Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

I move, That the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends eight conservation statutes that manage Aotearoa New Zealand’s network of protected areas, protected species, and some other natural resources, including—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying before the dinner break, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill amends eight conservation statutes: the Conservation Act 1987, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953.

Although most people visit parks and our protected areas to enjoy nature, and they do so in a sensitive and respectful way, a minority don’t behave appropriately. All of those eight statutes contain offences and penalties. Action to enforce compliance with the law is an important part of conservation work. Offending ranges from minor issues such as littering in a national park to more serious issues such as poaching endangered species like some of our skinks and geckos, and when that happens, the public expects the Department of Conservation to take action and ensure that wildlife and habitats aren’t put at risk. Enforcement can, obviously, discourage repeat offending and it may deter others, but, at the moment, the current law only provides two possible responses to offending: either to provide a warning to the offender or for the department to pursue a prosecution in the courts. Other similar statutes, like the Fisheries Act, provide a third option: an infringement system for low-level offending. That involves issuing an infringement notice—what the public would describe as a ticket—to the offender, and then if the offender pays the relevant infringement fee, that’s the end of the matter. If they dispute the notice or refuse to pay then the matter can go to the courts.

Being able to respond to a minor offence with an infringement notice has significant benefits to the offender, to the Department of Conservation, and to the court system. For the offender it means that he or she won’t face a criminal conviction. I think that anyone, on a first offence, perhaps for fishing in a marine reserve or fishing without a licence, wouldn’t expect to end up in the courts with a criminal conviction, potentially, if they were caught. But that’s what potentially happens under the current law. Having access to infringement notices will reduce the resources required for prosecuting minor offences for the department and it can avoid clogging up the court system. In Greymouth, for example, the District Court there has a significant caseload of prosecutions in relation to whitebaiting, which would potentially be better dealt with through infringement notices. This access to infringement notices is long overdue given the importance of effective enforcement.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill was introduced by my predecessor, the Hon Maggie Barry, on 22 of February last year, but it wasn’t progressed further. The Government ensured that the bill had its first reading on 14 February this year, and it was referred to the Environment Committee. That committee reported back on 23 August, having considered 56 submissions.

The only matter on which the select committee recommended substantive changes to the bill, and the only measure on which the committee was not unanimous in its views, related to whether New Zealand’s Fish & Game councils—which, of course, are responsible for the management of sports fish and game-bird hunting—should be able to access the infringement notice system. The bill, as introduced, only enabled the Department of Conservation and local councils, where councils are administering reserves, to do this, and that was despite the fact that Fish & Game councils have significant enforcement systems and powers under the Conservation Act. They have paid enforcement officers, and they undertake a large number of prosecutions. With that in mind I asked the Environment Committee to examine whether Fish & Game councils should be able to issue infringement notices, and, if so, what safeguards should be applied. I thank all of the submitters who gave serious consideration to this issue and to the select committee, under the excellent chairing of Deborah Russell, for its very useful report and recommendations which improve the bill.

All but one of those more than 50 submissions supported Fish & Game councils having access to infringement notices. So amending the bill, as the majority of the select committee recommend, to enable them to do this would help ensure a consistent enforcement regime across New Zealand. That is because the Taupō sports fishery, the trout fishery—which, of course, is internationally important—is managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) as part of an agreement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. There, because DOC has access to infringement notices under the bill, they could apply. Yet elsewhere, unless we proceed with the amendments as recommended by the select committee, Fish & Game councils in relation to trout fishing elsewhere in New Zealand would not have access to infringement notices, so you’d get an inconsistent regime for managing trout and other sport fisheries.

The select committee’s recommended amendments in relation to Fish & Game councils being able to use infringement notices included a number of important safeguards. They could only use the system if the Minister of Conservation is satisfied that the arrangements for doing this were satisfactory as part of a national compliance enforcement policy. That power to issue them would only be available to permanent fish and game staff or rangers who are specifically warranted by the director or CEO of Fish & Game. It wouldn’t be available to honorary rangers. Infringement fees would be paid to the Crown, so there is no risk of councils using the system as a revenue generation mechanism. Councils would have to report on the use of the infringement system as part of their annual reports to the Minister of Conservation, including identifying any complaints with the system and how those have been dealt with.

I’ve read the select committee’s report closely, including the minority view, and I’m satisfied that the proposed provisions would allow a system to be appropriately used by Fish & Game councils as statutory but non-government bodies. I’d note that Parliament has already entrusted Fish & Game councils with extensive enforcement powers, and some of those powers have immediate effect on anglers. They include the power to stop and search vehicles, to confiscate property, to cross private non-residential land, and to search buildings other than dwellings. Another safeguard is the fact that the bill wouldn’t immediately give Fish & Game councils access to the infringement system. They’ve got to develop a suitable compliance and enforcement policy and associated systems. In my view, the low-level offending that could be dealt with in relation to sports fisheries and game birds would be dealt with much better by having this option of having infringement notices, subject to those safeguards.

There’s one final issue: I want to signal my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to correct an omission in the bill in relation to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Recent work by officials on regulations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act has revealed that some of the controls on marine mammal watching and interaction with marine mammals that sit in the regulations wouldn’t be covered by the infringement system in the bill. Those controls include a requirement that marine mammal operations comply with any permit conditions, that boats remain at a safe distance from dolphins or whales, and that individuals don’t harass marine mammals if they’re on a beach, like seals, for example. Prosecutions for a breach of those regulations are not uncommon, but many of the offences, like getting too close to marine mammals on the beach, would be better dealt with, potentially, through access to infringement notices. The bill omitted that, and the SOP would simply ensure that the Department of Conservation could issue infringement notices for existing offences—not new ones; existing offences—under the Marine Mammals Protection Act.

Finally, can I thank submitters for their considered submissions and the committee for its excellent work. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill because, of course, we have very serious concerns regarding the integrity of the infringement system extending those powers to a non-governmental agency. I should preface this statement first: the decision to oppose this bill was not taken lightly. I reiterate what the Minister has just said, that this was a National Party bill introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Conservation at the time, and that the National Party does support the Department of Conservation as one of the largest enforcement and compliance agencies that we have in our governmental system.

