Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Kia ora and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. Much of New Zealand’s taonga exists within nature’s stores. The lure of New Zealand for many lies in the environmental uniqueness of our national parks and reserves, our native wildlife, and our outdoor culture. Unfortunately, though, these treasures are vulnerable to corruption and misuse, and people do take advantage of this. So, personally, I am pleased to see the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in the House today. It is good to address this issue, and it will give the Department of Conservation (DOC) the ability to issue infringement notices for minor offending.

Currently, we have a system where someone who breaks the law either goes through the costly court system for a major offence—and I’d like to make a note of the example of the kererū crimes that hit the headlines a couple of years ago, when a certain matua, a whanaunga from the North, tried to smuggle the birds out under his coat after a hunting trip in Ngāi Tahu. Now, of course, there was no other option but the full force of the law to come down hard. However, at the other end of the scale, the minor end of the scale where maybe, say, a tourist drops rubbish as they’re walking or mountain biking around the redwoods in Rotorua—should they get caught, all they get slapped with is a wet bus ticket. This bill will tidy up the law, and those who commit an offence at the minor end of the scale will face real consequences in the way of an instant fine.

From the Bills Digest, the purpose of the bill is “to create systems of infringement offences for less serious offending under the following Acts which are administered and enforced by the Department of Conservation and local authorities: Conservation Act 1987; Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978; Marine Reserves Act 1971; National Parks Act 1980; Reserves Act 1977; Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989; Wild Animal Control Act 1977; and Wildlife Act 1953.” It’s important to note that the bill doesn’t create any new offences, and the penalty is to be set by regulation and must not exceed more than $1,000.

From DOC’s regulatory impact statement, I note “The Department of Conservation (DOC) administers about one third of New Zealand’s land area (more than 8 million hectares), 44 marine reserves, and 6 marine mammal sanctuaries (totalling 4,115,669 hectares) for the purposes of conservation. In addition, DOC also protects, conserves, or manages native freshwater fisheries, recreational freshwater fisheries, and protected native wildlife, and controls harmful species of introduced wild animals and regulates the hunting of these animals.” As we can see, this is a vast area that DOC is responsible for, and for such a vast area, it’s imperative that there is a better system to allow DOC to carry out their work.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill hopes to fix the anomaly where the Department of Conservation is the only major Government agency that lacks the power to use such a system in enforcing laws within their jurisdiction. It’s not a new concept, at all. These systems exist already in many other areas of law, certainly for traffic offences and, more relevantly, in the Fisheries Act. This bill will bring conservation legislation in line with similar Acts and it creates consistency across our legislation.

Now, what are some of these activities that would be treated as an infringement offence? Well, currently, there would be breaches of the whitebait regulations—they’re some of the most numerous prosecutions, currently, for illegal fishing in marine reserves—and also offences relating to the Taupō trout fishery. This bill would also enable DOC to manage littering in public conservation land through the infringement offence. And what about those who foul our special natural spaces—freedom campers who leave behind their nasty business? Well, I do note that the Freedom Camping Act 2011 already contains separate infringement offences, and so DOC can use those. So this bill doesn’t actually affect freedom camping.

Now, overall, the bill seeks to make conservation and protection efforts more effective, as actions previously inappropriate for prosecution will have more of a consequence than just a warning—just a shake of the head and a wag of the finger and a “Tut, tut!” The scale of the infringement system means that penalties will be better matched to the degree and seriousness of the offence. Since its beginning, DOC has had to deal with offenders in one of two extremes, by way of either a warning or an official prosecution. Warnings are the equivalent of a slap on the wrist and do little to deter people from continuing and committing further offences. They rarely have the desired effect of changing people’s behaviour. DOC currently issues around 200 warnings a year and are concerned that the numbers will increase, as minor offences continue to occur without a specific remedial penalty.

The bill will remove unnecessary costs to the judicial system, as fewer of the minor offences will need to be addressed in the courts. This will be beneficial for Kiwis also, as well as tourists, as this is a difficult process to manoeuvre and can have lasting impacts on future endeavours. Currently, the prosecutions take time and resources from both DOC and the court system. It’s also a huge impediment to individuals who commit minor offences and who must endure the hassle of the court system and the lasting impact that any criminal conviction has on their future, on their life, and on their future rights and freedoms.

