NZ wildlife and construction projects at centre of urgent Wildlife Act changes
Photo:
Supplied / Waka Kotahi / Andy Jackson
Environmentalists are furious about changes made under urgency to the Wildlife Act, but the Department of Conservation says the amendments don't change the established practice for protecting wildlife.
DOC said the changes fixed a legal bind it found itself in after a landmark court ruling, and would not water down protections for kiwi, long-tail bats or other vulnerable wildlife.
In March, the High Court found a DOC permit issued to Waka Kotahi allowing it to kill protected species at the Mt Messenger bypass site in Taranaki was at odds with the law because the killing would occur during the construction of a road.
Greenpeace has branded the amended Wildlife Act as the "Kiwi Killing Bill" but the Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka said it still allowed protected New Zealand wildlife to thrive while supporting a strong and growing economy.
Mt Messenger Bypass construction site.
Photo:
Waka Kotahi/NZTA
In March, the
High Court found
that Wildlife Act authorisations issued to Waka Kotahi by the director general of the Department of Conservation, allowing the Transport Agency to kill protected wildlife at the Mt Messenger Bypass construction site in Taranaki - including kiwi and long-tailed bats - was unlawful.
It found the Section 53 authorisations were at odds with the law - essentially any killing of wildlife had to be related to their protection, for example, culling of diseased animals from a population, not for the purpose of building a road or some other development.
Although the Minister subsequently granted approvals at Mt Messenger using a different section of the Act,
The ruling had implications for hundreds of projects where a Section 53 authority had already been granted.
It potentially exposed developers, road builders and even researchers to legal action if they inadvertently killed a protected animal.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI), which sought the judicial review, said the High Court was clear that DOC's entire approach to allowing wildlife to be killed was unlawful and it expected the department to look into potential offences.
Instead Tama Potaka, almost immediately signalled the government would look to
amend the Act
.
Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
In the
amended Act
, Section 53 authorities could now be issued where "the killing of wildlife is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity" such as road building.
That killing was considered incidental if it was "not directly intended but is unavoidable and foreseeable as a consequence of carrying out the lawful activity".
In Section 53, authorities must still be consistent with the protection of wildlife, but the director general could now take into consideration what measures were being taken to minimise or mitigate adverse effects, such as capture and relocation, pest control and habitat restoration.
According to ELI, at Mt Messenger for example, it had been argued as part of Waka Kotahi's application for a Section 53 permit, a huge habitat remediation programme would eventually mean wildlife were in a better position than currently.
The law change was applied retrospectively to all Section 53 authorities already granted.
Greenpeace wasn't budging from its stance that the amended Act was a Kiwi Killing Bill.
Senior campaigner Gin Toop said the government had a knee-jerk reaction to the court ruling.
"So beforehand the Department of Conservation wasn't allowed to issue permits to kill wildlife. That's what the High Court said.
"Now with the amended Act they can issue permits to kill wildlife. That's why it is the Kiwi Killing Bill."
Toop didn't think developers faced a genuine threat of prosecution under the old law.
"DOC could decide whether or not to prosecute and if they did prosecute there was a defence for those that had unintentionally killed wildlife and that was they had taken all reasonable steps, and if they had jumped through all the hoops, then that was their defence."
She said the amended bill had been rushed through without proper scrutiny resulting in a confusing, muddled piece of legislation.
Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) spokesperson Aaron Packard wasn't happy either.
He said ELI's court victory had exposed DOC's whole approach to granting permits to kill protected species
"Across hundreds of roading and development projects over many years, DOC had likely unlawfully given permits to projects to kill wildlife, not to protect wildlife, so that a road could be built or development happen."
Packard said rather than moving to apply the law correctly, it had been changed.
"In permitting the killing of wildlife, it is a Kiwi Killing Bill for the first time.
"It is now lawful for DOC to issue permits allowing the killing of protected species for activities that do not protect wildlife. We think that is a poor outcome and the focus should be on taking all reasonable steps to avoid killing."
