Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, but acknowledgments to all you members of this House, at the same time.]

I would like to take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this. The bill attempts to amend the Wildlife Act of 1953. The bill aims to reduce offending against particular wildlife by increasing the powers available to rangers. The new powers aim to help rangers effectively detect and investigate offences and apprehend offenders.

Can I just acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it has done. I am a member of this select committee, but I vacated it for a more knowledgable member of Labour, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, our conservation spokesperson. But I do note in the report back that seven submissions were provided to the select committee and, of course, four made submissions orally. I thought it might be useful for the House—because, obviously, our Department of Conservation (DOC) estate is very, very important to New Zealand. Just like the previous speakers said of the previous bill, the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill, this bill not only attempts to protect our wildlife but is very critical to the “New Zealand Inc.” brand, and so, like I said, Labour will be supporting it.

I would like to share with the House that the select committee actually asked the Department of Conservation about the extent of smuggling that currently happens in New Zealand. It did ask the Department of Conservation to provide the committee with statistics on the extent of wildlife smuggling: how many incidents occur, how many people are involved, and the amount of harm that is occurring. I thought it might be useful to share the response the committee received from DOC. I found it quite interesting reading the report, in terms of the extent of the problem.

What I have gleaned from the report provided by the Department of Conservation is that native geckos are the main target for wildlife poaching and illegal export. New Zealand geckos are sought after by international dealers and collectors as they are colourful and attractive and very long-living compared with other geckos. Again, a recent pair fetched up to $13,500 on trade sites. Commercial values drive a demand for the illegal taking of species that are rarer and, hence, more valuable. Lizard poaching—again, I found this quite interesting. The height of lizard poaching in this country occurs from now until April and May, when lizards are most active. Also, the point that officials shared with the select committee is that commercial poaching activities are getting more and more sophisticated with different people acting as purchasers, researchers, hunters, and couriers.

The other piece of information that I found interesting was that since 2009, the Department of Conservation has brought four successful prosecutions against seven foreign nationals for capturing and attempting to smuggle 68 absolutely protected native lizards out of New Zealand. That is four prosecutions against seven international individuals with a combined total of 68 native lizards. By my own calculations, that is roughly 10 native lizards per international smuggler, and we had a prosecution rate of four out of seven. So, again, it is just interesting that with more resourcing, which this bill is attempting to address, hopefully we can get prosecutions, not only at a higher rate than four out of seven, but also to protect those 68 native lizards that seem to leave our country.

I will now just turn to the bill. I particularly want to focus on clause 5. Clause 5 not only talks about the rangers whom this particular bill is giving extra powers to but clearly identifies the rangers who are not receiving these powers. I want to make note of them. In new section 39AA, inserted by clause 5 in Part 1, clearly this does not apply to certain rangers—so this is the section that says these additional powers do not apply to fish and game rangers or rangers appointed under section 38(2) of the Wildlife Act or any honorary fishery officers within the meaning given in section 2 (1) of the Fisheries Act 1996.

Then we move to subsection (2) of new section 39AA, where it talks about the rangers whom this section applies to in terms of the powers that are conferred on these rangers. I just want to highlight a couple of them and then make reference to a particular submitter who submitted to the select committee. That power is in new section 39A, inserted by clause 5—“Power to seize evidential material”. The section there talks about “A ranger to whom section 39AA applies may seize any evidential material (as defined in section 3(1) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012) that he or she reasonably believes relates to the investigation of a suspected offence against this Act or any regulations made under this Act.”

I am glad Minister Barry has taken the chair, because I just want to reference the submission provided by the New Zealand Law Society, where it actually talks about the power to seize evidential material. It talked about “The express incorporation of the meaning of ‘evidential material’ from the S&S Act creates an inconsistency. Under proposed section 39A, the evidential material must ‘relate’ to the investigation of an offence against the Act. But the S&S Act definition of ‘evidential material’ uses slightly different phrasing:”. The phrasing that the Law Society refers to is “in relation to an offence or a suspected offence, means evidence of the offence, or any other item, tangible or intangible, of relevance to the investigation of the offence.” Perhaps it is just a question to the Minister of whether we have covered off that particular issue that the Law Society raised in relation to section 39A, inserted by clause 5, around the use of evidential material.

I am going to leave it there, because I know lots of my other colleagues have got contributions they will make, and I would like to make one a little later in the debate. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee, so I was very interested to hear what the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, had to say. This is a very important issue to the Green Party. Obviously, we support the protection of endangered species 100 percent. I think there is nothing more despicable than the international smuggling of our most important species, such as the 68 lizards that the last speaker was just talking about.