I, again, support that with the fact that in the last Government, we amended the Wildlife Act to extend the powers given to the departmental rangers with regards to collecting information of those, where there was suspected to be an offence occurring—because, of course, when you have departmental rangers out in the field dealing with some of these complex offences relating to wildlife and issues that can occur on the conservation estate, they do need the ability to take action swiftly. They do need the ability to take steps to understand what is going on, to secure the identity of people that may be carrying out an offence, and, as such, we did support the Department of Conservation with respect to extending the powers under the Wildlife Act to give them that ability to get on top of those offences.

Again, I acknowledge that given the nature of offences that occur on the conservation estate and given the logistics of departmental rangers being in remote areas and the wide-ranging nature of the offences—and the Minister alluded to this; it can range from things such as littering and unwittingly fishing in a marine reserve to more serious offences like spotlighting and using firearms in a dangerous manner—the department does actually need a midway point. We have prosecutions, of course, with respect to the more serious offending, and departmental rangers use warnings when the offence is less serious. So we do support the Department of Conservation in their compliance. We do understand that they need a robust system and that this system, with regards to infringements, is a sort of ticket system and penalties would range from $100 to $500, in line with Ministry of Justice guidelines.

However, the big issue where this bill departed from where the National Party was taking it is with respect to extending those powers to Fish & Game, a non-governmental organisation. It’s not about Fish & Game per se. Fish & Game are very good lobbyists. They represent a number of different fishers, with respect to their views. They run good systems with regards to managing sports fish and support, obviously, recreation on the conservation estate. But there are 12 regional offices that loosely report to a national head office—and I say loosely report. That is where some of the issue with respect to the integrity of any infringement system that is extended to an organisation that is not State. So we have questions about where the infringement system would end up, about how credible it would be, about how objective it would be, and as to the accountability and administration of that system when it is unabated by the State.

Full-time rangers with Fish & Game are not subject to the same codes of conduct that departmental rangers are subject to. They’re not subject to the same level of training, and they’re not subject to the same level of accountability when they come back into the office and have that line delegation, as the Department of Conservation has, to check and double-check their work with regards to dealing with offences.

I note that the Minister of Conservation says that she would be responsible for designing and overseeing a system that she believes would put in place those accountabilities. But, when you’re talking about 12 regional offices that are based out in the field that loosely report to a head office, it seems, at this point, very challenging as to how they would report to the head office and how they would maintain that level of objectivity with respect to dealing with offences. And we certainly don’t want that abused in any way.

The other thing is that the Minister mentioned safeguards in this bill, and we simply don’t believe that not allowing a delegation from the director of Fish & Game is enough. Again, with the Minister overseeing some of the system as to accountability, it’s just not enough when you are dealing with people in remote places looking at certain alleged offences in isolation and making judgment calls without that level of training and without that level of oversight and safeguard with respect to codes of conduct and with respect to line management and accountability moving forward.

We believe that there really are too many variables to keep a hold of this system and to make sure that an infringement system is dealt with in a fair manner, that it’s primarily secured objectively, and that there is a level, a standard, that is adhered to across the country so that New Zealanders and visitors know that when they go out onto the conservation estate, they will be treated the same as their counterpart, ranging from those that complete an offence or undertake an offence in Southland to those where it occurs in Northland.

So, again, I say that there are far too many variables. For that reason we cannot support the infringement regime moving forward, because this bill has, simply, departed from the intent as to where it started when the Hon Maggie Barry brought this bill into the House. I end with the fact that we are supportive of conservation and the department moving forward. We want to see, whatever happens moving forward, that an infringement system implemented is fair and objective. We want to see the Department of Conservation succeed, and, as such, that’s why you have seen our support of initiatives such as Predator Free 2050 and us investing in conservation, including our partnership model that we brought in and heavily pushed to involve community at the coalface, involving them in conservation efforts to get them involved in recreation and preserving and protecting our nature, as is our birthright in New Zealand. But, with respect to this bill, there are not enough safeguards to maintain an objectivity with Fish & Game, and we believe that this will undermine the integrity of the infringement system that is mooted in this bill.

The National Party—we should call them “the Statists”—the Statists. The only party in the Parliament here who thinks the only person who should be trusted to issue an infringement notice, which will probably be about 100 bucks a week, are the Statist party—the National Party—the party who denies representative democracy through Fish & Game councils. Fish & Game councils are mass-membership democratic organisations. They are a statutory authority. In some ways they’re like councils. Their jurisdiction is more limited than a council, but they have a statutory jurisdiction in respect of sports fish and habitat protection in our rivers and lakes around New Zealand.

💬 Hon Member: The Law Society for trout.

The Law Society for trout? No, they’re even more than that, actually. They’re the council for river protection and lakes and sports fish.

Now, we’re told that they’re not to be trusted issuing an infringement notice of about 100 bucks, but they can take a court prosecution. They can take a court prosecution which would often be an overreaction in respect of low-level offending, which ends up in a criminal conviction for the person who is prosecuted in the courts. So it’s not really in the interests of the prosecuted person to go through the courts, at great stress and expense, when, actually, they would more often prefer just to get an infringement notice that more reflects the seriousness of their offending, a bit like a traffic fine.

What’s the next bit of information about Fish & Game councils? Well, in addition to having many tens of thousands of members who elect the council who control the actions of the executive—so there is a control on the actions of the executive through a democratically elected body that’s got tens of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders making the election decision that the statist National Party does not trust. In addition to that what’s been the record? Well, their record has been that they are the only ones in New Zealand that prosecute for sports fish infringements, and more often than the Department of Conservation, by many multiples, they’re the people who’ve been bringing prosecutions against farmers who are breaching water rights. They’ve done more than the Department of Conservation. So they’re trustworthy enough to do that, but they’re not trustworthy enough to actually be able to issue an infringement notice.