There are a number of examples where we can see the need for a better system. In 2016, in the Kāweka Forest Park, two hunters were found without permits. They were trespassed. A couple using a campfire at the Mangatūtū hot springs were given a verbal warning from a DOC officer, only to be discovered again with another fire. They were then trespassed. Now, these kinds of infringements are very real breaches of the law, but a warning, or even a trespass notice, may not cause the offender to change their behaviour in a way that a fine might.

Now, even though the fines won’t be paid directly to DOC, it is a way for DOC to recoup some losses they encounter as a result of offending. Minor offences can have an impact on the environment and on the resources available to DOC. By using infringement notices for these minor and medium offences, some of this will be accounted for, and DOC’s resources can be better spent on improving conservation rather than on repairing damages caused by these offences.

I’d just like to note New Zealand First is concerned about the safety of these warranted officers that will be carrying out this work. DOC maintains a nationwide network of warranted officers who are formally trained and who hold official warrants to undertake compliance and enforcement activities. New Zealand First would like to see that these DOC warranted officers are suitably trained and equipped with the appropriate safety gear for the work that they have to carry out. As at December 2017, 111 incidents of threat, harassment, intimidation, or assault to DOC workers had been recorded since 2006, when records first started being kept. We must ensure their safety.

I’d also like to just note that concerns may come from the public around introducing such a system. They may think it’s, in fact, a way of gathering revenue. There are no new offences being added to this piece of legislation, and the fines will be capped at $1,000.

Essentially, the main focus of DOC is the protection and conservation of our natural taonga. It’s the responsibility of DOC to carry that out in the best way possible, and they have a duty to ensure this. However, they absolutely need the proper tools to carry out this programme.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill will give the department that tool. Human activities are among the contributing factors that lead to the degradation of our natural environment—our natural heritage. If we tread with heavy footsteps, then, at the very least, we need to ensure that we mitigate the effects and that some form of compensation is made to reset the balance. A lack of respect for Papatūānuku, our precious taonga, our nature stores—which we are all kaitiaki of—must not be allowed to continue without consequence. An infringement system is long overdue, and New Zealand First will support this bill. Kia ora koutou.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I and National are delighted to support this bill—this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. The reason we’re so delighted is that it’s National Party policy, and I worked with it with the Hon Maggie Barry, when she was the Minister of Conservation and we were in Government. I’m particularly pleased because not one single word has been changed since the bill was introduced in February last year.

Now, most New Zealanders care deeply about the natural environment. We enjoy the fact that we can get out in the great outdoors, and the vast majority of us treat the environment—as the privilege that it is—with respect and care. But there are always a few—a few who break the rules. In the past, Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers had only two options for how to deal with illegal behaviour, and they were two options at either end of the punishment spectrum. The first was a warning, and the second was a prosecution. We all know that prosecutions are very time consuming and very expensive. The problem was that sometimes a warning was too soft an approach, and sometimes a prosecution was too tough. So what this bill does is provide a middle ground: an infringement and a fine system that will deal with less serious offences fairly, well, and efficiently and, most of all, quickly. I think the quickness is really important because what we want our DOC rangers to be doing is looking after our conservation estate, not necessarily chasing up the few bad eggs in the system.

I support this bill, and I really hope that the new Government will continue to support National’s conservation legislation. In particular, I’d really like to ask them to reconsider the stalling of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. That was supported by Parliament unanimously back in 2016, and thousands of New Zealanders and environmentalists were really keen to see that happen, particularly the Greens. They welcomed this bill because they’d been lobbying for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary for many, many years and are always wanting more marine reserves—in fact, just last week, the new Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, was talking about marine reserves and increasing the number of marine reserves in New Zealand.

