Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the committee stage of the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I’m not going to labour the points too much in this debate; I’m simply going to go over our objection to the departure of this bill, especially in Part 1, from the original intent of the bill, which was introduced under National and under the Hon Maggie Barry.

First of all, I would say that, as outlined in Part 1, we do support that the Department of Conservation should be given the tools, basically, to be an enforcer to make sure that people are held to account if they commit offences on the conservation estate; however, what we don’t support is the extension of the powers of infringement to Fish & Game as a non-governmental agency.

Now, that is detailed in Part 1. As such, I refer to an amendment that is under my name, which I have placed before this House, that seeks to delete all references to giving Fish & Game rangers the powers of issuing infringements, especially in Part 1. It also refers to those deletions in Part 8, but mainly relates to Part 1 of this bill. That’s because we believe that the infringement system should be fair and objective across all of New Zealand, and given that there are 12 local Fish & Game offices that loosely report to a national body, we are not confident that the system can be maintained in that fair and objective manner. So my amendment looks, basically, to delete all references to Fish & Game and to bring the bill back to its original intent, which was first brought to the House by the Hon Maggie Barry and devised by the previous Government.

Look, the bill—all of the parts—looks to extend an infringement system across the board, over a number of different Acts in which the Department of Conservation has powers and regulates. At the moment, the Department of Conservation has two options: obviously, to give warnings to people who allegedly commit an offence, or to continue to prosecute if they have sufficient evidence. Obviously, giving warnings if it’s a non-serious alleged offence is acceptable, but often when there is a serious offence that occurs on the conservation estate or near threatened or endangered species, then a prosecution is warranted—but, again, you need sufficient evidence. That takes time, and it’s quite costly. Often what rangers will find is that they do need a midway point, and this infringement system will certainly give that to rangers to apply to offences that would not have significant policy ramifications but are, of course, that midway point between warning and prosecution. It means that those issues can be dealt with swiftly. It doesn’t necessarily go on people’s records as a criminal offence; it’s a summary offence and can be dealt with with a fine—a reasonable fine—that will often deter people from offending again when they are recreating or going about their business on the conservation estate.

While this was a National Party bill and we do support the Department of Conservation as an enforcement Government agency, because this is a departure from the original, to give Fish & Game rangers the powers of issuing infringement notices, we simply cannot support this. It will take the system away from an objective nature.

Just before I give the call, I just have to apologise to members. The question I should have put was: the question is that Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s a good decision, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to take the call.

Look, I want to, in this committee of the whole House debate, speak in support of the amendment that my colleague and friend Sarah Dowie has on the Table. This would, as she’s already indicated, essentially return this bill back to a format that the National Party could support in this House. When the original bill was first introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry in the last Parliament, there was no extension of this infringement regime beyond those members of the Department of Conservation (DOC)—those rangers who are members of the State services regime in terms of State employees—and there was no thought that that should be extended beyond to a group of independent non-State sector employees: namely, the good folk at Fish & Game.

So this amendment is not in any way a criticism or an objection to the good work that Fish & Game people do, but it’s simply based on the, I think, very sound and fundamental principle of our legislative framework that, actually, it should be duly warranted and educated, trained, and properly professional people who fall within the auspices of the State Sector Act and the strict controls that are imposed upon them—those are the sorts of people that should be operating an infringement regime of the sort intended by this bill. That was certainly the intent of the bill when the Hon Maggie Barry introduced it in the last Parliament. Subsequently, an election took place and the new Government now sits on the Treasury benches, and they’ve decided to extend this bill to include Fish & Game rangers.

So I think that this is a fundamental change. It’s the sole sticking point that prevents the party on this side of the Chamber supporting what otherwise is, in every other respect, I think a very sound and good bill. It’s very obvious that there are offences that occur in our natural environment that require swift and urgent action, and DOC rangers should be able to initiate remedial action when an event or an infringement crime or offence is being committed—and the bill basically sets that out—but to extend it to Fish & Game rangers, we think on this side of the Chamber, is one step too far.

I do want to just also, in this contribution, make a brief reference to Part 3 of the bill, and this is where amendments to the Marine Reserves Act of 1971 are made. In terms of the amendments to the Marine Reserves Act, there will be an extension for DOC officers, and presumably now also Fish & Game officers or rangers, to be involved in setting about and commencing infringement offence notices for matters that occur in our marine reserves area. Now, that’s actually a very extensive piece of marine footprint in our natural habitat, and there are some questions that I think the Minister Eugenie Sage may be able to address by way of response to this.