What about habitat protection more generally? How many water conservation orders are there in New Zealand? I don’t know. The Minister of Conservation will know—probably about 20. How many of them have been done by Fish & Game councils and how many of them have been done by other arms of the statist Government that the National Party supports? Actually, more than 90 percent, I would say, of the water conservation orders in New Zealand have been started by applications by the old acclimatisation societies or the modern Fish & Game councils—not the State; it’s actually been Fishing & Game councils that have done that. But, oh no, we can’t trust them to actually issue an infringement notice instead of a prosecution through the courts.

What happens if you get an infringement notice that you don’t think’s fair? You appeal to the courts and the courts act as oversight in respect of whether the infringement notice is a fair thing to do. So there’s court oversight. What other oversight? Well, Parliament could revisit this if somehow we had this rash of rabid Fish & Game councils going out there willy-nilly enforcing the law. We could actually take the powers of enforcement off them. This is just barking mad of the National Party to be opposing this.

And no wonder they’re plummeting in the polls. They’re falling out not just with their normal backers but just about everyone in the Fish & Game councils—these tens of thousands of members—no doubt will get a message in their magazine that the National Party, the party of statists, opposed the Fish & Game Council being able to issue an infringement notice instead of a criminal prosecution.

What other things can we say in respect of this? Well, in addition to them being elected, habitat protection, all of these things—they do already have a right of prosecution in a more serious form directly through the courts. They can bring a criminal prosecution. But do you know what the last Government wouldn’t fix for them in respect of that? In order to bring a prosecution in the courts, you’ve got to have the date of birth of the person that you’re prosecuting. That’s pretty sensible because sometimes, if you just have the name and address of someone, if someone’s got the same name as their parent—John Smith or John Smith—you don’t know whether it’s John Smith the senior or John Smith Jnr unless you get their date of birth.

Do you know what the last Government said? They said “Oh. It would be a breach of people’s civil liberties if we give the right to the Fish & Game councils to ask people their date of birth.” I’m not kidding you. The last Government would not give the Fish & Game councils the right to get the date of birth, even though the prosecution guidelines that the Crown impose on Fish & Game, in respect of the prosecutions, requires them to give the date of birth of the offender when they file the prosecution. The statists on the other side are so impractical that it’s no wonder they think some of our environmental laws—and this is, actually, an environmental law for the protection of fisheries—shouldn’t be extended to Fish & Game councils.

I’m really bemused at the National Party choosing to vote against this bill that they said otherwise they like—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Who introduced?

—that they introduced. They’re now opposing this whole bill on that spurious ground. That party, they have so lost their way. I’m aghast that they think that this is a matter of civil liberties that an infringement power shouldn’t be—oh, they’re somehow more trustworthy than, I don’t know, customs officers, dog control offices at a council level, and all the other agencies of State or local government who can give infringement notices. But no, no, it’s a terrible infringement on civil liberties.

Wind back a bit. When they came to originally allowing them to file criminal prosecutions: where did the National Party stand there? I bet you if you go through Hansards of yesteryear the forebears of the National Party, who were not the statist party of the current National Party—I reckon they would have voted in favour of those powers of Fish & Game councils to bring actual, more serious criminal prosecutions through the courts. And yet they can’t agree on a right to issue an infringement notice.

So what would be the outcome if the National Party had their way? Well, there are more costs for everyone. There are more costs to the Fish & Game Council of bringing a prosecution through the courts—it’ll cost them some thousands of dollars instead of the cost of writing out a ticket—and the poor old offender has costs of probably $1,000 as well, has to go to a lawyer, and they have the stress, and they have a criminal record. Now, that would be expunged eventually under the legislation that wipes minor convictions after a period of time, but, in the meantime, they’d go along for a job and they’d say “Have you got any convictions?” and they’d have to write them on their form that yes, the Fish & Game Council prosecuted them for doing something illegal. Whereas if they get an infringement notice, they don’t have to do that; they just have to pay their fine, which is appropriate, and if they don’t think the fine’s right because they haven’t done anything wrong, well they can go to the court anyway to defend their reputation.

So I look forward to the contribution of the next statist to defend the position that the National Party is taking that is so impractical that it beggars belief. And I look forward to the reporting of this by the Fish & Game Council to their tens of thousands of members throughout the country, telling their members that the National Party is out of touch with their interests and their members.

It’s approaching the festive season, and so it’s always interesting to hear the Hon David Parker in a speech just after the dinner break, and never more so than as we approach the festive season because, literally, we don’t know what he’s going to say. We have no idea what he’s going to say, and it’s always a delight to hear him when he confesses to being bemused and aghast, because that’s a condition that he finds himself in quite regularly these days.

And I didn’t know tonight whether he was speaking as the Minister for the Environment or whether he had his Attorney-General’s hat on. If he had his Attorney-General’s hat on, then surely he could not, under any good conscience, be supporting this piece of constitutional abuse of the rules and prerogatives of State agencies and State officers in terms of extending a very dangerous precedent which is actually not at all about the good folk at Fish & Game. This is about a matter of principle, about a matter of constitutional appropriateness, and rule of law, to be honest. These are quite important matters. But as my colleague Sarah Dowie mentioned during her speech, this is a bill that was originally introduced by the National Party. My friend and colleague Maggie Barry did it in February 2017. At that time, the piece of legislation was designed—I think appropriately and rightly and correctly—to simply extend an infringement notice regime to Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers.

Now, I have the privilege in this House of representing the good people of Coromandel, the most beautiful electorate in the country. About a third of the Coromandel electorate is administered by the very dedicated and professional officers of the Department of Conservation, and I’m enormously grateful for the good work that they do on behalf of the natural environment in the Coromandel, but not just in the Coromandel, of course; all around New Zealand, and, indeed, covering the entire landmass of New Zealand. About a third of the entire landmass of New Zealand is administered by the conservation estate and, therefore, the good officers of the Department of Conservation. I think they do a very good job, but they haven’t until now been able to operate a simple non - court-based process for issuing infringement notices for relatively low-level offending that often occurs, sadly, in our natural environment and in the DOC estate.

