Hipkins Chris: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Game Animal Council Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Quite frankly I think the Game Animal Council Bill is a bit rubbish actually. The Labour Party is going to support this bill’s referral to a select committee and let people have a say on it but we have serious concerns. I have to say we are not guaranteeing supporting it past the select committee process.  
Let us be clear about what this bill is. This bill is the price that National was willing to pay in order to be able to hock off those State-owned assets—this is the price. In fact it says so under the heading “General policy statement” in the explanatory note of the bill. It is very clear: the very first line of the bill admits that the reason we are even debating it is because that is what the Government had to give Peter Dunne in order to get him to agree to hocking off the State assets—hocking off the State assets even though he told the voters of Ohariu before the election that he did not think that selling State assets was a good idea.  
It says here right at the very beginning in the general policy statement in the very first sentence: “The Game Animal Council Bill delivers on the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future Party”. This is the price of the asset sales; this is what they were willing to pay in order to get Peter Dunne. I have to say to Peter Dunne that if this was the price he should have been asking for more—he should have been asking for more—because those State assets that he is going to vote to hock off are worth a heck of a lot more than this piece of legislation.  
There are real concerns with this bill and in fact the Government is willing to pay the price that Peter Dunne has extracted out of them despite the fact that the regulatory impact statement the Government’s own regulatory impact statement says that the proposal has the highest regulatory burden—the highest regulatory burden. This is from the red tape - cutting Government; this is from the Government that was all against red tape. There is not a word from the ACT Party on this who are the great red tape cutters in all of our reducing regulation. This bill has the highest regulatory burden but National members are going to support it because that is the price they had to pay to get Peter Dunne’s one vote—their one-vote majority to hock off the State assets. That is what they were willing to pay.  
What does the regulatory impact statement say? It said that this bill “is likely to have the highest costs and be the least aligned to the current wild animal control regime and legislative framework”. Once again another indictment—in the regulatory impact statement—as to what this National Government is willing to put up with in order to get Peter Dunne’s one vote.  
Officials recommend establishing the Game Animal Council as an advisory committee it says in the regulatory impact statement but oh no not for the members of the National Government. They do not really care about that providing they get their one vote from Peter Dunne in order to support their asset sales because this is a Government that is barely scraping through with one of the most unpopular—unpopular—changes that we have seen from any Government in the last few decades the hocking off of State assets. New Zealanders do not agree with it and Peter Dunne told the voters of Ohariu before the election that he did not agree with it and now he is voting for it in exchange for the Government supporting the Game Animal Council Bill.  
I return to some of the core concerns with the bill. This bill undermines the position of the Department of Conservation. In fact there are serious and legitimate concerns being raised by people about pest control. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has raised concerns about the impact this bill could have on pest control and effectively 1080. The use of 1080 poison has been a huge topic of debate in my electorate but it works and it has worked. Yet this Game Animal Council being established by this bill could seriously curtail the use of 1080 which has had a fantastic impact. 
 Yes it is a point of huge debate. There are people in my electorate who are passionately opposed to the use of 1080 and they come along to all the meet the candidates meetings before an election and they tell me that they are but it has worked. We have birdlife back in the hills around the Hutt Valley—birdlife that was missing for quite some time—and it is largely because of the use of 1080. So why should the Game Animal Council have the ability to undermine that? It is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment an independent officer of Parliament who was telling the Government this and the Government is simply turning a blind eye to that.  
This bill is not a good bill. It is the price the Government was willing to pay to get Peter Dunne to vote for State asset sales despite telling the people who voted for him before the last election that he would not do so. This bill is misnamed. In fact it is all about defending one endangered species—the Peter Dunne endangered species. That is what this bill is all about protecting and we can forget about anything else. It is about protecting the endangered species that is Peter Dunne. I say to the House that come the next election when Peter Dunne is judged he will be removed. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Assistant Speaker Tisch refused to allow the honourable member here Todd McClay to refer to Grant Robertson and point out that he was not an endangered species so— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order but I think the comment made by Todd McClay was made in an entirely different context. But the member’s time has expired.