very practical, very beneficial, and makes a lot of sense. As members before me have commented, this bill makes consistent and beefs up the penalty regimes for a whole range of Acts that deal with protecting our flora and fauna. The first thing I thought of, actually, when I heard about Jacqui Dean’s bill was not the Czech botanists who stole native orchids and so on, and not the German gecko-smuggler whom a number of people have commented on. It made me think of a really sad incident that happened, actually, in my electorate of Te Atatū, where a couple of guys found a juvenile fur seal that got caught up in their fishing net in Henderson Creek, a place quite close to where I live and where I go kayaking quite often. Unfortunately, these guys clubbed to death this baby seal with the oar of their dinghy and beat this poor baby seal senseless. This was a couple of summers ago now. The 1-year-old fur seal was cared for at Auckland Zoo, but it had a fractured cranium and a number of injuries, and it died within a couple of weeks.

Those kinds of things happen from time to time in New Zealand. They are awful events. It is good that Jacqui Dean’s bill produces a set of penalties that will allow enforcement to be carried out much more easily by the authorities, and penalties that will act as a proper deterrent. Having said all of these positive things about Jacqui Dean’s bill, I do not want to be churlish and spoil the mood of the occasion, but I do find there is an irony in the fact that this bill cracks down on illegal whitebaiting and fishing in marine reserves while the Government continues to allow gross overfishing under the quota system of a number of our marine species. There is an irony in that felling protected trees will be subject to increased penalties in this bill, but this Government has just demolished tree protection rules that would allow councils to properly protect the urban forest.

The bill brings the Marine Mammals Protection Act under the new integrated penalty regime, but this Government refuses to take the most sensible and obvious measures to protect the endangered Māui’s dolphin. It allows encroachment into national parks, but this Government spent a couple of years trying to convince New Zealand that we should allow mining in national parks. So although Jacqui Dean’s bill is to be commended, these ironies should be pointed out and should be considered by the general populace. Thank you.

I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage. Tēnā koe.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: No, no you don’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Catherine Delahunty—Catherine Delahunty, absolutely. I am sorry, Catherine.

That is fine. We have had Eugenie; now it is Catherine Delahunty’s turn. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare e pōti i tēnei pō. We are also happy to be supporting Jacqui Dean’s bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. We really believe that we need to deal with this issue by increasing penalties, which this bill does. I understand the passion of a member like Jacqui Dean for a member’s bill. It is very hard to get one selected from the ballot, and then when one does it is very hard to get it through the Parliament, so this is very satisfying for her. I also have had a bill before the Local Government and Environment Committee, or it was before it, with less success. But I understand exactly the passion that people feel about bills that they have tried to shepherd through this process.

This is an important bill because it sends a good message to the courts. I think we have heard a lot of detail. We do not need to hear any more about it, actually. There has been a lot of repetition tonight about some of the clauses. I think it is all very interesting. Clearly, the Local Government and Environment Committee has done a good job. The bill will be useful within its frame of reference and will send an important message.

The whole issue of collecting illegally, as well as the strange brutality that people sometimes demonstrate towards wildlife, are very old problems. In the 18th century European collectors started coming over to Aotearoa and taking species, alive or dead, and taking them back to Europe for their own purposes, for financial gain, and often for museums. And so we have collectors such as Andreas Reischek who in the 19th and early 20th century robbed graves, took taonga katoa, and took various species with him in the hope of making a name in Europe. In those days it was acceptable to a degree, and the sad thing is that there is still a market for such a noxious trade. As others have said, it is a big market, and it is still a major problem.

Our wildlife, although we are at the end of the world, is extraordinarily unique, and we need to defend it, and not just because of the description in the initial Department of Conservation report on this bill. Conservation is defined in one of the office’s reports as “a valued part of brand New Zealand”. That may be true but it is a very limited way of looking at the world. One of the reasons that we are defending the wildlife is not just that they are a brand but that they have intrinsic value in our community. They also have intrinsic value to kaitiaki katoa, whose whakapapa goes back more than a thousand years and has relationships with many of these taonga. So I think it is really important that we get beyond the shallow and recognise how deep the relationship is in this country with some of these species—how unique, how important, and how vital it is that not only do we not let people smuggle them but also we defend their right to exist.

