Horan Brendan: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to take a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill—[Interruption]—and I want to make just a few brief points when the follicly challenged one over there is quiet. Firstly I observe that Part 6 which was inserted at the Local Government and Environment Committee is a victory for the process of public input—for this nation’s citizens being able to make submissions on legislation and to improve a bill. I have been one to condemn this Government for the way it has had to put amendments to amendments to amendments and rushed because of its policy of rushing through bills but it is great to see the democratic process working with this bill.The select committee reported: “We recommend inserting new Part 6 to reflect the intention of bringing consistency to the penalties administered by the Department of Conservation.” The committee went on to refer to Standing Order 288(1) which states that “a select committee may recommend only amendments that are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill are consistent with the principles and objects of the bill …”. The Local Government and Environment Committee went on to say that it was confident that Part 6 which amends the Marine Mammals Protection Act meets that requirement.I suggest that it would be useful for the select committee report to record why this particular change came about—that reason being that a member of the public asked for the change in a submission. Only eight submissions were received including a learned one from the New Zealand Law Society—and I will touch on that one shortly. One person asked for the change to the marine mammals law and put in just a short submission of 300 words or more. The submitter did so firstly because of a report on Radio New Zealand National in January this year entitled “Claim of illegal fishing in marine sanctuary” and secondly because at the time submissions were being received on this bill. To cut a long story short the select committee was convinced by the power of the argument which spoke for itself. It was an overnight success which we are debating just 8 months later. That is a good-news story for the public of New Zealand—that input by New Zealanders into our nation’s legislation can be brought to fruition.The next point I would like to touch on is the process that has brought us to where we are today debating the Committee stage of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill and its Parts 1 to 6 and preliminary clauses. We are doing this on a members’ day because the bill has been brought forward by the honourable Jacqui Dean as a member’s bill. I say good on her for doing that but she has done it because it has not been brought forward as a Government bill by successive Governments led by the last four Prime Ministers.Let us look for example at clause 4B in Part 1 of the bill. It updates the penalties in section 39 of the Conservation Act for a person who in the words of section 39(4) of that Act: “disturbs injures poisons kills or detrimentally affects any freshwater fishery fish spawning ground or food of freshwater fish in any river stream lake or any other water by allowing any contaminant to enter into any such water or refuses to remove as much as may be practicable of the contaminant”. Well it is a mouthful but it defines a specific offence. The provision was added to the law in 1990 by theConservation Law Reform Act 1990 with penalties of up to $30000 and a further fine of $3000 a day for a continuing offence. In the intervening 23 years the quantum of the maximum penalty has not changed. The dollar amounts are the same today as they were 23 years ago yet the value of $30000 in 1990 was obviously far greater than the same amount today.I frequently hear members in debate observing the importance of this House getting the regulatory framework right and of setting good policy parameters yet too often they do not get revisited and so we have a massive catch-up as we see today in clause 4B of this bill as brought forward by Jacqui Dean. The Law Society whose submission I alluded to earlier made four recommendations. One of the recommendations was that a review should be undertaken to ensure that the bill’s penalties are consistent with the penalties specified in other enactments that protect or manage aspects of the natural environment. The Law Society suggested it would be desirable for there to be a consistent approach to penalties in all enactments that protect or manage aspects of the natural environment.Perhaps another useful step would be for Parliament to have a process for bills to specifically revise and update penalties contained in statute as it is important constitutionally that this House sets out penalties and maximums in primary legislation. But it would do little harm for one bill in each Parliament an omnibus bill to be introduced to keep the penalties up to date and as desired by the Law Society consistent across the statute book. The Law Society suggested that it would be desirable for there to be a consistent approach to penalties in all enactments that protect or manage aspects of this national environment.Finally I turn to clause 2 which sets out the commencement date. The clause is a good one and I commend the honourable member Jacqui Dean for specifying a fixed date. I will support this bill.Parts 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.