So this bill, when originally introduced by Maggie Barry, alleviated that, changed that, corrected that situation. It was a bill that we supported in Government because that was an appropriate and sensible thing to do. Infringement arrangements, infringement regimes, actually are very effective. We have many of them in our statutes: parking tickets, minor speeding offences, traffic offences. Litter offences, for instance, can be handled by councils by infringement—

💬 Simon O’Connor: There must be a member’s bill on that.

And there’s a good member’s bill on that before the House at the moment, but that’s not what we’re speaking about today. So infringement notice arrangements work really well. For the relatively small but persistent number of offenders in the conservation estate who do abuse their privileges of sharing and enjoying the estate by maybe stealing wildlife, by upsetting and destroying—maybe vandalising—flora and fauna, these infringement notices will work very well for the DOC rangers, but the original scope of the bill was very narrow in its confines, in its definition. From memory—and I’d have to go back and check, but I think that the number of Department of Conservation rangers who would be able to use the infringement notice scheme that’s set up under this legislation is actually a relatively small number. I think it’s something less than 200. It’s a very small number of DOC rangers that will be able to issue the infringement notices, and, of course, because they are employees of the Department of Conservation, they are privy to the rules and regulations and boundaries and training and structure that is set in place under the State Sector Act, where clear rules and guidelines about authority and behaviour are set out in a way that provides certainty, provides judicial clarity, and also provides a degree of discipline and structure that is appropriate for agents of the State.

In a previous lifetime or state, to extend those powers to non - agents of the State would have been something that the Green Party would have railed against as being an abhorrent breach of constitutional appropriateness. They would have waxed lyrical, long and hard, about breach of process, breach of principle, bad constitutional practice, extending rules of legal enforcement to agents who were not agents of the State, who didn’t come under the State Sector Act rules and regulations. They would have argued against that most vigorously. So to hear a Green Minister in the House introducing the second reading of this piece of legislation after it being considered by the Environment Committee I find, frankly, bizarre, because they’ve done a complete turnaround, a complete change of what they once held as matters of absolute principle to now being something that is akin to just mere pragmatism—political pragmatism. If the Green Party and the Government and the coalition parties of the Government were really keen on setting up an infringement notice structure that involved Fish & Game, then bring an appropriate piece of legislation to the House that does that. Don’t just tack it on as an afterthought to an otherwise separate piece of legislation which was designed, initially, entirely just to fill a gap that was obvious and clear and needed to be corrected in terms of the role and obligation of the Department of Conservation rangers. Don’t just then tack on Fish & Game.

Now I’m not getting at Fish & Game; I think they do a very good job. I sometimes raise my eyebrows at some of their methods of advocacy, but by and large I think they do a very good job. This is not about the efficacy or the responsibility or the honesty or the integrity of Fish & Game personnel; this is about a constitutional, legal, significant matter about who amongst us can go out into the wild blue yonder, which happens to be the DOC estate, and start issuing infringement notices. I would say, and we say on this side of the House, that, actually, those people, that protocol, that regime of infringement notice issuing should be limited to agents of the State, employees of the Department of Conservation. Trained, appropriately credentialed rangers from the Department of Conservation are the appropriate people to do it.

So we come to a situation where a very good piece of legislation has now been amended in a way that we find we can’t any longer support, and I think that’s a shame. I think it’s a real shame, because this is something that we do want to support on this side of the House in terms of the good work that is done by staff and personnel of the Department of Conservation. Lou Sanson and his team do an admirable job on behalf of all New Zealanders, and they do it sometimes under trying and difficult circumstances. Just look at the nonsense that they have to put up with in terms of dealing with people who are opposed to the use of 1080. So they work under difficult circumstances. We now have a situation where a good, well-intentioned, appropriate piece of legislation has been amended in a way that we can no longer support, and I do think that’s a shame.

As I said earlier, this is not a criticism of the good folk at Fish & Game; this goes to the very core principles of our parliamentary democracy, of our judicial system. This is an important matter of principle, and when the Attorney-General stands in this House and says that he’s bemused and aghast, well, I’m very confused about which hat he was wearing and which role he was being responsible to tonight, because I think it was uncertain and unclear. I’m sure that his advisers, in his capacity as Attorney-General, would be not supporting this piece of legislation, so he’s conflicted.

So it’s with some regret that on this side of the House we’re not able to support the original intention of this bill, which was to give DOC rangers the ability to set up an infringement notice regime for the benefit of our natural environment and our flora and fauna. I for one am disappointed that this bill has been amended in a way that we can’t support.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, making note that this infringement system bill breaks into eight core Department of Corrections (DOC) statutes, as outlined by the Minister of Conservation earlier, including the Conservation Act as well as the National Parks Act and the Reserves Act.

We had a number of submissions come through the Environment Committee, and it’s a pleasure to serve on that committee with a fantastic group of colleagues. Generally, we worked pretty well together. We had 56 submissions, seven supplementary submissions, and we had those submissions come through us in about May of this year. I note, as the Minister pointed out, that this bill was presented by the previous Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, back in February 2017, and it didn’t come through again until February of this year.

💬 Mark Patterson: And they used to support it.

And they did used to support it, but they have changed.

One of the things that I do note about the DOC focus, really—the Department of Conservation; their focus—is the protection and conservation of our natural taonga. That’s a really important role that they play, the responsibility of the Department of Conservation to carry out in the best way possible, and they really have a duty to ensure this. However, they absolutely need the proper tools to carry out this work, and the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill will give the department another tool to do that work.

Human activities are among the contributing factors that lead to the degradation of our natural spaces, our natural environment, our natural heritage, and often our ngahere, so it is really up to us to protect it. Where there is an infringement, that needs to be taken care of so we can return our ngahere, return our natural spaces, to the proper and right place that it should be. It is our duty to do that. So the bill will tidy up the law so that those who do commit any kinds of offences—whether they are minor or major, but it’s the minor end of the scale this bill is addressing—will face real consequences by way of an instant fine, and there is that in place when this bill passes through the final stages of the House.