So I just suggest that they progress the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, because what I saw on the Greens’ website, under Eugenie’s name, is that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary would be New Zealand’s only reserve that protects an entire ecosystem, and, by protecting 620,000 square kilometres of Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, it would become the world’s largest no-take marine reserve and would be a positive inspiration to other nations to implement greater marine protection measures. So it is absolutely deeply disappointing, certainly not uplifting and positively inspiring, that self-serving coalition politics are stopping the creation of this globally significant sanctuary.

The conservation Minister talks about the significance of conservation, and we agree with her. But talk’s cheap. How about she walks the walk and passes the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, because that would be truly significant for conservation.

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

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am very pleased to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I welcome the support from across the House for this bill and acknowledge the work by the former Attorney-General and by the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry. I look forward to the bill going to the Environment Committee. Having been a member of that select committee, I am sure that it will apply the usual and scrupulous care and attention to examining the bill, to reading the submissions, and to analysing those that the former committee, in the last term of Parliament, did. One of the particular issues that I am interested, as Minister of Conservation, in hearing the select committee’s views on—and advice, obviously, back to the Parliament—is just the status of Fish & Game in relation to this new regime of infringement notices.

The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the only major agency that doesn’t have an infringement notice system for lesser offenses under conservation legislation, and that is why this bill is important. There are a lot of issues in terms of breaches of the whitebaiting regulations, breaches of marine reserves—the smaller breaches, where it may not be enough to justify a prosecution—but at the moment, because we don’t have this mechanism of infringement offences, the person may not be penalised at all for illegal activity. So this bill is bringing the Department of Conservation and conservation legislation alongside fisheries, biosecurity, and other legislation, by providing this opportunity for infringement offences.

I would point out that it’s not going to be like the traffic system, where infringement notices are issued on the spot. There will be trained staff and warranted officers, so that rangers and staff in the field, if they catch someone doing something illegal, will be able to gather information and then give that information to the warranted officers to make a decision about whether an infringement notice should be issued. That provides a certain safeguard, as does the training there.

That’s why this whole issue of Fish & Game—and I acknowledge the comments by my ministerial colleague the Hon David Parker and his work in taking proceedings for Fish & Game. The previous Government decided that Fish & Game shouldn’t have the same powers as conservation rangers and staff, and that is something I’m very interested in hearing the public’s views on. I’m sure that Fish & Game councils, and others, will make submissions, and the select committee will actually weigh that, because it’s the Fish & Game councils that do have statutory responsibilities for the management of game birds, for the management of sports fisheries—trout and salmon—for the licences to be observed, and those sorts of issues. Under that legislation, it may well be appropriate for those Fish & Game staff, warranted officers, to actually have the power to get the information and to initiate the infringement notice procedure.

As others have commented—and I won’t go through all of the eight Acts that the bill amends—it’s, essentially, creating an infringement offence under each of those pieces of legislation, in parallel to the offences that can be taken to prosecution. It’s recognising, as I’m sure many other members in the House recognise, that we want our national parks, we want our conservation lands, to stay safe from damaging activities—our marine reserves, similarly—but, for example, if somebody drops litter in a reserve at the moment, if it’s conservation land, the department doesn’t have a mechanism to take action against that person. Local councils can, under the Litter Act, in the areas that they administer, but the department can’t on conservation land. So it’s putting the department on a much more equal footing with other agencies.

I would certainly like to acknowledge that the procedures that will be used certainly ensure that Māori customary rights are respected when conservation staff are doing enforcement work, because the seriousness of offending guidelines, which are going to be developed by the department, will recognise whether particular species are taonga species and the impact of any offending on wāhi tapu and other sites significant to Māori.

There will be regulations that are developed under the legislation to actually establish the scale of the penalties. That work’s obviously still to be done, but there’s a lot of benefit in this legislation in ensuring that those who seek to do harm to conservation areas can be prosecuted, but those people who, maybe unwittingly, do something like anchor in a marine reserve may not be prosecuted but can have an infringement notice issued to ensure that they recognise that there is a problem in doing what they have done.

