Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I move, That the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will benefit conservation, and it will be fairer to offenders involved in minor breaches of the law. Enforcement is a key part of conservation work because there is little point in the deliberative process that goes into making law in this Parliament if it’s not then enforced.

The bill amends eight conservation statutes which guide how protected areas and protected species such as our indigenous birds are managed. Offending against conservation legislation ranges from minor infractions by people who may be ignorant of the law or overly careless about whether they abide by it through to quite deliberate crimes that can have major impacts on conservation values of species and other users. The bill provides a new tool to deal with the minor end of the spectrum of offending—the whitebaiter who leaves her net unattended, the trout fisher who fishes without first buying a licence, or the tourist who harasses a fur seal because she wants to get a better picture for social media.

At the moment, under eight different conservation laws—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—the Department of Conservation (DOC) can only issue a warning to a lawbreaker or prosecute him or her in the courts.

DOC advises that in most years, between 60 and 80 whitebaiters are likely to end up with a criminal conviction because they have breached the whitebait fishing rules. Now, those rules certainly need to be enforced in order to protect the fishery and to provide an incentive for fishers to obey the law, especially given that whitebait is the equivalent of white gold given the prices that it can now be sold for. But for some of these offences a criminal conviction is unduly harsh, and with this bill the Department of Conservation can now issue an infringement notice for minor breaches. If the person pays the fee, they won’t need to appear in court, and they won’t receive a criminal conviction.

The bill has had quite a long gestation, arising out of a comprehensive review of the Department of Conservation’s enforcement powers, and I want to thank and acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry, the former Minister of Conservation, for her work with the department in developing the bill and introducing it to this House where, unfortunately, it languished for almost a year before this Government rescued it and sent it to select committee.

I also want to thank the Environment Committee, ably chaired by Dr Deborah Russell, and submitters for their diligent work in considering and refining the bill—assisted, of course, by our parliamentary staff. Can I particularly thank DOC staff Bronwyn Barnard and Paula Warren, and the department’s compliance team, for their work on the bill.

The bill as introduced was not controversial, but there was a significant shortcoming. The Department of Conservation administers the internationally renowned Taupō trout fishery. So the bill and the infringement powers that it provides are available to DOC for the Taupō sports fishery, but they weren’t, in the bill as introduced, available to Fish & Game councils for other sports fisheries and game bird management throughout the rest of the country. What this, effectively, meant was that if an angler forgot to get her fishing licence in the Taupō area, they would get an infringement notice, but they could be prosecuted if they were fishing in the Rotorua lakes, because there, of course, Fish & Game, not DOC, manages the trout fishery. So that would clearly be inconsistent and unfair to anglers.

Given that Fish & Game councils already have extensive enforcement powers and they regularly take prosecutions, it seemed to me that the management of both trout fisheries and game birds like ducks would benefit from Fish & Game councils having access to the infringement notice system that the bill proposes for DOC. So I asked the select committee, at that first reading, to ensure that it consulted the public and it made recommendations on whether it considered it was appropriate to provide infringement powers to Fish & Game councils, and what if any safeguards were needed to protect the public interest. I am grateful for the detailed advice which the select committee provided, and it was certainly the main issue that submitters addressed. I was very disappointed that there wasn’t consensus, but I’m very satisfied with the conditions that are now included in the bill, and it has been in the interests of sports fish and game bird management to enable Fish & Game councils to access those powers—potentially access them.

The bill that has come out of the committee of the whole House stage doesn’t give access to the infringement notice system automatically. It requires the Minister of Conservation to consider and improve a national compliance and enforcement policy before any Fish & Game rangers can be warranted to issue infringement notices. Before approving that national policy, the Minister’s got to consider whether the policy is consistent with best practice for existing enforcement functions, and I’d expect the plan to set out evidential requirements, a peer review system, some measures to ensure consistency in decisions, a mechanism for independent review if infringement notices are challenged, a mechanism for recording any complaints, and to ensure that there’s an effective record of those so that the annual report that Fish & Game councils do for the Minister includes those.