I just note, in my brief submission today here in the House, that the Minister said that the public can expect DOC to take appropriate actions when breaches of the law occur. Enforcement not only discourages the offender from repeating the offence but also acts as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to do the same thing, and currently we have a situation where a lot of people who do have these minor-end breaches actually get a bit of a slap over the wrist with a damp bus ticket. So this will finally see the infringement notice instead of a prosecution.

Some of those sorts of offending, that low-level offending, would be along the lines of minor breaches of the whitebait fishing rules; fishing in a marine reserve, where the boat has maybe drifted across the boundary; getting too close to a marine mammal, but not injuring it, obviously; fishing for trout in the Taupō fishery with a licence that has expired; and also taking a dog into an area where dogs are not allowed, and there are many breaches in that particular area.

I will note that one submission that came through from a warranted honorary ranger with the North Canterbury region Fish & Game council actually supported Fish & Game staff and councils having the power to issue infringements. So that body, members inside that body—Fish & Game—actually support that they have the power to issue infringement notices.

So really, this was just a short contribution. We really must ensure that the taonga that exist inside our nature stores are protected. This will enable the Department of Conservation to have another tool to protect it, and so, personally, I’m very pleased to see the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading here in the House today. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Every now and again, the mask slips, does it not? We saw it before when David Parker gave his contribution on this piece of legislation. We were reflecting on the appropriateness of expanding Department of Conservation (DOC) powers to issue infringement notices—and, obviously, that was the genesis of the bill—and then, of course, the far more controversial view, from our perspective, that that power should be expanded to Fish & Game rangers.

The Attorney-General or Minister for the Environment stands up, and he’s all but frothing at the mouth, calling us statists, suggesting that Fish & Game should be seen as—and I will quote him: that “They are the Law Society for the protection of trout. They’re the council for ecological protection.” But, more critically, as his mask slowly slipped because he got all excited, was that he started almost salivating at the thought of the power of these Fish & Game rangers to—and, again, I quote—sheet back some accountability for the farmers, particularly those farmers who have broken the law.

You see, under the thin veneer of an environment Minister who is seeking to support this piece of legislation is an inherent dislike—in fact, in my opinion it’s more than dislike—of the agriculture sector and of the farmers and the contribution they make to the community. He looks to every single opportunity to stick it to them; to say, “Look, the way you have operated in the last 20 years is going to finish under my watch, because me, David Parker—I’ve got a vision for you, and it’s all going backwards, and it’s all hell in a handbasket.” He couldn’t help it. He then realised that he was actually on national television and had to wind back the face, but the mask slipped and we saw the true intent: that he wants to take it to the farmers.

Any farmer out there listening to this at the moment, you rewind and listen to David Parker’s speech, and you will see his true intent lurking not too below the surface when we are talking about extending the powers beyond the DOC rangers—which, of course, as we’ve signalled, the idea of including an infringement regime for the Department of Conservation makes sense. Indeed, it was our idea. Indeed, we put it in the original legislation. But, of course, as you’ve heard tonight, this Government did not see that as suitable ring-fencing of and a solution to the problem, but actually saw a need, in their view, to expand those powers to Fish & Game, to enable them to be a further arm of the State with respect to prosecuting those people who break the law.

As I said, you could see the glint in David Parker’s eyes, because it’s yet another twist against the sector he’s been hunting for a long time, and it’s one day closer. We can see that this legislation, at its core, had some value. This Government has taken it in a direction we can’t support, and that’s why, on balance, we think it deserves to be rejected, and I very much look forward to the contributions from our side on this debate. Thank you very much.

I’m puzzled—really puzzled—by what’s gone on with this bill. As we’ve heard tonight, it was, in origin, a bill that was introduced to the House by the former Minister of Conservation Maggie Barry, so it was something that the now Opposition actually believed in. That was really apparent when this bill first arrived in the Environment Committee, which I am honoured to chair.

We worked hard on the bill in the committee, and very cooperatively. The committee is largely collegial and largely does work together extraordinarily well, and it’s a pleasure to work with all the members on that committee. For a while, there was some hard work going on with respect to the particular issue that we’re talking about mostly tonight—that’s the Fish & Game councils. It did seem that this particular change—introducing powers to the Fish & Game councils—would, in fact, be accepted by the select committee and then, in due course, the Parliament. But then there was a change. The National Party changed their mind, and it seemed to coincide with a change in the personnel on the select committee. They decided, for some reason that I don’t really understand, to oppose this particular bit of the legislation. I’ve been puzzled as to why that happened.

It’s led me to reflect on the nature of the bill and what’s going on with these Fish & Game regulations that we’re hoping to introduce. I’ve had a quick word to my colleague the Hon David Parker. David Parker is, of course, a man of experience; a man who is wise in the ways of the world; a man who actually, as a lawyer before he entered this Parliament, took many of the prosecutions for Fish & Game; a man who acted for Fish & Game on many of the water conservation orders; a man who knows that taking something to court is often a sledgehammer—a sledgehammer—to solve a minor problem. That’s exactly why we need an infringement regime in respect of some of the minor misdeeds that creep in under the various Acts that are looked after by the Department of Conservation (DOC). We do actually need a mid-point.

Let me give you an example of what the real problem is here, and why, in fact, the National Party—the now Opposition—were keen to work on this. Look, imagine the roads, and imagine if you were heading to your own home one night and perhaps went over the speed limit, because it’s easy for it to happen, and then an officer of the law saw what was going on—any of us might end up breaking the law and speeding. It’s a shame; it does happen. But imagine if the choices were just between a warning and a court prosecution—a warning or a sledgehammer. It’s not appropriate. We’re really comfortable with the idea of having infringements as a mid-point between a warning—a stern talking-to by an officer of the law—and the sledgehammer of a prosecution.

I think that across the House we are agreed on that concept—that there is a completely appropriate role for infringement notices—so the issue then is who is the appropriate person to issue infringement notices? This is where we are breaking a little bit of new-ish ground with this legislation.

