Mahuta Nanaia: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9984. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of Labour to register our support for the sentiments that the Minister of Conservation has just made in terms of New Zealand having natural heritage values within our conservation estate—and indeed across our country—that should be protected. We will support the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill going to a select committee and we will expect a thorough investigation because Minister—as you rightly point out—as powers are expanded for Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers to be able to carry out their duties in this modern age getting the right balance between the powers of search seizure and arrest with regard to the ability to enforce these particular powers is a matter that I think the select committee will want to spend some time on.Minister you raised a number of reasons as to why the modernisation of the search seizure and arrest powers is required and indeed I want to comment on a couple of them—firstly with regard to the issue of international dealers and smuggling. I am sure that when the select committee hears some of the specific reasons for expanding the powers of DOC rangers it will want to look at some of the overlapping ways in which agencies with a common interest will need to collaborate. Some of that is already happening but it could be better improved and indeed Minister you highlighted that. I think that the way in which customs officers at the border want to surveil those who have been involved in international smuggling of wildlife species is an area that I think is of interest when you are looking at cooperating withinformation but also in respect of apportioning roles and responsibilities between DOC rangers and customs officers.It will also be of some interest I think to the select committee to look at the way in which these provisions have been covered in the Act. There are a number of things that will require DOC rangers to make a judgment based on discretion—based on what they reasonably believe is important information that could be used as evidence of offending or offending about to take place—but also on the practicalities of how they assess whether or not to go to the next step and take reasonable steps to stop and keep stopped for a period as defined in the bill a person of interest. That requires a level of judgment. It is my concern Minister that when DOC rangers or those authorised to carry out these extra powers make a decision giving some context around that will be very important because enforcement at the end of the day does not exist in a vacuum. We have DOC rangers who operate in isolation often in areas that are well away from a lot of the public and we need to be assured I think at the select committee level that they are able to carry out these particular tasks with some level of safety and assurance.Just today up on the Kāpiti coast a young girl of 21 working at a mall was trying to stop a shoplifter and got knocked over. In the conservation estate if you have got people who are looking to smuggle species for a huge amount of money there is a safety element as well. So this is where the balance of enforcement coupled with the extension of powers is a matter that the select committee should legitimately be looking at.So my question at this first reading will be around how the powers will work in practice how these matters of judgment will be made in the context of taking reasonable steps to stop people of interest and the point at which rangers are making the assessment. Minister you made a comment about requiring information to be gained from a person of interest such as their date of birth and their details and things like that. Well quite frankly if they are on the run and on the hop and you are chasing them you are not going to be able to inform them beforehand. These are some of the practical things that I think we need to sift through at the select committee to give a better context to how the intention of these powers will operate in practice and in reality.They are important because if a person has come from overseas with the express intent to smuggle species of a biodiversity interest to them—which can fetch quite a handsome sum on the black market—getting for example their name their address and their passport could be really something very useful and detaining them until prosecution would be entirely justified. But again we will have to pursue these types of questions with some context around practical examples so this will mean that the select committee will have to delve back into some of these cases that have led to prosecution to get the legislation working in a way that it is intended to. It might mean some changes but we should leave the select committee to do its job and report back at the second stage of the bill around those particular interests.Minister there are two specific issues that I have commented on. One in respect of extending powers is whether they are able to be enforced. Labour has a real concern about the ability of the DOC to enforce the expansion of powers granted to it to be able to conduct its role when actually the budget of the DOC has not been substantially increased. Positions that have been changed through the restructure have not been backfilled so we are making some comment on the fact that the DOC is underfunded to carry out its current roles yet we are expanding its roles. Is it able to practically enforce the extension of powers that it has been given? You commented on that Minister. Again I raise this out of courtesy because it will be a matter to ask questions about when we get to the select committee.There are also some aspects of the bill that I considered would be of interest for us to think about in this first reading. One is its intent. That is really the point at which a decision is made about whether or not to seize or make an arrest based on an action at a particular point in time and the information available to the DOC rangers. Say for example if the DOC ranger understands that hunting is being undertaken in a particular area and it is after the fact—it is after the fact that they have had information passed on that then might lead to subsequent actions of the rangers—what weight is given to the evidence provided to the DOC ranger in order for them to make a decision? So this is for example a ranger stopping someone who has gone out 3 days previously on a hunting trip who is then making their way home and the DOC ranger has been given information to then stop them quite a way from the place where an activity of an illegal nature has been conducted. This is a matter that I know that the Minister is well aware of and if this bill is intended to improve that situation maybe it is something that the select committee might put its mind to.So with that said the extension of powers does modernise the ability of DOC rangers to carry out an extended range of roles. Will it be able to be enforced practically and will the determination of the extension of powers meet the practical way in which DOC rangers carry out their tasks? In a nutshell it seems to me that those are the issues for the select committee to address when the matter gets to the Local Government and Environment Committee.