The Department of Conservation is developing a system for how it will use infringement notices, and I’d expect Fish & Game’s system to be of a similar standard. Until that system is bedded in, my expectation is that infringement notices would not be issued in the field. Evidence would be collected, that would be assessed centrally, and then there’d be a decision made about whether a warning should be sent or an infringement notice. That’s very akin to the system for speed camera tickets being sent after the offence, whereas parking tickets, of course, are generally given out on the spot. So my expectation is that both the Department of Conservation and Fish & Game will run an infringement system that the public can have confidence and trust in.

The work of the Parliament in passing this bill—I hope tonight—is a really essential step in creating that infringement system, but there is more work required. In particular, DOC has got to develop some regulations to set the infringement fees, and it’s got to ensure that there are systems in place so that offenders are treated consistently across the country, and that work will be done in 2019. So I expect that in coming years, a lot more whitebaiters will find themselves being issued with infringement notices rather than finding themselves in the courts.

Can I once again thank everybody who’s been involved, over several years, in getting this important legislation to this stage. I wish you and members of the House a merry Christmas, and I hope you all have time to enjoy some respite in nature.

Look, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I do feel a little bit like the Grinch that stole Christmas, rising in opposition, so I will take this opportunity, given it may be my last time speaking in the House this year, to wish the Minister Eugenie Sage and to wish the chair of the Environment Committee, the members of the Environment Committee, and everybody of this House, and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year—and, of course, the people of New Zealand. I agree with the Minister’s sentiments that people should get out and enjoy nature this summer, and, hopefully—fingers crossed—it will be a very good summer out in nature.

I do rise in opposition to this bill, and I certainly won’t lament the point. We have traversed this quite considerably in our second reading and in the committee of the whole House. While this originally was a National Government bill, introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry, this bill has changed considerably into a form that we cannot support. So while we do support the Department of Conservation, being one of the largest enforcement agencies in the governmental system, and we realise that they need a midway point—currently, they have a warning system for offences that are very minor, and then the alternative is, with respect to more serious offences, that they must prosecute. A midway point is, of course, an infringement system, which is basically like issuing a ticket. When they come across an offence in the field, they issue an infringement. It doesn’t go on the offender’s record as a criminal offence; it is simply a straightforward offence, and they, if found guilty, would be expected to pay a fine.

We do support the Department of Conservation having that remedy in their tool box, especially given that with respect to conservation, offences occur in the field. The logistics of coming across offences and dealing with them appropriately are quite challenging, so an infringement system is that midway point that allows rangers to deal with offences very swiftly and appropriately and proportionately. But what we don’t support is the fact that this infringement system is being extended to Fish & Game rangers. We’ve heard that the Minister is going to put in place safeguards—so-called safeguards—to monitor the issuing of infringement notices by Fish & Game rangers to the public, to make sure that the system is consistent, but, quite simply, we don’t have that confidence.

There are 12 Fish & Game regional offices that loosely report to a national body. We want to make sure that there are systems in place that mean that this infringement system is monitored consistently across the board and that there is accountability. These Fish & Game rangers are not subject to the same codes of conduct that State Service employees are, and so any infringement system that is extended to Fish & Game rangers does need to have in place very rigorous conditions that mean that this infringement system can be tested and that we can make sure that it is an objective infringement system right from Kaitāia to Bluff.

For that reason, because of the extension of these infringement powers, we simply can’t support this bill. However, again I reiterate that the National Party is extremely supportive of conservation and conservation initiatives. With respect to departmental rangers, we were the Government that extended powers under the Wildlife Act in the previous Parliament to give departmental rangers those extra powers to deal with offences that occurred under the Wildlife Act, especially in some of the most remote places that our rangers work where some members of the public can get away more easily with offences relating to native wildlife. So we want them to have those powers to deal swiftly with those issues, but, in this regard, with respect to Fish & Game, we cannot support this bill.