Now, as the Opposition have correctly pointed out, most of the time, the people who are issuing infringement notices are, in fact, civil servants of one variety or another: police officers, DOC rangers, or people who are in fact directly employed by the State. But there are some circumstances where people who are not employees of the State are able to issue infringement notices and the like—the SPCA is notable in this regard. That’s quite important, because what we’re trying to do here is to find a way of enabling there to be an appropriate regime with respect to sports fish and with respect to hunting, shooting, and fishing, which is very dear to a lot of New Zealanders’ hearts. We want an appropriate regime. There is not one at the moment. There is a warning or a sledgehammer, and nothing in between.

So we are looking for that appropriate regime, and we have been given a solution. The solution is to allow Fish & Game officers to be able to issue infringement notices, and there is a series of protections around that. Now, let’s start with the most obvious thing: infringement notices are small beer. It’s a jolly nuisance to get one, and for some people, actually, it can be quite expensive, depending on their own level of wealth, but it’s not a prosecution. It’s actually a small-ish, low-ish level offence, so it does not have the seriousness of prosecutions. So that’s the first protection: this is low-level stuff that it’s being applied to.

The second protection is that even if someone is issued with an infringement notice and they disagree with it, then it’s kind of a hard way to go, but you can resort to the law to sort it out, if that’s absolutely needed. That’s always a safeguard. It’s an expensive one to use, but it is there.

Even so, there are safeguards built into this bill for what Fish & Game will actually be able to do, but it’s worth actually understanding what is sitting in the proposed bill. So in clauses 4A to 4D of this particular bill, we’ve actually got some ideas, and some pretty sensible ideas. The Fish & Game Council—it’s a statutory body—has to develop a national policy in the first place. Then, following on from that, it has to be approved by the Minister, and if the Minister does not approve it, then Fish & Game cannot enforce any regulations and it cannot issue infringement notices. Carrying on from that, the Fish & Game Council must report every year as to what infringement notices they have issued. These are all important protections to make sure that they exercise these powers and that these are reasonable.

In terms of who can issue an infringement notice, it turns out that it’s only Fish & Game rangers. It’s not honorary Fish & Game rangers; it’s only people who have already got the standing of being a Fish & Game ranger—in other words, people who already have a responsible role within the Fish & Game organisation.

One of the really important things to remember here is that Fish & Game is a largely democratic body. It is populated by people who have a deep interest in sports fishing and hunting and who actually want to ensure that people who engage in hunting, shooting, and fishing do so fairly and reasonably with respect for the environment and with respect for the rules so that everyone has an opportunity to engage in those activities, if they want. Fish & Game rangers help to protect that for everyone who is engaged in hunting, shooting, and fishing. So Fish & Game rangers, by their nature, already take a responsible attitude to their work, and what we are offering them is a simple opportunity to do more than warn someone and to do less than threaten them with prosecution and to prosecute them. We are offering them the middle path of an infringement system—an infringement system that must go through several steps before it’s put in place.

I propose that this is an extraordinarily sensible solution. It’s a sensible solution to finding the right place between a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a sledgehammer, and for those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading. I want to make it very clear that National opposes this bill, which is really rather unfortunate and even a little bit sad, because the original bill was introduced in February 2017 by the then Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry. I remember the work on this bill because I was her Associate Minister at the time, and we worked hard to find a way that was balanced and that would give a tool to Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers with conservation offences.

The purpose, of course, was to create an infringement and fine system, and it was to enable Department of Conservation rangers to deal with the less serious conservation offences efficiently and effectively. It’s a worthy purpose, and National supported it because we are committed to supporting the protection of our nature but we also identified the need for Department of Conservation rangers to have those further powers so that they could carry out their jobs better. DOC rangers, of course, are part of the Department of Conservation, and that is a well-established, well-respected, experienced compliance and enforcement agency. National believes that the department has the credibility and the accountability and the administration systems to operate a fair and objective infringement system for New Zealanders. We supported the original bill because it really would have helped the Department of Conservation protect and conserve our nature.

The bill was designed as an alternative mechanism to address the offences that fell between a very wide gap of a warning, which was a light sort of touch, and a court action, which sometimes was appropriate for more serious offences, but was overkill for some of the lesser ones. In the past, incidents have required more than just a warning but were not serious enough to require court action, leaving rangers in a real state of limbo without any effective tools to respond, and that weakened the department’s response. Warnings can be an adequate response to some offences, but sometimes they’re inadequate, and prosecutions can be too severe for others. This infringement and fine system would provide that flexibility of response to give rangers more teeth, where necessary, and to enforce rules without giving people a criminal record. Overall, it would allow a much more nuanced response to conservation offences and would, I think, improve outcomes in terms of protection and conservation. But the use of this infringement regime will be the most appropriate response to a wide range of minor conservation offences.

National believed that the powers in the original bill were appropriate, they were useful, and they would have allowed experienced, qualified, and accountable Department of Conservation rangers to do their jobs better. So far, so good. However, during the select committee process, an amendment to clause 9 introduced a clause that empowers the director of New Zealand Fish & Game Council, a non-Government agency, to warrant Fish & Game employees to use the system and to issue these infringement notices, and this sets a dangerous precedent as it extends significant powers to an organisation outside the State sector.

National does not support an organisation that is not directly accountable to the public of New Zealand to have these powers. We believe that extending the powers beyond DOC rangers, who are State sector employees, has serious ramifications to the credibility, accountability, and administration of the system, and we believe that it would ultimately undermine the Department of Conservation’s ability to operate what they need—a fair and objective system. And with that, the confidence of New Zealanders, the confidence they have in the department, and the work that the ranges do to protect and conserve our environment, would be undermined. Whereas the original bill would have been of benefit to the Department of Conservation and our nature, National believes that this bill will absolutely undermine DOC and their work. The amended bill is not good for nature, it’s not good for our environment, and it’s not good for the DOC rangers who do such good work to protect it. So National opposes this bill. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I commend the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for her shepherding of this bill through the House, the submitters for their robust submissions, and our officials for honing and crafting this bill to its current form.

