Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9982. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wildlife (Powers) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): I move That the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill.Protecting our native wildlife is of crucial importance to the ongoing health of New Zealand’s precious natural environment. Our birds our animals and our forests are central to our sense of our national identity. They are our national monuments taonga that are treasured by all New Zealanders. However species such as moa the giant Haast’s eagle grayling and huia have become extinct since humans landed here. Today some 77 species of our surviving native birds or 37 percent have either disappeared from mainland New Zealand or face a real risk of doing so. Many other species of wildlife are also threatened.The unique qualities and threatened status of so many of our species is why the Wildlife Act absolutely protects our native bats reptiles frogs and birds. The Wildlife Act also protects eight marine fish species marine corals and a small number of native land invertebrates. Under the Marine Mammals Protection Act New Zealand’s whales dolphins seals and sea lions are also absolutely protected. This means that it is illegal to hunt kill possess or sell these animals.Unfortunately some people still continue to illegally hunt or kill protected wildlife. For example people have been caught trying to smuggle tuatara native parrots and geckos out of New Zealand. Since 2010 there have been seven convictions for the attempted smuggling of 68 geckos. International dealers and collectors have a high demand for these geckos as they are unique attractive and long-lived. Within New Zealand people have also been prosecuted for taking or killing geckos and protected birds such as kererū. Hunters have taken dogs into wildlife refuges or set possum traps illegally on the ground so that they “accidentally” catch kiwi and weka. This sort of offending matters because it is yet another pressure on our wildlife. Even low levels of offending can harm species that are already threatened by introduced predators and by the loss of their habitats.In 2013 my colleague Jacqui Dean’s Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Act significantly increased the penalties for offending under the Wildlife Act and in five other conservation-related Acts. This Act rightly had the strong support of all sides of the House. However increased penalties are only one part of any tool kit to deter and respond to offending. We also need education and information to increase awareness and to improve voluntary complianceand we need to be effective at apprehending and prosecuting offenders if they do in fact offend. This is the focus of this bill.Although the Wildlife Act includes many enforcement powers these have not been updated for more than 60 years. A good illustration of this is that the Act currently enables any ranger to call on any “male person” over the age of 18 for assistance—I think it is about time the Act was brought into the 21st century. The old powers also mean that there are four significant gaps in the basic powers that we feel are essential for effective enforcement. These gaps can make it difficult to investigate offences thoroughly or to prosecute offenders when this is necessary.Firstly it would seem logical that if rangers come across offending either about to occur or in progress they would be able to intervene to prevent it or to stop it. Unfortunately rangers are not currently authorised to take preventative action to stop an offence that is about to occur.Secondly rangers are currently authorised to stop and search vehicles vessels and bags and other items in transit. However they do not have the power to temporarily stop people from leaving the scene of an offence so that rangers have sufficient time to carry out their duties. The ability to do this can be vitally important in situations where an offender is trying to evade the ranger or to hide the evidence of the offending.Thirdly establishing and verifying an offender’s identity is essential to any ability to prosecute. Although a ranger can require a person found offending to provide their name and address they cannot require that offender to provide evidence of their identity. Offenders can therefore give false names and addresses which makes it very difficult to investigate offences and bring about successful prosecutions.Finally the Act currently allows rangers to seize only a few types of evidence and this does not include common items such as mobile phones cameras documents or computers. In several cases rangers investigating offences were not able to seize cameras phones and even bundles of cash which would have provided evidence that the offending was commercially motivated and therefore warranted higher penalties.The intent of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is to provide better tools for protecting our wildlife by addressing these gaps in the enforcement powers. It is important to note at the outset that Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers who have compliance training and carry warrants from its director-general—these are about 260 DOC staff—already have these powers when they are dealing with offences on conservation land. This amendment bill expands that power of the conservation estate and includes any area in New Zealand.So this bill would allow a ranger to intervene to prevent an offence if it were about to occur or to stop offending that was in progress. For example a ranger might trip or remove illegally set traps or intervene to prevent someone who is hunting protected species. If a ranger does intervene the way in which that person does so would need to be “reasonable in the circumstances”. The bill allows a ranger to temporarily stop a person to ensure that they do not leave the scene. The ranger will however need to have reasonable cause to stop the person and may stop them for only a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances. It will also enable a ranger to request an offender to provide their date of birth and evidence of their identity. Rangers have been misled and lied to in the past and were unable to achieve successful prosecutions because of this. The bill will also allow a ranger to seize any evidence provided that it is relevant to the investigation of the offence. These four standard powers will be available to the department’s full-time rangers.Finally the bill proposes a limited power of arrest. The Wildlife Act currently does not allow rangers to arrest a person. Rather if arrest is necessary rangers have to wait for the police to come and assist. This is inefficient as it ties up the resources of two agencies and it is ineffective as offenders—not surprisingly—will not wait for the police to arrive and a lot of offending against wildlife takes place in remote areas. A power of arrest would therefore be useful in specific planned surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations such as for international poaching offences as these can last for several weeks and often occur in the backblocks hours away from towns and police stations.Because the ability to arrest someone is a significant power it will be limited to serious offending against absolutely protected wildlife such as that involving illegal hunting killing or export. Access to the power of arrest is also limited to full-time DOC rangers who are specifically warranted to use it. The current training given to rangers covers this ground and making those minor changes to the Act will not impact on the department’s budget. This is in essence a very minor technical change.The bill does not affect the Act’s core principles such as the protection status of wildlife or how wildlife is