Dyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Rau rakatira mā tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[To the esteemed ones of a hundredfold I acknowledge you collectively in regard to the matter of the day; salutations greetings and accolades to you and to us all.]It is a really important debate that we are having and I want to acknowledge everyone who has contributed to it. It is the one opportunity in the year that select committees get a chance to hold the Ministers of various portfolios to account and I want to acknowledge the Ministers who did front up to the committees and generally answered questions to the best of their ability—not always as well as we had hoped but certainly to the best of their ability.There are few comments that I want to make in relation to the conservation portfolio specifically. This is the seventh year in a row that we have seen a reduction in the overall budget for the Department of Conservation and frankly it is getting to the point where every time the department has a bit of crisis on its hands—for example a stoat on Kāpiti—it puts out the begging bowl and has to ask whether there is anybody who would like to donate so that it can perform its core statutory responsibilities. I think that that is an embarrassment to New Zealand and New Zealanders and I think the Ministers misrepresent the position that the department has been put in by the lack of support from their Cabinet colleagues.There are other points of concern that were raised during the debate in the Local Government and Environment Committeethat I want to mention. The first is the lack of reclassification of stewardship land and the implication that that might have particularly in two areas that are of current concern. One is Ruataniwha and the other is the Hurunui where conservation land is being proposed as part of a land swap for the creation of a dam. Because those areas in the most part are currently stewardship land there has been a tendency to reduce the public concern by dismissing them as land of little value and we know from the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has done on the need for the proper classification of stewardship land that that land is often not of low value at all. I would really urge the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation to take the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and do something with it.The second concern that I want to put on the record is the fact that the Minister for the Environment is now responsible for leading our marine reserves legislation and change and I want to say that that is not because of the personality of the Minister for the Environment. Few National members are more passionate than he is about marine protection and I acknowledge the work that he has done over recent years in particular. That is not the concern that I have. The concern I have is that as Minister for the Environment he operates under different criteria.The current marine protection legislation led by the Minister of Conservation has preservation and protection as the basis of that legislation whereas the exclusive economic zone legislation which is where the Minister for the Environment is likely to lead has a sustainable management ethos. They are quite different foundations and that causes a considerable concern in the transfer. So it is not about the personality of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I am quite comfortable with him amongst all of the National Government Ministers—in fact he is the only one amongst all of the National Government Ministers who I think gives a toss in this area. It is about what the basis of our future marine legislationis going to be. So I wish him every success in ensuring that conservation and preservation are the basis of future legislation.The next point I want to mention is the inability of the Minister of Conservation to answer on time some of the questions and her refusal to answer questions about unsuccessful Budget bids. She is the only Minister I have seen before a select committee who has refused to acknowledge that in some areas her bids were unsuccessful. She should have been up front and honest with not just the committee and Parliament but the public of New Zealand. I have seen other Ministers front up to those questions; she refused. I have subsequently asked the Prime Minister; he has refused to have anything to do with that as well.The last point I want to make is in regard to conservation partnerships. Of course these are a good thing—working with philanthropic organisations with business with individuals and with community organisations together to progress a shared goal—but it goes over the line of partnership when the department is dependent on donations in order to fulfil its core functions. It has got that way in the area of pest management and control it has got that way in areas of planting and it has got that way in the area of education. Those are core statutory functions that the department is unable to perform on its own.