Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to join with other members and endorse the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill that's being introduced with this first reading and indicate National's strong support for it. It's a bill that was introduced by the former Minister Maggie Barry. It's a bill that's going to end up with better conservation outcomes. It's a bill that's actually going to be more just for people that commit offences across the various conservation statutes. And actually it's a bill that's going to save the taxpayers money. So it ticks all three of those issues.But I can't help commenting that here we are in the middle of the first 100 days of the new Government and they're so bereft of new ideas and legislation that within that 100 days we're passing National Party bills. It just reinforces how ill-prepared the new Government was for taking up the role of office and long may the new Government advance legislation that has been advanced by us. It's a reinforcement of how much was in the pipe from the previous Government and how vacant the new parties opposite—Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has been speaking for almost 2 minutes and we are yet to hear of the substantive matters addressed in the bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is the judge of that. I appreciate the point and I'll ask the member to continue.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite are so sensitive on this point that in the first 100 days it's National legislation that they are putting through this House. Let me come to the issues of why it's good legislation that my colleague Maggie Barry has raised and that is around the issue of the infringement offences. What we want is better conservation outcomes. Here's the dilemma: you're a Department of Conservation (DOC) official you're out on the Marlborough Sounds—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not. Ha ha!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and the person is offending against the marine reserves law by fishing within it. And the choice is to either turn a blind eye give the person a warning or to spend more than $20000 on a full court prosecution and give that person a criminal offence.I've had the facing of constituents who have committed actually in the big picture relatively minor conservation offences—you know they've had a dog in a reserve where they're not meant to they've assumed that they can have their 4-wheel drive vehicle in a particular area and haven't been able to they've misjudged the boundary of the marine reserve and next minute they've got a criminal offence on their book that means that if they ever want to travel overseas it's like they've committed something really serious.So the concept in this bill of having infringement offences and instant fines in my view is going to result in better conservation outcomes. Why? Because the DOC official or the Fish & Game guy is going to say when somebody has done something wrong Actually you do deserve an instant fine." but it actually is not good use of taxpayers' money. It's my prediction that there will be a lot more people that actually end up being prosecuted under these eight different conservation Acts than occurs currently. That means people think they've got a better chance of being caught and being fined and so it is my view that you'll get better conservation outcomes.Secondly it's my view that it will be more just. It will be more just because actually if somebody's got a dog in a DOC reserve or a local government reserve that's inappropriate it is actually unfair for them to go through the full expense of engaging a lawyer where the penalty becomes out of scale with the level of the offence simply because of the bureaucracy of having to go through a full court hearing.And here's the other part: we as taxpayers spend a huge sum of money on our court systems. We all get frustrated as constituency MPs sometimes at the delays and the expense of that process. This bill eliminates that and that's why it's a good bill this House should support.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."