Robertson Grant: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The real reason behind why this bill finds its way to the House today in the form that it does is contained in the very first words of the bill’s explanatory note—on the front page: “The Game Animal Council Bill delivers on the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future Party …”. What else did we discover today in the House? What else does that confidence and supply agreement deliver to the National-led Government? Asset sales. That is exactly why we find ourselves today debating the Game Animal Council Bill and the recommendations it has in its current form.  
The Government knows that it needs the votes of Mr Dunne and Mr Banks—because that is it. What is between asset sales—selling off the assets built up by past generations; selling to supposed mum and dad investors who already own those assets—and no asset sales is the vote of Mr Dunne. It is the vote of Mr Dunne and if he is really going to represent the people of Ohariu in this House he should be listening to them and saying that asset sales are the wrong thing to do for New Zealand. Whatever benefits there might be to causes that Mr Dunne is interested in such as around the hunting of game animals it is not worth it Mr Dunne. It is not worth it to sell off the legacy of past generations the things that will generate income— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Look I realise that the debate does range widely in this time of the debate but we are talking about asset sales to the exclusion of everything else. It is hardly on the subject of the Game Animal Council— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I am the judge of that. The member has brought it back to the subject but with a couple of minutes gone I am sure he will now focus on the 8 minutes ahead.  
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Indeed I will but it is important to note that in the explanatory note of the Game Animal Council Bill Dr Calder that is how it starts. It starts talking about the confidence and supply agreement. The main reason that Government over there wants that confidence and supply agreement is to pass its agenda of selling off this country’s future and on this side of the House we will be opposing that.  
This bill comes to this House in a form that has a great deal of concern for the Labour Party. Because regulatory impact statements for bills do not come to us as members of Parliament in the same way they used to it is important nowadays to make reference to the regulatory impact statement about this bill. It is a regulatory impact statement that makes absolutely clear that although there may well be issues to be resolved in how we have communication cooperation and participation in the game animal area this regulatory impact statement tells us that this is not the way to do it. This is what Treasury and the Department of Conservation say in the regulatory impact statement: “Given the Game Animal Council’s proposed functions the Council does not need to be a body corporate and require separate legislation. A Ministerial advisory committee under the Wild Animal Control Act would be a more appropriate structure.”  
So why are we establishing a whole new structure here a whole new council that actually sets up competing interests here two organisations—the Department of Conservation and this body—in terms of the management of wild animals? Why would we do that when the Department of Conservation and Treasury the Government’s two key advisers in this matter are saying it does not make sense it is not necessary and there is another way? 
Andrew Little 
: There must be something in it for him. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right Mr Little. There must be something else in it and that brings us right back to asset sales.  
But if we go on this Government on the other side of the House tells us time and time again that it is all about efficiency and it is all about making best use of the resources. Well let us look at what the regulatory impact statement has to say about that: “Introducing separate legislation to create a Game Animal Council would have the highest costs in regulatory time and resources.”—the highest costs in regulatory time and resources. Well so much for the efficiency of Government; so much for making the cutbacks. Those officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or Te Puni Kokiri they can be damned—as long as the vote is there for asset sales. It does not matter that this is the most expensive option that is available in this area. As long as it delivers that vote of Mr Dunne for asset sales that is fine.  
The regulatory impact statement goes on to say: “Establishing the Game Animal Council under section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act would have the least cost in regulatory time and resources. While this would be the simplest and most cost-effective way to establish a Game Animal Council it would allow the Minister of Conservation to disestablish the council at any time.” That is the excuse given for why it is not going to take that option.  
This bill will make it to the select committee but what we want to say is that when it gets to the select committee we want those other options considered. Yes we want there to be more cooperation more collaboration and more participation by those in the hunting community but let us look at all the options. Let us look at an option that does not create confusion does not create two bodies that are involved and actually makes sure that we have the protection of our conservation values and allow the hunting of game animals.  
The Labour Party wants to make clear we respect the long traditions of the hunting of game animals in New Zealand. New Zealanders do enjoy this. It does actually help to control animal numbers and protect biodiversity but let us not set up a situation a regulatory framework that is going to create confusion and that is going to lead to outcomes that might diminish some of that conservation area.  
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out that the council could effectively if it chose to under the proposed law halt 1080 operations for possums rats or stoats if it thought game animals were going to be at risk. The balance of how you make decisions about that is something that we believe the Department of Conservation has the key role in. By all means let us have an advisory committee. Let us have some kind of structural process that is going to help this happen but let us not do it in a way that undermines the conservation values that we all hold dear in New Zealand.  
So we understand that this is an area where there does need to be further work done. This is something that we want to make sure that all members of the House are able to participate in and we will vote for the bill to go to the select committee for that reason. But I want to make absolutely clear in this House that we have grave concerns that this structure not only is expensive potentially unnecessary and possibly damaging to our conservation values but also is a straight-out sop to the United Future party and Mr Dunne to ensure his vote for sales of State assets. We need to be absolutely 100 percent clear in this House that that is what this bill does.  
In a first reading I know that we are obliged to talk about the bill and I have done that in some depth but it is a matter of serious concern to this side of the House that this bill finds its way to this House today on the back of the sale of assets built up by past generations of New Zealanders. This is on the back of the sale of assets into the worst possible state of the global economy where the worst possible price—which Mr English does not even know; he is guessing at it—could be gained for New Zealand for those assets. It makes no economic sense; it makes no social sense. But Mr Dunne is voting for it on the basis of the support for this bill to establish the Game Animal Council.  
In our contributions during the select committee process we will look seriously at the other options that might be available for the management and participation of interested groups in the management of game animals but we do so knowing that this bill potentially creates a situation where the Department of Conservation will not be able to fulfil its role in the way that New Zealanders would expect in terms of protecting conservation values. We do see a place for the hunting of game animals in New Zealand but we do not believe that setting up a body like this—in competition effectively with the Department of Conservation—is a good thing. We would like to see some form of committee or expanded committee created. We will listen to the submissions in the select committee process and we will ensure that New Zealanders’ conservation values are protected while hunting continues to take place.