The bill amends eight conservation statutes—we’ve heard this—which manages New Zealand’s protected species, areas, and natural resources. It’s a great thing to do, and we’ve heard what those Acts are, so I’m not going to go into that.

Essentially, this bill allows for the extension of options when people fail to comply with the law. Previously, as we’ve heard, there were two outcomes: one, a warning and, two, a prosecution in court. This bill provides a well-needed—as we’ve heard—third option: an infringement notice, which is similar to a parking ticket, and we all agree that a parking ticket shouldn’t go straight to prosecution or have a warning. We are talking about infringements of, say, a maximum of up to $500 for what has occurred, and once that’s paid, that’s the end of the matter. We have also heard that if this infringement is disputed, prosecution is available, so the right to attend the day in court to defend yourself is available. Therefore, this bill provides for the proportionate response to low-level offending.

I’m just going to say a low-level offence could include—and we’ve heard a couple of these, but my personal favourite, having been situated in the Bay of Plenty, is getting too close to a whale, a dolphin, or a sea mammal but not injuring it. I’ve seen some really amazing footage of brief encounters where whales have popped up under paddleboards and things like that, and people—because they’re excited, they follow these creatures. Now, who knew that that was an offence? I certainly learnt something. So, without harming them, we know that that can cause the animal distress and, therefore, a warning may not be appropriate. Perhaps the third option of an infringement might be an appropriate. It’s certainly not worthy of a full prosecution.

So how does this infringement system work and who can issue a notice? Firstly, the Fish & Game Council—which I’m very pleased about—will be given the power to issue infringements. They’re a statutory body. They currently have these powers in other areas. The Government side on the Environment Committee recommended inserting some protections around that. Clauses 4A to 4D set out minimum requirements for New Zealand Fish & Game Council. We were really careful that there needed to be some planning to go in place around this. The Conservation Act must create and maintain a natural enforcement and compliance policy—so that’s 12 of them creating this. Then that goes to the Minister of Conservation, and they cannot issue anything until that is signed off by the Minister. No notices can be issued, so we take care of that matter around the process of how it will happen.

We also included who could issue notices. Quite simply, it’s only some Fish & Game rangers who are authorised by the director of New Zealand Fish & Game Council. It’s not automatic—it’s not everyone. It’s not people who are attending as honorary members.

My time is up—I’ve talked way too long. This is an opportunity. I think Fish & Game are a reputable, resourced, and competent bunch of people. I think they’ll do the job well, and I support our environment to thrive. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading, which was a National Party bill introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry until the other side decided to try and mess with this excellent piece of legislation, which was progressing through the Parliament and going to make a really important change.

We’ve heard the arguments put forward as to why the infringement system needed to be put in place, and I endorse the statements which have been made. But the worrying thing which I just heard from Angie Warren-Clark, the member who just sat down, was that she thinks that these Fish & Game Council members will do a good job. She thinks they’ll do a good job. So we’re really hope—and this is the problem with the current Government. They think things, they hope things, and they’re feeling things, but the problem with what we’re doing here in Parliament is we’re legislating.

We are actually making the law for the land, and I think it’s important that when we make the law for the land, we actually take into account the important constitutional principles in terms of how we actually make law, who is actually delegated with responsibilities to do certain things, and how that interacts with other pieces of legislation. I think this is an example of a piece of legislation where the good intentions and the hopes and dreams and kindness, and all the rest of those flowery terms that have come from the other Government—they’ve put their fingers all over this piece of legislation and they’ve, unfortunately, put us in a position where this Parliament is legislating something which wasn’t the original intent of what the Hon Maggie Barry was trying to put forward.

So the key issue here is that this bill will give a non-governmental agency the power to issue infringement notices, unabated by the State. Fish & Game staff are not State sector employees and, therefore, are not subject to the same codes of conduct and minimum criteria or minimum standards as to the integrity of departmental rangers. This is the key issue here: who should be entitled to be able to issue an infringement notice in the conservation estate, in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. On this side of the House, we firmly believe that it should be the DOC officers who are doing that, and not then delegating their role off to other people in other organisations which don’t meet the same important standards which the DOC rangers are expected to. They also have legal obligations and responsibility under the State Sector Act, as well.

So we will be opposing this piece of legislation. It’s a shame that the Government got its tentacles all over this one, but we’ll be back in Government soon and we’ll have to fix up all this mess. Thank you.

I’m delighted to be speaking to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill’s second reading. The current legislation allows only two possible responses to any offending. The first is that they provide a warning—so just “That wasn’t the right thing to do. You’re warned. Don’t do it again.”, and the second option is prosecution in the court. So there’s a big gap in our system, and that’s what this legislation is intended to fix. And I want to just acknowledge a member who hasn’t yet been able to take a call and that is the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, who introduced this legislation to the House. It’s clear now, though, if you look at the passage—or, actually, lack of passage—of the bill, that the Hon Maggie Barry has never had the support of her caucus and tonight they’re pretty well relishing in the ability to say that to the House.

If you compare the conservation infringement system regime to other legislation, for example, the Fisheries Act, they do have a ticket-issuing system—you know, an infringement system—and it works very well. So for low-level offending under the fisheries legislation you get a ticket. If you pay a fine, then that’s the end of the matter. There’s no court process. There’s no conviction. There’s no extraordinary amount of time and money spent on that. So for that system there’s major benefits for the Department of Conservation (DOC), there’s major benefits for the offender, and there’s certainly major benefits for our court system.

The original bill, as I said, introduced by the then Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, just got nowhere with the Government, so I was really pleased to see the current Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage—I’m always actually very pleased to see her because she’s got such knowledge in these areas—take a really high level of interest in what submitters were saying. She listened to people who knew what they were talking about and had bothered making a contribution to the bill, considered it, listened to the select committee responses, and has backed the changes that are made as we see them now.