So we believe in accountability, we believe in the credibility of a system, and we want consistency across the board. And, for that reason, therefore we cannot support this bill. Again, merry Christmas everyone and have a happy New Year.

I rise in support of this bill, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, which, at this season of good will, we find actually has a lot of goodwill across the House for the basic principle of this bill: that there should be a mid-range point between a warning and a prosecution—that there should be an infringement system within the conservation estate, and this is what this bill seeks to achieve.

There is only one real point of contention across the House, and that is the powers extended to Fish & Game councils. At this stage, I would simply like to remind the Opposition of the series of checks and balances that are built in in order to ensure that where, if, and when Fish & Game councils are given the authority to issue infringement notices, there is a series of checks and balances to ensure that those powers are not exercised unfairly or unreasonably, and that they are exercised as we would expect them to be: carefully, cautiously, and only when needed. So those checks and balances do exist in the bill.

That’s really the only point of contention. As this is my last call on this bill, I would like to thank the members of the Environment Committee who worked with me hard on this bill: Sarah Dowie, who led the case from the Opposition side, and also Todd Muller, Scott Simpson, and Erica Stanford from the Opposition side, and from the Government side: Jenny Marcroft, Chlöe Swarbrick, Poto Williams at times, and then Clare Curran and Angie Warren-Clark, all of whom contributed and worked hard on this bill, as did our committee staff.

As a newish MP, I’ve been told many times that select committees are the workroom of Parliament. The way this committee worked on this bill certainly exemplified that. So I thank the members of the committee for their hard work, and I recommend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the tone and spirit of other speakers in this debate, may I offer my sincere best wishes to you and other presiding members for the festive season, and my fervent hope that you and other members of Parliament will have an opportunity to spend time and, more importantly, money in the beautiful Coromandel electorate over the summer break.

I think the Environment Committee chair has, actually, neatly summed up the philosophical difference and objection that we have on this side to this bill. Originally introduced by my friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry in the last Parliament, this was a bill that made sense. The concept of an infringement regime for Department of Conservation rangers makes eminent sense. It’s a good idea, and I think that there’s no objection to that at all, but why we now find ourselves critical of the bill is because of the inclusion of those powers being extended to Fish & Game.

Now, this principled objection is not a criticism of the good officers of Fish & Game; this is a question of principle in terms of whether the role of the State is to intervene with the role of non-State sector employees or even volunteers. From our point of view, extending that to Fish & Game personnel is a step too far. We know that, for instance, Fish & Game personnel are not subject to the State Services Act. They don’t come under the same disciplinary or professional code of conduct practices that are required of other State employees or civil servants. That, for us, is a matter of concern.

Now, in the second reading debate, there was a Labour list MP from somewhere—I’m not sure—who got up and read a list of organisations where there are no similarities. That MP went through a long list of organisations and in some way tried to suggest that by extending that list, this would be a good thing. Actually, I would take the contrary view that, in principle, not to extend it would be a good thing. Rather than the Minister now confessing that we’re going to have to have a long list of complicated checks and balances that she’s going to have to administer, surely the better suggestion and the better option is just to have the bill as originally introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry and exclude the option of extending the infringement regime to Fish & Game. That surely is a much better outcome, and one that could be completely supported across the House.

So I think the issues have been well litigated in the debate through the House. The select committee certainly gave it a good going over. We’ve had an opportunity to quiz submitters and also to hear the various cases for and against. So it simply remains for me to reaffirm that the National Party Opposition, regrettably, is forced to oppose this legislation at third reading, and, sadly, I cannot commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s very much a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this call, but firstly I must do so as we are following the honour of acknowledging Christmas and celebrations and salutations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as to all the members of this House as we head off very shortly, and we are—some of us—counting down the hours until tomorrow, when we head off for Christmas to spend time with our families, and, as the Minister also noted, maybe head out into the great outdoors, into the ngahere, and spend time communing with nature somewhat. And so too: happy Christmas to you all.

