Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill

Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill Committee of the whole House Part 1 Amendment to principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1, “Amendment to principal Act”, the debate on clause 4. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (10:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to kick off proceedings this morning, I’ll take the committee back a few months to when we were at the second reading and we traversed the purpose of this legislation and the outcome of the select committee. During that time, we talked a little bit about how many members in this House have been engaging with stakeholders, the likes of which include the Game Animal Council, New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, and other various hunting groups and foundations. The consistent response from those groups has been twofold. One is that hunting is an important part of the recreational and social lifeblood of our country, that our valued introduced species have real meaning and a really special place in the hearts of many New Zealanders who hunt those animals for food to put on the table and also for their recreational and social value. The second part of that is also that there are certain herds around the country that are worth managing for their hunting value and not just managing for the impact that they have on the wider environment. Of course, if you manage animals for their hunting value, you will inevitably end up with fewer, healthier herds. That is not only good for the environment but also good for our hunting community. Part of that is the idea of herds of special interest, which was introduced in the Game Animal Council Act in 2013. Now, since that Act was introduced over a decade ago, no herds of special interest have been designated. The Government has indicated that it is going through the process of designating herds of special interest, but the hunting sector has raised consistently what could be an apparent contradiction in the existing National Parks Act with the herds of special interest process. That is the part of the National Parks Act, which is section 4(2)(b), which requires introduced species in national parks to be exterminated as far as possible. I think it actually can be consistent, but on its face, it contradicts the Game Animal Council Act, which allows a herd of special interest to be designated in a national park. Of course, when you do that, you would then be managing that herd for its recreational hunting value, managing its numbers down so that you have healthier, stronger, better value animals, rather than exterminating them completely. There is an argument out there in the community that, if you didn’t make a change to the Game Animal Council Act to take out the requirement to fully exterminate those animals, any sort of management process undertaken in a national park could only be done if you were doing it with the determination to exterminate animals—unless the conservation authority says otherwise. This bill is a very, very simple, short, straightforward bill that outlines that, if a herd of special interest is designated in a national park, the requirement to exterminate as far as possible animals in that herd does not apply, and instead those animals will be managed in line with a herd management plan, which takes into account the ecological value, the social value, the recreational value, and input from stakeholders such as Forest and Bird, local iwi, local rūnaka, local hunting communities, and the hunting foundations, in order to better manage those herds. Ultimately, what we want with these herds and in those areas are animals that are healthier, that have better trophies, that produce more meat, but that are fewer in number and so put much less pressure on the environment. That is the purpose of this bill in totality. Clause 4, in this part, is the operative part of the bill; it does all of the heavy lifting. It is the part that says that, when designating a herd of special interest, section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act will not apply to that herd. It may well still apply to animals outside of that herd. There may well still be management processes in place for other animals and other introduced species that will be managed down and potentially eliminated—for example, goats. However, this part, clause 4, is the bit that does the heavy lifting. I think I’ve outlined in as much detail as possible what it does, because it is quite straight forward and simple. It will bring a lot of relief to the likes of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, who have been successfully managing animals in the Fiordland National Park for over 20 years now, to the point where the environmental outcomes in the areas they manage in the Wapiti block are actually better than in areas that are not managed by the foundation. I think this is a good, sensible compromise in terms of the management of our game animal species in New Zealand. It celebrates the fact that hunter-led conservation makes a huge contribution to our conservation estate, and I look forward to its passage through the committee today. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:36): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for Hunting and Fishing for laying out quite clearly what this bill does and what the genesis of this legislation is. I will make just a couple of points in response to the Minister’s overview, and then I will get into some very specific questions. While the Minister makes the point that this is a short bill—and I agree with that—it is quite an important change. It signals a significant shift in the way that national parks will be managed when it comes to protecting introduced browser populations, and I do want to tease that out, to ensure that there is some comfort that various implications have been thought through, because this was quite a rushed process to date, and there were a number of people who submitted on this at the select committee stage, as well. I want to start, I guess, by pointing to a really good piece that the Department of Conservation (DOC) produced in March this year, which lays out what the Minister ended his contribution with: that this is about hunting and conservation. I also want to make it very clear that the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill is not opposition to hunting per se. I went on the parliamentary hunt, as many other colleagues have done over the years, to learn a little bit more from the Game Animal Council, and I know, from listening to hunters, that many tell us this is how many of them were first introduced to the bush. They laid out that this a way to spend time with family and friends, that often it is how New Zealanders learn to connect with the bush, and I accept all of those arguments. Many talk about the mental health benefits of being out in the bush and the fact that hunting takes them there as well. The Minister made the point that it is to hunters’ benefit when animal numbers are low, because they are then in better condition. To an extent, I accept that as well. This piece goes on to lay out, though, that while hunters do value healthy ecosystems, and that many see their role as recreation and stewardship, there is undoubtedly an increase in the number of introduced browser species in New Zealand. Deer, pigs, tahr, and goats are all becoming more widespread and abundant. DOC’s own piece talks about the fact that they browse heavily on seedlings and understory plants, and this over time changes the forest structure. That is, essentially, why we’re here today debating this bill. Currently, more than 7 million hectares of public conservation land is already available for hunting. What this bill does is make a change to the National Parks Act to allow browser species, browser populations like deer, to be able to be protected within our national parks. That is the reason why this bill, while small, is incredibly problematic, and I’ll lay that out in a minute. Many submitters said to us, and I agree, that this bill undermines the national park status. National park status is the highest protection that is accorded to areas across Aotearoa New Zealand that have specific biodiversity values, scientific values, scenic beauty, ecological systems that shouldn’t be destroyed. The inherent tension in this bill is between hunters wanting to protect deer populations in a protected area and the bill that removes the protection. I will just point to the specific parts of this. The change that it makes is, ultimately, to—so section 16(3) of the principal Act is where Ministers may designate herds of special interest. It lays out where and what considerations the Minister needs to take into account. The introduced areas specifically say, “If a herd of special interest is designated in a national park, section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act 1980 does not apply”. That is the issue that everybody has. It says, “To avoid doubt, section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act 1980 does not limit the Minister’s power to make a designation under subsection (1).” What it does, though, is to say that section 4(2)(b)—this is what 4(2)(b) says, Madam Chair— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I’m going to take another call from the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, but before I do, to those speakers on my right who are asking for a question, it’s fully proper for an Opposition spokesperson to be able to outline what they’re thinking about the bill before they actually go into questions. I know that the member has indicated she’s going to do that soon, but she’s been outlining her reasoning. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Section 4(2)(b) talks about how national parks need to be preserved. Section 4(2)(b) says, “except where the Authority otherwise determines, the native plants and animals of the parks shall as far as possible be preserved and the introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated:” That is the crux of this bill. This bill allows herds of special interest to be developed, cultivated, or protected in national parks. For removal of doubt, it says that they do not need to be exterminated, whereas all other predators, as the Minister has said, will continue to need to be exterminated from national parks. The issue here and the question that I want to ask the Minister is: does the Minister accept that this is a fundamental shift in terms of the protections accorded to our national parks? I think it’s about four national parks, including Fiordland, that are within Te Wāhipounamu World Heritage Area. When UNESCO nominations were made back in 1989 by the Government of the day, part of the rationale for protecting that was to exterminate predators as far as possible. Now, this bill changes that and puts our international reputation in jeopardy. Firstly, does the Minister accept that while this is a short bill, it is a fundamental shift in the way that we protect the highest of our public