Dyson Ruth: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6635. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat Jacqui Dean and say that her presentation of her Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill was spoken with some insight and passion and I commend both. I am very pleased to say that Labour is supporting this bill. 
Mrs Dean said she wanted to see better protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources and she talked about the jewelled gecko on Banks Peninsula and Otago Peninsula. As the member of Parliament who used to represent Banks Peninsula before it was stolen unkindly from me by the Hon Amy Adams and put into the Selwyn electorate I was privileged to see those geckos on a number of occasions and I really enjoyed them. I know that a former Minister of Conservation the Hon Dr Nick Smith was part of those experiences as well when he was not kayaking in Akaroa Harbour waiting for a reserve to be put there. The reserve still is not there Dr Smith so get back in that job and let us get it progressed. 
I remember not very long ago having a bill that made quite a small amendment to the Resource Management Act but it was one that in my view was quite significant because it changed the part of the Resource Management Act that allowed for private enterprise to compulsorily acquire land in order to progress their projects. I thought it was something that really deserved cross-party support in the House. I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in that debate— 
Grant Robertson 
: They’re always memorable. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Perhaps my colleague Grant Robertson is correct—they are always memorable. I certainly remember this one because he said that we should not do little bits of changes even though the bill was a member’s bill. He said we should look at the whole issue—we should look at a comprehensive approach. He was talking about the Resource Management Act. So I am looking forward to Dr Smith’s speech tonight when he with the same consistency of principle refuses to support his colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill on the basis that it is not even a tinkering. It is not worthy of even the description of tinkering. It is such a small amendment. But it is significant. It is very comparable to the Resource Management Act amendment I introduced which Nick Smith railed against and then led the vote against. So whilst supporting this bill I look forward to his contribution because I will be giving him marks out of 10 for his consistency and I would like him to score highly on that point. 
This bill ensures that not only are the penalties for as the member described trying to smuggle our precious gecko etc. out of the country or releasing pests into natural reserves which is another one of the penalties increased but actually they are made more consistent and I think that is a very good thing. At the moment if someone released a stoat into a nature reserve the highest penalty they could receive would be a $500 fine or 1 month’s imprisonment. That in itself is quite bizarre because $500 does not seem all that much actually but 1 month’s imprisonment seems like quite a lot. So I think there is some inconsistency within even the existing penalty regime. Under the National Parks Act if part of a national park is carved off and converted to pasture or to a stand of trees that then is milled the highest penalty is $2500 or 3 months’ imprisonment. So there is quite an inconsistency between those offences. But if those same offences happened in a conservation area such as the Kaimanawa Conservation Park the maximum penalty for the same offences would be $10000 or 12 months in prison. So again how did all of this come about? Well it came about because we did not have an overview in the way that the member has provided for in this member’s bill. And we know that the areas that national parks protect are typically of higher value than conservation areas so it is even more foolish. 
 So while Labour will be supporting this bill and I certainly look forward to the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee if that is indeed where it is referred to after the vote I have to say that out of all of the things that are happening in the conservation space I would have thought that a member of the Government might have used the opportunity of a member’s bill to make sure that the fundamental role of the Department of Conservation was secured and perhaps even—it might be a bit dramatic for the National Party—enhanced not just left as the status quo. The Hon Nick Smith’s eyes are lighting up because I know that is what he would want to do with it; not just retain the status quo but strengthen the role of the Department of Conservation. What we have seen over the last 4 years is a real dumbing down of the department. I think that is a huge shame and it is something we will pay for over the longer term quite significantly. 
The National Party sees the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced rather than seeing them as dependent on each other or two sides of the one coin which is the way Labour sees those issues. So the Department of Conservation has lost its place as a critical player in our public policy. We do not have the advocacy role. We certainly do not have in the Minister an advocate for conservation issues. We saw the Minister just stand back and watch Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce bowl over her views in terms of mining of schedule 4 land. It was not really until thousands of New Zealanders got on the street and protested against the possibility not of mining—the protest was not against mining—but of mining in our most special places the pieces of land that are protected under schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Those pieces of land are there for a particular reason and they should be protected. That is why they are put under schedule 4 of that legislation. 
We know that the Department of Conservation has had massive staff cuts. During the submissions on the Game Animal Council Bill we heard a lot about the relationship the Department of Conservation has with local people in provincial areas in particular. In some parts of the country the Department of Conservation works alongside recreational hunters works alongside iwi works alongside community groups works alongside schools to make sure that those conservation values are seen as part of the ongoing resources and win the support of the community. But what we have seen in other areas is that through the staff cuts that the National Government has imposed on the Department of Conservation the staff have been centralised they have been moved to other parts of the country and those relationships are just not possible. There are not local people doing that job any more. We know that over the next 12 months we are going to see further staff cuts in the Department of Conservation. 
One of the areas that are of most concern is the lack of scientific research that is now available as a core function of the Department of Conservation. If we want evidence-based research if we want best practice if we want to be really confident that the decisions made in regard to conservation are made on the basis of evidence and on the basis of good information we need that scientific base. We have seen good scientists—some of the best scientists—leave the Department of Conservation because the work is not there for them. Even when there is some work available they do not get the satisfaction any more of knowing that that work is going anywhere. 
I hope that the Minister of Conservation when it comes to the next big decision that she has to make is able to get some courage which she has not demonstrated in many recent decision-making processes. That decision is in regard to protection for Maui’s dolphins. The submissions have closed just this week and thousands of New Zealanders put in submissions calling for protection of the most endangered dolphin and a dolphin that is New Zealand’s dolphin. There are only 55 adult Maui’s dolphins left. I implore the Minister to use her power as Minister of Conservation and to not be pushed back by the people in her Cabinet who do not care nearly as much about our dolphin or our reputation internationally as they do about so-called economic benefits. There is a bottom line and I think that the future of a species that we are responsible for protecting should be a big part of that bottom line. I want the Minister responsible for fisheries to put some money into sustainable fishing practices for New Zealand so that instead of the fishing industry losing out in a decision to protect the Maui’s dolphins we can get a win-win situation. But at the moment that is not happening. The Minister of Conservation is standing by and letting the Minister for Primary Industries run the place. I think that is a great shame. 
The conservation values that we have in New Zealand are important to us. This bill will give us an opportunity to make better sense of our penalty regime but also to give better protection to some—