I want to take a call on this issue, even though I was not on the select committee, because I think that we are at a very interesting time in our history in relation to how we enforce the law. The Green Party is fully in support of the full protection, under law, of endangered species. But the point that I wanted to discuss, in terms of the powers that are given under this bill, was the importance of recognising that we are now in a new era where a lot of land that was previously administered purely by the Department of Conservation (DOC) is now or will be administered under co-governance regimes or in models such as what has been developed very creatively between the Government and Tūhoe in Te Urewera National Park.

Although there is no dispute about the need to protect these important species, when we enter into new forms of governance arrangements, it is, basically, based on—one would hope—article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is an opportunity to talk about how this policing is carried out, with reference to those relationships. I think the critical word is “relationships”. I would hate to see the powers be used in a way that does not recognise the cultural sensitivity of some of these situations.

There is a history of customary take, which is not affected by this bill. Customary take is clearly not affected, so there is nothing to fear in that sense for tangata whenua. But there is also a necessity of recognising that some people have been arrested or charged with taking birds that are endangered, and although that is the law—and it should be the law—I and the Greens would like to see a higher-level discussion between the governing parties of conservation-related land and endangered species around the best mechanisms for doing that and how that is done.

So although I am not challenging this bill at all or the powers—particularly because it is targeted at a group of despicable international smugglers taking our wildlife. I think that there is a need for a more nuanced and sophisticated conversation than we have had in the past between the Treaty partners around how it is enforced, so that for people living in the forest, according to their traditional ways, their customary take is protected. This law does not change it, but there is still the necessity, where things occur that breach the law, that the cultural understanding is deepened and that the conversation and education that tangata whenua are leading with their own people—and I am thinking of people like Kevin Prime from Ngāti Hine, who has led this for many years—about the need to protect endangered species is recognised by my culture as well as the need for a more nuanced dialogue rather than the heavy hand of our way of going about enforcing the law.

So it is a plea, I guess, that these new powers in terms of those contexts that there is a dialogue and that there is a discussion with the co-governing parties wherever whenua is co-governed and where the issues are affected, so that this is not just a matter of taking power, but sharing power and a discussion on how power might be shared in order to do that.

Other than that, we are in full support of the necessity to protect our wildlife. But let us do it with recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and recognition of conversations and dialogue about how these powers are used so that we do not entrench some of the misunderstandings that have existed between DOC and mana whenua hapū on the ground. It is all about relationships. It is really important that this stuff is well understood and owned by all of us, and also that we recognise the sensitivities around these relationships, because they come from a time and from the leadership of those who in the past and into the future want to sustain all the resources. Kia ora koutou.

I want to take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard the submissions. Can I begin by thanking the Minister in the chair, the Hon Maggie Barry, for bringing this bill to the House—I think you are absolutely right. I was convinced by the speeches that you gave in earlier readings and also by the evidence that was presented at select committee that there is a need for greater enforcement powers to protect our wildlife—particularly, our lizards, geckos, tuatara, and also our birds—from unscrupulous people, particularly from overseas, who are trying to steal what are endangered species to add to the collections, both alive and dead, of people from overseas who think that they have got a right to come into our country and take what is ours and to put at risk the viability of some of those populations.

I know from down in my own patch in Otago with the giant skink—there are very, very low numbers of these animals. We all know where they are. They are in a small number of reserves, which are often fenced these days to protect them from predators, around Macraes, near Alexandra, and up behind Earnscleugh. It would not take much for those populations to be completely cleaned out and for us to be responsible for the extinction of another species. It is absolutely right that we give the Department of Conservation (DOC) officers the power they need to properly prevent that and, therefore, I am absolutely supportive of these additional powers of search and seizure that have been given to the Department of Conservation. I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House in the hope that we can make offences less likely or less frequent, and that these abuses of New Zealand law will be detected and prevented. So thank you for doing that.

Can I mention a submission that was made by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council. Fish & Game New Zealand, of course, have a delegated responsibility for looking after our game birds in New Zealand, amongst other things. The Department of Conservation does not do that in respect of introduced game species—ducks and the like. The fish and game councils throughout New Zealand have been given that role by Parliament, they fulfil an important function of managing those species, and they do that in a number of ways: they protect habitat—in fact, they do more to protect the habitat of those sorts of animals than anyone else; they police bag limits; and they police seasons. So they came along and said that they should have the same powers as are extended to the Department of Conservation. The advice from officials was that they should not. I agreed with officials that they should not have all of those additional powers, although not with the logic that was used for that reasoning.

The department came and said that because the Department of Conservation are government officials they are bound by a code of conduct, which means that it is more appropriate for them to have these extended powers than the Fish & Game Council. I do not think that is a justification. Parliament has seen fit to give this area of power to fish and game councils, and if they needed those powers of search and seizure, then they should have them. They are bound by the statute, and I did not think that the fact that they were not government officials was a point of difference that was relevant.