managed. The powers will be available to protect wildlife in the same way wherever the wildlife occurs in New Zealand whether on private land or public land but these changes will not affect people or businesses unless their activities break the law. The bill also includes various safeguards around how the power is used and who can use it. The power of arrest for wildlife offences will also be available to police constables and certain Defence Force officers customs officers and fisheries officers as these agencies regularly work with the DOC in joint-agency wildlife operations.The proposals in this bill are not of course the only way of protecting our wildlife. Enforcement is only one part of any tool kit. It is far better to prevent offending happening with education and information than to deal with it after the event and we must continue to manage the pests and other threats to New Zealand’s biodiversity.I would like to finish by quoting the legendary conservationist Don Merton: “Our taonga our threatened species are our national monuments. They are our Tower of London our Arc de Triomphe our pyramids. We don’t have this ancient architecture that we can be proud of and swoon over in wonder but what we do have is something far far older than that. No one else has the kiwi no one else has the kākāpō. They have been around for millions of years if not thousands of millions of years. And once they are gone they are gone for ever. And it’s up to us to make sure they never die out.” In my opinion the enforcement powers in this bill provide necessary and practical mechanisms for helping to prevent the loss of our taonga and I commend this bill to the House.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of Labour to register our support for the sentiments that the Minister of Conservation has just made in terms of New Zealand having natural heritage values within our conservation estate—and indeed across our country—that should be protected. We will support the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill going to a select committee and we will expect a thorough investigation because Minister—as you rightly point out—as powers are expanded for Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers to be able to carry out their duties in this modern age getting the right balance between the powers of search seizure and arrest with regard to the ability to enforce these particular powers is a matter that I think the select committee will want to spend some time on.Minister you raised a number of reasons as to why the modernisation of the search seizure and arrest powers is required and indeed I want to comment on a couple of them—firstly with regard to the issue of international dealers and smuggling. I am sure that when the select committee hears some of the specific reasons for expanding the powers of DOC rangers it will want to look at some of the overlapping ways in which agencies with a common interest will need to collaborate. Some of that is already happening but it could be better improved and indeed Minister you highlighted that. I think that the way in which customs officers at the border want to surveil those who have been involved in international smuggling of wildlife species is an area that I think is of interest when you are looking at cooperating withinformation but also in respect of apportioning roles and responsibilities between DOC rangers and customs officers.It will also be of some interest I think to the select committee to look at the way in which these provisions have been covered in the Act. There are a number of things that will require DOC rangers to make a judgment based on discretion—based on what they reasonably believe is important information that could be used as evidence of offending or offending about to take place—but also on the practicalities of how they assess whether or not to go to the next step and take reasonable steps to stop and keep stopped for a period as defined in the bill a person of interest. That requires a level of judgment. It is my concern Minister that when DOC rangers or those authorised to carry out these extra powers make a decision giving some context around that will be very important because enforcement at the end of the day does not exist in a vacuum. We have DOC rangers who operate in isolation often in areas that are well away from a lot of the public and we need to be assured I think at the select committee level that they are able to carry out these particular tasks with some level of safety and assurance.Just today up on the Kāpiti coast a young girl of 21 working at a mall was trying to stop a shoplifter and got knocked over. In the conservation estate if you have got people who are looking to smuggle species for a huge amount of money there is a safety element as well. So this is where the balance of enforcement coupled with the extension of powers is a matter that the select committee should legitimately be looking at.So my question at this first reading will be around how the powers will work in practice how these matters of judgment will be made in the context of taking reasonable steps to stop people of interest and the point at which rangers are making the assessment. Minister you made a comment about requiring information to be gained from a person of interest such as their date of birth and their details and things like that. Well quite frankly if they are on the run and on the hop and you are chasing them you are not going to be able to inform them beforehand. These are some of the practical things that I think we need to sift through at the select committee to give a better context to how the intention of these powers will operate in practice and in reality.They are important because if a person has come from overseas with the express intent to smuggle species of a biodiversity interest to them—which can fetch quite a handsome sum on the black market—getting for example their name their address and their passport could be really something very useful and detaining them until prosecution would be entirely justified. But again we will have to pursue these types of questions with some context around practical examples so this will mean that the select committee will have to delve back into some of these cases that have led to prosecution to get the legislation working in a way that it is intended to. It might mean some changes but we should leave the select committee to do its job and report back at the second stage of the bill around those particular interests.Minister there are two specific issues that I have commented on. One in respect of extending powers is whether they are able to be enforced. Labour has a real concern about the ability of the DOC to enforce the expansion of powers granted to it to be able to conduct its role when actually the budget of the DOC has not been substantially increased. Positions that have been changed through the restructure have not been backfilled so we are making some comment on the fact that the DOC is underfunded to carry out its current roles yet we are expanding its roles. Is it able to practically enforce the extension of powers that it has been given? You commented on that Minister. Again I raise this out of courtesy because it will be a matter to ask questions about when we get to the select committee.There are also some aspects of the bill that I considered would be of interest for us to think about in this first reading. One is its intent. That is really the point at which a decision is made about whether or not to seize or make an arrest based on an action at a particular point in time and the information available to the DOC rangers. Say for example if the DOC ranger understands that hunting is being undertaken in a particular area and it is after the fact—it is after the fact that they have had information passed on that then might lead to subsequent actions of the rangers—what weight is given to the evidence provided to the DOC ranger in order for them to make a decision? So this is for example a ranger stopping someone who has gone out 3 days previously on a hunting trip who is then making their way home and the DOC ranger has been given information to then stop them quite a way from the place where an activity of an illegal nature has been conducted. This is a matter that I know that the Minister is well aware of and if this bill is intended to improve that situation maybe it is something that the select committee might put its mind to.So with that said the extension of powers does modernise the ability of DOC rangers to carry out an extended range of roles. Will it be able to be enforced practically and will the determination of the extension of powers meet the practical way in which DOC rangers carry out their tasks? In a nutshell it seems to me that those are the issues for the select committee to address when the matter gets to the Local Government and Environment Committee.