7. Question No. 7—ConservationCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 7—Conservation7. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Conservation: Has the Department of Conservation identified how many kororā/little blue penguin live in the rock wall at Pūtiki Bay; if so how many?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): The Department of Conservation (DOC) has advised me that there are currently no burrows with any sign of kororā in the rock wall at Pūtiki Bay. I'm advised by the department that surveys undertaken in 2021 identified four burrows along the rock wall that did have signs of kororā but that none of these are being actively used by kororā at present. However I do want to thank the member for raising this issue as the situation at Pūtiki Bay has highlighted some of the issues that are very live and playing out that occur when decisions are made under the Wildlife Act 1953 which is why I've decided to announce a first principles review of the Act back in December.Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister confident that no kororā will come to harm as a result of the permit DOC has granted developers to move kororā while removing the rock wall; if so why?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yeah thank you to that member. These questions of course are really relevant because I know that many people have been very concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of the kororā. As the member will be aware the decision to grant the permit was that of the Auckland Council which has been granted to the development agency. The decision to grant the permit under the Wildlife Act though provided the authority to capture handle and relocate kororā as a consequence of the position that they found themselves—the options that were put to them under the Wildlife Act: either (a) decline the consent and therefore you are at the behest of those works going ahead and you can't really do anything other than let the works go ahead and they can't ensure the protection of the kororā; or grant the consent. By granting the consent and enabling those kororā to be moved the Department of Conservation made the determination based on the advice provided to them that this would be the way to ensure the safety of those kororā. But the question remains that we are still at this really—it's an unsatisfactory decision-making process that the Wildlife Act confers upon decision makers.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree with Karen Saunders of Waiheke's Native Bird Rescue that it is beyond horrific in this day and age to be destroying habitat for the sake of pleasure boats that are contributing to the climate emergency."; if she does why did the department grant the permit?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member will be aware the consents for the overarching marina development those are granted by the Auckland Council and I as the Minister of Conservation don't have any discretion with that respect. So the issue that was before me as a decision maker is very very narrow around what we can do in terms of moving and relocating the kororā now that the permit for the development has been agreed to. So with respect to the broader comments of the member look I understand that there are many views about the impacts of the marina development but I don't have any ministerial responsibility for the broader implications.Chlöe Swarbrick: Did the decision under the Wildlife Act to grant the permit take into account—quoting penguin expert Dr John Cockrem of Massey University—that "The expectation is that the birds will come back to their home and if their home is gone they will go into the rocks closest to where they have been but their home will be destroyed."; if not why not?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Department of Conversation I'm advised engaged with Dr Cockrem as well as a number of other ecologists who presented different views. My understanding is that the advice was that the safest option was to grant the consent to enable the relocation. Further the ecologists that they turned to said that the penguins or the kororā would most likely return back to the environment albeit in its altered state. So that was the information that they have relied on to grant the consent.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that commercial developments are prioritised ahead of the protection of threatened species such as kororā; if so will her reform of the Wildlife Act rectify this issue and put native species first?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As I think I've addressed I think that there are multiple issues here at play. I think some of these issues will be for consideration under the broader Resource Management Act reforms. I think some of them fall within the very narrow scope of what can be done to protect wildlife under the Wildlife Act which as the Waitangi Tribunal found is completely out of date which as many conservationists have found is completely out of date which as we understand just is not appropriate and fit for purpose in our current day and age. I expect that we will hear many submissions around the way that we can best ensure that the Wildlife Act is fit for purpose. Moving forward that takes into consideration all of the impacts of development which are currently creating adverse outcomes as a consequence of a lack of discretion for decision makers to be able to make."