Greenpeace have branded the amended Wildlife Act the "Kiwi Killing Bill".
Photo:
123rf
Simpson Grierson and partner Sally McKechnie said the High Court ruling sent shockwaves among clients law firms such as hers represented.
"There were a number of permits that had been genuinely secured by companies which were declared unlawful as a result. So, this [amended] Act validates those permits, which is a very positive thing.
"It gives greater certainty to the holders of those permits who've had the permits in good faith and have been using them and they can continue to do that."
McKechnie said the fact a potential defence existed under the previous law for the unintentional killing of wildlife would have been of little comfort to her clients.
"It's not a commercial solution given the financial investment and reputational investment in these kinds of projects.
"Companies can't go into it thinking that they've got a defence to a prosecution, they need the commercial certainty of a permit. Which is why they were getting the permits in the first place.
"A number of these organisations are under considerable public scrutiny, which they accept and acknowledge, and as a result there is a community expectation and a company expectation that they will act lawfully. And so they seek permits to ensure they can do that."
McKechnie acknowledged the amended Act would permit the killing of kiwi.
But it was never the aim to kill wildlife.
"None of the commercial actors getting these Wildlife Act permits - as far as I'm aware - are seeking to deliberately kill kiwis, but they acknowledge that there may be inadvertent the killing of some wildlife.
"And it's predominantly lizards and geckos and skinks because of the numbers involved."
McKechnie welcomed the Conservation Minister's intention to review the entire Wildlife Act.
Tama Potaka was unavailable for an interview with RNZ.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Tama Potaka was unavailable for an interview and referred RNZ to a statement released when the amended legislation was passed.
The High Court decision, he said, placed multiple projects which had previously received DOC authorisations, in a state of uncertainty.
They included building new solar and wind farms, plantation forests and powerline maintenance that were essential for supporting New Zealand's growing economy.
He said incidental harm to wildlife, while not desired, sometimes happened when carrying out a lawful activity, such as consented construction works.
"The changes clarify how authorisations can be consistent with protecting wildlife, and that the director-general of the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai can make authorisations.
"We are restoring the approach that DOC was taking for authorising activities before the Court's decision and providing legal clarity.
"These changes keep safeguards to protect wildlife. It's important Aotearoa New Zealand's wildlife continues to be protected, and that species can thrive as we support a strong and growing economy."
He said under the amended Wildlife Act, authority holders were still expected to avoid and minimise harm to protected species.
Examples included relocating animals before doing any construction work - to protect populations and support the ongoing viability of species.
Now the amendments had been enacted, the government would turn to accelerating a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act.
DOC says the amendments did not water down protection for wildlife.
Photo:
RNZ/ Nick Monro
In a Statement DOC said the Wildlife Act needed amending to fix a bind the High Court decision had put it in.
"The Court's decision put at risk the Department of Conservation ability to regulate and manage incidental harm to wildlife caused by activities, including its ability to require those carrying out these activities to minimise this harm."
It could have delayed or halted previously authorised infrastructure and development projects and other projects important to environment and economy including pest control, housing developments, roads and wind farms.
DOC said the amendments would not change current practice for protecting wildlife.
"These changes effectively restore the approach that DOC was already taking to protect wildlife before the High Court's decision and confirm that authorisations already granted under Section 53 of the Wildlife Act before the Court's decision are valid.
"The amendments also enable DOC to continue granting authority for incidentally killing wildlife, and to set conditions as part of these authorisations. This is what DOC was doing before the Court's decision, based on DOC's interpretation of the Wildlife Act."
DOC said the amendments did not water down protection for wildlife.