What I did think, though, was that they did not need powers. So although we do need powers to protect our lizards and geckos and things from being stolen and taken offshore—I have not heard many mallard ducks being targeted by overseas smugglers—I was not convinced that the Fish & Game Council, whom I have high regard for and have done a lot of legal work for over the years, needed the additional powers. And on the basis that you should not give any government official—whether it is the Fish & Game Council under its delegated powers or the Department of Conservation—any broader powers than they need, I did not think they should have the additional powers.

But there is one exception, and it is one that relates to my Supplementary Order Paper 243. It arises from the fact that under the prosecutorial guidelines for a prosecution to be laid in the courts by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council, it has got to include the date of birth of the person who is being prosecuted. Under the prosecutorial guidelines that bind the Fish & Game Council—and it has to comply with—it cannot bring a prosecution for someone hunting without a licence or out of season or with an excess bag limit or using the wrong firearms if it does not know the person’s date of birth.

It is an absolute nonsense that it has not got the power to require people to give their date of birth. I did not agree that the Fish & Game Council needed the broad suite of powers that had been given to the Department of Conservation. It absolutely does need the power to ask for someone’s date of birth; it is not enough that it can get someone’s address and name. As Paul Foster-Bell said at select committee, he has, at periods, lived at the same address as his father, who shares the same name.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: No, it’s my grandad.

Grandad—your grandfather. Thank you. Sorry, Mr Foster-Bell. Therefore, in order to differentiate from him and his grandfather, in a prosecution sense, you have got to be able to have the date of birth. Otherwise, you might serve the information on the wrong person. And, even if you did not serve it on the wrong person, you could not file the prosecution anyway—because the prosecutorial guidelines say that you have got to have the date of birth.

So it is an absolute nonsense that the Fish & Game Council have not got the ability to require someone to give them their date of birth, because it cannot otherwise meet its statutory duty, which we have in Parliament conferred upon it in respect of game birds, to have that date of birth. The officials at the time said to us—and it is recorded in the report of the committee; the whole of the committee recorded it—that it would be a useful power for full-time fish and game rangers, but it would not be necessary to extend the power to honorary fish and game rangers because honorary rangers are generally accompanied by full-time fish and game rangers.

That is what we were told by our departmental advisers. It did not seem right to me and you will see that the minority said that it was not convinced that they should not have the power to ask for, or require, the date of birth to be given. Sure enough, after our report became public Fish & Game contacted, I think, virtually every member in Parliament to say: “Well, actually, the advice from officials is wrong anyway, because most of the prosecutions are carried out by honorary rangers and they’re the people who give the infringement notice out.” They are good members of civil society. They go through the same training as full-time rangers. It is very similar to the training that is given to DOC rangers—we have had that evidence at select committee that there was no lower quality of training or, somehow, irresponsible conduct on behalf of honorary rangers. If that was the case, we would be taking away the existing powers that they have to get a name and address.

So although I did not agree that they should have the power to seize cellphones or other things, which we are giving to the Department of Conservation, I do agree that they need the power to require someone to give their date of birth, to comply with the Government’s requirements that they do provide that information when they file information that is charging someone with an infringement. So that is what my Supplementary Order Paper does: it actually gives the power to honorary rangers to ask for a date of birth. I hope that Government members are going to support that, because—[Interruption] The Minister shakes her head. Minister, I am disappointed. It is an absolute nonsense. It is an absolute nonsense that they have got the power to prosecute, they need the power to get a date of birth in order to be able to prosecute, and the Minister is saying we are not going to trust them—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: Vigilantes charter.

Vigilantism—ha, ha! Mr Foster-Bell, yes; I am sure that is said in mirth. This is a farcical situation. This is like Yes Minister.

I was disappointed that the select committee would not make this common-sense recommendation itself, unanimously. If the prosecutorial guidelines require a date of birth, it is obvious that those people who are actually doing the prosecuting, or writing out the infringement notices that form the basis of the prosecution, have to be able to gather the evidence that is required by the Government to be submitted at the time the information or the infringement notice is put into court—which is the date of birth. I do not think that is an infringement of civil liberties. I think it is ridiculous to think that DOC needs that power, but that Fish & Game New Zealand does not.

I will take just a short call on this. First of all, I would just like to point out that I think the terminology is wrong in new section 39D(2)(b), inserted by clause 5. It talks about “every officer in command of any vessel, aircraft, or unit of the New Zealand Defence Force:”, and then talks about “(c) every Customs officer …” and “(d) every fishery officer …”. I would just like to point out a clarification here. I hope that the legislation will use the wide term of the definition of “officer”, because in the armed services the term “officer” actually means something different from what it does in the Customs Service or the Ministry for Primary Industries. In the armed services, “officer” actually means someone who has been commissioned and has completed officer training. I think this should actually read: “every member in command of any vessel, aircraft, or unit of the New Zealand Defence Force:”, because what we may find is that there are people who are actually non-commissioned officers who are in charge of vessels, aircraft, or units of the Defence Force, who, under this legislation, actually will not have those arresting powers. I think that would perhaps be an unintended consequence.