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee it gives me great pleasure to be speaking in this first reading debate on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill introduced by my friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry.I listened carefully to the contribution made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I think she has raised several good points that will need to be teased out and addressed at select committee. I want to give the Hon Nanaia Mahuta a cast-iron guarantee that the committee will strive to make sure that we get a good range of submissions that we give those submissions due consideration and that the matters that she raises will be carefully considered by the committee. I want to thank the Minister of Conservation for her very considered introductory comments. I thought that her speech—and I listened carefully to it—was very good and it actually neatly summed up what is the nub of the issues confronting the hard-working warranted Department of Conservation (DOC) officers who do so much to preserve our natural environment and also the creatures that live in that natural environment.The Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have something in common in that our electorates cover the same piece of geography. One of the great features of the Coromandel electorate is that a very large proportion of my electorate is covered and administered by the DOC conservation estate. In that area there is a small but very dedicated group of warranted DOC officers and rangers who do an extraordinary job on behalf of all New Zealanders. To have those people’s good work so frustrated as it has been now for so long when they encounter criminal activity occurring—not being able to do anything meaningful about it is not only frustrating for those committed officers but also extremely frustrating for those of us members of the public who want to ensure that our conservation estate is protected and secured for the future.This bill as Minister Maggie Barry has made comment on is a reforming of the principal Act the Wildlife Act of 1953. It will come as no surprise to members of the House that an awful lot has occurred since 1953 much of it for the good and we now live in a society where many of the pleasantries that existed back in 1953 in terms of our conservation estate no longer exist. The simple stark reality is that many of our native creatures are highly sought after in terms of black-marketing across the international market place for people who have evil intent and who want to market our rare and endangered speciesinternationally. This bill on first reading would appear to give those DOC officers—there are about 260 of them—the power that they need in certain circumstances when it is warranted and needed to do something about criminal activity in our native environment when they come across it. This bill will better empower DOC staff to take on those who are offending against our native wildlife.There are four main provisions in this bill. The four new standard powers that the bill will give to those officers will be firstly to take preventive action when an offence is about to occur. When they know that something is going to happen they will now be able to actually intervene and do something about it rather than merely stand aside and watch criminal activity occur in the most frustrating way.The second power that they will be given is to temporarily stop persons suspected of an offence so that an investigation can be allowed and can take place. Up until the passing of this legislation that has not been able to take place.The third power will be a power to seize a broader range of evidence. Of course back in 1953 there were no such things as laptops and iPhones and cameras and mobile phones and all those sorts of devices. Much of the criminal offending and evidence of it is now recorded on such devices and this bill when passed will ensure that DOC officers have the ability to seize such evidence of an electronic and technical nature.The fourth power that they will be given is to require identification details from suspected offenders. Nothing could be more frustrating for a DOC officer than to come across an illegal act going on in the conservation estate somewhere and then not be able to demand and insist that the perpetrators of these crimes identify themselves when they are suspected of being an offender.This bill modernises the principal Act and not before time in my view. I am very much looking forward to working with parties across the House to guide it through the select committee process. I was interested to hear on the radio this morning Kevin Hague from the Green Party indicating that the Greens are going to support this legislation. I welcome that too.I am looking forward to this bill coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am looking forward to providing a rigorous scrutiny of it and I am looking forward to receiving submissions from a wide cross-section of New Zealanders who are interested in the work that our DOC officers do and in preserving the natural environment over which they administer. I commend this bill to the House.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.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an honour to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and an honour to speak on behalf of the dedicated Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers who deal with protecting wildlife who deal with detection of those who seek to harm or poach our wonderful unique and rare wildlife and who investigate those criminal activities and apprehend offenders and they should be acknowledged.I want to say to Mr Parker who just sat down in respect of water quality that in Southland it has been a wonderful process led by Environment Southland to put in place a land and water plan that looks to the future on the back of the national policy statement to maintain and improve our water catchments. It has run a collaborative process that has involved not only DOC stakeholder advice but also those working in the dairy industry and those working in the sheep industry—a very collaborative approach that brings all of the stakeholders together to maintain and improve water quality. Of course the DOC has been part of that. But back to the bill at hand which is in respect of amending the powers dealing with detection investigation and apprehension of offenders against our wonderful wildlife. I am very supportive of that and the powers that will be extended and given to our DOC rangers who often find themselves in isolated areas having to deal with extreme situations that in some casescan put them into harm’s way but they do their job