Mackey Moana: Game Animal Council Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Game Animal Council Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Labour unfortunately will not be supporting this piece of legislation the Game Animal Council Bill. It really is unfortunate because I think this was a lost opportunity. I think that before the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee there was a lot of consternation around the very principle of what we were doing and the fact that it was quite different from what the advisory committee which had been set up under the Labour Government via our agreement with the Hon Peter Dunne and United Future had suggested.Actually when we got to the select committee what we found was there was an awful lot of common ground and a real desire to do something about those tensions that exist between the protection of the conservation estate pest management and the interests of recreational hunters. There was general agreement that in many cases thoseinterests actually aligned whereas people might think that they conflicted. It was a real opportunity to do something that would build on the relationships that already existed highlight where relationships did not exist and provide an opportunity to start building those relationships.What we found out through the select committee process and the submissions was that around the country this is already happening in some places very very well and the Department of Conservation is working extremely well with local recreational hunting interests. Decisions have been made and relationships put in place that mean that we are getting what the select committee wants which is a win-win for both sides. But equally there are other parts of the country where that relationship is very bad where the relationships have broken down and where the Department of Conservation and the local hunting interests are not working well together. What was clear was that it would have been perfectly possible within existing laws to actually build on both those experiences—the very bad experiences and the very positive experiences—and come up with something that I think most parties if not all parties in the House would have been able to support.Certainly if you read the regulatory impact statement on this piece of legislation and if you read the advice that came from both Treasury and the Department of Conservation this was their least favoured option. This was the option that they thought would have the highest regulatory burden and the most cost. They said that stand-alone legislation was not the way to go when under existing legislation you could achieve exactly the same outcomes. So what the Minister of Conservation is currently already able to do under the Wild Animal Control Act is to set up committees of special interest. So we could have taken that route. But we certainly took on board the concern of the recreational hunting community—that the problem with that was that as easily as a Minister could establish one of these boards the Minister could then disestablish it. We accepted that this is something that needed to be far more permanent than that.But the other option that was available—I guess we would see it as the middle-ground option—was that under the Wild Animal Control Act there could have been an amendment to put this committee into place and could have given it the kinds of functions that this bill seeks to impart on the Game Animal Council but in doing so not undermine the role of the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation.I very much appreciate the lofty goal of devolution of a number of these functions from the Department of Conservation down to other groups where we can get a win-win for everyone involved but I simply just do not think we are there yet. I think that the member who is effectively responsible for this bill the Hon Peter Dunne made a very correct statement in his second reading speech which was that the recreational hunting community is not very well organised at the moment and this bill does seek to address that. But it is a bit of a chicken and an egg thing. We are passing on and devolving an awful lot of responsibility to a sector that has yet I think to develop to a point where we can be confident that especially in terms of pest management—and that is incredibly important for all New Zealanders not just for those who care about that Department of Conservation estate—the standards there are going to continue to be met.One of the concerns of course that was raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was around the issue of 1080 and ensuring that the Game Animal Council was not able for example to stop the use of 1080 where it is being used for pest control simply because it might also impact on one of the herds of national significance. So it is disappointing.I am very pleased though that there is a 3-year review on this bill. I think that is an important part that does allay some concern. In 3 years’ time we can see where we are atand see whether this is still the appropriate vehicle to address the very real issues that are being addressed in this bill around managing those tensions between the Department of Conservation pest management and the rights of recreational hunters.I keep saying “recreational hunters” because up until a few hours ago we were really talking only about recreational hunters. A major concern for us has been the vote that was taken in the Committee stage of this bill today to remove the word “recreational” wherever it appears in the bill. That is a very big shift from what we were discussing at the select committee. It very much changes the entire flavour of what we are trying to do here. There is a difference we believe between the recreational hunting interests—the people who go out who have done it their whole lives and who learnt from their grandad from their dad and maybe from their grandmother and their mother as well that hunting is a real part of the culture a real part of that community—and the people who go out and make a lot of money out of shooting at animals from helicopters.For us that was an important distinction. We were doing something that was going to benefit that recreational hunting community because we recognised that many of them also do it out of a love of the land do it out of a love of just getting out there amongst nature. They have no interest beyond just enjoying what they have always done and wanting to see that when the Department of Conservation is engaging in pest management plans it is not at the same time eradicating the species that they enjoy going out and hunting—that it can get some kind of species management in there that allows both to coexist. So that is what we wanted and those were the people we wanted to benefit from that.But unfortunately we are now including a category of people who are benefiting from what we are doing here but who also make money off what they do and who are more the big end of town I guess when it comes to the hunting sector than the people whom we believed we were primarily dealing with at the select committee. I know that we were told in trying to explain why clause 16 was changed that it was to be more inclusive to extend the benefits of it beyond just recreational hunters but that was not the mandate we were given at the select committee and that was not the overarching framework of what we were told we were doing. What we were told we were doing was dealing with the everyday hunters who go out there and do it because they love it and it is part of their lifestyle. They are doing it because they love being out amongst nature not because they are making money out of it or having tourists come in and do trophy hunting.So now this bill extends to all those other people. I think that that is a real shame because everything I said before about how close I thought we were to actually getting something that everyone could get on board with is undermined. Actually what the amendment also does is it removes any mention of recreational hunters from the legislation. Had this amendment gone to the select committee—and I do not know why it was not raised at the select committee except that I acknowledge that the select committee was about 400 years ago but that is all right—we could have discussed for example mentioning recreational hunters. Including recreational hunters would ensure that the interests of recreational hunters who were the people whom we believed we were passing this legislation for will not be lost against the bigger more wealthy voice of other hunting interests.When we were going through this bill officials made it quite clear to us that this bill was not being passed for the other hunting interests; it was being passed for the recreational hunters. So to come to the Committee stage and suddenly have all reference to recreational hunters removed from the bill was unexpected to say the least and unfortunate I think. I am sure that other members will get up and say that it will make no difference and it may be that in 3 years’ time when we do the review that that is thecase but it should have gone to the select committee so we could have actually teased that out rather than it being changed under urgency. I appreciate that there are time frames that need to be met so that we do not breach them but then why was this bill not progressed earlier? Why was this bill not progressed earlier in the year so we did not have to do that under urgency and we did not have to have Supplementary Order Paper 395 dropped on us at the last minute when we really do not fully appreciate exactly what it might do?So we will not be supporting this bill. That is a shame because I do think we were very close to finding something workable that everyone could get on board with. But I do congratulate the Hon Peter Dunne on the time and effort he has put into passing this piece of legislation after what must be coming up to nearly a decade now. That is a long period of time so I do acknowledge that this is I am sure a very happy day for the Hon Peter Dunne. I am just sorry that we could not get on board with it.