conservation lands, which are national parks? Secondly, it does say in that particular section 4(2)(b) that the New Zealand Conservation Authority has a role to play in this. This bill undermines their authority when it comes to them having a say in what should be protected and what should not be protected within the national park. The New Zealand Conservation Authority themselves have come out and said that this legislation undermines their statutory role. What considerations did the Minister give when making a decision to remove or undermine the Conservation Authority’s role in this? I know that other colleagues may want to touch on this as well, but iwi and hapū have also submitted to say that there is no requirement in this legislation for their views to be taken into account. Much of this is within Ngāi Tahu’s takiwā, and they have opposed the ability to designate the herds of special interest and particularly also to undermine the status of national parks. When currently hunters can continue to hunt in 7 million hectares of public conservation land, why, Minister, do we need to reduce the protections for national parks? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (10:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s quite a bit in that, but first of all, I’ll push back against this idea that herds of special interest are designed to protect animals. It’d be an interesting definition of “protect” if a mechanism was put in place to reduce the number of animals in an area. I don’t know how that’s protecting a herd when you’re actually reducing and limiting the number of animals in the area. It’s a strange concept of protection, but I know that’s their talking point and that’s what they’ll push to try and justify their opposition to it all the way throughout. This change doesn’t signal a shift in the way that national parks are managed; it clarifies the status quo. The status quo is that under section 16(1)(b)(ii) of the Game Animal Council Act, you can designate a herd of special interest in a national park. That is the status quo. Secondly, section 4(2)(b) currently provides the authority an exemption against the complete possible extermination of animals—any animal in a national park. The Conservation Authority already has an exemption itself to pull back from the so-called protections that are in place for the national park. All this does is clarify that possible tension between designating a herd of interest—which you can already do under the existing legislation which was passed back in 2013 and not amended by any Government since—and the requirement to exterminate as far as possible. Now, if you took the wording in that part of the National Parks Act to its extreme, you would not be able to do basically anything in a national park that fell short of exterminating every introduced animal you saw. Everybody in this House knows that that is an impractical and impossible obligation to put on any department. What it would do is that it would basically eliminate the resource required to manage species down in a managed, practical way, an adaptable way. Essentially, the country would give up because it would be such an impossible task. Then you would have much, much, much worse outcomes in national parks if you were to take the statute to its extreme. All this does is it clarifies the existing regime. You can already designate a herd of special interest in a national park. It’s in there in the statute: section 16(1)(b)(ii). The Conservation Authority can already provide an exemption to the elimination or eradication or extermination—whichever word you want to use—as far as possible. Now, in terms of the claim that it undermines the Conservation Authority, they may well say—and, of course, any organisation that sees its ability to make decisions or have influence shifted will obviously say that. But the problem is that if you then go and look at section 16(2) of the Game Animal Council Act, the Conservation Authority is expressly named as a group that has to be consulted on when a herd of special interest is developed, which is why they’ve made these comments in the first place. Then the Game Animal Council Act is listed in Schedule 1 of the Conservation Act. The Conservation Act is subject to Treaty obligations under section 4, and so rūnaka and iwi are also consulted throughout the herd of special interest process, which they have been in this instance, and which is why the member knows about Ngāi Tahu’s opposition and the views of Tūwharetoa and iwi up in the central plateau. I would note, for the record, that just because one part of Ngāi Tahu says that they believe something doesn’t mean that every part of Ngāi Tahu believes that. It doesn’t mean that every Ngāi Tahu member believes that. If you’re going to go out there and say that, “Well, we’re going to take the view of some members of Ngāi Tahu or some rūnaka as gospel, representing the views of every single tribal member.”, including those who actually value hunting and actually go out there and use it to gather meat off the land, then you’ve got to take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Looking around the room, I won’t speak for everyone in the room, but I can count at least one Ngāi Tahu member here who supports this legislation. If we’re talking about those views that the member raised, I think we can tick those off. There were a couple of final ones in there. The last one was the one raised right at the start where the member said that this has been a rushed process. The bill was introduced in May last year. It had a full select committee process. It’s been awaiting its committee stage since November of last year. There’s been over a year—12 to 14 months, I think—of consultation on the herd of special interest designation process. If anything, I think probably Mr Luxton would agree with me that there are members out there in the hunting sector who have said that this process has gone on too long and we need to get on with actually helping hunters lead the conservation effort in those parts of the country where they actually not only go out and take animals off the land but they set traps, they clear tracks, they restore huts for every New Zealander to use. I think that addresses those questions for now. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (10:50): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to take this call as a hunter and as a conservationist. But I also would like to make the point to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing’s point that hunters are conservationists—some are, but some aren’t. The reason we see fallow deer in the St Marys Range in Otago is because they’ve been introduced—because they’ve been introduced for hunting. The reason we see wallabies south of the Waitaki River is not just that they hop across the bridge; it’s because some people have introduced them. Hunters have introduced wallabies south of the Waitaki River. The myth, Minister, that we are going to see a fantastic conservation result from the herds of special interest (HOSI), I think, is something that we need to— Grant McCallum: We’re already seeing it. SCOTT WILLIS: —challenge, because we are not already seeing it. We are seeing spot examples of good practice in a wider space where things are totally out of control. That’s what this bill is about. It is a small bill, but it is significant, and that’s why we oppose it. Green Party policy and our position is that we must remove or eradicate, where possible, large, non-predator invasive species in areas where they threaten important ecological values. It’s pretty straight forward. This supports our national parks. It supports the work to retain what is so precious to our community. We have seen the response from Ngāi Tahu and from other iwi in relation to this legislation, so I just want to ask the Minister in particular about the stakeholders that have been engaged with. We’ve heard the Game Animal Council’s considered a stakeholder. Shanan Halbert: He speaks for Ngāi Tahu. SCOTT WILLIS: I’m interested whether iwi are simply considered a stakeholder— Hon James Meager: I heard that, and I don’t. SCOTT WILLIS: —or whether they’re considered a Treaty partner. Then I’m particularly interested in what might happen when we move to a space where the Game Animal Council is designating the management of these herds of special interests in different areas. If the Game Animal Council can overlay existing rights, existing Treaty obligations, how is it that that’s going to happen? What Government responsibility is there to make sure that Treaty agreements and partnerships have been upheld, if the Game Animal Council is going to come in here and decide what exactly is going to happen in a particular area? I’m thinking, in particular, there’s a very good submission from Ngāti Rongomai from Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who talk about the challenge that they see where they are a Treaty partner with specific legally binding rights and responsibilities over the management of land in their rohe. What this bill will do is take that away. That’ll take that away. It’ll give it to the Game Animal Council to manage the land and manage what happens to the herds of special interests that have been designated in that area—to manage that, over the rights of Ngāti Rongomai. How does the Government manage when it has overridden its Treaty partnership and Treaty agreements? How does the Minister see this will work? Does the Minister think that this is going to be a smooth ride all the way through when we are putting the Game Animal Council over the Treaty partnerships, giving them a right to designate HOSI and how HOSI is managed in that area? That’s an opening question. Minister, we have quite a number of questions because we’ve got the myth, here, that we have hunters who will deliver conservation benefits. We heard through the Environment Committee from so many hunters who said that this is the wrong way to go. As a hunter myself, I’m very aware of how hunters are incapable of delivering better conservation benefits, because it doesn’t happen. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (10:55): I mean, well, this ridiculous assertion about this myth that hunters do nothing for conservation—well, I’d talk to Scott Willis and just say, “What would the state of the Fiordland National Park be if the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation hadn’t spent the last 20 years managing animals in that area. It’s an absolutely disgraceful contribution to say that hunters make no contribution and there’s a myth that hunters are doing nothing out there to help the conservation estate. They’re the ones that are going out there and laying the traps to help protect the blue duck; they’re other ones going out there maintaining and fixing the tracks. When was the last time anyone on this side of the House actually got out in the Fiordland National Park and actually went down and checked some traps and maintained some traps? There you go: one hand; silence from the rest of them. It’s absolutely disgraceful that you’d say that, and, in fact, it shows that