The biggest threat to the species is not actually something this bill addresses, because the biggest threat to the species is pest control and loss of habitat. That is why it is so important that we commit to a coherent—not just a random but a coherent—approach to conservation in this country, and that we recognise the article 2 rights of tangata whenua in relation to taonga such as previously mentioned by my Labour colleague, species such as Māui’s dolphin.

If we look at these wildlife I think there are a lot of contradictions in discussing this tonight, because, as much as the bill does good work and we support it, it is very interesting when we come to perhaps one of the most endangered species in this country, the Archey’s frog, the pekahua, which is in my electorate—my area where I live, not my electorate, but where I live. The Archey’s frog is the rarest frog on the planet, yet this Government has given a permit and supported a permit for the mining industry to go into that area and mine inside the Archey’s frog’s habitat. On the one hand we are doing the right thing, and on the other hand we are actually allowing the greater threat.

If we are going to allow the greater threat, we need to be honest about that and say: “Yes, it is OK. We are going to stop smuggling, we are going to stop acts of random cruelty, but actually we are fine with destroying habitat.” I have a picture here tonight of a postcard that I have got of the great spotted kiwi, an iconic species, which is going to be damaged if we allow the mining of the Denniston Plateau. The green gecko, a species that is intrinsic to the Denniston Plateau, and other species such as the great spotted kiwi and the giant land snail are all vulnerable not only because of bad people and smugglers but also because we are actually committing other forms of vandalism towards the conservation estate.

It is important that we acknowledge those contradictions and those threats to biodiversity and remember that we are all guardians and have a responsibility for protecting these species for future generations. That is not a rhetorical statement. That is about consistency and acting properly in terms of the environment, because these species cannot flourish in isolation. They are not just iconic, charismatic species; they are our environment. We need to protect them. We commend the bill but we would like to see a consistent approach to conservation from this Government before it is too late. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Ni hao. I rise to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, in the name of the honourable member Jacqui Dean. This bill sets out to better protect our special places and species by increasing penalties for non-compliance with the laws administered by the Department of Conservation. It also implements a consistent approach to penalties across the amended laws.

As a first-generation immigrant from China, I always feel proud when I am talking to visitors from China and, for that matter, to visitors from other parts of the world about the environment of New Zealand. I can say for sure that other Chinese immigrants share my feelings. You may be aware that there is currently a photo exhibition in Parliament. The exhibition is called The Land of the Long White Cloud—New Zealand Through Chinese Lenses. The exhibition consists of over 40 photographs, mainly of New Zealand’s beautiful scenery, taken by Chinese photographers in New Zealand. I am very proud that I initiated the exhibition. I was also very grateful that the Prime Minister, John Key, and over 40 Ministers and MPs from various parties came to the opening ceremony of the exhibition. These photographers speak loudly through their photos that they love New Zealand, the land of the long, white cloud. I am very pleased that Tourism New Zealand is interested in some of these photos and may use them to promote New Zealand tourism. On behalf of the photographers and the Chinese community, I would like to thank my colleague Jacqui Dean for introducing this bill.

It is imperative that we look after our natural environment. It is our greatest asset. This bill proposes bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or endanger our protected natural habitats. Some penalties currently in place are far too low, and there are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Our flora and fauna are an important part of New Zealand’s culture and heritage. We need to protect our native species for future generations.

The Local Government and Environment Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed with some amendments. The committee took into account a number of factors, including intentionality and the type of offence. Offences motivated by commercial gain or reward will incur higher penalties. For instance, bodies corporate could be fined up to $300,000 for commercially motivated offences. The purpose of this is to create a stronger deterrent and penalise the most serious offending sufficiently severely.

As previous speakers have stated, this bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife and natural areas put our protected species, good international reputation, and tourism industry at risk. This bill complements the National-led Government’s efforts to boost the conservation asset, better protect our great outdoors, and strengthen conservation across New Zealand. We need a consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation. This will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishments, and enforcement. Vote Conservation is now $444 million, almost double the $226 million in 2001-02. We are investing in recovery programmes for 35 percent more threatened species under National. We also intend to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. We are continuing to improve the environment and build a cleaner, greener, and brighter future for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.