One thing that I would like to point out here is that I suspect, knowing what has gone on in the past, that some of these cases will end up in court. I do know, in absence of any solid information, that what judges may do is they look at the Hansard of the debate to see the intent of Parliament. There are a couple of clauses here that talk about “reasonable in the circumstances”. In new section 39B(1) it would “require a person to stop and to remain stopped for a period that is no longer than is reasonable in the circumstances;”. In new section 39E(3) it says: “If the arresting officer is not a constable, the arresting officer must deliver the arrested person into the custody of a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable …”.

What I would like to highlight here is that I hope, if these do appear before the court, that the judge takes into account the definition of “reasonable circumstances” in these situations within which an arrest has occurred. For example, we are not talking about an offender who has been caught on Ponsonby Road and there is a reasonable expectation that an officer will turn up in 10, 15, or 20 minutes. We may be talking about a circumstance where an arresting officer has made an arrest in a situation where it is unreasonable to expect an officer of the law to turn up in a time that is less than an hour or even 2 hours. So what we absolutely need to ensure, I believe, is that every case that is prosecuted takes into account that reasonable or practical time in the circumstance within which the arrest was made.

There is just one other point I would like to make, and that is about new section 39E(2). It talks about: “At the time of arrest, the arresting officer must, unless it is impracticable to do so, … (b) produce evidence that he or she is authorised …”. I can envisage a number of circumstances where an arresting officer, as defined under this legislation, simply has not got any identification on them that would prove to the person, when they are making an arrest, that they are a fisheries officer, that they are a ranger, or that they are a member of the New Zealand Defence Force. So, again, I hope this is taken in the context of what the legislation means, and that is we have got to deliver a level of pragmatism around this.

We are talking about a situation where, often, people are out and about, in the wilderness, out on the beaches, or in the rivers, and therefore the expectation around what the arresting officer will have on them at the time of the arrest or when an officer can turn up or when they can deliver that person to a constable is a lot different from many other circumstances.

One thing I would say is I agree with everyone that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. We absolutely need to tighten up what we can do and who should be able to arrest people who seek to take advantage of our wildlife. So congratulations, Minister.

It is a great pleasure to rise before the dinner break to talk on behalf of New Zealand First on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. It is nice to see the Minister of Conservation, Ms Barry, in the chair, so, hopefully, she will respond, because I did see her, dare I say, shaking her head in disagreement with Supplementary Order Paper 243, which was put down by David Parker. That just goes to show that there is no common sense in this Government.

It is an absolute shock, really, because I thought that the Supplementary Order Paper was just a common-sense approach. The funny thing about common sense, of course, is that it is not that common. Ms Barry, I hope you find it in your heart to see the sense in it and actually change your mind when it comes to voting on it, because if you do not support it, you become a toothless tiger. You have got people out there doing their bit in the community, outside their communities, and in the wilderness of New Zealand, protecting our species and our environment, and they can do nothing but just say: “Well, OK. Just stop doing that and be on your way.” It is ridiculous.

Look, New Zealand First absolutely supports this legislation. We have spoken to it in all the readings and will continue to support it, but this Supplementary Order Paper put through by David Parker does absolutely make sense. It is tidying up a tiny loophole that I think you have overlooked, and you are just too proud to say: “Hey, well done for picking it up. Let’s vote it in.” It is absolutely ridiculous that you are not, and it just goes to show you how out of touch this Government is, if it does not see the sense in it. I would certainly like to hear your excuse or your reasoning behind not supporting it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are bringing me into the debate.

I will not, sir. Thank you.

This bill here does do a number of good things. New Zealand First has certainly cautioned on the side of giving more powers to Fish and Game New Zealand rangers, but certainly supports empowering our DOC rangers. We have seen and heard of a number of high-profile incidents involving the stealing, if you like, of our wildlife and protected species for personal gain. We certainly want to see that come to an end. We do not want our very, very precious species taken away for profit, and we certainly want to protect them as best we can, enabling our DOC rangers to gain evidence to help prosecute these offenders. Whether they be natural Kiwi New Zealanders or whether they be foreigners it does not matter; rangers must have the ability to seize computers and cellphones to get on with their jobs so that we can get these prosecutions.

Again, another loophole addressed was the simple fact that now rangers can ask for the person’s name, address, and their date of birth, just like any arresting police officer would with the same sorts of powers, and then demand proof of that, just exactly like this Supplementary Order Paper outlines for honorary rangers, expecting honorary rangers to be able to do the same thing. If you cannot prove who they are, how could you possibly take a prosecution through to court, not knowing whom you are actually, genuinely prosecuting? Certainly we would like to see the Minister explain her Government’s position. I have always liked Maggie Barry, and I have to say that I hope that she sees some common sense between now and 5 minutes’ time when we vote on this bill, but I cannot see it happening. Thank you.

