Dunne Peter: Game Animal Council Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Game Animal Council Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Abraham Lincoln once said of a colleague that their competence was restricted to causing crises where previously none existed. Having heard the debate this morning on the Game Animal Council Bill I think we are creating controversy where none actually exists.Let me just reiterate the points that I made in response to the Hon Ruth Dyson. When the bill was introduced it related specifically to the conservation estate. During the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee the funding mechanism that was proposed in the bill was a levy on trophies realised from all forms of hunting—in other words all geographies. Following the report back of the bill a number of those groups that represent private landowners—and I include Federated Farmers as one example—came to the Government and said: “Because trophies taken on our land are going to be subject to the levy we think we ought to be included under the Game Animal Council rubric.” It is as simple as that. This is not about diminishing the role of recreational hunters—far from it. In fact it is including all hunting groups for the first time at the same table. If the members who are concerned look at the provisions relating to the membership of the council they will see that they are broad and will enable all interests to be represented.I just make this point as I conclude. I have listened to this debate and it has been a useful one but one of the themes that has come through repeatedly has been the risk of the Game Animal Council being at odds with other groups in the sector. The very best way to ensure that that is the case would be to limit the scope of its application. Far from doing that the amendments that are contained in the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 actually bring people together for the first time.I cannot for the life of me see what the concern is about. I suspect it is an element of political point-scoring which is fair enough in this place. But frankly when you have the chair of the establishment committee say that there is not a problem with it and when you have the major groups that will be required to be part of the payment process saying they want to be included under the scope of the legislation—it is the first time Ican recall groups actually saying they want to be included in legislation; most times groups want to be excluded and left to do their own thing—you actually have the basis of a consensus moving forward. I think that the debate in Committee frankly diminishes the significance of that and puts at risk all of the good work—and I freely acknowledge that members opposite were part of this in the select committee in taking this concept and turning it into a proposition that is now workable and that is on the point of being established.There is no hidden conspiracy here. There is no hidden plan. It is a simple fact of responding to needs that have been expressed and ensuring that we get the best possible outcome in the interests of all hunting groups across this country.