O'Connor Damien: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9995. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.