I think that this bill will help make the whole enforcement system for conservation legislation more effective and efficient, and it will reduce unnecessary use of DOC’s resources in taking prosecutions for less serious offences, and it will help keep some matters out of the courts that don’t need to go to the courts, thereby saving on court time and resources. So, taking heed from the comments of some members of the Opposition who were keen that this bill go to select committee without further ado, I really welcome the support that members across the House have given to this bill and to the principle of ensuring that our conservation legislation is much more efficient, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its first reading. Of course National supports this bill; it is, of course, our bill, and it is very nice to be back talking on a bill that has cross-party support. I’m not going to say too much more than the previous contributors, because it’s been quite a comprehensive debate already. Can I just start by acknowledging my colleague and my electorate neighbour, the Hon Maggie Barry, for this excellent piece of work. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has wanted an infringement system for a long time, and it’s been very persuasive in outlining its need for it. The middle step that this bill creates will allow DOC to concentrate on its core business while still efficiently and appropriately responding to conservation offences.

This bill is really an effective in-between for DOC rangers, allowing fines to be issued for offences that deserve more than a warning but less than a prosecution. These offences can include minor breaches of fishing regulations, camping in the wrong place, dogs being let off the leash in prohibited or protected areas, and taking plants from national parks. These offences aren’t to be minimised, of course, but it is patently clear that punishing them with an infringement system commensurate with the level of offending is more appropriate than the heavy-duty tool of prosecution. Prosecution has its place, but for lower-level offences it’s a costly exercise that is time-consuming for DOC, leaves people with criminal records, takes up court time that can be better used, and is ultimately not commensurate with the crime.

A similar fine system exists under other statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Biosecurity Act. There is widespread support for the type of infringement system that this bill creates to deal with those less serious offences at the minor end of the scale while still holding people to account. This bill delivers what DOC wants: a flexible system that many other departments already have. New Zealand’s natural environment is a top priority for National, and this bill is a further step towards protecting it. I’m looking forward to scrutinising this bill when it comes to the Environment Committee, which I serve on, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is about common sense. It is an excellent bill, and it’s simply around not using a hammer when a fly swat will do. Most New Zealanders are decent law-abiding citizens, and it starts from that premise there, which is an excellent premise to start from. The objectives of the bill, as we know, are, number one, to improve the effectiveness of conservation compliance and law enforcement to better protect conservation values; number two to ensure that penalties for offences are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence; number three to ensure that people do not risk criminal convictions if they commit minor offences; number four to make the treatment of offences consistent with those in similar regimes, such as fisheries; number five is around removing unnecessary costs to the court system; and number six is about contributing to the Government’s objectives of improving government interaction with New Zealanders and delivering better public services for less cost.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Amendment Bill updates eight separate Acts to allow the Department of Conservation (DOC) to issue infringement notices instead of prosecuting for minor offences. One of the minor offences that’s talked about in this bill is around whitebait—maybe someone taking extra whitebait. While I was reading that, it certainly brought back memories of my father. He told me that he used to catch whitebait; he used to have sackloads of whitebait back in the day, but I don’t think you get that any more, unfortunately.

If we look at the first point there, which is around conservation values, some of the key conservation values are biological, ecological, social, and cultural values of outstanding significance. In my area, in the Waikato, there are a number of excellent examples of this—for example, Mount Pirongia, where I grew up, where there is a strong community passion for preserving the conservation of that mountain, saving the kākāpō being one of the key aspects. You also look at my region in Pūtāruru, around the Blue Springs, and, again, there’s a sense of community.

However, there are some tweaks that need to be made, and one of them is around the offences because some offences are quite minor, and for a minor offence we don’t need to throw the full book of the law at the person. So it’s just about treating the offence as it should be treated, depending on what that is—for example, we may have some teenagers who, at times, maybe make silly choices, but there’s no point them having a criminal conviction for something that is just minor. So that’s where the aspect around common sense comes in on this bill, which is excellent.

