Chauvel Charles: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Well it might be pronounced a bit differently but it is nice to have the call. To try to make a response to the challenge laid down by the last speaker the Hon Dr Nick Smith this is a bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill that has rightly attracted support across the House. It is a sensible bill and I commend Jacqui Dean for her initiative in putting it forward. 
The question of whether it is an appropriate member’s bill or whether it ought to be something that the Government advances as part of a technical review of penalties available in the conservation and related legislation in order to make sure that those penalties work as part of a coherent regime is another question. I have said before as have other members that the thing about members’ nights is that they are special. They are there for members who are not part of the executive to be able to advance matters that they feel passionately about that cannot otherwise be part of the parliamentary agenda. I am not belittling the bill by saying that it would be the sort of measure that we would support if it was part of a Statutes Amendment Bill rather than taking up the time of a members’ night. So I think that is the first point that I want to make. 
The second point that I want to make is a direct response to Dr Smith. I want to say this: Dr Smith it is not about splashing money around actually; it is about commitment. Everybody knows that you have a commitment to the environment. I have never heard anybody in this House question your deep belief that the New Zealand natural environment is one of our treasures. I have heard people speculate about the extent to which your colleagues share that belief and I think that is fair speculation. 
I have also heard people say—and I think this is right—that we should look at the record. I am very proud of this party’s record on environmental and conservation matters. The fourth Labour Government under Geoffrey Palmer marked our first Minister for the Environment who held a statutory warrant in that post which was revolutionary in this regard. Yes the Environment Act 1986 was Sir Geoffrey’s brainchild as was the Conservation Act 1987. All the groundwork that was done to ensure that the Resource Management Act could be enacted was done under his leadership. And New Zealand’s first steps to respond to the challenge of climate change were taken under that administration as well. That is an extremely proud record that every member on this side of the House wants to associate themselves with. 
Technical reforms of this nature that bring penalty regimes into line with one another are all well and good and of course we are going to support them. As I say I am a little concerned that the Government is taking up the time of the House on a members’ night. We could be spending time on non-Government members’ passionately held beliefs that they seek to advance via the member’s bill process but never mind. Every member has the privilege that Ms Dean is exercising tonight and she has chosen to exercise it in this way. 
But what has to be said what has to be repeated is what has been said by a number of Labour members and by Eugenie Sage and that is this: if you want to talk about record Dr Smith then this Government’s record on conservation and the environment is poor. It is extremely poor. If we look at the cuts in spending in the Department of Conservation right through to the decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period so that there are no binding commitments to reduce emissions and at all the public policy failures to bring about a change in our economy and in our society so that we really do start to act sustainably and renewably—that is the tragedy of this Government. That is the tragedy that we see in this minor measures bill which is praiseworthy and will be sent to a select committee and no doubt will pass through all its stages but it is tinkering. It is tinkering around the margins of the issues that matter. As I say if we want to talk about records and want to take up the challenge laid down by Dr Smith in the earlier contribution that is the sad reality of life under National.