Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to join the voices of support for the second reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and I want to particularly congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on the work that it did—very ably chaired by a member whose name just escapes me at the moment.Hon Members: Oh!Hon RUTH DYSON: Scott Simpson an excellent chair of the committee. I think the whole committee seems to have done a very good job on this. This bill was certainly necessary. It is not a very big bill it is not a very substantial bill it has not got a lot of policy issues in it but it was needed to update the powers that Department of Conservation (DOC) officers have. The main new power that is given in this bill is the power to seize a wider range of evidence. That is clearly to ensure that any prosecution has a more robust case behind it so that it does not fail. That is a smart thing to do. There is the power to stop a person—it might seem like that must be the case at the moment but actually under the current Wildlife Act rangers have powers to stop only vehicles vessels and other items. For example if someone is carrying a bag rangers can detain the bag but they cannot detain the person so that obviously makes examination calling the police etc. a lot more difficult. Currently rangers cannot temporarily stop people to assist in an investigation. So obviously if someone is doing something that is considered illegal they can just leave and again the rangers have no ability to stop them. If the rangers think that a person might have been a witness to such an offence they cannot stop them either. They cannot seize evidence. They cannot seize cameras they cannot seize mobile phones and they cannot seize laptops. I think that the original legislation was passed before laptops and mobile phones were in use—it is 1953 legislation so it is getting on. We did not have mobile phones and laptops so I am told in those days. Another new power that is being given by this legislation is the power to require suspected offenders to supply identification details. Obviously that is another critical bit of information that would enable a successful prosecution to later go through. In some specific examples there are warranted rangers and approved officers who would actually themselves have the power of arrest. So those are the main additional powers that are being given to all DOC rangers and some specifically warranted rangers and approved officers in terms of the power of arrest. Labour supports any measure that will help our hard-working Conservation staff do their jobs properly. I do not think there would be very many New Zealanders who do not totally value the work that DOC does. It will be a good message for DOC staff to hear from this Parliament that their work is appreciated because we know that they do not feel very valued. They do not feel as if they are properly supported to get on and do their job. The Department of Conservation does an annual survey and the 2015 results showed that only 27 percent of DOC staff had faith and confidence in their senior leadership which is a really sad reflection on how people whom we in this Parliament value so much regard the support that they are given. We know that our natural environment is not just good for New Zealanders to love and value but is also a massive asset for our country for recreation as well as tourism. People come to New Zealand because of the beautiful environment that we have and of course because of the welcoming people as well. So we have to ensure that that environment is protected for future generations. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that that protection is properly funded and properly supported. We know that DOC has been struggling with funding over the last little while. I know that under the previous Minister there were substantial cuts to the DOC budget. The Minister came to a select committee that I was on and explained the reason for the cuts and basically said: You know we haven't enough money to go round and DOC has to have its share of the cuts in the same way as other Government departments and agencies have done." That was his explanation. It was not well received I know by the committee at the time because DOC is funded to only the bare minimum now and it cannot really afford to face any more cuts. We know that DOC staff as I mentioned earlier feel undervalued and they are also overworked. Last year 1500 DOC staff took industrial action and they were offered a pitiful pay increase. They felt as if it was a slap in the face given all the work that they had done. In this legislation we are giving them additional work and what would be really great to hear—and I am sure that DOC staff would welcome it—is that they are getting additional resources. They are getting all these additional powers. There will be more work when the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is passed but where are the resources to back it up? In 2009 there were 803 DOC rangers—that is public information; it cannot be argued because it is information that is on the public record—and now there are only 637. Again that is information that is on the public record. There has been no change in the names of the rangers. There can be no explanations such as: "They are now called something else." They were rangers then and they are rangers now and the number has reduced substantially. Again in this bill we are giving those very people more work to do. It is the DOC rangers who are going to be asked to do this work. In 2009 the DOC budget was cut by $46 million. That was done by the previous Minister and I have already explained the reasons he gave to the select committee for that cut. In 2013 it was cut by another $8.7 million. I want to know whether in the next Budget the addition work we are giving the rangers will be properly resourced. We should not be setting up public servants to fail. That is a very bad thing for this Government to do and it is a bad thing for this Parliament to do. So although we support the intent of this legislation and we will certainly be voting for it I suppose the message to the Minister is: "Put your money where your mouth is." Let us see the resources so that we can be confident that this legislation will be enacted in the way that Parliament has intended in the way the select committee discussed in its careful deliberations and in the way I am sure the Minister originally intended. Thank you."