"They restore the approach that was being taken to regulate and manage incidental killing and to protect wildlife before the Court's decision. They neither lower nor raise the bar for protecting wildlife."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Ali Jones and Simon Pound Part 1
Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Ali Jones and Simon Pound. First up, thousands of secondary school teachers walked off the job today in a dispute over pay. The Panel talks to Paul Stevens, a teacher at Auckland's Rangitoto College and a PPTA representative. Then they hear from independant Cameron Bagrie about the Reserve Banks decision to whack 25 points off the OCR - what does it mean for mortgage holders looking to refix? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Government 'revising' pay offer to teachers but says union must compromise too
Teachers strike outside Parliament on Wednesday. Photo: JOHN GERRITSEN / RNZ The government is revising its pay offer for secondary teachers, following a nationwide strike, but the union would need to compromise too, Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche said. Thousands of members of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) walked off the job to protest their pay talks , forcing the closure of many secondary schools. Teachers on picket lines told RNZ the government's offer of a one percent pay rise every year for three years was "despicable, insulting and terrible". The Public Service Commission, which was overseeing the government's side of the pay talks, had been at pains to note that teachers in the first 10 years of their career get annual pay rises of about 13 percent a year as they progress up the pay scale. But teachers said most of them were at the top of the scale and the one percent increases would be all they received. Roche told RNZ in a statement: "This was always going to be a difficult bargaining round - the strike is evidence of that. Now that has happened, we have to find a way forward - we owe that to the students, parents and teachers." "Our initial offer clearly hasn't hit the mark, and we are doing work on a revised offer." He said the union's claim was not realistic. "The PPTA's current set of claims would cost taxpayers $1.7 billion over four years. That's equivalent to an extra $67,000 for every full-time secondary teacher. It's unaffordable, unreasonable and unrealistic. Sir Brian Roche is the Public Service Commissioner. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "Bargaining is about compromise and to date, and somewhat regrettably, the PPTA has refused to offer any real compromise on these claims. The government is committed to working with the PPTA to get a resolution." Education Minister, Erica Stanford, said the union should have called today's strike off because it had agreed to further talks. But PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said: "The government knew it had an opportunity yesterday to make a reasonable offer to us which could have encouraged us to reconsider our action. Unfortunately, no such offer was forthcoming." Meanwhile, on picket lines, teachers said they were frustrated that they had to strike to try to force a better offer from the government. Wellington teacher Catharine de Montalk said she and her colleagues would be losing money if they accepted the offer. "I don't particularly want to be here. I feel like since my career started 20 years ago that I've been doing this every single pay round and it does get tired, it does get old but one percent is actually the lowest... it is an insult," she said. A teacher outside Parliament during the strike. Photo: RNZ / John Gerritsen Outside Parliament, maths teacher Jennifer Crisp said the government's offer was not reasonable. "We think that's entirely incorrect. It's not a reasonable offer in this economy. Not when MPs have been given more than double that," she said. In Christchurch, teacher Richard Allen said the government's offer was never going to fly. "The knew that that wasn't going to be acceptable right from the start and so it's a shame that it's come to this. To be fair we all want to teach so give us something more reasonable that we can work towards," he said. Several Wellington commuters said they supported the striking teachers. Christian Shaw said the picket at Wellington Railway Station prompted him to do some online research which showed politicians were getting much better annual pay rises than what teachers were being offered. "They're willing to line their own pockets, more than happy, year after year, but they don't want to give our teachers, our nurses... they just cut pay equity which is so important to so many people and they're just taking the absolute piss," he said. His mate Jack Dyer said teachers were not paid enough - and he'd know, having abandoned the profession because of the pay rates for new teachers. "I studied to become a teacher. I got my diploma of teaching for secondary schools and the starting rate there is just atrocious. Like after four years of study, a bachelor's and a diploma, you're coming out and making less than the median wage in Wellington, which is just bizarre," he said. Meanwhile, primary school teachers, support staff and principals belonging to the Educational Institute, Te Riu Roa, were holding stop-work meetings this week and next to discuss their pay talks. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Saplings, stalking, and spying: Government bills this week