Firstly, I’m keen to know what training and what background and support rangers will have in terms of applying the infringement notice regime to those people who speak foreign languages. There are some quite significant numbers of people who are recreating and using the marine reserve spaces that we have available to us, and many of them don’t speak English. I’m keen to know what resources DOC are putting into that aspect of it.

The powers that the infringement offence regime under this bill extends are actually very powerful. So in new section 18GA(2), inserted by clause 20, there is reference to the infringement offences being sufficiently powerful that they could include the confiscation and forfeiture of “any vessel or vehicle or other conveyance,”. If that was to occur, then those conveyances, vehicles, or vessels would be forfeited to the Crown. That strikes me as being, in some cases, a pretty weighty penalty for an infringement regime, so if the Minister could address that, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to address—I guess it’s because of the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by Ms Sarah Dowie—some of the issues around the Fish & Game rangers. I would like the Minister Eugenie Sage to elaborate a little on the clauses in the bill which actually give the New Zealand Fish & Game Council, I guess, the powers to act. They’re asked, first of all, to develop a policy. So they have to first of all develop a policy, and then the Minister has to approve the policy, and, if the Minister doesn’t approve it, then no one is warranted on behalf of the Fish & Game Council.

So just a short call to say I would appreciate the Minister explaining how the Minister thinks that will operate in practice. Because there have been some interesting questions raised about the issue, I do want to understand the protections that are in there given that we do think that Fish & Game Council can do a good job here. But just exactly what are the protections in there? So if you could address that, that would be very helpful—if the Minister could. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased that there is support from National members for parts of the bill, saying that it is a good bill apart from the Fish & Game issues. It was, of course, the Government which made sure that the bill had its first reading.

I think there are some misconceptions in some of the calls from Opposition members. First of all is Ms Dowie with her amendment and the desire to have consistency. Well, of course, it is the bill with the additional provisions inserted by the majority of the select committee which will ensure consistency, because it means there is a consistent regime across the whole of New Zealand in relation to the management of sports fish. Of course, in the Lake Taupō area, sports fish, the trout fishery, is administered by the Department of Conservation because of an agreement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Elsewhere, New Zealand sports fish and gamebird hunting are administered by Fish & Game because that is their statutory responsibility. So this bill will actually ensure a consistent regime across New Zealand in terms of infringement offences in the sports fish and gamebird area.

A misconception by Mr Simpson in relation to marine reserves—Fish & Game has powers in relation to gamebird hunting and trout and salmon. It has no powers in relation to the management of marine reserves, so it won’t be called upon to issue infringement notices in relation to any offences under the Marine Reserves Act.

The other issues that Mr Simpson raised in terms of training and support for rangers who may not speak English—that already happens, if the department comes across people who are offending against legislation. There is increasing diversity amongst Department of Conservation staff and rangers. But I would also make the really important point that these infringement notices won’t be issued in the field. The information will be passed to a specialised team within the Department of Conservation, probably of about three people, and they will make the decision about whether an infringement notice is issued, whether proceedings are commenced in terms of a prosecution, or whether there is a recommendation that there be just a warning given. So it’s that specialised team that has the expertise there.

Then going to the questions that Dr Russell raised in relation to Fish & Game, there are a number of safeguards in the legislation around the provisions that are provided in clause 4A, which inserts the provisions around the national Fish & Game compliance and law enforcement policy. As Dr Russell noted, there will be no Fish & Game rangers or honorary rangers who get this power to issue infringement notices unless a national compliance and enforcement policy has been developed by Fish & Game and approved by the Minister of Conservation. There’s a requirement that Fish & Game report annually to the Minister of Conservation, so there’s that safeguard that there’ll be annual reporting on how those enforcement infringement notice powers are exercised. There are also quite detailed provisions in new section 70V, inserted by clause 64 of the bill, which only allow the director of the New Zealand Fish & Game Council to authorise Fish & Game rangers in writing to issue infringement notices under the Act, and the director of Fish & Game cannot delegate that power. So there are a lot of safeguards in the bill in relation to Fish & Game.