I was stunned to hear Sarah Dowie say that we can’t have Fish & Game issue the equivalent of parking tickets because they’re not trustworthy. Fish & Game currently have significant prosecution powers under the Conservation Act. They have paid enforcement officers and they take a large number of prosecutions. So I look forward to seeing Sarah Dowie’s member’s bill, which strips away those enforcement provisions, which are in the current Conservation Act, from Fish & Game. Cards on the table, National Party: if Fish & Game are not to be trusted, then I think that should be a National Party slogan. Bring it on. I think Fish & Game have proven themselves to be people of integrity who work for the good of the environment, and they should be supported to work alongside DOC, keep people out of court who shouldn’t be clogging up our court systems, but making sure they have appropriate penalties attracted to the offences they have caused.

I found the criticisms from Sarah Dowie and others of Fish & Game offensive, and I want to put that on the record. My colleague Dr Duncan said, “Shameful.”; I agree with that. I am delighted that we now have a Minister of Conservation who knows her stuff, is passionate and pragmatic, listens to people, and gets solutions that will deliver real time and benefit to conservation, and I’m very pleased to support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, Ruth Dyson really was very effusive in her praise for Minister Sage tonight—that she listened to submitters, she took into account the changes that were suggested, and that’s exactly how it was, and she made those changes accordingly. And that’s actually quite laughable, because if we go back and listen to the first reading speeches in this debate from the Government members, they called for an extension to Fish & Game. This was predetermined. It’s not like Minister Sage turned up and read all the submissions and consulted widely and thought about it and made the changes accordingly. This was predetermined. This was something that they called for and they wanted. So for Ruth Dyson to get up here and rewrite history is quite laughable.

And poor, poor Deborah Russell. She’s confused. Dr Deborah Russell’s not often confused because let’s all not forget—she’s a doctor. But today she had a furrowed brow. She was very confused as to why we weren’t supporting this bill. It’s almost like she hadn’t been listening to any of the debate prior to her own speech and she gave us an example of police officers stopping people—her or anyone who accidently happened to be speeding. She said, “Imagine if you’re accidentally speeding, a police officer pulls you over and the only two options they have are a warning or a caution”—“Hey, don’t do that.”—“or a prosecution.” Imagine what that would be like. She said it would be like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. She couldn’t understand how we are not supporting a bill that would give a midway point like an infringement notice. And I’d like to help Dr Deborah Russell with her confusion by using her own example of the police and the speeder.

Why we don’t support this bill is because we don’t want a volunteer organisation, no matter how good we perceive them to be, to be issuing infringement notices. If you take the example of the speeding motorist and the police officer, if you could imagine you are in that position and you’re stopped—you’re pulled over by community patrol, for example, or some other volunteer organisation. How would you feel if they issued you a speeding ticket? And that is where the crux of the debate lies.

We did support this bill at first reading. Maggie’s bill—sorry; Maggie Barry’s—

💬 Hon Members: Honourable!

The Hon Maggie Barry did a lot of good work in this area, and so did the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is a good midway point for Department of Conservation (DOC) officers to have an infringement notice system. We’ve long agreed with that and I think in all of our reading speeches we agreed that that would be a good idea. It saves court time, it saves court costs, there’s no stigma associated with a criminal record, and it improves conservation outcomes. And we don’t want DOC officers being caught up in court; we want them out on the estate improving conservation outcomes. But at the select committee, this bill got widened. The bill as introduced departed very much from its original intent and made numerous changes allowing Fish & Game officers to have the infringement powers, and we cannot support this.

The issue for us under this bill, as altered by the select committee Government members, is that they gave Fish & Game, a non-governmental agency, the power to issue infringement notices—something that we don’t see almost anywhere else to the same extent in legislation. We don’t see it anywhere else, to this extent. And we are concerned that Fish & Game staff are non-State sector employees. They’re not subject to the same codes of conduct, the minimum standards, when it comes to integrity, like the DOC rangers are. It was not made clear at select committee to our satisfaction how training and control of warranted Fish & Game officers on the ground would be monitored to ensure consistency across the country. Implementing a fine system for DOC rangers was the original intent; it made sense. But the widening of these powers to a non-governmental agency creates far too many problems that are not adequately addressed in this bill. And for those reasons we will not be supporting the legislation.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well, you know, it’s somewhat perplexing to listen to the other side say that non-government agencies should not be given the power to fine. I heard that with some surprise, and on my laptop I had a bit of a look. So here’s some non-government agencies that do have the power to fine already, set out in legislation: the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, the Institute of Chartered Professional Engineers, the Registered Architects Board, the New Zealand Law Society’s standards committee, the Veterinarian Council, the real estate agents conduct committee, the Judicial Control Authority of the Racing Board—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Racing Board.

—the valuers institute. The Racing Board, Mr Twyford—I know. And look, that was five minutes on my laptop. The list goes on and on.

Here we have numerous authorities whom we trust to use quasi-judicial powers to impose sanctions on various members of the public for breaching rules of conduct—entirely appropriate. What’s more, every single one of them has an appeal procedure to some further tribunal, authority, or court.

💬 Hon David Parker: Like a court.

Exactly, Mr. Parker, Mr Attorney-General. This is no more, and I find it astounding that the National Party doesn’t trust some of their best friends, the Fish & Game Council—

💬 Hon David Parker: Former.

Former best friends—absolutely right. Here we have nothing more than people who are embedded in the community they are policing, imposing sanctions for breach. It is absolutely wrong that they should suggest that the Fish & Game Council should have to prosecute, not only because it’s an utter waste of prosecutorial resources but also because it’s entirely disproportionate to the wrong. Getting some trout without a licence doesn’t require dragging someone before the courts. All it requires is an infringement offence if education isn’t enough.

So I am absolutely astounded at the Opposition, by those lot over there, especially because it’s a bill that came from them when they were in Government. It has been improved, and here we have an Opposition who is opposing for the sake of it. Let’s get on with this. Let’s make life workable. Let’s ensure that we can protect our conservation estate at the same time as giving the people who need it the powers to look after what’s going on there. I don’t think I need to say any more than I have already to show the utter incoherence of the position of the other side. I commend this bill to the House.

Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.