Sage EugenieCONSERVATION (INFRINGEMENT SYSTEM) BILLSecond ReadingHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I move That the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be now read a second time.The bill amends eight conservation statutes that manage Aotearoa New Zealand's network of protected areas protected species and some other natural resources including—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying before the dinner break the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill amends eight conservation statutes: the Conservation Act 1987 the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 the Marine Reserves Act 1971 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989 the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and the Wildlife Act 1953.Although most people visit parks and our protected areas to enjoy nature and they do so in a sensitive and respectful way a minority don't behave appropriately. All of those eight statutes contain offences and penalties. Action to enforce compliance with the law is an important part of conservation work. Offending ranges from minor issues such as littering in a national park to more serious issues such as poaching endangered species like some of our skinks and geckos and when that happens the public expects the Department of Conservation to take action and ensure that wildlife and habitats aren't put at risk. Enforcement can obviously discourage repeat offending and it may deter others but at the moment the current law only provides two possible responses to offending: either to provide a warning to the offender or for the department to pursue a prosecution in the courts. Other similar statutes like the Fisheries Act provide a third option: an infringement system for low-level offending. That involves issuing an infringement notice—what the public would describe as a ticket—to the offender and then if the offender pays the relevant infringement fee that's the end of the matter. If they dispute the notice or refuse to pay then the matter can go to the courts.Being able to respond to a minor offence with an infringement notice has significant benefits to the offender to the Department of Conservation and to the court system. For the offender it means that he or she won't face a criminal conviction. I think that anyone on a first offence perhaps for fishing in a marine reserve or fishing without a licence wouldn't expect to end up in the courts with a criminal conviction potentially if they were caught. But that's what potentially happens under the current law. Having access to infringement notices will reduce the resources required for prosecuting minor offences for the department and it can avoid clogging up the court system. In Greymouth for example the District Court there has a significant caseload of prosecutions in relation to whitebaiting which would potentially be better dealt with through infringement notices. This access to infringement notices is long overdue given the importance of effective enforcement.The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill was introduced by my predecessor the Hon Maggie Barry on 22 of February last year but it wasn't progressed further. The Government ensured that the bill had its first reading on 14 February this year and it was referred to the Environment Committee. That committee reported back on 23 August having considered 56 submissions.The only matter on which the select committee recommended substantive changes to the bill and the only measure on which the committee was not unanimous in its views related to whether New Zealand's Fish & Game councils—which of course are responsible for the management of sports fish and game-bird hunting—should be able to access the infringement notice system. The bill as introduced only enabled the Department of Conservation and local councils where councils are administering reserves to do this and that was despite the fact that Fish & Game councils have significant enforcement systems and powers under the Conservation Act. They have paid enforcement officers and they undertake a large number of prosecutions. With that in mind I asked the Environment Committee to examine whether Fish & Game councils should be able to issue infringement notices and if so what safeguards should be applied. I thank all of the submitters who gave serious consideration to this issue and to the select committee under the excellent chairing of Deborah Russell for its very useful report and recommendations which improve the bill.All but one of those more than 50 submissions supported Fish & Game councils having access to infringement notices. So amending the bill as the majority of the select committee recommend to enable them to do this would help ensure a consistent enforcement regime across New Zealand. That is because the Taupō sports fishery the trout fishery—which of course is internationally important—is managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) as part of an agreement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. There because DOC has access to infringement notices under the bill they could apply. Yet elsewhere unless we proceed with the amendments as recommended by the select committee Fish & Game councils in relation to trout fishing elsewhere in New Zealand would not have access to infringement notices so you'd get an inconsistent regime for managing trout and other sport fisheries.The select committee's recommended amendments in relation to Fish & Game councils being able to use infringement notices included a number of important safeguards. They could only use the system if the Minister of Conservation is satisfied that the arrangements for doing this were satisfactory as part of a national compliance enforcement policy. That power to issue them would only be available to permanent fish and game staff or rangers who are specifically warranted by the director or CEO of Fish & Game. It wouldn't be available to honorary rangers. Infringement fees would be paid to the Crown so there is no risk of councils using the system as a revenue generation mechanism. Councils would have to report on the use of the infringement system as part of their annual reports to the Minister of Conservation including identifying any complaints with the system and how those have been dealt with.I've read the select committee's report closely including the minority view and I'm satisfied that the proposed provisions would allow a system to be appropriately used by Fish & Game councils as statutory but non-government bodies. I'd note that Parliament has already entrusted Fish & Game councils with extensive enforcement powers and some of those powers have immediate effect on anglers. They include the power to stop and search vehicles to confiscate property to cross private non-residential land and to search buildings other than dwellings. Another safeguard is the fact that the bill wouldn't immediately give Fish & Game councils access to the infringement system. They've got to develop a suitable compliance and enforcement policy and associated systems. In my view the low-level offending that could be dealt with in relation to sports fisheries and game birds would be dealt with much better by having this option of having infringement notices subject to those safeguards.There's one final issue: I want to signal my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to correct an omission in the bill in relation to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Recent work by officials on regulations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act has revealed that some of the controls on marine mammal watching and interaction with marine mammals that sit in the regulations wouldn't be covered by the infringement system in the bill. Those controls include a requirement that marine mammal operations comply with any permit conditions that boats remain at a safe distance from dolphins or whales and that individuals don't harass marine mammals if they're on a beach like seals for example. Prosecutions for a breach of those regulations are not uncommon but many of the offences like getting too close to marine mammals on the beach would be better dealt with potentially through access to infringement notices. The bill omitted that and the SOP would simply ensure that the Department of Conservation could issue infringement notices for existing offences—not new ones; existing offences—under the Marine Mammals Protection Act.Finally can I thank submitters for their considered submissions and the committee for its excellent work. I commend the bill to the House.