Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and support this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. It's a real pleasure because this bill really does go to the heart of what it is to be a New Zealander. I certainly myself hold very dear the conservation estate which I enjoy on a regular basis. This bill is about ensuring that the tools are there to protect our conservation estate. In doing that it enables us to build a culture of preservation protection and value around our conservation estate because in my view for far too long we've had a laissez-faire approach to our conservation estate a she'll be right" attitude where in fact the users of that estate have thought that it doesn't really matter if they break the rules; as long as they're not doing anything too bad no one will mind. Well what this bill does is it enables enforcement officers to take a much more nuanced approach as my friend Mr Strange alluded to. I would have said a sledgehammer to crack a nut but if you want to try it with a fly swat that's all right by me.What we have here is an absolute range of possibilities and I'm sure that conservation officers will still use a warning approach in the right circumstances and I think we've got to recognise that at the lower end it is entirely appropriate for a conservation officer or any other enforcement officer to educate the transgressor to impress upon them the importance of the rules and indeed to send them away with those valuable lessons. But there will be situations that fall into an intermediate ground a ground where it is not appropriate to throw the book where it's not appropriate to invoke the precious resources of our court system but nevertheless that conduct has to be set aside as unacceptable.Looking at the bill you can see that there are a number of somewhat obscure offences including indeed selling or delivering a carcass of a wild animal to a game depot or game packing house without the ears attached. Now that's not something I knew and it's those kinds of offences that might be a little obscure. I understand that will be to ensure that it is in fact wild game and not a tagged animal that's perhaps from a deer farm but those are the kinds of offences; a little bit obscure but nevertheless important to the regulation of our conservation system.We've got an infringement system coming into force that will be cost-effective time-effective and proportionate to the wrongdoing. We'll be able to avoid the prosecution which is exactly the opposite of all those things. Having said that it's important to recognise that this bill sets apart a number of offences that by their very nature are serious require a serious response and will be dealt with by the courts. So we're seeing things like firearms offences in there and of course offences that interfere with the system itself—offences for example of obstruction of a conservation law enforcement officer. Those kinds of offences which go to the very heart of the system itself will always be prosecuted. If the evidence is there then it is appropriate for that prosecution decision to be made.So we will have a response to the full continuum of offending and I think it's really useful to have not quite I must say a ticketing approach but an approach that lets people know that what they're doing is quite wrong that there are consequences for their wrongdoing and that in fact they will pay the fiscal penalty for that.And it's worth noting that exactly how that will roll out is yet to be designed. There's a lot of work yet to be done not only by the select committee—and I'm sure the select committee will do an excellent job—but also in the devising of those regulations to ensure that for example the range of fines available is proportionate and that the mechanism by which they're enforced is appropriate.I understand that the Department of Conservation (DOC) is not looking at a system like a kind of ticketing system where you get a note written on the spot an instant fine system—which sadly I'm familiar with in another context—but rather a system where the enforcement officer will report the offending and it will be scrutinised by a team of people whose particular job is to look at those matters a specialist team. I think that's really important to ensure that a decision can be made whether it's a warning letter or whether it's a fine of some sort or whether it goes to prosecution because one of the difficulties in any kind of roadside or tree-side system is ensuring consistency and if we have a team of enforcement officers who are trained and will be able to give uniformity across all offenders that's a really good thing. It overcomes that kind of roadside discretion which sometimes can perhaps be misused but at the very least can sometimes perhaps just go awry where one officer might be a bit more generous and sympathetic to a sob story than another.It's also important to note that local government is being brought into this system and that's a really good thing. Local government already has significant enforcement powers across a range of areas including the issue of infringement notices. So where they do administer reserve land they will now be able to issue these infringement notices using the same system as a DOC officer. So that's a really good thing.It is also worth just noting—I think this really is something for the select committee and I would encourage anyone who is interested in this area to make a submission—the carve-out for the New Zealand Fish & Game Council. They haven't been included in this framework. That's a decision that was made when this bill was drafted by the previous Government and I'm not going to take a view one way or the other. I can see that there are good and compelling reasons for that. They are not a Government agency—they're a private agency—and to give them the power to impose a fine would be a significant step. It may well be thought that where a fisheries officer sees an infringement it is considered to be more appropriate to say "Well if you think it's serious we need to have an arm of the State involved. We need to have a court process." That's an entirely legitimate approach.On the other hand I am sure the select committee will take into account the countervailing argument the argument that in fact fisheries officers are some of our most responsible enforcement officers. They're also numerous. There are many volunteer fisheries officers out there. They do a fantastic role and I don't think we should dismiss lightly the suggestion that they'll take such a job seriously and won't misuse that power but rather will see it as an important tool. And there is a question of why they should be dealt with differently—why someone who is accosted with an undersized trout by a fisheries officer is in a different position from someone who is accosted by a conservation officer. So I think that is an important question for the select committee and I hope that submissions are made on it.But coming back to the bill as a whole it really is an excellent piece of legislation that has come from the prior Government and one that looks at something that is really important and that is ensuring that the rules around conservation are adhered to at every level. It's that kind of broken-window approach to conservation—that minor infringements are just as unacceptable as other infringements and we need to leap on top of those. We can't have people taking you know one fish too many and getting away with it because a prosecution is just too much bother. No we need to be able to respond to that and say "That is wrong there is a system that is proportionate to your wrongdoing and you need to know that this graduated system will respond whatever the wrong is."Now this doesn't necessarily catch people who are ignorant or who have genuine reasons for not complying with the rules or have an excuse that is compelling. There's no suggestion that this is a compulsory system. I mean in my experience enforcement officers have always been ready to educate to warn to listen and really to engage in a quite constructive manner with users of the conservation estate the marine estate and so on.This bill is a great step forward. There's work to be done if I may say so and I think we do need to look at it. I commend it to the select committee and I do hope that members of the public will take a close interest in it because it touches on something that is dear to all of us. I'm sure that this will be a great step forward for the conservation estate."