I am really pleased to lend my voice to the support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill during the Committee stage. But before I make a contribution on that, can I just pay a tribute to the many personnel, volunteers and professionals, who have lent so much support to the people who have been affected by the quakes. I also pay a tribute, as a mark of respect, to those who lost their lives, and give support to their families. As many people pointed out in the contributions earlier today, it really shows the New Zealand spirit when people are in need—people who have been affected by a natural disaster—and the first thing most New Zealanders do is say: “What can I do to help?”. That is something that we should treasure as part of our culture, and it is also something that our systems should support. We know from lessons learnt in Canterbury that that was not always the case.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I am delighted to continue my contribution in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. When we adjourned for the dinner break, just after I had started my contribution, I was commending the amazing work done by both professionals and volunteers to help all those impacted by the Kaikōura earthquakes, and to extend my sympathy and condolences to the families of the two people who have lost their lives. We have seen more and more photos coming through of this tragedy and it is great to feel the response of New Zealanders, which is not to sit in shock but to say “What can we do to help?”. That really needs to be commended.

This bill has been substantially improved by the work of the select committee, and I want to commend the chairperson of the committee, who is gazing longingly at the swaying—

💬 Scott Simpson: No, no, you’re making the earth move.

All right. I will not wander down that path, but I want to commend the member for his leadership in improving this bill—in fact most of the bill has been rewritten. I also want to commend the work of my colleague the Hon David Parker and urge support for his Supplementary Order Paper 243. I heard his contribution prior to the dinner break and it is really a sensible, straightforward amendment. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the National Party would not say: “This is sensible. This is a really good move, and we will support it.” I am urging the Minister to take the opportunity to explain her opposition to this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) or to risk looking a little churlish, actually—that it is a SOP put up by a Labour member and, therefore, should be opposed. I do not agree with that sort of politics, and I hope the Minister does not either.

So this Supplementary Order Paper 243 fixes an omission in the current legislation that means that when fish and game rangers try to get a prosecution against somebody who has broken the law they are not able to, not because they have not got a high level of proof, not because the person did not do it, not because they have not been rigorous in following their job and doing their job but because of a simple bit of information that they are required by law to present, and that is the alleged offender’s date of birth. If the alleged offender says “No, I am not going to give you my date of birth.”, there is nothing at all that the fish and game ranger can do about it, so the prosecution lapses. People who are breaking the law, who are doing the very sorts of things that this bill wants to make harsher in terms of prosecution against those offences—those prosecutions lapse because of a foolish omission in the law made years and years and years ago that requires the fish and game rangers to present the alleged offender’s date of birth.

That is what this Supplementary Order Paper hopes to fix. It just takes out that provision, which, as I say, is stopping prosecutions. David Parker sat on the select committee. Scott Simpson will, I know, support my view that he is a very hard-working and diligent member and would have taken a lot of time looking at the detail of this legislation. I am sure that Scott Simpson, actually, and other members of the National Party who would have sat on this committee and heard the evidence would be supportive of David Parker’s SOP as well.

So the primary purpose of this bill is to give greater powers to the full-time DOC rangers. I think that is a very good thing. We all care about our environment. We care about the species that are particularly endangered. Of course, where the law has not kept up with the passage of time and where the powers of the rangers are too weak or the prosecution levels are too high then, of course, we would support improving it, and that is what this bill does.

There is the ability for the rangers to seize a wider range of evidence and there is the power to stop a person. Currently the DOC rangers do not have that. They can temporarily stop somebody whom they suspect of causing an offence and they can do an investigation while at the same time being allowed to stop that person. They can seize evidence, which they have not been allowed to up until now—it might be laptops, it might be cameras, it might be mobile phones, or something that they believe has evidence that would aid the prosecution—and they would have powers of arrest. So we support these measures.

I am anxious that the Department of Conservation is yet again being asked to perform more work and yet again has seen a budget with less money in. In 2009 we had 803 DOC rangers in New Zealand; today we have 637. That is a big drop in the number of rangers, and at the same time we have had annual cuts in DOC’s budget. In 2009 its budget was cut by $46 million and in 2013 by another $8 million and a bit. This year it was cut further again. We cannot expect our dedicated DOC rangers or any other public servants to do more with less year after year after year. Sooner or later it gets to the point that is literally a tipping point and they say “No, we just can’t do all that.” This is important work that we want them to do. This is important work that I think every party in Parliament is going to support being progressed—giving our rangers, the DOC rangers and the Fish and Game rangers, greater power.

The only further improvement that I can see in this bill is that we support David Parker’s SOP. So I urge the Minister to either stand and take a call and explain why she is not supporting that SOP, to give us the benefit of her wisdom on this matter, or otherwise vote in support of it. Thank you.