There is another aspect here I’d like to talk to, which is around removing unnecessary costs to the court system. Our court systems at times are under a lot of pressure so, like I said, going back to that keyword around common sense, you know, this is an example of taking some of the pressure off the court system so people are not going to court when they don’t have to. The cost to the Department of Conservation around court costs includes staff time preparing the file, travelling to court, attendance at court hearings, the cost of serving the information and, in contested hearings, the cost of conducting the case, all of which is at times unnecessary. The cost to the court system includes registrar and judge time, and in some instances offenders may receive legal aid.

Our national parks, public conservation lands, and indigenous plants and wildlife need to be kept safe from illegal human activities, but I don’t want to see people prosecuted and get a criminal conviction for a minor breach of the whitebaiting regulations, for example, like I mentioned before—for example, dropping litter in a park. Offences in the current law have covered a wide range of offending, but this law is simply narrowing it to make it more nuanced, which in my opinion is good legislation. Like I said before, you don’t always need a hammer when a fly swat will do.

These changes bring DOC’s powers into line with how low-level offences are dealt with in fisheries management, biosecurity, dog control, resource management, traffic, and parking, which are good examples to follow. So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the time, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and support this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. It’s a real pleasure because this bill really does go to the heart of what it is to be a New Zealander. I certainly, myself, hold very dear the conservation estate, which I enjoy on a regular basis. This bill is about ensuring that the tools are there to protect our conservation estate. In doing that, it enables us to build a culture of preservation, protection, and value around our conservation estate, because, in my view, for far too long we’ve had a laissez-faire approach to our conservation estate, a “she’ll be right” attitude, where, in fact, the users of that estate have thought that it doesn’t really matter if they break the rules; as long as they’re not doing anything too bad, no one will mind. Well, what this bill does is it enables enforcement officers to take a much more nuanced approach, as my friend Mr Strange alluded to. I would have said a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if you want to try it with a fly swat, that’s all right by me.

What we have here is an absolute range of possibilities, and I’m sure that conservation officers will still use a warning approach in the right circumstances, and I think we’ve got to recognise that at the lower end it is entirely appropriate for a conservation officer or any other enforcement officer to educate the transgressor, to impress upon them the importance of the rules, and, indeed, to send them away with those valuable lessons. But there will be situations that fall into an intermediate ground, a ground where it is not appropriate to throw the book, where it’s not appropriate to invoke the precious resources of our court system, but nevertheless that conduct has to be set aside as unacceptable.

Looking at the bill, you can see that there are a number of somewhat obscure offences, including, indeed, selling or delivering a carcass of a wild animal to a game depot or game packing house without the ears attached. Now, that’s not something I knew, and it’s those kinds of offences that might be a little obscure. I understand that will be to ensure that it is, in fact, wild game and not a tagged animal that’s perhaps from a deer farm, but those are the kinds of offences; a little bit obscure but nevertheless important to the regulation of our conservation system.

We’ve got an infringement system coming into force that will be cost-effective, time-effective, and proportionate to the wrongdoing. We’ll be able to avoid the prosecution, which is exactly the opposite of all those things. Having said that, it’s important to recognise that this bill sets apart a number of offences that by their very nature are serious, require a serious response, and will be dealt with by the courts. So we’re seeing things like firearms offences in there and, of course, offences that interfere with the system itself—offences, for example, of obstruction of a conservation law enforcement officer. Those kinds of offences, which go to the very heart of the system itself, will always be prosecuted. If the evidence is there, then it is appropriate for that prosecution decision to be made.

So we will have a response to the full continuum of offending, and I think it’s really useful to have, not quite, I must say, a ticketing approach but an approach that lets people know that what they’re doing is quite wrong, that there are consequences for their wrongdoing, and that, in fact, they will pay the fiscal penalty for that.

And it’s worth noting that exactly how that will roll out is yet to be designed. There’s a lot of work yet to be done, not only by the select committee—and I’m sure the select committee will do an excellent job—but also in the devising of those regulations to ensure that, for example, the range of fines available is proportionate and that the mechanism by which they’re enforced is appropriate.