My contribution is in support of this, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I’d like to acknowledge and congratulate the Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage and also the chair of the Environment Committee, Dr Deborah Russell, for shepherding this through the select committee process; and to all members of the committee, it is a pleasure working with you. You are generally a very collegial team of members from across the House, and I do wish you all well too for your festive season.

This bill seeks to provide the Department of Conservation with a more effective system of enforcement. That’s the aim of it. It’s to ensure that the penalties for offences are in line with the seriousness of the offence. So, currently, offenders at the moment who commit minor offences either will get slapped over the wrist with a damp bus ticket or will end up in the court process. And so, really, that’s not appropriate for the minor-end scale of an offence. This bill actually hits that mid-point with an infringement notice and a fine; therefore, it will sit comfortably between the lower end of a warning and the upper end of a prosecution.

In New Zealand First, we’re all about common sense. We think this bill is fair. It’s a common-sense approach to dealing with offending at that minor end of the scale. So this infringements system is more efficient. It will be easier for everyone involved. The Department of Conservation won’t be tied up with prosecutions, and people won’t have to go through those really costly court processes for those minor offences, and it will actually free up quite a lot of court time as well.

Some of the offences that will be looked at, in terms of what will be an infringement, will be quite a lot of things pointing towards littering. And I’d just like to make note that, back in the 1950s, the Rotorua tramping club was set up, and a couple of years later they decided to add skiing to it. So they built a hut up on the maunga, maunga Ruapehu, and they had 32 working parties to get all the building materials and to build that hut, which is now called the lodge, up there on Ruapehu. What they did was they created this great environment—a great family place to go and be in nature, to be part of nature’s stores—and one of the things, in terms of the tramping aspect of that club, was to pack in and pack out. Whether it was on a tramp up the mountain or through the Mamakus or the Taraweras, any rubbish you took with you, you actually brought it back out as well. [Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we just give the speaker a bit of respect on both sides of the House please.

You packed it in and you packed it out, so therefore you weren’t littering. So this is something that, perhaps, we could be reminded of today: that we really should take our rubbish back out with us, and therefore we would avoid any form of new infringement system that will come to pass.

So my contribution is a short one. I’d just like to finish by saying that much of New Zealand’s taonga exist inside nature’s stores. It is the lure of New Zealand’s environment for many people, whether it’s Kiwis or those visiting us, to enjoy our national parks, our reserves, our native wildlife, and our outdooring culture. It is a part of being a Kiwi. It is our responsibility as kaitiaki of our nature spaces that we look after it, and it’s the responsibility of all those. Just as the Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage has mentioned, the Department of Conservation and Fish & Game will run an infringement system that the public will have confidence in.

So, on that note, happy Christmas; I hope you get plenty of figgy pudding. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 Hon Member: Fresh from Poland.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk briefly on this legislation and follow the good contributions that we’ve had from all our committee members. In the spirit of Christmas, can I also acknowledge the festive season, particularly the presiding officers and everyone in this House, and, of course, particularly our select committee, who I agree, actually, I think on balance collectively bring some good judgment to the table.

I was actually going to reflect, and I still will, in the spirit of Christmas, you know, what one could wish for in terms of a Christmas outcome. I was following Kieran McAnulty’s vehicle into Parliament this morning, and on the back of his ute he has got his promotion, but he’s completely lacking the back end of his ute. The glass has shattered. It’s no longer there. He’s basically got an empty sort of frame. I was suggesting that that, perhaps, could be something he could put up for a Christmas wish, that he perhaps could get his ute fixed.

I see David Parker—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: It’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor.

