Street Maryan: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Obviously the irony of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill coming back to the House on “Love DOC Day” does not escape anybody. Although this part of the bill does not draw a great deal of criticism from us because it amends the Conservation Act in ways that are probably quite constructive the irony still remains that it is a very odd thing to have this piece of legislation which in other parts works against conservation and the protection of the environment being brought into the Committee on this day when people are protesting up and down the country about the cuts to the Department of Conservation.I want to add my concerns to those of others who have expressed their views about cuts to staff in the Department of Conservation but I want to use a particular local example that is of significance. If one looks at the numbers alone as the Minister of Conservation has done in the recent past it would appear that only 4.5 full-time equivalent positions will be taken out of the Nelson region of the Department of Conservation. In fact he conveniently ignores the fact that there are currently 10 vacancies. So we are losing 14.5 people out of that region.If this Part 2 of the legislation is to be upheld and implemented in a way that enhances the protection of our conservation estate it is a truism to say we need more people not fewer. If the argument of the Minister of Conservation in the House earlier today that in fact there is a way forward for maintaining these wilderness areas or sanctuary areas or whichever part of our country is going to be included and renamed into the conservation estate which is what Part 2 covers then the partnerships with the community seem to be the poor man’s way of achieving optimal protection. It is the cheap way to use volunteer labour of committed people up and down the country and relegating the Government’s responsibility for the conservation estate to the back-burner because it is with that idea in mind that the Department of Conservation with its reduced numbers will have to engage with the community in order to get any ongoing protection.My ongoing concern about Part 2 although it has words in it that I applaud and I do not have a particular problem with it is that there will not be the infrastructure and the personnel available in the Department of Conservation to allow Part 2 to be implemented and to be observed in the way that I presume the Minister intends it to be. So a conservation area for example under Part 2 “declared to be held for the purposeof a wilderness area a sanctuary area or both under this section must be managed in a manner that is consistent with that purpose or those purposes (as the case may be).” I am quoting from clause 57(4) of Part 2. So if a conservation area that is held to be a wilderness area or a sanctuary area is to be managed in a way that is consistent with that purpose then it needs to have the requisite personnel and the suitable oversight and resourcing given to it by the Government to meet that purpose and this is not what we are seeing. Thank you very much.