Prosser Richard: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prosser Richard: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:789. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to speak to this bill the Game Animal Council Bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill. We note as Mr Robertson did that this bill has come before the House solely in order to satisfy one part of the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future party.  
New Zealand First does support responsible hunting. I am in fact a keen hunter—not too keen nowadays since entering this House and in fact since the election campaign which as members will know is time-consuming and does not allow one to roam the hills with a weapon which is perhaps not a bad idea.  
New Zealand First regards this bill as being quite simply an unnecessary piece of legislation. The general policy statement in the bill’s explanatory note states: “The primary purpose of establishing such a council is to improve the management of deer tahr chamois and wild pig including the improvement of opportunities to hunt those animals.” New Zealand First contends that this bill as it is constructed will in fact reduce the opportunities to hunt the aforementioned animals currently enjoyed by many in the New Zealand hunting community and that it will add unnecessary additional costs and bureaucracy where little to none currently exists.  
New Zealand First believes that the management of the animals listed does not need to be improved and that the existing hunting methods and activities permitted and carried out by recreational hunters are working well with regard to preventing the species named from increasing to pest proportions and that the breeding populations of these animals on conservation lands are stable and easily controllable by present hunting practices.  
As other speakers have indicated regulatory bodies already exist and are not problematic. This bill therefore attempts to solve a problem that does not exist and in so doing it creates an expensive regulatory regime that includes some quite Draconian provisions and that carries the potential to restrict the freedom of recreational hunters in New Zealand to continue harvesting food from the bush and at the same time performing the valuable service of pest management for the nation in the manner in which they have long enjoyed.  
The bill as it comes before the House is in some ways poorly constructed and self-contradictory. It provides for the Minister of Conservation to appoint members of the proposed council when perhaps a more balanced and effective body could be formed were it to be elected by the hunting community itself. Clause 8(1) of the bill specifies that “The Minister must appoint no fewer than 9 and no more than 11 persons as members of the Council.” However subclause (7) then states that “The Council’s powers are not affected by any vacancy in its membership.” In addition to this anomaly clause 16(1) provides that “The Minister may … designate any herd of game animals in a defined location on conservation land to be a herd of special interest …” yet clause 30 makes it an offence for any person to liberate an animal that belongs to the herd of special interest or to allow it to escape which to my mind begs the question as to where an animal is supposed to be able to escape to if it already lives in the wild.  
In addition to allowing the Minister to appoint the members of the council the bill provides for the Minister to delegate his or her powers to that council and further stipulates that the members of the council will not be personally liable for any act done or omitted provided that such an act or omission is made in good faith. So we have a proposal for a council appointed by a Minister largely on the recommendation of one small section of the hunting community who gave their support to the United Future party who may then receive delegated powers from that Minister giving them a quite unprecedented level of ability and authority to determine rules that will apply to all of that hunting community.  
With all due respect to Mr Jones New Zealand First is also concerned by reference in clause 8(3)(vii) which states that the Minister must consider that members of the council should have knowledge and experience relating to Maori hunting interests. We ask why this quite unnecessary and divisive provision needs to be included given that all the species of animals listed are ones that have arrived in New Zealand since European colonisation. We see no need whatsoever for this deliberately separatist provision in the bill.  
New Zealand First notes that clause 11 provides for members of the council to be remunerated for their “services at a rate and of a kind determined by the Minister:” without any further form of explanation or reference which we consider to be unacceptable. Perhaps if this were to be paid by the trophy levies it would not be quite so bad; otherwise we consider that all Government expenditure does need to be accountable.  
The bill provides for enforcement officers and honorary enforcement officers to be appointed provided that the director-general considers them to be fit and proper persons but does not specify what qualities or qualifications any such persons should possess. New Zealand First does not have any issue with police officers or other warranted officers of the State such as fisheries officers being appointed to such roles but we do hold concerns around statutory powers being awarded to individuals who may not be trained and vetted in the exercise of such powers.  
We are concerned also that honorary officers may exercise powers of halt and seizure at their discretion where herds of special interest are concerned and that clause 31 appears to indicate that the burden of proof is placed upon persons in areas where such herds normally reside to prove that they are not hunting those animals and that an enforcement officer may presume that any snare net trap firearm weapon vessel or vehicle can be declared to be intended for hunting if they believe they have reasonable grounds.  
All in all we see this bill as being unnecessary and an intrusion on the rights and freedoms of hunters poorly constructed potentially Draconian and contributing to increased costs for the hunting community at no advantage to the nation or indeed to the conservation estate. New Zealand First does not support this bill. However we accept that the House will pass it to select committee and we look forward to opposing it there. Thank you.