E Te Tiamana o Te Whare, tēnā koe, tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chairman, and, secondly, acknowledgments to you all, members of our House.]

The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. We want to see the Department of Conservation staff and Fish and Game officers better able to stop the smuggling of distinctive wildlife, such as our native geckos, because we know that they are being illegally smuggled out of New Zealand and that there is a very real problem.

Department of Conservation staff told the Local Government and Environment Committee that very few green geckos have been legally exported from New Zealand, but the supposedly captive-bred population in Europe is actually much larger than the breeding capability of those legally exported geckos, so they are obviously being smuggled out of New Zealand without being apprehended. Very low levels of take can significantly impact on species like the green gecko, the forest gecko, and others because some of these species do not breed until they are 8 years old and then they have got a maximum of only two offspring each year. Those offspring are very vulnerable to predators like cats. Gecko populations are very slow to recover from losses from smuggling.

We certainly want to close the loopholes in the Wildlife Act, which have made it more difficult for Department of Conservation staff to take action against smugglers and to investigate offences. The 1953 Act is more than 60 years old and those enforcement powers have not been updated during that time. But if Parliament is amending the Wildlife Act—and this is the second time we have considered changes around the offence provisions; the last time, of course, was with a member’s bill by Jacqui Dean, which increased the penalties—then it is time to actually look at a much larger modernisation of the 60-year-old Act. I think it reflects the Government’s lack of ambition that we have not had that much wider modernisation. There has not been an effort through this bill to actually provide the same protection for our native fish species as we do for our indigenous birds through the Act.

It is this Wildlife Act that provides protection for our native birds from being kept in captivity. You cannot kill any native bird except the pūkeko, the sooty shearwater or tītī, or the paradise shelduck because of provisions in the Wildlife Act, yet there is no protection in the Wildlife Act for any of our native freshwater fish species. That is despite the hugely precarious position of a lot of those native fish. Seventy-four percent of our native fish species are facing extinction; that is a much higher proportion than in virtually any other country in the world. Thirty-one of our 66 freshwater fish species are found only in Aotearoa New Zealand, so if they go extinct here, they go extinct on the whole planet, yet the schedules to the Wildlife Act do not include any protection for native fish.

We protect lizards, we protect our native bats, we protect Powelliphanta snail and a few other species of snail—we protect them from being killed, from being hunted, from being traded, and from being held captive without proper authorisation. The freshwater fish regulations provide legal protection for introduced species, such as trout and the chinook salmon, but they do not provide any protection for native fish species. So, Minister Barry, we would be very interested as to whether you would take a call on making sure that the Wildlife Act is amended to actually provide protection for some our most vulnerable native species, our freshwater fish.

There has been a major increase in the risk of extinction for those native fish species. Back in 1990 the Department of Conservation recorded only 10 of our 66 native species—and 10 was too many—as being threatened with extinction. By 2002 that number had increased to 16, and as of 2013, 74 percent of our native fish species are threatened or at risk of extinction. That includes four of the five species that New Zealanders eat as whitebait patties.

I do not think that a lot of people are aware of the fact that the kōaro, the shortjaw kōkopu, the giant kōkopu, and the īnanga are all at risk of extinction, yet it is their young that are fished and killed as whitebait and that end up in whitebait patties. I think we need a serious national conversation about the fate of whitebait and whether we should be having a moratorium on whitebait fishing to give a better chance for species like the kōaro and the giant kōkopu to survive. I have been out at night on the West Coast looking at just a small creek through an area that had been disturbed, and there were giant kōkopu there. They were amazing. The fish we saw was as big as my hand, and yet it is the young of these species that are being killed as whitebait. We should not have a double standard in the Wildlife Act, where our native birds are recognised as taonga—where they are protected from being hunted and killed—and yet our native freshwater fish enjoy no similar protection and can be hunted and killed despite the fact that many of them are staring extinction in the face.

I would be very grateful if the Minister in the chair, Maggie Barry, could comment on whether she and her department, in the remaining time available to this Government, propose to bring a much more comprehensive change to the Wildlife Act to actually provide protection for native fish species. It is ridiculous that these fish can be caught and then commercially sold without any regulation. You cannot commercially sell trout, for very good reason, yet you can commercially sell whitebait—why? Why has the Government failed to act to close this glaring loophole, when these species are so vulnerable and when they are threatened with extinction? We need to improve their prospects. We can do that by amending the Wildlife Act to actually give them protection by having the Department of Conservation establish some freshwater fish reserves, and by looking very closely at more of the irrigation schemes and the intensive agriculture that are actually destroying their habitat, as is happening with Ruataniwha.