Yes, it’s a pretty clumsy one, but there is a metaphor there. David Parker—it’s a shame that he has not yet contributed. I very much enjoyed his contribution last time, where he accused us all of being statists. That’s one of the highlights of the year, your contribution around statists. I know I wish the member a merry Christmas as well. Hopefully, you can, perhaps, get an electric fence from Santa, and can actually see what one does on a farm in terms of protecting our waterways from our stock, and how effective that is, applied across nearly all our farms. It’d be a good education for you.

But back to this bill. The Minister, when she gave her contribution, said that this bill, as introduced, was not controversial. Certainly, from our side of the House, we echo that. At its core was a sensible intent where we provided a more fit-for-purpose capacity for the Department of Conservation to assess when there was a breach and ensure that there was the right response for that particular breach. Had it stayed there—had it stayed as a sensible addition for the Department of Conservation to be able to do their job effectively—we would have supported it. But, typically, this Government decided to overreach and, as you’ve heard very well stepped out by Sarah Dowie and Scott Simpson, decided to expand those powers to provide for Fish & Game officers to also have those powers. That point is essentially the key difference here in terms of whether this side of the House supports this legislation. At the core were some good ideas. But in their zest to overregulate our natural resources and community, this Government has fallen for the, in my view, poor judgment of suggesting that Fish & Game officers should have that power. So that is essentially why we resist it. Otherwise we would be supporting it. Unfortunately, they have included that in the legislation, so we can’t.

I look forward to a bit of a break. I’m sure many people do here. We know from an Environment Committee perspective that we have much in front of us next year. Certainly in my area, in terms of climate change, I look forward to those conversations. But until then, that’s my contribution. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To everyone listening, have a great Christmas and New Year. Thank you.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I won’t use my contribution to wish everybody a merry Christmas because I get to do that tomorrow during the adjournment debate. But I will, however, echo the merry sentiments that have been put forward by a number of people, including, most recently Todd Muller, who is, of course, a member of the wonderful Environment Committee. It is a hard-working select committee, chaired quite ably, I might add, by Dr Deborah Russell.

The contents of this legislation have been well traversed by speakers previous to me. But long story short, at the core of it is the kaupapa that we want to stop trashing our conservation estate. I think that that is something which has been progressed and worked upon in a huge way by the incredible Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage. I will say, in the spirit where things are kind of getting a little bit somewhat less formal than they typically are, that I was speaking earlier today with our advisors in our parliamentary office. I noted when it came about that I would have the opportunity to speak on this bill that I would use it as an opportunity to extol the incredible value that the Minister Eugenie Sage brings to our Parliament and in her position. Absolutely I think that that is manifest in a number of things, not least the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens to see an increase in funding for conservation work.

But this bill gives the Department of Conservation (DOC) more tools, essentially. It allows for a greater opportunity among the spectrum of things that DOC can do, because currently they can only prosecute or give warnings. So prosecute on the one hand and on the other end give warnings. What this legislation proposes is kind of a halfway house whereby DOC can issue fines—a kind of spectrum of responses, if you will; in the same way that, for example, the Fisheries Act allows the Ministry for Primary Industries to fine people. This will enable operational flexibility, which I think, ultimately, is about convenience and about appropriateness of response, and ensuring that that response is weighted appropriately to the offence. In summary, I’m incredibly proud as a Green MP to be supporting this bill before the House today.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m very pleased to talk to this bill today as well. Even though I’m not a member of the Environment Committee, certainly I’ve had quite a lot to do with this bill.

I’d like to agree with the member who was speaking, Chlöe Swarbrick, that we do want to make sure that we look after our environment. We do want to give the Department of Conservation (DOC) more tools in their tool kit, but unfortunately this bill goes a little bit too far for us.

I’m really disappointed that National can’t support it, because, as has been mentioned today, this bill was originally begun by the Hon Maggie Barry. I remember it well because I was the associate Minister at the time. And we worked hard to try and get a middle ground in terms of managing offences on the DOC estate.