A harvesting site in the Waimata Valley near Gisborne. Photo: RNZ / Alexa Cook This week in Parliament is a Members' Week, with Wednesday evening dedicated to debating non-government legislation. Members' Days cut into government time for lawmaking, so they have now added Wednesday morning to the schedule (rather than the usual 2pm start time for a sitting day) to maintain momentum. This week's bills are a mixture of unfinished business from last week and other bills plucked from the Order Paper that area waiting their respective next stages. Of particular interest are; The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme-Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill is back in the House after truncated consideration by the Environment Committee. The bill seeks to address growing concerns about the conversion of farms into "exotic" forestry land, under the auspices of the Emissions Trading Scheme. The word exotic may evoke visions of coconut palms or banana trees, but it is the mass planting of pine trees that has largely been at the centre of the issue. Obviously not all farmland is the same, and New Zealand employs the Land Use Capability (LUC) scale to distinguish highly productive, arable land (LUC class 1) from very unproductive land (LUC class 8). This bill would determine a farm's eligibility for ETS registration based on its LUC rating and restrict the amount of exotic forestry conversion on farmland with an LUC rating between 1 and 6. "The current settings in the emissions trading scheme have tipped the scales too far," said the minister in charge of the bill, Todd Mclay, during the first reading. "We're seeing entire farms converted into exotic forests under the ETS from Invercargill to Ruatōria. These are not marginal lands; these are productive farms supporting families, communities, and local economies. Once they are planted into exotic carbon forests, they are, effectively, lost to food production for decades, if not permanently so." In that same debate, Labour offered what they have called very cautious support for the bill, citing the need to carefully work through issues in select committee. Meanwhile, the Green Party, who are against the bill, have said the real issue is that the whole concept of carbon offsetting is inherently flawed. "The fiction of offsetting has the same practical impact as an alcoholic paying somebody to drink water and thinking that they have solved their drinking problem", said Steve Abel. "That is the distortion that we have in this country to this day, and what's more, the person who's drinking all the water's making a lot of money and thinking that they're doing something about alcoholism, but they're not at all." There have been a number of bills this parliament relating to infrastructure, consenting, and public works, and getting those things done fast. This week's bill aims to speed up the acquisition of private land that is desired for projects listed in the Fast Track Approvals law, or under the Roads of National Significance programme. The Public Works debate was one of the three (Government Bill) committee stages this week. In the committee stage, debate is not time-limited, so it took a while, but was eventually wrapped up by midday Wednesday, before the House moved onto the second committee stage - the Hauraki Gulf / Tikapa Moana Marine Protection Bill , which was interrupted part of the way through its third and final part. The third planned committee stage was for a new stalking law (though the slow pace of debating makes progress on this bill this week unlikely). The last time this bill was in the House was for its second reading, when it received unanimous support from all parties after a robust select committee stage, during which several amendments were adopted. "The committee recommended a broader definition for the pattern of behaviour," National's Erica Stanford explained. "The offence will now require two specified acts within two years, rather than three specified acts within one year. This broadens the pattern of behaviour by capturing fewer acts across a longer time frame. I agree that this change will better address strategies such as anniversary-based stalking. It will also make it harder for stalkers to work around the law." Ginny Andersen is Labour's spokesperson on this. She applauded the adopted amendments but was worried that a remaining aspect might make prosecution difficult - intent. "Currently, it must be proven that the stalker acted knowingly, that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress to their target, so it means that the stalker has to know that their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress. Proving that intent of someone who is lying or is genuinely deluded about how another person feels about them may well be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law and this is concerning." Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith has a second key bill up this week - The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill , which may resume its second reading (interrupted last week), probably on Thursday afternoon (but only if the pace of debating is brisk). It intends to fill gaps in criminal law concerning clandestine actions made on behalf of foreign actors intending to harm New Zealand, which the Government has said there has been an increased risk of. This law change would introduce treason, inciting mutiny or espionage - all on behalf of foreign actors - as new offences. Only the Green Party voted against the Bill at its first reading, although Te Pāti Māori were absent for the vote. Finally, among Thursday's bills is a brand new government bill, the recently announced bill to prohibit mounting protests outside someone's private residence. You can listen to the audio version of this story by clicking the link near the top of the page. RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