The bill is a good one in providing stronger enforcement powers, allowing Department of Conservation staff to actually investigate these offences in a better way. We in the Green Party will be supporting the Hon David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper 243, because fish and game officers—the honorary officers—go through exactly the same training as the warranted officers. Fish and Game has got statutory powers, so it is not just a non-government organisation in the same way that Forest and Bird is. It has a lot officers around the country who are doing work to implement the Act, and they do need the power to actually ask people for their date of birth, in order to ensure that any prosecutions that are taken can actually stick. I encourage the Minister to comment on why the Government is failing to support this sensible amendment to the bill and to comment on whether there is likely to be a much more significant change proposed for the Wildlife Act to actually provide much-needed protection for our native fish species, which are staring extinction in the face. Thank you.

I am pleased to be able to offer some comments and continue to endorse Labour’s support for the bill. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the people at Takahanga Marae in Kaikōura, who have opened not only the doors of the marae but also their hearts to ensure that people who are stranded in Kaikōura can be well cared for.

You know, it is that voluntary spirit that we need to really ensure is kept alive when we think about the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. The DOC estate, as I have heard the Minister say many times in the House, is able to function well because of the voluntary effort and contribution of a whole lot of groups and organisations throughout the country to ensure we can preserve the biodiversity, the wildlife, and the quality of what we have to offer within the estate. It does concern me that the Minister has not taken a call with regards to David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around fish and game rangers being able to collect date of birth details for prosecution purposes. It seems, to me, very straightforward. The bill so much amplifies the extension of powers for DOC rangers to seize evidential material, to intervene and prevent offending where it occurs, to be able to stop people if they believe there is enough evidence that they have been conducting something like taking wildlife, lizards, and the like. I am concerned that although the select committee considered at length the submission by fish and game, there was not, I guess, a common thought that more could be done in this space. So I commend our colleague David Parker for putting the SOP up.

It would be good for the Minister to take a call and clarify why the simple collection of date of birth details is not something that she would recommend as an inclusion in the bill. For people listening to the debate, they would see it as a simple and straightforward amendment that does not supersede the powers of honorary fish and game rangers, but actually helps to support the work of DOC rangers in ensuring that we do not have people taking wildlife from our estate illegally. I mentioned previously in the debate that it was quite sad to see at the border the many ways in which people smuggled New Zealand species out of the country, and also how they tried to get things into the country. So we need as many hands on deck as possible to be able to ensure that this work can be done in a constructive way.

Probably, the question, Minister, if I could again urge you to take a call on SOP 243 is—collecting date of birth details only helps to support the objective of the bill. It does not divert from the intent; in fact, it only supports the objective of the bill. It is a very straightforward inclusion. It does not extend the ability of honorary fish and game rangers beyond what the committee had intended when it looked at the powers that were able to be extended not only to DOC rangers but also those with a statutory ability to enforce. To some extent, it does not even—in my looking at it—contravene some of the aspects of the Search and Surveillance Act that were also considered in conjunction with the bill.

So, Minister, it is really important that the House at this stage of the bill gets a clear response from you. You have been very passionate, Minister, in advocating for these small but useful amendments to the Wildlife Act, which will help protect the biodiversity that exists within our DOC estate. Taking a call on this would only aid clarity around the purpose of the bill, and ensure that everybody who is tasked with being able to support the role of DOC rangers can carry out those roles effectively.

I rise to speak to the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill at its Committee stage with great pleasure. Before I address Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 243, which has been preoccupying some of the members in this Chamber, I will reaffirm that this is a primary piece of legislation empowering the Department of Conservation (DOC) to do something very specific indeed, and that is to protect vulnerable native species. This is not about mallard ducks. This is not about black swans. It is not about the kind of work that the fish and game rangers, voluntary or full time, do as their core business. This is about vulnerable endangered species that smugglers and others could take away with them. We are very clear on the purpose of this bill.

The Wildlife Act is an old piece of legislation, no longer fit for modern purpose, so we have carefully thought through and targeted a sensible upgrade and expansion of the powers given to DOC. In addition to that, fish and game full-time rangers will also have an additional power.

To quickly recap: DOC rangers are currently not able to intervene to prevent offences taking place or about to take place, should they come upon them. That is foolish, so we have tidied that up. New section 39C, inserted by clause 5, now allows them to take action “in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances” to do so.

Second, rangers are currently authorised to stop and search vehicles, vessels, bags, and other items in transport, but they cannot stop people from leaving the scene of a suspected offence, to ensure that they have enough time to gather evidence and take details. New section 39B, inserted by clause 5 of the amendment bill, addresses this aspect.

The third one is that the Act currently allows rangers to seize only a few types of evidence. Again, this is proving the old-fashioned nature of the era in which this Act was originally conceived. It does not include modern technology, such as mobile phones and computers, which are, of course, vital sources of information in modern investigations. Section 39A, as inserted by clause 5 of the amendment bill, empowers them “to seize any evidential material (as defined in … the Search and Surveillance Act 2012) …”.