As Dr Duncan Webb noted in the second reading, there are a number of organisations, like the plumbers and gasfitters board, which can issue fines to people. So if the National Party is saying that it supports the work of Fish & Game, then it should take that next step and support the power of Fish & Game to stand up and issue infringement notices to those who offend against the provisions in the Conservation Act. So the councils already have quite significant enforcement powers under both the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act. It seems that the National Party is expressing no confidence in Fish & Game by its criticisms of the ability of the 12 regional Fish & Game councils to have this power to issue infringement notices.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a second call on this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I’m pleased that the Minister got to take a call to give us some answers on this bill. I’m not sure what the whips are doing over on that side of the Chamber, but Deborah Russell should have given the Minister the call and yielded to her in the first instance.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I think it’s the presiding officer’s call, not yours.

Well, yes, but you’ve got to show a little bit of respect for a Minister, in my opinion.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Lectures on morals. Yeah. Don’t get her started.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Let’s carry on with the bill.

Thanks, Miss Dyson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order to the House. Let’s carry on, thank you.

Thank you to the Minister for making that call and giving us some answers with regards to her views as to how the infringement system will work. It still doesn’t allay our concerns with regards to making sure that this infringement system is consistent and is fair across the board. As Mr Scott Simpson alluded to, Fish & Game rangers are not State sector employees. They’re not subject to the same codes of conduct as Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers.

Notwithstanding that Fish & Game does some very good work, again, as my colleague Mr Scott Simpson said, it’s not about Fish & Game per se; it’s about a non-governmental organisation having the powers to issue infringement notices.

I was interested to note the Minister said that these infringement notices won’t be issued in the field. Details will be taken, and that information will be brought back to the office, and then decisions will be made. But, regardless, decisions will be made with Fish & Game at their end and the department at their end. That doesn’t necessarily convert to consistency between the two. So I would put it to the Minister, with respect to her development of the policy, that it will need to be tested, moving forward, and that objective parameters will need to be put around the administration of this infringement system and measured as time goes forward should this bill complete its progression throughout the House. So that is our concern: that there will be people out recreating, spending their time on the conservation estate, going about their business, perhaps in the North Island, and the same in the South Island, and that there may not be consistency in regulating with respect to offences within New Zealand. So we want to make sure that any infringement system that is given to the Department of Conservation is fair and reasonable.

We do support the Department of Conservation with respect to enforcement, but it must be completed and administered in a very measured way. That is our concern with regards to extending that power to Fish & Game, and hence my Supplementary Order Paper to take that away, in this instance to delete references to extending that power, to make sure that this infringement system is first of all given to the Department of Conservation, that it is put in place, that the administration of it is completed with due diligence, and that it is administered fairly and objectively.

As I mentioned before, in my first call, this bill cuts across a number of different legislation that relate to Department of Conservation functions. Quite frankly, the logistics of the work that the Department of Conservation - run rangers undertake does lend itself to an infringement system. That’s why we introduced it in the first instance under the previous Government. That’s why it was introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry. Again, bringing it back to our concerns, this system must be fair, it must be reasonable, and it must be measured and consistent throughout all of New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a short call on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill at committee stage. I’m going to be talking to the tabled amendment that Sarah Dowie has put on the Table as well. I want to thank the Minister Eugenie Sage for taking a call to explain her position. I guess the crux of all of this comes down to fairness and consistency, and you’ve heard those words a number of times.

The National Party’s position around the Department of Conservation (DOC) having the power to issue infringement notices is that we’re quite happy with them doing that. In fact, as you heard, Maggie Barry instigated all of this in the first instance because DOC are one of the only major compliance agencies without an infringement system, and we believe that they have the ability to issue notices in a fair manner, objectively, and with consistency over the country. They are State sector employees, they are under one umbrella, they have training, and they are able to control their officers and monitor them so that they are issuing notices in a fair and consistent manner.

The problem that we’ve always had right from the beginning is with Fish & Game, a completely different organisation, having the same ability to issue an infringement notice. The issue that we’ve always had is with fairness. We are concerned with the confidence that the public have when they are out on the estate, when they’re going about their recreational activities—the confidence that they have in DOC and in Fish & Game being fair and consistent across the infringement system. We don’t believe that with two separate organisations issuing infringement notices, you will get that.

The Minister explaining to us today about the safeguards in the bill and having the national policy statement is not enough, we don’t believe. We still think that the Fish & Game rangers are not State sector employees. They don’t have the same training. They don’t have the same level of consistency across the country, and we are worried about the fact that the public will lose confidence. So you may have some instances where DOC are applying the rules consistently about people who are camping in the wrong place, and Fish & Game officers, you know, might take that a completely different way. So we’re worried about the public and how they feel about the infringement notices being issued in a fair and consistent way.

