Dowie Sarah; Williams PotoParts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call in the committee stage of the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I'm not going to labour the points too much in this debate; I'm simply going to go over our objection to the departure of this bill especially in Part 1 from the original intent of the bill which was introduced under National and under the Hon Maggie Barry.First of all I would say that as outlined in Part 1 we do support that the Department of Conservation should be given the tools basically to be an enforcer to make sure that people are held to account if they commit offences on the conservation estate; however what we don't support is the extension of the powers of infringement to Fish & Game as a non-governmental agency.Now that is detailed in Part 1. As such I refer to an amendment that is under my name which I have placed before this House that seeks to delete all references to giving Fish & Game rangers the powers of issuing infringements especially in Part 1. It also refers to those deletions in Part 8 but mainly relates to Part 1 of this bill. That's because we believe that the infringement system should be fair and objective across all of New Zealand and given that there are 12 local Fish & Game offices that loosely report to a national body we are not confident that the system can be maintained in that fair and objective manner. So my amendment looks basically to delete all references to Fish & Game and to bring the bill back to its original intent which was first brought to the House by the Hon Maggie Barry and devised by the previous Government.Look the bill—all of the parts—looks to extend an infringement system across the board over a number of different Acts in which the Department of Conservation has powers and regulates. At the moment the Department of Conservation has two options: obviously to give warnings to people who allegedly commit an offence or to continue to prosecute if they have sufficient evidence. Obviously giving warnings if it's a non-serious alleged offence is acceptable but often when there is a serious offence that occurs on the conservation estate or near threatened or endangered species then a prosecution is warranted—but again you need sufficient evidence. That takes time and it's quite costly. Often what rangers will find is that they do need a midway point and this infringement system will certainly give that to rangers to apply to offences that would not have significant policy ramifications but are of course that midway point between warning and prosecution. It means that those issues can be dealt with swiftly. It doesn't necessarily go on people's records as a criminal offence; it's a summary offence and can be dealt with with a fine—a reasonable fine—that will often deter people from offending again when they are recreating or going about their business on the conservation estate.While this was a National Party bill and we do support the Department of Conservation as an enforcement Government agency because this is a departure from the original to give Fish & Game rangers the powers of issuing infringement notices we simply cannot support this. It will take the system away from an objective nature.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just before I give the call I just have to apologise to members. The question I should have put was: the question is that Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.