Mackey Moana: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Can I acknowledge the fine words from the member Claudette Hauiti who has just resumed her seat. I wish National Party conservation policy even vaguely reflected the words she just spoke. Unfortunately it does not and this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does not do any of the things she was talking about. That is not to say that it is not a good bill and we should not be supporting it because we are and I do not want to take away from Jacqui Dean’s fine moment. But none of the fine things that were being spoken about in that speech are being achieved by this bill and none of them are to be found in the conservation policy direction of this National Government. I hope that Claudette Hauiti takes up a more senior role within the National Party so that she can further those conversations because she obviously has a lot to contribute.This bill as I think Eugenie Sage said is some tinkering around the edges which is positive but that is all it is. Really I would say to the Government members who have been speaking so passionately about how wonderful this is that if it is that wonderful why did you not put it in Government legislation? Why did you leave it to a member’s bill put it in a ballot at the whim of the ballot and then go through a process that is much slower because we have members’ days only every 2 weeks? If this is as important and crucial and game-changing as the National Party is making out then why did it not make it a Government bill? Why did it not make it a Government bill? I will tell you why. It is because it wants to block up the members ballot so that Labour Party and Green Party bills that will actually do something about conservation in this country do not get drawn. That is why this bill is being dealt with on a members’ day instead of on a Government day which is where it could have been dealt with far more quicklythan through this process. But as I said I am not wanting to take away from Jacqui Dean’s fine moment in the sun. I congratulate her on bringing this to the House but if the National Party really cared about conservation it would not be a member’s bill. I just make that point.I want to also raise the concern that penalties are only as good as enforcement. It is all very well. You can have a trillion-dollar penalty but if you do not have the enforcement capability it means absolutely nothing. Our concern is the cuts we have seen where one in six conservation staff has lost their job and there has been a $54 million drop in budget over 4 years—what are they going to do to the capability of the Department of Conservation staff to actually enforce the penalties we are putting in place here? The penalties are only as good as our ability to enforce them and we have serious concerns that the National Party has on the one hand lifted penalties and on the other hand taken away the ability to actually police those penalties and enforce them. That is not just in Vote Conservation; it is actually in terms of the funding for biosecurity which is also being cut. My colleague Damien O’Connor has raised consistently in the House concerns around our ability to police biosecurity which has to be one of the most important things for an agriculture-based economy. So it is all very well to raise penalties but it means nothing if the enforcement capability is not there.The other thing I want to raise is that the promoter of this bill has said that she wants to see New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources better protected. Again that is a very laudable vision but I have to look at what is happening in the conservation estate in terms of handing over half of the decision-making powers over oil and gas and minerals exploration in the conservation estate to the Minister of Energy and Resources. I wonder whether the Minister of Energy and Resources is going to be subject to the penalties under this piece of legislation if in fact he approves a project that results in unlawful reduction of wildlife or harming of wildlife in the conservation estate. I have to say when I saw Minister Bridges’ performance onCampbell Live last week I do not have a whole lot of confidence that he is ever going to say no to a mining company. I do not think there is a mining company in this world he is going to say no to. I think that that is of deep concern. It is one of the reasons why Labour will be repealing that role of the Minister of Energy and Resources. As someone who works in the mining sector the Minister of Energy and Resources cannot be seen as neutral in making those decisions as opposed to the Minister of Conservation who is there to protect and preserve the conservation estate. They are the appropriate person to be making those decisions. Will the Minister of Energy and Resources be subject to these penalties if the activities he is approving—or she if that changes—result in the kinds of infringements that Jacqui Dean is trying to address here in this piece of legislation?I want to finish off by just pointing out that the biggest threat to our conservation estate is in fact pests. In fact only one-eighth of our conservation estate is currently being actively controlled for weasels for stoats and for possums. If the Government was serious about protecting the conservation estate it would do something about funding for the Department of Conservation and increase its ability and its capability for pest management which would also be great for biosecurity and for the protection of our agriculture industry when it comes to bovine TB and other such things. But we will be supporting this bill and congratulations to Jacqui Dean.