We do understand that most New Zealanders like to do well by our great outdoors. Most New Zealanders only leave footprints. They don’t want to do bad things to our trees or to our animals. But every now and then we get people who break the law. So it’s really important that DOC, who are charged with looking after our nature, have tools to be able to do that well. DOC rangers are out there day and night. Up until now they’ve only really had two choices: they could either issue a warning if it was a less serious offence or they could actually prosecute somebody and take them to court. The reason that this bill was so important is that we needed to have some middle ground. We needed to be able to do something that was more than just a warning but wasn’t a full-blown prosecution. In many cases, less serious events did need more than that warning. They did need something that could have some teeth to it, but they certainly didn’t want to go to court. This bill gets that middle ground by introducing an infringement and fine regime, and that is to deal with those less serious offences efficiently, effectively, intelligently, and in a useful way.

If you think about a court prosecution, it takes a long time, it tends to be a pretty expensive process, and if someone is successfully prosecuted, they end up with a criminal record. So it meant that it really had to be something pretty serious before DOC wanted to go through all that process. So this infringement system will give warnings the teeth that DOC needs. The fines would be set by regulation, and they’d probably be somewhere between $100 and $500, and it will provide that timely, efficient, and effective mechanism to manage those less serious offences.

Of course, a prosecution is always an option, and there are certain misdemeanours or certain activities for which we do need to keep prosecution in mind—things like risks to public safety, firearms offences, things that perhaps would give significant commercial gain, and serious harms to conservation values. So this does not mean that a prosecution will never happen, but it does mean that you’ve got a greater range of options. So whereas National absolutely supports the principle of this bill, we don’t believe that the powers should be extended to either Fish & Game or local councils. And I know that this was the debate that was at select committee, and I do thank the select committee for the work that they’ve done. There’s no doubt about it that National is comfortable with the philosophy behind this, and we’re comfortable with allowing DOC to manage an infringement and fine regime. Basically, that’s because they’re part of the State services and there are significant checks and balances in that position. But we think extending it just takes it a step too far.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I thank everyone for the work that they’ve done on it. Certainly we agree that DOC needs these tools, but we don’t think it should go any further. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oh, well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Look, there’s been some grumpiness in the House, but that’s expected. The Hon Christopher Finlayson MP QC is departing, so there’s a little bit of upset, but that’s OK; let’s get on to this bill, which is an important bill.

Conservation—I don’t usually speak on such an important topic, but once again I’ve been brought down from the palace of Bowen House and the harbourside views that we get, in order to speak. And if you look at the harbourside views, you’ll see that beautiful electorate of Rongotai and Watts Peninsula—managed soon, I hope, by the Department of Conservation (DOC). What a great Public Service department that agency is. We’ve got a marine reserve there in Island Bay and also an array of secret islands, etc., in the Chathams. So we won’t talk about those today, because we’re talking about enforcement.

Now, no one really likes enforcement. I mean, we think about parking wardens when we think about enforcement, but no such move from our wonderful Yogi bears, the DOC rangers. Look, people have got a little bit upset about giving the same powers to the Fish & Game guys, and I’m reassured by our wonderful Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who’s assured me that, look, folks, our DOC people do the indigenous stuff, and our Fish & Game do the introduced stuff, except in Taupō, where Tūwharetoa do it, and that’s because they wanted DOC to do it. That’s common sense. That makes sense, and I’m sure we all agree. You know, if there’s naughty people running around doing foolish stuff, being ignorant to conservation—and we all claim to be green these days. So I don’t think there’s a big issue here.

I’m sorry. I heard the member next to me. Yeah, she’s green, too. Look, I think we’ve been a bit silly this evening. There are quite a few people upset with one of their colleagues leaving but, really—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Name him!

Name him? I’ve named him.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Simon and Paula?

