Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Labour is pleased to be able to support the progress of this bill through the House and to support the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee on what are some small but integral steps towards modernising the legislation.I did not sit on the select committee. However I know that from the considerations and from having read some of the submissions it is clear that the committee took seriously some of the fundamental aspects of empowering DOC rangers by way of allowing and broadening their ability to intervene to stop and to detain people for illegal activities. I just want to summarise a couple of those submissions. First the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee and the suggestions it made around the scope of the stop-and-search powers to ensure that the objectives of the bill could be achieved while keeping in mind the balance between individual rights and conferring rights to DOC rangers—I think it made some helpful suggestions which the committee and DOC officials reflected on. You can see that through the amendments to the bill that have been suggested.The Minister of Conservation is right: protecting New Zealand's biodiversity does matter. When we think about New Zealand and our conservation estate and the rich biodiversity that we have throughout—which we can share with our children the next generation who are part of protecting and cherishing the estate—it is only right that we try to ensure that DOC rangers have the types of powers that stop people from basically plundering and illegally taking our natural wildlife. For that reason I read carefully the submission by the New Zealand Fish and Game Council and I did happen to be at one small part of a hearing when it was there. It argued against being excluded from the provisions of the bill. I think the committee deliberated on this matter but in the end landed in the right place.Some of the conversations that were had when I was at the select committee were largely around the fact that the Fish and Game New Zealand honorary rangers are just that—they are voluntary. They do not have statutory powers and it would be difficult to try to confer significant powers on a group of people where quite frankly—we did have the discussion during the public submissions—there could be a rogue ranger and they could just go all over the show with their powers. I think the committee in good conscience weighed up the submission from Fish and Game New Zealand and balanced that with some practical applications of what was intended in the legislation and really narrowed down the powers there.The New Zealand Law Society also gave a very useful submission. It wanted to stress and ensure that the powers that were being conferred in this bill aligned with the Search and Surveillance Act. That has been the case and you can see it in the committee's report back to the House.The Minister has pretty much extensively covered the things that were considered: the power to seize evidence; the power to stop a person in addition to the existing powers that are already there for DOC rangers; and the power to intervene to prevent offending. Those were the key aspects from the committee's report which many of the amendments focused on.On the issue of DOC rangers and approved officers having the powers of arrest one of the interesting points that the report notes is that the committee has narrowed the scope or the potential for interpretation of the scope being too broad in the way in which these powers were going to be conferred. I think all in all that suggestion was a very useful conversation in the committee.The committee notes in the report that it heard a number of submitters and made various recommendations. Clarifying the classes of rangers was very important. Again—having only sat in on the submission from Fish and Game New Zealand—identifying who was intended to be covered by the Act and therefore who was not was very well specified within the amendments being proposed. Making clear that rangers can seize evidential material and the extent of that evidential material and again aligning those powers to the Search and Surveillance Act gives greater confidence to the way in which the Act is intended to operate.One of the things I remember from the first reading debate is the fact that we have DOC rangers out there doing great stuff and often by themselves. We want to make sure ultimately that in carrying out their role and that by conferring extra powers of this nature on them they are safe and they are able to conduct these types of duties and obligations in a way that will protect them as well.One of the other aspects is the issue of requiring a person to stop and for how long you would retain them. I am sure that was a healthy conversation and I know that a number of colleagues who were at the select committee will probably comment on the issue of detaining people and for what period. In the end reasonableness" became the operative word—being reasonable in that manner.I want to spend some time on commenting on the type of information being obtained in order for a prosecution to take place and requiring that date of birth information is obtained. This is a matter that I know my colleague David Parker who was on the select committee wants to raise in the Committee stage of this process. It is really to ensure that if you are going to pursue evidence that will potentially lead to a prosecution you have then got to make sure that all of that type of information and the people who can collect it are able to do their role. I understand that there was some discussion around an extension to make Fish and Game rangers able to obtain this information for that purpose.It had occurred to me when listening to the Minister's speech around this—and it is purely from a safety aspect—whether there would be some kind of a review around the way in which certain parts of the DOC estate at certain periods of the year might be better supported because there is maybe a trending of activities and things like that. That is an operational decision—I understand that—but if we are going to have a bill that increases the powers of DOC rangers to be able to intervene and stop illegal activity then looking at the operational aspects of whether or not the capacity needs to be increased in various parts of the DOC estate is probably a natural consequence of those powers.Finally I know that the bill will go through its Committee stage and there will be some useful discussion around the narrowing of the powers as suggested by the amendments by the select committee. There is ample time for that to be discussed through the Committee stage. But can I say from my small part in the DOC estate that is within my own electorate we are very grateful for the good work that DOC rangers conduct within our area. Over the summer period in particular you see a natural increase in the number of Kiwis enjoying the DOC estate and offering to help with the activities of DOC rangers where they can. Just at the back of my house they are improving the tracks. If you are up for it there is a great walk with a number of steps. If you are up for it again you can help take stones up a stairway—called the Hākarimata Ranges Minister.But can I say that in so far as the DOC estate is concerned these amendments albeit small are useful amendments for DOC rangers. At the border when you see eggs being smuggled out when you see things coming illegally into New Zealand—reptiles and the like—you realise that we have the luxury in New Zealand being surrounded by ocean to be able to protect what we have here and to be able to ensure that we can stop wildlife from going out elsewhere as best we can. In order for that to happen amendments like this are very practical and useful to achieve that purpose. Kia ora."