Hague Kevin: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It seems to be a bit of a theme in this Parliament and perhaps the last one to be overhauling or amending ancient legislation. When we look at those bills it becomes readily apparent that they were drawn up in I guess simpler ages when circumstances were somewhat different. I must say in contrast to the Radiation Safety Bill which the House was dealing with some weeks ago it is certainly a pleasure not to have National Party members filling their speeches with reminiscences of the songs of 1953 that they recall. As Scott Simpson was saying 1953 was a simpler time perhaps when understanding of conservation practice was more primitive but perhaps also a time when New Zealanders’ sense of collective responsibility was stronger. As Scott Simpson was saying it was a time when perhaps just the uniform of what was then a forest service ranger would have been enough to ensure compliance.There has been some updating of the Act in the intervening years and in her contribution the Minister referred to the bill sponsored through this Parliament by Jacqui Dean. Kate Wilkinson was also concerned with the issue of penalties under the Wildlife Act because the penalties that were imposed in 1953 were simply inadequate to provide any kind of disincentive to those who were motivated to break the law. I guess my frustration with those attempts to change the Act both increasing the penalties and now on this occasion ramping up the enforcement powers the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers have is that they have been piecemeal attempts rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the Act. They have also been very reactive. It was the high-profile cases of lizards being smuggled and of native birds being shot that actually prompted a particular action but they did not prompt a comprehensive review and modernisation of the Act and that is what we actually require.In his wide-ranging contribution David Parker spoke about the importance of habitat and indeed one of the issues with the Wildlife Act is that it focuses very much on individual species. Part of what we know now as part of modern conservation practice is that focus on individual species is almost worthless. We need to see species in ecosystem terms and in relation to the habitats. A modern Wildlife Act would have that kind of focus.The other aspect I guess that the bill could be considering and an enlightened Government would be doing in an overhaul of the Act would be to really address the emergency that we face in threatened and endangered species in this country. Actually if you consider amphibians almost all of them are critically endangered. The same applies to reptiles and to many of our birds. We have the highest proportion of species in this country of any country on earth that are endangered yet of that vast list of endangered species only a very small number actually have active protection plans. That is why I have a bill in the ballot also to amend the Wildlife Act to actually require New Zealand to do what the United States Canada and many other countries have done—that is when we identify a species as endangered there then becomes a responsibility on the State on behalf of us all to put in place a plan to recover and protect that species very often in the context of its ecosystem and the habitat that may be threatened.The Green Party will certainly be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. In the select committee process there are several issues that we are going to be specifically looking for. We are going to be asking whether these powers are enough. Are these powers going to be adequate to achieve the purpose that is set out in the bill? I noted with great interest and some horror the Minister’s comment that there would not be specific extra training—that rangers were considered to be already trained enough. I find that quite extraordinary. I am going to be teasing that out at the select committee. On the other side of the ledger whenever we have a bill that is expanding enforcement powers it is appropriate for us to be asking whether these coercive powers are appropriately balanced with other rights and freedoms that people should have such as those set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and such as privacy rights. Has that balance been struck in the correct place?I am also concerned because in many ways the extra powers that our rangers will have as a result of this bill if it passes are similar in kind to the extra powers that fisheries officers have. We know from experience that fisheries officers are indeed sometimes subject to threats or to physical violence and that might be a new dimension a new threat faced by conservation rangers that has not been faced to date. It will be a matter of great interest what planning has been done by the department and by the Government to ensure that our conservation rangers are appropriately protected from those additional threats.I was also astonished to hear from the Minister that the Government does not consider that these new powers will require any more resourcing for the DOC. I just cannot see how that can be. We hear pretty well daily of fresh situations where the DOC is unable to carry out its basic functions because it is cash-strapped. It does not have the resources to perform those roles and yet this seems to be another case of expecting the department to do more with less. I come from the West Coast—others have been mentioning their areas—and I have been recently concerned about the Inland Pack Track in the Paparoa National Park. The main track in that national park is currently closed in one part because of damage from Cyclone Ita. The DOC reckons that the cost of repairing that will be $62000 which it does not have. It has been calling for volunteers to come and repair the main track in one of our national parks.When this Government came to power it reduced the baseline funding for the DOC by $35 million—approximately a drop of 10 percent—and since that time that baseline funding has not only been kept at that low level but also it has been reduced further. It is hardly surprising that the basic functions that New Zealanders expect from the DOC to protect the species the ecosystems and the habitats that we love which the Minister spoke of when quoting Don Merton in her speech are not being met and the department is failing to meet those expectations. We are going to be looking when this bill is considered at the select committee at whether or not the Government will in fact adequately resource these extra functions that the department is being asked to perform. Thank you.