Oh, that’s going a little bit too far there, eh, but we’ll name him later, in the next speech I give when I return from my harbourside views in the palace of Bowen. Look, this is decent stuff. It’s practical. We’re getting a bit silly. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. If people were listening at home, they would have been hearing a very kind and friendly voice then, just speaking, and I must say, in the spirit of Christmas, with Paul Eagle’s lovely red tie there, you could think he’s just like Father Christmas, but he was trying to say, “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” That was kind of what we were all hearing on this side of the House. But there is some evil in this bill, and that’s what we need to talk about, and that’s what we need to be debating here tonight. I know that sounds a bit like the Christmas Grinch but, actually, it’s important that here in Parliament we debate the real issues, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a week out from Christmas—we still debate the real issues, because we should not be shying away from our responsibilities to scrutinise the legislation which is in front of us and make sure that it is fit and proper for what it is to do.

So it is important to remind ourselves that the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill was a very good National bill. It was brought to Parliament by the Hon Maggie Barry, an excellent Minister, and can I just applaud the Hon Maggie Barry for all of the excellent work that she did in the conservation area. She championed Predator Free 2050, the War on Weeds, the Battle for our Birds—a whole range of different programmes which are making a massive difference in New Zealand. And also she championed this bill, which was to bring about an infringement system to ensure that Department of Conservation officers were able to issue infringements or fines to those people who undertook low-level offending.

But the problem which we now have is that the Green Party and their Minister have got hold of this bill, and they have, along with their Government mates in the Labour and New Zealand First parties, ripped it apart, torn it apart, and inserted the ability for a whole range of other people to come along and start issuing infringement notices left, right, and centre out in our conservation estate. We need to hold firm to the principle that the non-Governmental agencies should not be issuing fines and infringement notices unabated from the House. I hear some noises from across the other side of the House. I’m not sure exactly what they’re trying to say, but all I can say is that we need to be firm in our lawmaking powers—

💬 Stuart Smith: An extinct dodo bird.

Oh, it’s a formerly extinct dodo bird on the other side. Oh, that’s what Stuart meant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Come on, pull it in. Wind it back in, please.

I’m sorry. I apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. That was a terrible interjection by Stuart Smith. So we will be opposing this bill. We don’t want to go back to the dark ages. We want to stand for good legislation and we want to ensure that our conservation estate, while it is protected—that it is the right people issuing these notices, doing it through proper legal processes, doing it with a proper regulatory regime over the top of that. And so National will be opposing this bill.

Thank you. Before I call the Hon Clare Curran, I just want to say one thing. I don’t want to be the Grinch that stole Christmas, but we are passing legislation here tonight. A passing reference to the bill would be appreciated. A little bit of wit would be very welcome, but could we just get to the business at hand. I’ll call the Hon Clare Curran.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and a happy Christmas to you. Well, I thought that that party over there was the party of law and order, and with reference to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill and this last reading, they seem to be running quite a curious argument. I didn’t sit on the Environment Committee. I now sit on that select committee, but I didn’t sit on the select committee for this piece of legislation. But even I can go and read a departmental report that actually tells me that Fish & Game already have powers of enforcement. Not only do they already have powers of enforcement but they use those powers and have done for some time to enforce game bird hunting regulations and rules, and sports fishing regulations and rules. We know this because we consider Fish & Game to be an important part of the conservation ecosystem, where one goes and gets a licence in order to undertake these activities, and if one doesn’t, then one does suffer some consequences.

So when we are looking at the extension of powers that ensure that the intention of the bill, which is to introduce an infringement system into eight core Department of Conservation statutes—which the Opposition seems to support in principle, because they talked about the previous Minister of Conservation Maggie Barry supporting that. They don’t seem to want to enforce or to actually support the system that underpins it, which is that by extending some powers of enforcement to Fish & Game—and they’ve gone very quiet now, because maybe they are all reading the departmental report.

At page 20, point No. 90, just in case they wanted to go and have a wee look—and I’ll just note a few of them, Madam Assistant Speaker. The infringement notices in the infringement system—the system is yet to be established in regulation—relate to things like taking, harassing, and injuring marine mammals, failing to comply with any requirement or notice issued, unauthorised activities in parks, littering, altering boundary markings, and a whole lot of hunting without landowner permission. They are those sorts of things which are all of the level that I think the intent—which I think the Opposition agrees with—should not be considered as prosecution, but rather infringement, and so therefore it requires an enforcement system to underpin it.

