1. Conservation Policy—Initiatives and Department of ConservationJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterWEDNESDAY 2 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSConservation Policy—Initiatives and Department of Conservation1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's policies?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes I do particularly the Family Incomes Package. I want to note with appreciation the Greens' support for the Family Incomes Package because on 1 April next year 1.3 million families will be on average $26 a week better off and a small number with high housing costs will be over $100 a week better off.James Shaw: Why is his Government's conservation plan to protect only one in five of our most threatened species by 2030 when he could protect them all?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member's characterisation of a strategy that I understand is under discussion. What I can say to the member is that we welcome the Greens' support for the Predator Free 2050 policy which will engage communities all around the country as it is now in efforts to reduce our predators and therefore protect our threatened species of birds.James Shaw: I seek leave to table the Minister of Conservation's note to the draft Threatened Species Strategy where she plans to protect only 600 of the 3000 threatened species in New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular note. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is no objection. [Interruption] Order! I need to hear quite clearly. Was there any objection? There was objection raised; it cannot be tabled.James Shaw: Why is the Battle for our Birds pest control campaign being fought in only 21 percent of New Zealand's masting forests this year? How can you fight a war in only one-fifth of our forests?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Battle for our Birds was a large investment in the last Budget and it is my understanding that it is an effort that is on a much greater scale than has been done before. It may not be practical to actually cover the whole of New Zealand in a beech-masting year. The Government is committing more and more resource but more importantly committing it more effectively to the protection of our threatened species.James Shaw: Why has the Department of Conservation (DOC) lost around 200 front-line rangers under his Government's watch had hundreds of millions of dollars cut from its baseline budget or been forced to close five bases and three field centres?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not agree with the member's descriptions of what is happening with the Department of Conservation in particular the allegation of large-scale funding reductions. That is simply not true. The Department of Conservation though like most of the other Government agencies has gone through a process of putting together sound long-term plans with clear objectives and measures of whether it is effectively achieving those things. That has meant some reorganisation on the way through as you would expect if you were trying to do the job better and better all the time.David Seymour: Is this Government open to ACT's sanctuary trust policy which would bring community-driven fenced predator-proof bird sanctuaries to every town and suburb in this country?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course we are open to it. There are a number of such community-driven sanctuaries around the country. Of course the big opportunity with Predator Free 2050 is the way that it is activating so many communities into various forms of protecting our birdlife whether it is fenced sanctuaries or the one in five households in some Wellington suburbs for instance that are laying traps on their own sections and reducing our predators.James Shaw: When he said yesterday that he was happy to budget more for the Department of Conservation where we can see that there are going to be real conservation benefits." why is it that after 9 years of his Government the Department of Conservation is not delivering real conservation benefits?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I completely disagree with that. I mean not only is it delivering real conservation benefits now but for the first time ever it is getting in place a long-term strategy to continue to lift that effort. So instead of being driven by annual cycles of hoping for funding increases and maybe doing a bit more it is now taking a long-term view about our natural capital and how it can grow it. I applaud the efforts that it has made to do a better job.James Shaw: Can he explain why it was that the Department of Conservation once vigorously opposed a Buller plateau coal mine proposal in the early 2000s with a 100-page submission detailing the unique ecosystem that would be destroyed versus this year in response to a similar proposal when the department made an only 1-page submission that "neither supported nor opposed" the plan.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the work that was done in the early 2000s but it sounds like it was thorough and comprehensive and maybe it did not have to cover all the same ground again. DOC is obliged to follow its statutory directives and I have no reason to believe it does not do so.James Shaw: Can he explain why minutes after the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Ruataniwha Dam conservation land swap was illegal he said he would just change the law to make it happen?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is not describing that correctly. What I said was that there had been an assumption about what the law was and the Supreme Court has changed what we thought the law was. Looking out into the future we certainly believe that the idea of net conservation benefit—that is land swaps that result in more conservation—is probably a good idea. One reason we think it is a good idea is that everyone thought that that was what the law meant for the last 20 or 30 years."