Bay Bush Action co-founder, trustee and volunteer Brad Windust with his certified conservation stoat-detection dog Wero.
Bay Bush Action co-founder, trustee and volunteer Brad Windust with his certified conservation stoat-detection dog Wero.
An MP’s remark suggesting New Zealand’s iconic kiwi are numerous enough to withstand being collateral damage in the nation’s infrastructure agenda has infuriated a Northland conservationist.
Brad Windust said it was a slap in the face for New Zealanders who had made such “massive efforts” to keep kiwi and other taonga species from the endangered list.
Last week, the coalition Government pushed through amendments to the Wildlife Act (1953), overcoming a recent High Court ruling that the legislation did not authorise the Director General of Conservation (DGC) to permit incidental killing of taonga species during otherwise lawful infrastructure and development projects.
In defending the move, List MP Shane Jones (minister of Oceans and Fisheries, Regional Development, and Resources) told national media, “there are thousands of kiwi” – implying they were expendable.
Jones told the Advocate it was “unfortunate people were confused by the remark”.
“I’m not saying that anyone should deliberately go and destroy our iconic bird, but sadly, when we do disrupt the natural world, you do, from time to time, create incidental harm, and the Wildlife Act (1953) allows for that.”
He then suggested collateral damage to kiwi could perhaps be offset in future by “farming” the birds.
“There’s probably a case, in all honesty, for people being paid to grow kiwi and beyond what we already do. I mean, you could argue that once you have kiwi in an enclosed area, we’re kind of farming them, and then we release them into other wild areas,” Jones said.
List MP and cabinet minister Shane Jones says kiwi conservation is akin to farming.
Windust, a founding member and trustee of Bay Bush Action Trust (BBAT), said likening kiwi conservation initiatives to farming was further proof that the amendments to the act should not have been rushed through parliament.
Jones was “narrow-minded” and “clearly doesn’t understand the delicate ecological balance of nature”, Windust said.
He accused the Government of overriding the court’s authority and doing so in a calculated way to ensure it could achieve goals, including various Fast-track projects.
“I’m just absolutely furious,” Windust said.
Jones said the High Court’s “random” decision had “completely upended the established understanding of the law”.
The Government had to move quickly “to restore the clarity and certainty” that had existed previously for about 900 permit holders and projects disrupted by the court’s ruling.
Large projects, especially in the mining industry, could not just halt operations or cancel contracts suddenly, Jones said.
He agreed rushing legislative change was “not ideal” but said: “Often that’s what Parliament has to deal with - a host of issues that pop up out of the blue, and you’ve got to respond with alacrity to restore some certainty.”
The protection of wildlife should not be so extensive that it disrupted development, Jones said.
MP Shane Jones at the New Zealand First party conference in Hamilton last year. Photo / NZME
“I’m just wanting the people that stand up for nature to lift their sight and not just think about the particular issue that they’re bedevilled by.
“Some people may want to live a more rustic lifestyle. That’s fine, but the vast, vast, majority of us, we’re struggling to keep up with the rest of the world, and that’s not a bad thing. That’s a positive thing.
Windust said: “The vast majority of people don’t share Jones’ vision of big corporations bulldozing through wild places that had been protected (via the Wildlife Act) by our forefathers, with the impunity of killing wildlife and claiming it as an accident.”
The Government had forgotten who it was working for and was allowing big business, often foreign companies, to write the rules, he said.
“It’s just appalling on every level.”
Jones rejected the criticism of overseas operators: “I think the foreigners that own our mining industry, such as Oceania Gold, they’re doing a tremendous job at wildlife protection, wildlife management.
And I just think it’s a low blow to continually stigmatise the managers and the investors from overseas and the mining sector or related sectors that they will be permitted in New Zealand to play to a set of rules that are different than garden variety Kiwis. It’s wrong in fact, and it sort of smells a bit like an outdated ideology.”
He said the Government was now contemplating a more “fulsome” review of the 73-year-old act in which the public would be able to have its say.
“One of the options that I’m looking forward to promoting is that the Wildlife Act should no longer be used for purposes of big developments. All of these consents should be gained via the Resource Management Act,” Jones said.
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, much of which she spent court reporting. She is passionate about covering stories that make a difference.