extremely well and should be thanked very much for it.Tourism is of course growing in New Zealand. It is now our second-biggest export earner and 3.2 million people visited New Zealand in 2015. On the back of that of course New Zealand has as part of that a niche market because people come here to enjoy our natural beauty to enjoy our rare and unique wildlife and to see these animals in situ. They are able to go into our national parks into our conservation areas and into our reserves which span the length and breadth of New Zealand and enjoy seeing these wonderful species in their natural habitat. Of course that is also a risk because it means that poachers can come into our country sometimes undetected and given that they are paid quite considerable amounts they can get away with taking some breeding pairs of our wonderful geckos skinks and birds. When you are talking about dealing with threatened species to have a breeding pair taken from that population can be extremely devastating and we need to protect our wildlife for our future generations to enjoy. So we need to give our DOC rangers extended powers to deal with these offenders effectively.I want to just turn to my colleague Scott Simpson. He talked about some of the wonderful natural areas in his region. Of course I have Fiordland National Park and Rakiura National Park which is our newest national park in New Zealand. And of course it is not immune to offenders. Some years back I remember DOC officers saw choppers fly away and it was suspected that they had some of our rare and native skinks and geckos in their possession yet there was little that DOC officers could do about it at that stage.Of course extending these powers is fantastic for our DOC officers. There is the power to intervene to prevent or stop offending and the Minister already talked about some of these things that could occur; the powerto remove illegally set traps when they reasonably suspect that offending is occurring; the power to stop a person—previously of course DOC officers could stop vehicles only when they suspected that there was some sort of offending occurring—the power to take further details like date of birth and identification; and then of course the power to seize further information to build a case. So this is an effective change to the Act and I absolutely support it in aid of these wonderful people who protect our wildlife.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It seems to be a bit of a theme in this Parliament and perhaps the last one to be overhauling or amending ancient legislation. When we look at those bills it becomes readily apparent that they were drawn up in I guess simpler ages when circumstances were somewhat different. I must say in contrast to the Radiation Safety Bill which the House was dealing with some weeks ago it is certainly a pleasure not to have National Party members filling their speeches with reminiscences of the songs of 1953 that they recall. As Scott Simpson was saying 1953 was a simpler time perhaps when understanding of conservation practice was more primitive but perhaps also a time when New Zealanders’ sense of collective responsibility was stronger. As Scott Simpson was saying it was a time when perhaps just the uniform of what was then a forest service ranger would have been enough to ensure compliance.There has been some updating of the Act in the intervening years and in her contribution the Minister referred to the bill sponsored through this Parliament by Jacqui Dean. Kate Wilkinson was also concerned with the issue of penalties under the Wildlife Act because the penalties that were imposed in 1953 were simply inadequate to provide any kind of disincentive to those who were motivated to break the law. I guess my frustration with those attempts to change the Act both increasing the penalties and now on this occasion ramping up the enforcement powers the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers have is that they have been piecemeal attempts rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the Act. They have also been very reactive. It was the high-profile cases of lizards being smuggled and of native birds being shot that actually prompted a particular action but they did not prompt a comprehensive review and modernisation of the Act and that is what we actually require.In his wide-ranging contribution David Parker spoke about the importance of habitat and indeed one of the issues with the Wildlife Act is that it focuses very much on individual species. Part of what we know now as part of modern conservation practice is that focus on individual species is almost worthless. We need to see species in ecosystem terms and in relation to the habitats. A modern Wildlife Act would have that kind of focus.The other aspect I guess that the bill could be considering and an enlightened Government would be doing in an overhaul of the Act would be to really address the emergency that we face in threatened and endangered species in this country. Actually if you consider amphibians almost all of them are critically endangered. The same applies to reptiles and to many of our birds. We have the highest proportion of species in this country of any country on earth that are endangered yet of that vast list of endangered species only a very small number actually have active protection plans. That is why I have a bill in the ballot also to amend the Wildlife Act to actually require New Zealand to do what the United States Canada and many other countries have done—that is when we identify a species as endangered there then becomes a responsibility on the State on behalf of us all to put in place a plan to recover and protect that species very often in the context of its ecosystem and the habitat that may be threatened.The Green Party will certainly be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. In the select committee process there are several issues that we are going to be specifically looking for. We are going to be asking whether these powers are enough. Are these powers going to be adequate to achieve the purpose that is set out in the bill? I noted with great interest and some horror the Minister’s comment that there would not be specific extra training—that rangers were considered to be already trained enough. I find that quite extraordinary. I am going to be teasing that out at the select committee. On the other side of the ledger whenever we have a bill that is expanding enforcement powers it is appropriate for us to be asking whether these coercive powers are appropriately balanced with other rights and freedoms that people should have such as those set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and such as privacy rights. Has that balance been struck in the correct place?I am also concerned because in many ways the extra powers that our rangers will have as a result of this bill if it passes are similar in kind to the extra powers that fisheries officers have. We know from experience that fisheries officers are indeed sometimes subject to threats or to physical violence and that might be a new dimension a new threat faced by conservation rangers that has not been faced to date. It will be a matter of great interest what planning has been done by the department and by the Government to ensure that our conservation rangers are appropriately protected from those additional threats.I was also astonished to hear from the Minister that the Government does not consider that these new powers will require any more resourcing for the DOC. I just cannot see how that can be. We hear pretty well daily of fresh situations where the DOC is unable to carry out its basic functions because it is cash-strapped. It does not have the resources to perform those roles and yet this seems to be another case of expecting the department to