I know that Minister Sage said that there would be a review after a year, but I can imagine that there are going to be many complaints during the first year that this is implemented—for example, where we get people who are on one hand being issued an infringement notice and another being issued a warning—where we can see inconsistencies across the country and how that’s going to be dealt with.

This amendment brings us back to a position that we can all agree on. We are quite happy with DOC in their ability to have an infringement system and to issue those notices fairly and consistently. They have long advocated for this, and the Hon Maggie Barry instigated all of this. We’re quite happy with them. The issue that we’ve got is with Fish & Game, and this amendment will bring us back to a position where we can agree on the legislation.

This addition of Fish & Game is the main sticking point. It was in the select committee. We don’t believe that the safeguards in the bill are good enough. We do think that there is going to be an erosion of public confidence in the system. I think that there are going to be lots of complaints, and I’d like to know how the Minister is planning on handling that. The amendment that’s on the Table will remove all of the references to Fish & Game, taking it back to what we had in the first instance, which is a bill that we can all agree on. If the Minister could get up and let us know how she’s going to handle the complaints and the potential before that end-of-year review, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are still some misconceptions around the Opposition and their views on this bill. Ms Stanford talked about concerns about camping in the wrong place. Fish & Game does not have the power to issue infringement notices in relation to things like camping or any of the other matters in relation to the Marine Mammals Protection Act or the Reserves Act. It’s only in relation to the management of the sports fish and game-bird hunting.

In the Taupō fishery, for example, which the Department of Conservation manages, I asked the department for some information on the types of issues that were arising there. There were things like fishing in the closed season, and fishing without a licence. So it’s those sorts of offences that it would greatly assist Fish & Game councils around the rest of New Zealand to be able to issue an infringement notice for. They’re not the sorts of offences that you would take all the trouble to go and do a court prosecution for, but they’re probably more serious than just simply issuing a warning. So what the bill does by bringing Fish & Game councils within its ambit, just in relation to sports fishing and game-bird hunting and their ability to use infringement notices, is create consistency.

Ms Stanford raised the issue of complaints. It’s the annual report to the Minister of Conservation—in the bill, it requires that any complaints be listed in the annual report. So, obviously, if the Minister sees a number of complaints coming through, which Fish & Game must put in the report, then there would be questions asked about the compliance and enforcement policy and about the way the infringement notice system was operating. So that is a fairly significant safeguard.

The other safeguard, of course, is that any of the revenue from infringement notices issued by Fish & Game goes to the Crown. So there’s absolutely no incentive for Fish & Game officers to use infringement notices just as a revenue generation tool. So I think there are sufficient safeguards, which the majority of the select committee, chaired by Dr Deborah Russell, put in the bill to ensure that they will be used effectively and that the system will be a fair one. It is being fair to those people who mightn’t take their licence with them, or who might fish outside the season. It’s more appropriate that there’s the option of having an infringement notice issued rather than just simply being warned or a prosecution being taken. So I think that it will lead to a fairer system.

I’m intrigued by the comments of the National members in terms of their very positive comments about State servants and the State sector and wish that that applied in relation to other legislation before this House. I’m really pleased that they have that confidence in the department but should remind them that Fish & Game councils have significant statutory powers in terms of enforcement. They are a statutory organisation, and I’m confident that they have got the skills and ability and that there are the checks in this legislation to ensure that these provisions around infringement notices are properly applied and that those notices are properly issued.

I should also note that there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 183, in my name, and this just ensures that a lapse in the bill, which didn’t refer to regulations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act, is corrected because there are regulations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act which deal with things like harassment of marine mammals, and we wanted to ensure that the infringement notices could be used in those circumstances where someone was harassing a marine mammal, getting too close to a marine mammal. So this SOP 183 simply ensures that it can apply to those offences which are implemented by regulations.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Sarah Dowie to Part 1 be agreed to:

delete clauses 4A to 4D;

in clause 5, new section 40A(1), delete “or a fish and game ranger”;

in clause 5, new section 40A(2), delete “or a fish and game ranger”;

in clause 9, new section 51L(2)(a), delete “or a fish and game ranger”;

in clause 9, new section 51(2)(b), replace “, the Director, or the appropriate Fish and Game Council” with “or the Director”;

in clause 9, new section 51W, delete subsections (2) to (6); and

in clause 9, new section 51X(1), delete “or fish and game ranger”.