Heatley Phil: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in its third reading. I would like to concur with the member who first presented this bill to the House Jacqui Dean that it is very much about deterrence. The reality is that many of the species endemic to New Zealand that are traded offshore or otherwise killed here or destroyed in this country are threatened species. They are dwindling in number and deterrence really is the only practical way to go. Locking someone up or sending them a $10000 or a $100000 fine will not bring that species back if it is pushed to the point of extinction due to foul play or in fact trade.What was interesting about this bill for the Local Government and Environment Committee was that as originally submitted it was to change the penalties and provisions across five Acts. In doing so it was informed by three other Acts. There is an Act of Parliament that remains untouched by this piece of legislation. I would like to take members through those five Acts. Originally as introduced amendments were proposed to the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977.At the second reading of this bill a number of changes were incorporated following the select committee process and were confirmed at the Committee of the whole House stage. The key change was to include the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. The penalties in that Act are also being changed through this legislation. So six Acts are being changed.The committee asked the question of what the contemporary penalties were in recent Acts of Parliament where punishments were handed out by judges. What recent Acts were they informed by or should we be informed by in setting these penalties? We looked at three current Acts in order to make that judgment the Animal Welfare Act the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Act—these outline penalties that are fairly contemporary; ones set within recent years—in order to set comparable penalties for those people or corporations that are discovered to be basically destroying our fauna and flora. What has not come through is that this particular bill does not apply to the Marine Reserves Act. In fact penalties in the Marine Reserves Act will be addressed through separate legislation to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation. Although three Acts informed the levels of penalty to six Acts in fact the Marine Reserves Act has been left out of this legislation and rightly so.The bill now sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife in natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife in natural areas put our protected species our excellent international reputation and our tourism industry at risk. This most comprehensive reform is needed. The conservation penalties in our legislative history did need updating. Some penalties have not actuallychanged since the 1970s so Jacqui Dean did a good job here in identifying the need for this legislation. It provides serious consequences now for serious offending. The proposed penalty levels are benchmarked against the other legislation that I outlined. It will deter commercially motivated offending but will not in any way undermine legitimate commercial activity. It is worth noting that there are a large number of commercial operators on the conservation estate or elsewhere in New Zealand that come head to head with our natural flora and fauna. They operate legitimately in important tourism businesses in particular in New Zealand and they achieve outcomes that are good for conservation and good commercially. This bill though will make it harder for cowboy operators to compete with or undermine legitimate concessionaires—those who hold concessions to operate on the conservation estate.This is a good piece of legislation. It has been put to the House not before time. It is a comprehensive bill. It proposes serious consequences as I say for serious offending—bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. The current penalties are too low. This bill raises them. I support this bill.