do more with less. I come from the West Coast—others have been mentioning their areas—and I have been recently concerned about the Inland Pack Track in the Paparoa National Park. The main track in that national park is currently closed in one part because of damage from Cyclone Ita. The DOC reckons that the cost of repairing that will be $62000 which it does not have. It has been calling for volunteers to come and repair the main track in one of our national parks.When this Government came to power it reduced the baseline funding for the DOC by $35 million—approximately a drop of 10 percent—and since that time that baseline funding has not only been kept at that low level but also it has been reduced further. It is hardly surprising that the basic functions that New Zealanders expect from the DOC to protect the species the ecosystems and the habitats that we love which the Minister spoke of when quoting Don Merton in her speech are not being met and the department is failing to meet those expectations. We are going to be looking when this bill is considered at the select committee at whether or not the Government will in fact adequately resource these extra functions that the department is being asked to perform. Thank you.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise to take a call for New Zealand First on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and I sing in a chorus of support for this bill to go to the select committee. We would certainly look forward to hearing from submitters on what they have got to say. Although the intent of the bill is commendable the achievement is something that might fall short of the intention of the bill which is what I really want to speak about today.I think this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill certainly does suggest that we need some changes. It has been over 63 years of the current legislation which needs to be looked at with regard to its enforcement capabilities. We see that in 2013 there were some changes made to the Wildlife Act that increased the penalties and that was very much a necessity because we have seen over the years a large increase in our wildlife being shot and killed or traded in black market operations and certainly many many times—right up until recent weeks—we have seen high-profile cases of this sort of nature going on with our very very precious and rare species that we can find only here in New Zealand. So it is great that we are actually having this bill put in front of us for a discussion today and we are certainly looking forward to having it pulled apart and put back together at the select committee stage.We in New Zealand I think are all very very proud of our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand and that brand has been held in high regard around the world. We are seeing record numbers of tourists coming to this country because of our beaches our walks our rivers our mountains and our wildlife. Given the ease with which people can come to this country to see that it is absolutely paramount that we keep it in the best and most pristine condition that we possibly can. I think what has resonated with me most strongly apart from Maggie Barry’s wonderful voice—which does sound like the late-night love songs radio show; that was very resonating I have to say to Ms Barry as she sinks down into her chair—was Kevin Hague’s discussion with regard to the resourcing of the DOC or I should say the lack of resourcing for the DOC.We have seen a degradation in support by this Government that has had a massive impact on our tourism our ecotourism and our ecology of this country. If we do not do something about it now we are going to see masses of problems for our future and the problem that unfortunately if it is not dealt with we will never get back to the state that it once was in. I am talking about our beautiful kiwi our kākāpō the kererū the takahē the tūī the pūkeko the morepork—which is my favourite. In fact over Easter we took our kids away for the weekend and they actually came across some very rare green bell frogs up in the Bay of Plenty. It was great to see them out there but if we do not look after the environment that they are in we are certainly going to lose them.I am also coming to the point with regard to the fact that I think this bill is quite timely. We saw 2 weeks ago the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill being put into place and there were questions by New Zealand First to the Minister at question time with regard to how the Government is going to enforce this 620000 square kilometres of land. Of course we did not get a satisfactory answer but now in hindsight on reflection I can see that the answer is right here in front of us. This new enforcement that it is going to give the three DOC rangers on Raoul Island in the Kermadecs will actually be enough to secure the wildlife that we have got there because now some of these rangers will of course be able to arrest people and hold them for a certain amount of time. I do not know exactly how that is going to work—whether they are going to put them in handcuffs if they get given those or maybe they will just be tied up in flax bushes and held in mānuka cabins until the police can get there. Of course that takes about 20 hours by the time they get their helicopters fuelled up and get over there.We are going to see some major problems because we have even seen our police force funding being drastically cut and we are having difficulties even in terms of the respect that New Zealanders have towards the police. In the Bay of Plenty last week we saw—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No that is not part of this.CLAYTON MITCHELL: I am getting to my point. We are seeing Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers who are being expected to do more for less. My point is that the police are unable to do the work they have got with the number of people they have. We have got people pulling guns on police officers so what is going to happen to our DOC rangers when they have been given the power to go and arrest somebody who is involved in potentially illegal activity? The point is that we are putting our rangers and our DOC staff at serious risk by doing this and not having a strategy because saying “Stop or I’ll say stop again.” does not work when you are talking about potentially locking somebody up for up to 2 years with a $100000 fine. It has not been working for the police and it certainly will not work for the DOC rangers if this is the only power and this is the only tool they have got to use against this crime of poaching etc.We have seen in the 2015 Budget cut that operational funding was dropped by $8.7 million and we also saw the cut to the Natural Heritage Management System of $7 million but on top of that $7 million cut we had $11.2 million taken out of that which was dedicated to the growth in the kiwi population. So you could actually say it is around about $27 million in funding not to mention the hundreds of jobs that DOC workers have seen—and again putting their lives in danger and at serious risk if they are asked to do more for less.To the bill. I think there are a number of good parts to the bill and I think there are some sensible parts to the bill. Expanding the powers that enforcement officers have with regard to making sure that when they are asking for somebody’s date of birth and their address they give verified proof of that is sensible because there is no point showing up to the courts waiting for judgment and of course the person does not show up because they gave you false details. It would certainly be a big help to get that small matter dealt with promptly and efficiently as the police have the same ability to do so.The power to intervene to prevent or to stop offending is common