Parker David: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9987. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): As my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has already said the Labour Party is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. It seems that there are some sensible extensions to the powers of Department of Conservation (DOC) officers to intervene to prevent or stop offending and the granting of a power to arrest. I note with some interest that clause 5 of the bill inserting new section 39F applies Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 with any necessary modifications to the exercise of those powers. That is important.It is one of the things that the 2012 Search and Surveillance Act tried to do which was to make sure that where search and surveillance powers exist across the various arms of Government the same underlying rules apply. So it is good to see that these extensions to wildlife powers are being made subject to the relevant parts of the Search and Surveillance Act.The explanatory note says that “The Wildlife Act … classifies and provides for the management of New Zealand’s land freshwater and marine species (but does not apply to domestic animals and birds marine mammals freshwater fish or plants).” At least in respect of the freshwater species that we are left dealing with I presume they include some of our rarer species. I am not sure where the remaining habitat is for our increasingly rare frogs but they will be covered by the Wildlife Act 1953. In respect of water I think it behoves me in taking a call here in relation to what is attempting to improve the conservation of protected species to say it is to be noted that if you have not got clean water it is very hard for these species to survive—particularly frogs actually.They are very susceptible to pollution.I was somewhat dismayed at the answer of Nick Smith at question time today when he answered a supplementary question from me that tried to drill down to what is the actual effect of the national policy statement on freshwater quality. I think he misrepresented the true effect of the national policy statement that we have.That instrument was promulgated by the National Government after it had spiked the version of the national policy statement it inherited that had been proposed and was just about finished by the prior Government.But it popped out the end of the review process that is provided for under the Resource Management Act normally overseen by an Environment Court judge and that time it was overseen by the former Principal Environment Judge Judge Sheppard. The effect of the national policy statement that was spiked was to control increases in intensity in land use because as Dr Nick Smith correctly said at question time today the main source of increasing pollution of our rivers is no longer factory pollution or council sewage outlets—most of which are now under control and the remaining ones that are not under control are being brought under control—but the main cause of degradation of our waterways now is increasing intensity in land use where more intensive farming systems which include normally more fertiliser more livestock per hectare and often irrigation means that the nutrient load and the livestock effluent load from those farming practices increases. Unless those farming practices are controlled by our planning laws and the likes of a national policy statement on freshwater quality the national policy statement is ineffective to halt the decline in quality of the water in our rivers.The national policy statement that the Government promoted—in substitution for the Judge Sheppard one that it spiked which it did not proceed with—has as a legislated minimum with the associated national environmental standards wadeability rather than swimmability. Then it manages rivers as collections of rivers within a catchment rather than applying to each river. So in fact the effect of the national policy statement that the National Government says was great progress is to allow the continuing degradation of rivers in New Zealand so that even if they are currently swimmable they do not have to be maintained in that swimmable state. Because of the lack of control on non-point source discharges—the sort of diffuse pollution that you get from more intensive farming systems—8 years after this Government came to power we have a continuation of the decline in freshwater quality in our rivers.I see it down my way a lot. I travel around the South Island and indeed the North Island a lot as most MPs do. I have long had an interest in water quality and actually I was counsel for a large number of the water conservation orders that lie on South Island rivers so I do know my stuff around this. I am also a swimmer in rivers I am a freshwater fisherman and I am a tramper. I feel well able to tell this House with some sadness that I am witnessing the continuing decline in rivers. Rivers that I used to swim in and I was very confident that I was not going to get ill from are increasingly degraded—not all of them but far far too many of them. Some of the worst rivers of course are the east coast lowland rivers in Canterbury and Otago which are increasingly degraded particularly in middle and South Canterbury but also in other parts of the South Island. That is what this Government would be focusing its attention on if it really was trying to look after the biodiversity values and the wildlife that are to be found in those habitats because without the habitat protection the wildlife cannot thrive.These powers of arrest that we are granting to wildlife officers under the DOC to stop people illegally taking natural wildlife can never be applied if there is no wildlife to be taken. It is the sad reality because of the absolutely irresponsible attitude by the current National Government which on this issue I think is too much in league with the farming lobby that votes them into power. I think it is irresponsible. New Zealanders do not want a lot of things but I think two of the things that they are really clear on are that they should own their own land and that their rivers should be clean. On both of those very important metrics this Government falls down.Further in respect of this—and the Assistant Speaker will probably tell me to stop digressing too far into land issues—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. It is a very wide speech this one.Hon DAVID PARKER: —but it is terrible that some of the dairy farmers who have caused these water-quality problems now want to sell their land to overseas buyers which is a terrible thing.I think the water degradation in New Zealand is a terribly serious thing. I think we need to go back to the Judge Sheppard national policy statement which essentially provided that clean rivers ought not be allowed to get dirty and that dirty rivers ought to be cleaned up over a generation. It had powerful provisions in it that related to the control of increases in land use intensity which we still do not have. It is interesting that the Fish and Game Council which is New Zealand’s largest NGO concerned with fresh water was so distraught at the ineffectiveness of the Land and Water Forum—partly because the Government cherry-picked some of the recommendations but also partly because it was being effectively closed down within that—that it has withdrawn from the Land and Water Forum.The latest report from the Land and Water Forum adopted by the Government has the date—[Interruption] well this is about protecting our wildlife—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It would be good to mention it.Hon DAVID PARKER: —for fencing our streams against dairy cattle and beef cattle as 2030. It has not learnt the mistakes from what happened with the dairy boom that came along so fast and degraded our rivers. The dairy boom is over but the beef boom is now on. So what does it do? It lets beef farmers have their cattle in our rivers until 2030 in respect of the mid-country and 2025 in respect of the lowland country.So I am happy to support this bill. But I have got to say that in respect of the serious issue of protecting the habitat of this wildlife it will have no effect whatsoever and habitat protection is what needs to be addressed most.