So they support the intent, but they don’t actually want the system. They don’t actually care. So, being the party of law and order, they don’t actually care whether or not there is an enforcement system that’s actually going to work to protect our conservation values. So I do agree with the Hon David Parker when he referred to them as statist. “Cognitive dissonance” was the phrase I used last week in a speech, and I think that it’s completely relevant tonight. We support this bill, and I hope it gets through its whole passage tonight.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m rising to speak at the third reading of the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, at its final reading. Because it’s that time of year, I just want to briefly join with previous speakers in spreading some Christmas cheer. I do so now because, unlike Chlöe Swarbrick—the amazing Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s been selected, she told us, to participate in the adjournment debate tomorrow, and good on her; she’s had a fantastic year—we have 55 incredible MPs and the competition is fierce. So while I remain hopeful, I am also realistic. So happy Christmas, everyone. Actually, it’s probably more to do with the fact that I was in the adjournment debate last year and made many jokes about Simon Bridges’ hair which has ruled me out of this year’s debate.

I have had a great year on the Environment Committee, and I’d just like to say—well, we’ve been a little bit light on work—thank you very much to Deborah Russell, who did a great job at shepherding this bill, which I’m getting to, through the House. This is a bill, as we’ve heard—I won’t take very long, because I think we’ve heard all the arguments—that had its genesis with the National Party and with the very honourable Maggie Barry, who, rightly, agreed with Department of Conservation (DOC) officials that an infringement system was required. She did a lot of the background work, the heavy lifting, to get this bill to where it is today, and she should be commended for that.

We all agree—in fact, we all said so at the first reading, on this side of the House—that it is important that DOC should have the power to issue an infringement notice, for good reason. As people have already said, it’s a good midway point between a warning and prosecution. It stops those harsh prosecutions when perhaps an infringement notice would do. It frees up the courts’ time, it saves money, and, in fact, it’s really good for the care and protection of our environment, because it is more of a deterrent for people to know that they could likely face a fine rather than just a warning.

But, as we mentioned, this bill has somewhat been derailed. There have been additions to this bill where somewhat, some would say, unprecedented powers are given to non - State sector employees to issue fines. That is where we differ on this side of the House, and for that reason, while we agree that Fish & Game do great work, we cannot support this bill. We don’t believe that non - State sector employees should have these powers when they’re not subject to the same codes of conduct and minimum standards as DOC rangers. So, bearing that in mind, for reasons of fairness and maintaining integrity in the system, we will be opposing this bill.

I’m delighted to stand here in support of this bill this evening. For someone who has not been on the Environment Committee, I think this is an absolutely fantastic bill. I’ve looked at this in great detail over the course of the day. I’ve had a look at the departmental report, and I am actually struggling a little bit to understand why you would oppose such a fantastic bill.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Just for the sake of it.

Yeah, I think you’re right there. My colleague’s just said it’s for the sake of opposing, really, because the Department of Conservation needed this enforcement. They’re the only enforcement agency that has no infringement system, and we’ve heard many speakers here this evening who have talked about the fact that we need that middle ground.

The one point that has become a little bit controversial seems to be that our Opposition don’t want to see consistency in this infringement system, and I struggle to understand why you wouldn’t want to see consistency. I think it’s fantastic. This means it’s going to clear up our courts system. It makes the whole process a lot easier. It makes it a lot more understandable for people as well. It helps our conservation estate.

Throughout this day, all I could see is that this bill is a fantastic bill. I commend and congratulate the select committee for the fantastic work that they have done. My colleague here, Deborah Russell, in leading that committee has, I think, done an absolutely amazing job, and it’s been said here before, but there is nothing further to say. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.