sense. If they see something that is taking place those DOC workers should have the power to react to stop that from happening or to prevent it from happening whether it be from trap-setting or potential behaviour. The ability to stop those people in their tracks and hold them is a good power also. Of course we have heard tonight from Scott Simpson in relation to the modern world that we now live in with phones with computers and with iPads etc. and with telephones’ capabilities of taking photos etc. It would be very very pertinent to ensure that those DOC rangers and workers can see some of those materials whether it be money or otherwise go towards building a case against a perpetrator or a potential offender. So that is certainly well supported. We do however get back to the main issue of getting our DOC workers who are already under stress and who are underfunded to do more for the little amount that they are getting.In terms of the degradation of our tracks which are some of the best track walks we have got in the world as we go around the country in the North Island and in the South Island—although they are absolutely fantastic to see they will be reduced. I just want to point out before I finish my contribution that the Office of the Auditor-General’s published report in relation to what I am talking about here said that the department was prioritising work and working with partners to manage biodiversity and the report made eight recommendations. However the follow-up audit shows the department has made limited progress on these recommendations. The 2012 report recognised the DOC for its leading conservation methods and practices but said it was not “winning the battle against the threats to New Zealand’s indigenous species in the habitats they live in”. It also stated that “at best efforts to date are merely slowing the decline of biodiversity in New Zealand which is a cause for concern”.In Budget 2016 we would like to see more money put into our conservation ensuring that our natural habitat is looked after for the future generations of our children. Thank you.JOANNE HAYES (National): My contribution will be short to the point and will not waffle around like the previous speaker Clayton Mitchell’s one did. I want to thank Minister Maggie Barry for bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a really good bill.In a nutshell—this is what I have written down—this bill gives—[Interruption] Are we listening? This bill gives powers to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff and others to protect our native fauna by stopping the perpetrators asking for proof and penalising them through prosecution. In turn the perpetrators receive persecution from the peoples of this country if not a ban preventing them from access to New Zealand for the next 10 years. That basically puts into a nutshell the whole purpose of this bill and I am very proud to stand and support it. I cannot wait for it to come to our select committee because the sooner it gets there the sooner it can be enacted and we can start implementing this piece of legislation immediately. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Eugenie Sage 5 minutes.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill which the Green Party will be supporting to the select committee. I think the very short speech given by the previous speaker Joanne Hayes shows the very limited vision of the Government in relation to our indigenous wildlife. We all agree in this House about the importance of our indigenous plants and wildlife. I have heard various comments about its importance in terms of our identity as Kiwis but this bill has a very limited ambition. Certainly it gives additional powers to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff to prevent offences to detect and investigate offences under the Wildlife Act to seize materials and to stop people but it just shows a complete lack of vision.If the Government is amending the Wildlife Act—if it is taking parliamentary time to do this—it could have been much more ambitious by amending the Act to protect our indigenous freshwater fish given their very precarious state—74 percent of our freshwater fish species our native species are staring extinction in the face. That is a statistic to be ashamed of given that it is one of the highest proportions of threatened native freshwater fish in the world.It is the Wildlife Act that provides varying levels of protection for our birds our native reptiles our skinks our geckos our native frogs our bats and eight marine fish species. It protects them from poaching from hunting from being collected and from being held in captivity without the proper authorisation. You cannot kill native birds except for the pūkeko the paradise shelduck and the tītī because of the provisions in the Wildlife Act. You cannot keep native birds in captivity without authorisation from the DOC because of the provisions in the Wildlife Act. Yet people can kill and destroy our freshwater fish and their habitat because of the big hole in the Wildlife Act and this bill does absolutely nothing to close it.As my colleague Kevin Hague pointed out this highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act to provide much better protection not just for endangered species but for their habitat as well. The reason that this is such a crucial gap is that there has been an incredible decline in the health and status of our native freshwater fish over the last 20 years which has coincided with the intensification of agriculture in our lowland areas. In 1990 the DOC recorded 10 freshwater fish species as being threatened with extinction and by 2002 that number had increased to 16. In 2013 a comprehensive review showed that 74 percent of all of our native freshwater taxa were threatened with extinction and that is 76 percent if you just consider the native fish species that do not spend part of their life at sea. Four of the five species that people eat as whitebait patties are threatened with extinction.It is a ridiculous state of affairs that we do not have a single native freshwater fish species protected under the Wildlife Act except grayling and they are extinct. It is also ridiculous that we continue to allow the killing of threatened species. Four of the five whitebait species—the kōaro the short-jawed kōkopu the giant kōkopu and the inanga—are all taken by whitebait fishers and they are all threatened with extinction. We have got regulations under the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations that protect exotic species—brown trout rainbow trout chinook salmon—but we have no legal protection for our native fishes.That is a gap that this bill could remedy by adding all of our native fish species—and a lot of our indigenous invertebrates—to the schedules at the back of the Act and by giving the DOC staff increased powers to monitor the whitebait fishery and protect those species. It is also ridiculous that we have no legal protection for the tuna or long-finned eel. There was a comprehensive report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about its decline towards extinction. Again this bill could close that loophole by adding it to the list of protected species. That will be something that we hope to see submissions on. We hope that the Minister will recognise that that is a major gap and look to amend the legislation to close it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Damien O’Connor—5 minutes.