Barry Maggie: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionBarry Maggie: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14215. Text is subject to correction.]MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak at the third reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. This is its third reading. I have spoken at all the other readings and I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which has heard this excellent bill through all its very many stages. As others have said this is a bill that updates all the penalties across the conservation areas and across many pieces of legislation with the sole and laudable aim of better protecting our native species our flora and our fauna and our creatures. Jacqui Dean the sponsor of this bill who has done a magnificent job of representing a local issue and making it relevant and applicable in the wider sense has also been telling us about the geckos. We were shocked by some of the submissions that we have seen around what they will actually fetch in terms of the price internationally. There are considerable incentives for people to do the wrong thing—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ask John Banks.MAGGIE BARRY: —and that is why it was vitally important that we did an update on the penalties. After all they have not been updated since the 1970s—much like the member who is whingeing in the corner over there opposite me who lives in the past.This is a bill that—unlike that creature who wallows in the wilds of the Waimakariri seat he will never win again—does improve penalties and it improves things in a way that is consistent. Once again that is something that is a bit of an unknown to the Opposition benches. Six key pieces of legislation are involved in this bill. It is about increasing the protection for most public conservation land and protected indigenous wildlife and marine mammals which was a positive contribution—a rare creature indeed—from the Opposition. These are the sorts of things that actually make a piece of legislation relevant. It has as a bill enjoyed widespread support cross-party support but of course there have been some political points scored today so I would like to counter some of those.If you were unwise enough to listen to the peculiar utterances of the Greens for example you would think that the Department of Conservation is an organisation that can do nothing to protect our environment and is on its knees and weakened. That is rubbish like much of what the member Eugenie Sage who sat down just before my speech often says—in select committee too regrettably but mostly in this House. I would just point out to those of you who are interested in the facts that the budget for Vote Conservation is now $444 million which is almost double the $226 million it was back in 2001 and 2002. So once again although there is a great deal of rhetoric from tired old Labour people they did nothing much at the time. They went along with this bill because it is an excellent piece of work and even though they cannot find fault with it they still continue to try to stand up and bash the Government around these sorts of things.This is a Government that is investing well in recovery programmes. Across our national conservation programmes we want to protect some 35 percent more threatened species. We are also as a Government intending to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. Those are all laudable aims and they are also things that we actually do. We do not just sit around and gripe about it when we have already lost the opportunity to do it which is what happens with Opposition members. It will probably be a very long time before they ever get the opportunity to do anything about this sort of thing again because they are never going to get the Treasury benches with the kinds of antics that they are coming up with at the moment.People have talked about the flora and fauna but I would like to remind this House and people who are supportive of this bill that it is also very important for the preservation of human life. I would like to remind this group here today about Rosemary Ives. That is a name known to us due to the tragic nature of her death. She was killed as a result of a bullet being fired without due caution in the wrong place at the wrong time. We all know or if we do not we should that it is unlawful to discharge firearms at night or over public conservation land. But it happens. When it happens it needs to be punished. There is currently very little consequence on the statute book for such actions. This was something that the coroner highlighted in particular as something that he was aggrieved about and felt needed addressing. That is in part what this bill does because what happened to Rosemary Ives that terrible tragedy is technically just a breach of a condition in a permit. This bill changes the penalty for such actions from the current maximum of a $10000 fine to a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment or a $100000 fine or both. It is too little and too late for the tragic situation of Rosemary Ives but it is significantly better than no change at all.So this bill which has been ably led through the select committee process by a very competent and able chair Nicky Wagner and proposed by a very competent and able member Jacqui Dean has brought together the very best of what needs to be done to protect our flora and fauna. The question remains why it has taken so long to get to this stage. It is a bill that is fit for purpose enjoys widespread support needs to be passed and needs to be done. I commend this bill to the House without hesitation or reservation.