Street Maryan: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I want to congratulate Jacqui Dean the member in whose name this bill stands on getting it through to this stage and very shortly on to the statute book. It is a worthwhile bill. It is something that came out of the member’s own concern for those wildlife and natural and historic resources that abound in her own electorate of Waitaki. In the course of defending things that she sees and lives with on a regular basis in the Waitaki electorate she has chosen to do something that benefits the whole of New Zealand and for that I commend her. Her original intention was that those resources would be better protected and I think this bill will achieve that in law.There are two components to it. One is that it will give us consistency across all of those pieces of legislation that are administered by the Department of Conservation. When the bill was introduced as the previous speaker Phil Heatley has just iterated it amended a number of Acts as I say that are under the remit of the Department of Conservation—first the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 going back further and further in time and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. All of those pieces of legislation had various penalties for the abuse or the misuse or the harm or destruction or some other kind of ill being done to our natural historic and wildlife resources.In the course of the discussion at the Local Government and Environment Committee about this bill Ms Dean was generous enough to entertain the possibility of an amendment. She has subsequently been repeatedly generous in acknowledging the amendment that I proposed which resulted in a new Part 6 “Amendments to Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978”. The intention of the bill which we all supported was to provide consistency across these Acts and to provide increased penalties that would make these Acts more effective and could be complemented by the addition of the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The marine mammals were the ones that were left out. Everything else was included and with some judicious drawing of members’ attention to these issues the Marine Mammals Protection Act became included for amendment. In other words it was entirely possible under Jacqui Dean’s original bill to protect and defend native orchids geckos and other flora and fauna of this country from harm destruction and smuggling as has become more commonly experienced in recent times. But although those things were able to happen it did not cover marine mammals like whales seals and sea lions. Those mammals require special protection in our environment.I think that the Minister of Conservation’s willingness to accept my amendment does him credit and the member’s willingness to accept my amendment to include marine mammals is important. Just recently we have seen two cases brought before the courts where people have been charged with and convicted of harming marine mammals. The bashing of seal pups in the name of hunting was never going to stand as a defence anyway. Everybody could see that. Those kinds of crimes attracted lesser penalties under some Acts than others and therefore charges that were brought under the Wildlife Act were going to result in different penalties from those under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. That will never be able to happen again because the punishments will be the same. They will be standardised and they are substantial. They have moved from simply $500 or 1 month’s imprisonment to $100000 or $200000 for individuals and daily penalties on top of that which are very substantial and in addition to that hefty prison sentences. There has been a seriousness about this bill that has been laudable.The select committee has applied itself to this bill with care. There has been no dissension between us on this issue. I would be very keen to see when this bill is passed whether in fact there was any evidence to show that seismic testing did harm to marine mammals and whether or not there is a risk here for the Minister who was so generous in including the amendment that suddenly he might be hoist by his own petard. At this stage in proceedings I am keen that this bill be passed by this House because all parties agree that protection is required and that consistency is needed across all of the legislation that the Department of Conservation administers more thinly and with greater difficulty now than when it used to have a more adequate budget and greater staffing. However it still applies all its efforts to ensuring that the legislation that is within its remit is complied with properly and completely.I think probably as well as the consistency across other laws which is desirable it is the extent of the punishments that is going to be one of the interesting factors to pursue just to see whether in fact it does act as the deterrent that we seek. Whether it is $100000 or $200000 for an individual with an ongoing daily penalty of up to $10000 or $20000 or whether it is the prospect of a maximum term of 2 years’ imprisonment for individuals and 5 years in other circumstances where commercial gain is the factor it is going to be interesting to see how effective these penalties are in deterring the kind of behaviour that we have seen to date. Now people who bash seal pups will be subject to the same penalties as people who smuggle geckos and that is as it should be. I want to finally commend again the member whose name this bill is in for bringing this bill to Parliament’s attention. Thank you.