Whaitiri Meka: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. I look forward to it coming to one of the hardest-working select committees in Parliament the Local Government and Environment Committee and I endorse the sentiments of the chair in saying that we will give it a thorough scrutiny when it comes before us.When reading the bill and there have been some great contributions in the House this evening and listening to all the contributions today—it has been a good start but clearly more work needs to be done in this bill. It is a simple bill. It has got two parts. When I read it and listened to the contributions tonight it reminded me that the analogy that I drew was with a wharenui or a whare tipuna. The strength of a whare is in its parts and how it is put together particularly the tāhuhu or the ridge pole which gives it the mana and the strength. Listening to the contributions today and the debate that has gone on in the House I do believe that there is still quite a bit of work to do—namely when I look at the policy statement submitted by the department or the departmental disclosure statement actually it talks about proposing what this bill is in giving the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers more powers to investigate and to make arrests but it also makes the point here around species that are also threatened by introduced predators and habitat loss. So when I made the analogy of a wharenui and a tāhuhu we need to make sure we protect the wider context the habitat in which our wild species and our plants are nurtured. In the contributions that people have made today particularly on our water quality—that is an area that does need to be cleaned up if we are going to ensure that the bill that we are asking this House to consider meets the intended purpose. It is about updating the Wildlife Act of 1953 as people have said. It is 60 years old so I think it is absolutely important that we provide contemporary fit-for-purpose tools in terms of modernising the Act.Not only has this bill been introduced to reduce the offending but it is also about protecting our native species hence the reason why our habitat must be healthy—that is our waterways and our native forests need to be healthy. The conjecture that this side has put is that we still have a long way to go. The water quality standard around being wadeable is just not enough. It is not enough and it is not good enough. This side—Labour particularly—wants to ensure that our waterways are actually swimmable and fit to gather kai and fish out of. It is a basic right that many of us growing up in New Zealand had and there is no reason why we should not have that.Back to my analogy of the tāhuhu or the ridge pole. We have got coercive powers being given to DOC rangers but I would also like to see whether there are some educational resources being made available so that we have a balance—so that it is not all just around punishment but also about education.I heard comments made in the House around information sharing with the Custom Service. A tāhuhu needs to be connected and related. We have the work of the DOC officers but we also need to make sure that we are sharing information at the border to prevent any of the species getting across our borders.In looking at this I also heard about the opportunity to work in partnership with iwi and regional authorities. All parts of the community not just the DOC—particularly with some of its resourcing being constrained—should be looking at partnerships that ensure that at the end of the day our native species are protected. I would like to see a bit more of that coming through in this bill and like I said hopefully we will get some submissions in the select committee process.Talking about iwi though I turn to the section of the departmental disclosure statement that talks about “Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations”. One question—well actually it is not a question. It is probably a point that I want to raise here with members of the House. When we have a section in departmental disclosure statements—and I think I have said this before so I will repeat myself—that talks about whether a bill is consistent with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations we cannot say that discussion with Te Puni Kōkiri meets that test. We cannot say that but time and time again when I look at departmental disclosure statements under this particular section it always says that the department has talked to Te Puni Kōkiri. Can I make it really clear that Te Puni Kōkiri or the Ministry of Māori Development is regarded by all Māori out there as a Crown entity. It is not the Treaty partner. So you know I will say this again: it is not the Treaty partner. It is good that you noted that you are talking to it but it is not the Treaty partner.What it goes on to say in that section is that officials who prepared this statement spoke to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. As we all know Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the iwi authority for Te Wai Pounamu and that is unquestionable. But my point is that there are many more iwi who have settled with the Crown around the rest of the country who have DOC arrangements as part of their Treaty settlements. Therefore I want to offer that if we are going to have bills in this House that have impact on iwi we should have a much wider canvass than just Ngāi Tahu. That is my plea. It is not ignoring their advice; it is a plea for all the other iwi—and there are many around the country that have settled but for some reason we have not spoken to them. To me it is not good enough to say they can just come and make a submission to a select committee. I think if we are going to meet our obligations as this bill is saying it is going to then we must cast the net a lot wider than what has occurred here.So that is my only criticism of this bill—I think we should have done a lot more research into the impact that this is going to have on our Treaty partners wherever they are. Big large small urban rural coastal—all have relationships with the local DOC. I just think there is a wealth of experience and some information that was lost in bringing this bill to the House.There is not much more that I want to add but those were my contributions in the first reading. Like I said I look forward to it coming to the select committee where we can debate it much more intensely and hear from all those who obviously are passionate about our native species. We want to ensure that those that are still with us stay with us and those that are on the verge of extinction also have the opportunity to be protected and looked after. I stand and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.