Dyson Ruth: Game Animal Council Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Game Animal Council Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I listened with interest to the Minister of Conservation’s contribution on what has been a very interesting process and debate on the Game Animal Council Bill. Some of his speech is very outdated actually and does not reflect the deliberation and the submissions that went on during the select committee process and I am a little sad about that because he is a Minister who is on top of his portfolio particularly in comparison with his colleagues. He has got a good passion for the area he understands it and I think he has a genuine commitment but when he described opponents of this bill as being people who could see game animals only as pests and that therefore the animals had to eliminated to the nth degree he did miss the debate and the progress that was made on that particular point. That is quite a narrow view and it is not one that was reflected by people who had concerns about this bill in the main.I also noted that he seemed to totally overlook the fact that one of the biggest associations in New Zealand the Deerstalkers Association said that its concerns about trophy hunting have fallen on deaf ears. That is a very strong comment to make from the group that represents one of the biggest groups of recreational hunters. In fact its president Tim McCarthy said yesterday: “When it becomes an issue that affects the stakeholders of New Zealand’s public land and hunters are stakeholders in public land then surely the tail shouldn’t be wagging the dog in this case.” Those are the sorts of serious concerns that were raised at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have to say that I think the members of the select committee from all parties in the main took those issues very seriously and tried to do what Labour said we would attempt to do at the very start of this process which is to look at the fact thateveryone agrees that the different stakeholders and interests should work together as much as possible to get agreed outcomes on shared goals. It is not always possible but it is clear that in some parts of the country it works very well under the existing regime. It is also clear that in other parts of the country it does not work well.The select committee tried to find out where it is working well—where the Department of Conservation recreational hunters and other users of our public land work together—what bit of magic they have produced to make that happen. Well in a lot of cases it is about relationships and it is about the personalities and the commitment. But I think it is driven by an understanding that the Department of Conservation has the legal mandate to protect our conservation estate our public land but it is really obvious that it is not the only stakeholder. The public of New Zealand are all stakeholders in our public land. If any groups or individuals have interests they should be party to shared goals of protection and then utilise their activity to further that goal. That was the approach we took at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We looked at how we could better enhance the work of the Department of Conversation through those partnerships and build on successful models that had already been demonstrated.When the Game Animal Council Bill was first introduced we also said that we had a lot of concerns about it but we did support it going to the select committee so that we could have that debate and see what could be resolved. Unfortunately despite what I think were the very good efforts of the select committee our time was short by just a little. Perhaps if we had had another few meetings we might have got to a complete resolution. But unfortunately we were not given that additional time and as a result some of our pretty serious concerns have not been resolved. I am sad to say that we have to oppose the bill just because those concerns have not been met.I think it is also a bit of an indication to Parliament of not presuming which parties will think what and always presuming that certain parties will oppose it or support it. I do think that in many areas if there is an agreed goal there are genuine attempts made for compromises to look at other people’s perspectives and to see what resolution can be found. If we were able to do that more in Parliament then perhaps some of the solutions that are passed into law might be more robust and might be more enduring because they would have had wider input wider consideration and some compromise reached along the way.What I think this bill does now is actually create a stronger tension between hunters in New Zealand and the Department of Conservation. From my perspective that is the very opposite of what we should do. Recreational hunters are a big part of New Zealand life. We heard that from submitters. The passion that those submitters have about the great outdoors about being able to hunt—whether it is to feed their neighbours or feed their families in quite a serious way as part of their budgeting. The pride and passion that they have for New Zealand and for our public land is something that we should capture and we should utilise for the greater good. I do not think that this bill does that. I do not doubt that that was part of the intention actually. I am sure that there was a lot of wanting to utilise that passion of recreational hunters as the driver behind this bill but I do not think that the outcome has achieved that. Perhaps during the Committee of the whole House there might be some more accommodations reached. The Hon Peter Dunne who drove this bill might well consider that. I would recommend that he read the minority reports that have been produced as part of the select committee process because they do indicate a lot of support for some of the outcomes but the serious concerns about the other outcomes of this bill are just too great.I have also heard that there is some concern that the Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled go too far or are based on an extreme view of what might happen.Actually the Supplementary Order Papers produced by Eugenie Sage that I have seen so far do not do that at all. I will obviously talk more about them in the Committee stage but I just want to put on the record for consideration by the other members of the House that her Supplementary Order Papers from my reading of them do what the select committee assumed would happen anyway so it is a belt and braces approach rather than something that is going to a real extreme. So I would ask that serious consideration be given to all the Supplementary Order Papers rather than members making an assumption that any member is trying to trip up the process. What we tried to do from the perspective of the Labour members—and we put a lot of effort into the select committee process—was just address the concerns that we had. We were upfront about it. We listened to the submissions. We moderated some of our views as part of the process and hardened up on others where those concerns had not been met. Some of the areas are quite obvious. Where you want to create a partnership you do not set up another structure and have it often in competition with an existing organisation. You work out how to have a structure that would better enhance the relationships that are so necessary for us.When you look at the way the Department of Conservation is operating now it is obvious to see that it is under huge financial pressure. It has been forced by the nature of the budget cuts to move into better partnerships as they are called with community organisations. What concerns me is that they are not genuine partnerships with shared goals where different groups in our communities say: “We care about the public estate. We’re not DOC. We’re recreational hunters or we’re fishing people.” and whatever their activity is they have a passion and a genuine love and concern for the well-being of our public land. They should have a part to play. But the partnerships that the Department of Conservation is undertaking are almost ones purely of a business arrangement where it is asking for money in order to perform its fundamental duties. I do not think that those are the sorts of relationships that will enhance the work of the Department of Conservation; in fact they may well undermine it. We certainly do not want to have a department that is responsible for pest control for example putting out the begging bowl and saying: “We think there’s a stoat onKāpiti island. Would anyone like to sponsor some pest control?”. That is the position that the National Government has put the Department of Conservation in.We have seen an even more recent example in Hawke’s Bay where the proposal for the Ruataniwha dam has the potential to turn the Tukituki River toxic. That should be a major concern to people in Hawke’s Bay. In fact to people over the rest of the country that is exactly what the model says. That is because it does not manage nitrates. That is exactly what the model says and the Department of Conservation was absent from any contribution to that. So we want this bill to be reflective of the genuine partnerships that we need to better protect our public land. We tried really hard through the select committee consideration to get to that but unfortunately this bill achieves the opposite.