Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Could I acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry our Minister of Conservation for all the great work she does and the ambitious work she and the Government do in ensuring we protect our wildlife.We know that with New Zealand's culture and economy our wildlife and our environment are a key part of that. It is something we should always be looking to protect and it is great to see that this National Government with its Bluegreen initiatives is the party that is very much looking to protect our environment and protect our wildlife. A lot of constituents in my electorate say to me: Why does the Green Party always default to far-left socialist policies? Why does it not get back to talking about the environment?". Well I suppose we have probably taken that space of talking about the environment championing the environment and championing the wildlife. I mean when you look at the great wildlife we have whether it be our kiwi our tuatara—I am a big fan being from Canterbury of course of our cheeky kea. It is a great bird.The benefits of being an open country and connecting to a globalised world actually come with some risks and some threats. We know that in the days of the internet as well as more accessible airline travel this poses some risks from people who might choose to shop online for some of our wildlife or who come over here to smuggle some of our wildlife back to another country. So it is quite right that we are taking a very keen interest in this space and quite right that we have actually listened to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff. This bill is actually based on the feedback from DOC staff and it is great that the Government is looking to empower them further to achieve their jobs. Their feedback was that they have not been able to seize devices storing evidence such as cameras and phones. They were having a bigger issue around people providing false names and addresses and not being able to ask them to provide some proof of ID and they have had an inability to stop people for a reasonable period of time. So that is what this bill seeks to address and I feel after going through the select committee process we have gone some way towards achieving that outcome.The bill comes back from the Local Government and Environment Committee in pretty good shape. It has gone through the submission process. I think we had seven submissions overall. Every submission was favourable to the intent of the bill and supported it although there were some concerns. We have looked at them and pretty much looked at putting them into the amendments and some of the amendments I would like to talk about today in this second reading.The first one is around new section 39A in clause 5. There was a lot of discussion around extending the powers of rangers to seize evidential material. I suppose when we give people those powers to seize items we should always ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable and I feel where new section 39A has landed—it comes back into the House for its second reading and it clarifies this to be proportionate and reasonable.New section 39B in clause 5 amends powers to stop someone when investigating a suspected offence and very much when we were looking at this we wondered whether we should be putting in something around a time frame for stopping someone. We found that that could not be defined but what this amendment to new section 39B does is it comes back in clarifying that this section does not intend to give the power to physically stop someone. So it is not the physicality of stopping someone but more just to direct or require them.New section 39C in clause 5 looks to give reasonable grounds where a person is committing or is about to commit an offence for the necessary person to prevent or stop the offender. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee stage about what we are doing here and whether we are actually going to be giving a new power to give people the right to go on to private property. It was something that we were a bit concerned about but our amendment clarifies that it does not give the person—or a ranger in this case—the right to go on to private property.Just finally around new section 39D in clause 5 what we are looking for is around clarity of arrest: are we saying it gives all professionals in this case the ability to arrest or rather to just detain someone and wait for a constable to arrive and arrest the detained person? Where we have landed for this is that it just clarifies the ability for the ranger to have those powers as well. So overall it is a pretty good bill that has come back in good shape from the select committee and I commend it to the House.Bill read a second time."