I understand that the Department of Conservation (DOC) is not looking at a system like a kind of ticketing system where you get a note written on the spot, an instant fine system—which, sadly, I’m familiar with in another context—but rather a system where the enforcement officer will report the offending and it will be scrutinised by a team of people whose particular job is to look at those matters, a specialist team. I think that’s really important to ensure that a decision can be made, whether it’s a warning letter or whether it’s a fine of some sort or whether it goes to prosecution, because one of the difficulties in any kind of roadside or tree-side system is ensuring consistency, and if we have a team of enforcement officers who are trained and will be able to give uniformity across all offenders, that’s a really good thing. It overcomes that kind of roadside discretion, which sometimes can perhaps be misused but, at the very least, can sometimes perhaps just go awry, where one officer might be a bit more generous and sympathetic to a sob story than another.

It’s also important to note that local government is being brought into this system, and that’s a really good thing. Local government already has significant enforcement powers across a range of areas, including the issue of infringement notices. So where they do administer reserve land, they will now be able to issue these infringement notices using the same system as a DOC officer. So that’s a really good thing.

It is also worth just noting—I think this really is something for the select committee, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in this area to make a submission—the carve-out for the New Zealand Fish & Game Council. They haven’t been included in this framework. That’s a decision that was made when this bill was drafted by the previous Government, and I’m not going to take a view one way or the other. I can see that there are good and compelling reasons for that. They are not a Government agency—they’re a private agency—and to give them the power to impose a fine would be a significant step. It may well be thought that where a fisheries officer sees an infringement, it is considered to be more appropriate to say, “Well, if you think it’s serious, we need to have an arm of the State involved. We need to have a court process.” That’s an entirely legitimate approach.

On the other hand, I am sure the select committee will take into account the countervailing argument, the argument that, in fact, fisheries officers are some of our most responsible enforcement officers. They’re also numerous. There are many volunteer fisheries officers out there. They do a fantastic role, and I don’t think we should dismiss lightly the suggestion that they’ll take such a job seriously and won’t misuse that power but, rather, will see it as an important tool. And there is a question of why they should be dealt with differently—why someone who is accosted with an undersized trout by a fisheries officer is in a different position from someone who is accosted by a conservation officer. So I think that is an important question for the select committee, and I hope that submissions are made on it.

But coming back to the bill as a whole, it really is an excellent piece of legislation that has come from the prior Government and one that looks at something that is really important, and that is ensuring that the rules around conservation are adhered to at every level. It’s that kind of broken-window approach to conservation—that minor infringements are just as unacceptable as other infringements, and we need to leap on top of those. We can’t have people taking, you know, one fish too many and getting away with it because a prosecution is just too much bother. No, we need to be able to respond to that and say, “That is wrong, there is a system that is proportionate to your wrongdoing, and you need to know that this graduated system will respond whatever the wrong is.”

Now, this doesn’t necessarily catch people who are ignorant or who have genuine reasons for not complying with the rules or have an excuse that is compelling. There’s no suggestion that this is a compulsory system. I mean, in my experience, enforcement officers have always been ready to educate, to warn, to listen, and, really, to engage in a quite constructive manner with users of the conservation estate, the marine estate, and so on.

This bill is a great step forward. There’s work to be done, if I may say so, and I think we do need to look at it. I commend it to the select committee, and I do hope that members of the public will take a close interest in it, because it touches on something that is dear to all of us. I’m sure that this will be a great step forward for the conservation estate.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I’ve listened very carefully to the contributions of my colleagues, and I too believe that the bill makes some useful steps forward in the way in which the infringement system will operate across a range of Acts to try and get some greater consistency but also to ensure that the infringement is proportional to the offence. I do want to make the point that even in its simplicity, it’s the type of bill that will, I expect, garner a lot of interest at the select committee level, and we do expect a lot of groups to participate in the select committee process and give a view on the effectiveness and the way in which the infringement system is expected to work but also intentions around implementation and its workability. So we do expect that there will be a broad range of submissions: Fish & Game, recreational groups, hunters, the general public—vigilant lawyers, perhaps—landowners, and also local government officers, because, as I say, in its simplicity it offers a very practical way of dealing with infringements in a number of areas.