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): This is another classic National Government conscience-easing piece of legislation. It says that “The objective of this Bill is to reduce offending against wildlife by improving the powers available to effectively detect and investigate offences and apprehend offenders.” We assume that that is to protect the endangered species and the species mentioned in the legislation. So the Government is setting out we hope with the right objective to protect them for good reasons as has been mentioned in many of the speeches. But there are a whole lot of gaps in this I have to say. It will allow full-time rangers to implement the legislation if it proceeds as put to the House. The question is with the increasing number of volunteers whom the department relies on where does it leave them? The facts are that the National Government has not funded the Department of Conservation (DOC) to carry out its core duties whether it be keeping tracks open or looking after species. I would like the Minister and I hope the select committee to be able to do that.So it does as we often see in legislation from the National Government—be it on customs or biosecurity or police—increase the penalties. It increases the penalties to prevent harm. National members think that sorts out their conscience and that they are in fact doing the right thing. The reality is they have squeezed funding from the DOC and pretty much every other Government department to the point where it cannot carry out their basic duties. This legislation will do nothing to protect the species pointed out here because there is not enough basic funding in the department for it to do its core duty. So we will no doubt see this passed through.There are a few questions I would like to ask. When we have a department where only 27 percent of the DOC staff have confidence in their senior leadership—Hon Maggie Barry: Oh rubbish.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No that is what it is. The Minister shakes her head. Well I have talked to a large number of DOC staff and others. I think that is overestimating it—I think that is overestimating it. The survey was probably taken a couple of months ago not now. They are in trouble not because the penalties for harming wildlife are not high enough but because there is not enough core resource in the department’s budget. If we are to have penalties for action against wildlife can we not have penalties against inaction—which is what I would charge the Government with—because the same outcome is going to occur? If someone was to abuse or pollute a waterway or do whatever there will be a negative impact on the inanga and any of the other native species. But if the Government does not spend the money to administer its core duties the same outcome occurs. So why do we not boost the penalties in that area? In fact I would suggest that at the next election people should vote the Government out. That might be a very good way of delivering the right penalty to the National Government on conservation issues.I read through the explanatory note and it is quite detailed on what should occur. One of the things that interests me coming from the West Coast is: “The Bill also provides a limited power of arrest that will enable an enforcement officer to temporarily arrest a suspected offender until the officer can deliver the suspect into Police custody.” Well I can tell you that on the West Coast they might also have to provide a power to feed and accommodate that person because it is probably going to take you a hell of a long time to get a policeman there given the National Government’s underfunding of the police. So we will not have anyone in Karamea. Kahurangi National Park is a huge national park where some of these things could occur and there will be people out there. So if an offender is caught and there is no policeman at Karamea and they have to get one from Greymouth does that mean the person will have to feed and accommodate the person who has been apprehended and suspected of that activity?There are a whole lot of things in here that do make me chuckle because the Government’s attempt to ease its conscience by increasing the penalties for action against wildlife should be met by the same penalties for inaction by the National Government in respect of protected native flora and fauna right across the conservation estate.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe. I have to actually reject some of the suggestions in the diatribe of the previous speaker Damien O’Connor. With regard to the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) budget even the functionally innumerate should be able to see from looking at the budget.govt.nz website that last year the DOC was given a budget of $450 million an increase of $50 million over what it spent in the year before. So there has been a real increase in the resource going in.But I think we should also make a very important point about this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill in this first reading debate and that is that these additional powers that are being granted to the DOC rangers so that they can take action to stop the poaching of our most previous and endangered species are being done within existing baselines. They do not carry an extra cost. These are extra enforcement powers that will allow DOC rangers to take action to prevent an offence from happening to seize a broader range of evidence—including those kinds of modern gadgets that modern poachers use such as cameras and cellphones—and to require identification details from suspected offenders in addition to the arrest power which will apply to the absolutely protected species.This is a very good bill proposed by the very fine Minister of Conservation the Hon Maggie Barry one of the finest champions of conservation in New Zealand. I would note that when the Wildlife Act 1953 was put into place Sir Sidney Holland was the Prime Minister and now we have a John Key - led Government and this is just one of its many conservation and environmental initiatives. It seems that National is the true champion of our environment and conservation.It is a very fine bill. It will get an excellent hearing under our committee chair Scott Simpson that absolute quintessential Bluegreen from the Coromandel. For all of these reasons I commend the bill to the House.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. I look forward to it coming to one of the hardest-working select committees in Parliament the Local Government and Environment Committee and I endorse the sentiments of the chair in saying that we will give it a thorough scrutiny when it comes before us.When reading the bill and there have been some great contributions in the House this evening and listening to all the contributions today—it has been a good start but clearly more work needs to be done in this bill. It is a simple bill. It has got two parts. When I read it and listened to the contributions tonight it reminded me that the analogy that I drew was with a wharenui or a whare tipuna. The strength of a whare is in its parts and how it is put together particularly the tāhuhu or the ridge pole which gives it the mana and the strength. Listening to the contributions today and the debate that has gone on in the House I do believe that there is still quite a bit of work to do—namely when I look at the policy statement submitted by the department or the departmental disclosure statement actually it talks about proposing what this bill is in giving the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers more powers to investigate and to make arrests but it also makes the point here around species that are also threatened by introduced predators and habitat loss. So when I made the analogy of a wharenui and a tāhuhu we need to make sure we protect the wider context the habitat in which our wild species and our plants are nurtured. In the contributions that people have made today particularly on our water quality—that is an area that does need to be cleaned up if we are going to ensure that the bill that we are asking this House to consider meets the intended