Finally, establishing and verifying an offender’s identity is essential to any ability to prosecute. That is true, and, as it stands, the Act allows rangers to require a name and an address, but there is no provision to provide further proof of identity. That is a loophole. Under new section 66A, inserted by clause 7 of the bill, DOC rangers will be able to require date of birth, name, and address. This power will also be extended to full-time fish and game officers. So they are getting additional powers that they did not have before, but that power has not been extended to voluntary fish and game officers, nor has it been extended to voluntary DOC rangers or to voluntary police, fisheries, or defence rangers, because these people are voluntary. They are not signed on to a code of conduct, as other public servants are, nor is there any accountability. If they do not do the right thing, we are not able to come back at them. This is a very important distinction, and it is the reason why we are not, as a Government, supporting the SOP from Mr Parker.

I am a bit surprised at his SOP, actually. It could have gone further than it did, but, as it happens, it just wants to get voluntary fish and game rangers to be able to have the same ability to require that they can ask for the date of birth, because at the moment they cannot. The bill is very clear on this: honorary fish and game rangers, honorary fisheries officers, or rangers appointed under section 38(2) of the Act can ask for someone’s full name and residential address—not their date of birth. What we have done with this is we have said that fish and game rangers are able to get and require—require—a person to give their full name, their residential address, and their date of birth.

When you look at the penalties for what happens under this legislation, section 67F as under clause 8—this is under the Wildlife Act of 1953, and I have brought it down if anyone wants to take a closer look at it. What it says is that in the case of someone refusing to give their date of birth—refusing to supply their date of birth to the fish and game ranger—the penalties are substantial. This is harking back, actually, to my friend and colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill. The penalties have been greatly increased. In the case of an individual who does not give their date of birth, they are liable for a term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both. In the case of a body corporate not giving the information about date of birth, there will be a fine not exceeding $200,000.

Mr Parker, I understand, is a lawyer, so I would have expected him to go back and check his facts. That he has not done. It is very important that this Committee and others support and understand the purpose of this bill, which is to protect our native taonga species—not to protect ducks and swans and other game birds.

It is very much in DOC’s core business to be able to do the work that it is doing under these powers, but, we acknowledge, the work of the fish and game full-time rangers is very good. There are some 52 of them, and there are 222 honorary fish and game people. We felt that by giving those extra powers to those 52 full-time, paid staff from Fish and game, they would be getting an extra amount of power that they have not already got—that is, to ask for the date of birth.

The follow-through from that is the penalties. If you do not give a date of birth, that is serious under this legislation, because it has been required under the Wildlife Act. These are the sorts of details that really do need to be well understood, and it is disappointing that neither the Labour Opposition nor the Greens nor New Zealand First have bothered to actually look into the detail of the penalties, because that is a very important element of this legislation. If you are, for example, shooting game birds without a permit or a licence, you are in some trouble, but you are not in $100,000 worth of trouble, nor are you liable to a term in prison not exceeding 1 year. These are the important provisions that we have given fish and game rangers, because we think that they are trustworthy and that they do a good job, and that is an excellent thing. But this is not their core business. They are about an entirely different set of species.

While I am on the business of not core business, under the Wildlife Act, as you know, fresh fish of native varieties do not come in, nor do they under the Conservation Act, so the member Eugenie Sage was speaking outside the scope of what is in fact a very narrow amendment to the Wildlife Act. The powers that we have given will, I think, do a great deal to protect our very threatened, precious wildlife. We are not so much concerned in this piece of legislation with game birds or bird hunters, and I think it is very important that the Opposition acknowledges and understands that, because this is very carefully targeted. I have said that from the start.

I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee, under the very able chairmanship of my friend and colleague Scott Simpson, who led the select committee through this process. It is complicated legislation, but only because it is very narrow in its scope and needs to be read in conjunction with the Wildlife Act in its original form and with Jacqui Dean’s legislation, because otherwise it is not well understood that the penalties are very big indeed.

It has also been pointed out to me by some that we do need to be very careful around the powers that we give volunteers. We do not want to be giving people the capacity to arrest or stop or search and keep, because these are not trained people who are able to do that within the confines of their mandate. I do not believe we should extend it out. David Parker, in his call on this very bill earlier, before the dinner break, said that he acknowledged that those powers were not needed to be expanded. We are in absolute agreement with that.

On that uplifting note, I will conclude my call. But, again, I commend this legislation in all its various forms and the level of intellectual rigour and scrutiny that the select committee gave to it, if not the Opposition members of that select committee, who were, apparently, missing in action when it came to the detail. They lack intellectual rigour; what they do not lack is the braying and the nonsense and the capacity to just yap on about things that are not factually correct. I am very keen indeed to give credit where it is due, and that is to the Government members on the select committee, who I think did a tremendous job. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 7 be agreed to.