There are some aspects that may require further investigation and may urge the select committee to pay some attention to the finer detail. For example, I was just looking through the bill and noted that there could arise questions in various contexts around who authorises the offence and who is able to authorise the infringement notice. In some instances it’s a ranger, and in some instances it’s a warranted officer. In relation to reserves, it’s the director-general or chief executive who warrants a ranger to be able to issue an offence. Now, a select committee, thinking through the practical application of that and who are the people that we’re talking about, I think, may find, or may reveal, the way in which, in practice, this will happen.

The other thing is that, by and large, the infringement system exists within an ecosystem of greater care and respect for the rule of law, and the general public have a part to play in this process. Take, for example, in the conservation estate when people enjoy their part of the conservation estate and see someone who is taking into the estate a dog untethered, which runs off and chases a bird. If the general public sees an activity or an infringement like that take place, then what actions are they able to take? I think the practical application of what’s intended to, I guess, capture these types of smaller offences but to ensure greater vigilance in the way that we look after our conservation estate are things that the select committee can pursue. And it is useful, because, after all, you do want to know that the laws that we are seeking to ensure have an impact to protect our conservation estate, our wildlife, our marine mammal protection, and the like can actually work.

The other issue is how to pay. Now, I’m making this comment based on how road tolls are collected, but paying an infringement notice isn’t that easy, actually. If we think about just a couple of weeks ago, you go to Waitangi and you pay your toll online—it isn’t easy for a lot of people to go through that system. So it’s worth investigating just the payment method and whether it’s accessible to a range of people who may or may not have access to the internet and online banking services and the like. Now, these are all the types of issues that could come through a select committee process, and we encourage submitters to think about these issues as they reflect on the intended impact of this particular bill and the way in which it is implemented.

I come back to a point that I made earlier around context. Context does matter. The bill covers a range of other Acts, and when you think about them in isolation of each other, there are different sets of circumstances, in reality, that apply. Take hunting: there are infringements that apply to hunters there, and I have heard, certainly, in instances where Māori land abuts conservation estate, where hunters are, kind of, on the border there, on the periphery, they kind of travel a little bit freely, and it is the bugbear of landowners. But how do you ensure greater compliance in that space? I’ll be interested to see whether that is an issue that comes through at the select committee.

I take also the issue of the Wildlife Act and the protection in this area. Now, a point was raised earlier around the exemption of Fish and Game not being covered in terms of the extension of the rights to rangers. I think I recall in the House last term that we did debate that very issue, and it did come up as to the reasons why they weren’t given extensive powers. That may come up again in the submission process this time, as well. Suffice to say, context will matter. The practical application of how the law is intended to apply and actually will apply—that insight will be gained through the submissions process.

I do also note that there is a level of variability in the way in which reserves operate, so it will be helpful to local government—the way in which infringements are set out in a more consistent way and apply to reserves. I’m sure that will be a very useful addition to a number of issues that apply on reserves. Now let me read a couple of them: “Failure to remove animal, vehicle, aircraft or boat”—one of them; “Unauthorised entry” into a reserve; “Anchoring or mooring of a boat in breach of notice or permit”; “Damage by fire”; “Altering boundary marks or items issued by Minister, Department, or administering body”; “Using or receiving items removed unlawfully from [the] reserve”. My understanding across reserves in local government is of the level of variability. This will give some consistency to certain matters and will enable councils to practically apply a common standard when it comes to offences, setting out offences, and the issuing of infringement notices.

Lastly, can I just say that, albeit there is a simple range of amendments to the infringement system, I do pick up on the point well made by the speaker before me, my colleague Duncan Webb, when he said that these are incremental steps that in their totality will make a difference to the better functioning of the way in which we protect our special areas and the way in which the public observe the rule of law, and, practically, our attempt to try and ensure that the infringement is relative to the offence that is being committed.

They are very practical amendments. A lot of hard work has gone into preparing the bill that we have before us. I encouraged submitters across a range of community, stakeholder, and interest groups to make their views known on this bill. We will certainly welcome feedback at the second reading of this bill, when it comes to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.