purpose. It is about updating the Wildlife Act of 1953 as people have said. It is 60 years old so I think it is absolutely important that we provide contemporary fit-for-purpose tools in terms of modernising the Act.Not only has this bill been introduced to reduce the offending but it is also about protecting our native species hence the reason why our habitat must be healthy—that is our waterways and our native forests need to be healthy. The conjecture that this side has put is that we still have a long way to go. The water quality standard around being wadeable is just not enough. It is not enough and it is not good enough. This side—Labour particularly—wants to ensure that our waterways are actually swimmable and fit to gather kai and fish out of. It is a basic right that many of us growing up in New Zealand had and there is no reason why we should not have that.Back to my analogy of the tāhuhu or the ridge pole. We have got coercive powers being given to DOC rangers but I would also like to see whether there are some educational resources being made available so that we have a balance—so that it is not all just around punishment but also about education.I heard comments made in the House around information sharing with the Custom Service. A tāhuhu needs to be connected and related. We have the work of the DOC officers but we also need to make sure that we are sharing information at the border to prevent any of the species getting across our borders.In looking at this I also heard about the opportunity to work in partnership with iwi and regional authorities. All parts of the community not just the DOC—particularly with some of its resourcing being constrained—should be looking at partnerships that ensure that at the end of the day our native species are protected. I would like to see a bit more of that coming through in this bill and like I said hopefully we will get some submissions in the select committee process.Talking about iwi though I turn to the section of the departmental disclosure statement that talks about “Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations”. One question—well actually it is not a question. It is probably a point that I want to raise here with members of the House. When we have a section in departmental disclosure statements—and I think I have said this before so I will repeat myself—that talks about whether a bill is consistent with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations we cannot say that discussion with Te Puni Kōkiri meets that test. We cannot say that but time and time again when I look at departmental disclosure statements under this particular section it always says that the department has talked to Te Puni Kōkiri. Can I make it really clear that Te Puni Kōkiri or the Ministry of Māori Development is regarded by all Māori out there as a Crown entity. It is not the Treaty partner. So you know I will say this again: it is not the Treaty partner. It is good that you noted that you are talking to it but it is not the Treaty partner.What it goes on to say in that section is that officials who prepared this statement spoke to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. As we all know Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the iwi authority for Te Wai Pounamu and that is unquestionable. But my point is that there are many more iwi who have settled with the Crown around the rest of the country who have DOC arrangements as part of their Treaty settlements. Therefore I want to offer that if we are going to have bills in this House that have impact on iwi we should have a much wider canvass than just Ngāi Tahu. That is my plea. It is not ignoring their advice; it is a plea for all the other iwi—and there are many around the country that have settled but for some reason we have not spoken to them. To me it is not good enough to say they can just come and make a submission to a select committee. I think if we are going to meet our obligations as this bill is saying it is going to then we must cast the net a lot wider than what has occurred here.So that is my only criticism of this bill—I think we should have done a lot more research into the impact that this is going to have on our Treaty partners wherever they are. Big large small urban rural coastal—all have relationships with the local DOC. I just think there is a wealth of experience and some information that was lost in bringing this bill to the House.There is not much more that I want to add but those were my contributions in the first reading. Like I said I look forward to it coming to the select committee where we can debate it much more intensely and hear from all those who obviously are passionate about our native species. We want to ensure that those that are still with us stay with us and those that are on the verge of extinction also have the opportunity to be protected and looked after. I stand and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. Can I just start by acknowledging what great vision I think this bill provides—great vision around the environment and conservation. When you look at the range of bills that we have introduced during this term—the Environmental Reporting Bill and of course recently with the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and now with this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill—it very much shows the vision this Government has around the Bluegreen agenda. I want to acknowledge the very hard-working Hon Maggie Barry for the all the work she does as the Minister of Conservation.I suppose when I reflect and think about the success of this Government what comes through time and time again and what underpins the bills we bring to the House is that we are listening. We are listening to the people and we care about people. So what we have done is we have listened to Department of Conservation staff who have identified gaps in the previous Wildlife Act of 1953—an Act of 63 years of age which now has some gaps in the modern age. So what we have done is we have listened because we care. Not only do we care about the people of New Zealand but we also care about its wildlife. We had Clayton Mitchell talk about a range of birds that he was interested in but it always surprises me that no one ever mentions the kea. I love the kea the curious kea but no one ever talks about it.When I look back at this bill I suppose that in a modern age with modern technology things have changed. We now know that we are seeing smuggling to order through the use of the internet. The smuggler can be connected with the purchaser a lot quicker. We need to ensure that this legislation is up with the modern times. We also know that with accessible international air travel smugglers can come into this country quite quickly. It is no surprise that some people will want to come into this country because we have such unique wildlife that you get only in New Zealand. We know that New Zealand First would just like to stop anyone coming into the country but over here we just probably want to stop the smugglers. So through this legislation we can get on top of this issue a lot better.What has been identified is that it is pretty much a very persistent problem over the years. When we look at 19 prosecutions being made for the illegal hunting and killing of endangered protected wildlife between 2004 and 2011 and seven foreign nationals being convicted of attempted smuggling since 2010 we see very much a persistent problem that we need to address. So I look forward to this bill going through to the Local Government and Environment Committee—a very hard-working select committee with Scott Simpson as its chair. I am sure it will get a range of submissions from people in New Zealand especially in my area of Waimakariri. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.