you know nothing about the bill. It’s not the Game Animal Council that designates the herd of special interest; it’s the Minister. It’s the Minister for Hunting and Fishing that designates a herd of special interest. It’s not the Game Animal Council that necessarily manages a herd of special interest; it’s the Minister who decides who manages the herds of special interest. I think the member needs to stop getting too far ahead of where he is and focus on the bill at hand. I heard the snide remark from Shanan Halbert who sat there before and said, “Oh, the Minister purports to speak on behalf of Ngāi Tahu.” Well, no, I’m not so arrogant—like you are—to think that one individual speaks on behalf of an entire set of people. I would never be so arrogant to presuppose that my individual view on this actually speaks for an entire group or an entire people. To sit there and to snipe away and to sit and assume—like the way, like that is your ideology, where you say that we all think the same—all Māori think the same—and we’re one homogenous group and we’ve all just got one attitude towards this, and if only we all fell in line, we’d be good little boys and girls. Well, that’s a horrible attitude, Mr Halbert, to have, and when he goes back up North later on today, he can go and talk to his people about the arrogance that he’s shown here today. Now, back to the bill at hand—back to the bill at hand. The bill does one thing: it says that when you designate a herd of special interest, section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act, which requires the extermination, as far as possible, of all introduced animals, including those in herds of special interest, must be undertaken—all this does is it says that when a herd of special interest is designated in an area, the animals in that area will not be subject to the extermination requirement; they’ll be subject to the management requirement of a herd management plan, which is developed in consultation with a number of individuals and groups, and which for the record of the House I will read out right now. It includes the Minister of primary industries, the Department of Conservation, any relevant regional council or local councils, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, relevant conservation boards, and relevant organisations that the Minister considers appropriate. I think the members in the Chamber also need to be careful about the terms they throw around, because when you’re talking about the iwi that are involved in here for the Fiordland area, you’re talking about the rūnaka. With the way that the tribal structure works in Ngāi Tahu, it’s not Ngāi Tahu that makes these decisions. It’s not a top-down approach from Ngāi Tahu; it’s the rūnaka that have the say, it’s their area, it’s their takiwā, and they’re the ones that have the say. Te Rūnanga o Awarua, Waihōpai Rūnaka, Te Rūnaka Ōraka-Aparaima, and Hokonui Rūnanga—they are the ones that make the decisions on behalf of their groups and their people. I had a meeting with them in Invercargill, and I reflected, then, this very fact too: that although they hold their view as a group and they hold their view as a people, they do not represent the view of every single hunter and every single member of their tribe and every single member of their hapū. What I do is I go there and I represent the views of every New Zealander and I try and make changes that will improve the conservation estate—changes like this that allow hunters to take a lead in the conservation area and bring the results that the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation have brought over the past 20 years, that the Central North Island Sika Foundation are undertaking, that the Rakiura Whitetail Trust down in the Deep South are undertaking. They are the ones that are out there on the land doing the management, doing the trapping, doing the hut restoration, doing the track maintenance—not the people in this Chamber; the people who get up at 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning to go out and shoot some venison and then spend the rest of the day clearing the traps. The ones that get out and take their kids out when they’re 8 or 9 to show them what the bush is like and to actually get them out in the outdoors, not sitting at home in town on an iPad, getting them out in the outdoors, going fishing, going hunting. They’re other ones that are actually out there doing the work, and all we’re doing is providing a little bit of support, a little bit of encouragement. They’re not the villains, and they’re not the myth, here, that Scott Willis talks about. That’s what we’re doing here on the side of the Chamber, and we’re proud to do that, and we’ll continue to be proud to do that for the rest of the morning, as long as it takes to get this bill through. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take the next call from Cameron Luxton, but before I do, I just want to make a comment that this process is about asking questions to the Minister, not making comments from the sidelines about the Minister. The Minister was provoked and had a full opportunity to respond to those comments, so I’d like the members to focus on the legislation, please. Shanan Halbert: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I attempted to take the call to have the right of reply to the Minister in his commentary regarding myself. He made the suggestion, assertion, that I was arrogant in the commentary that I made— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, look, I’m not taking that as a point of order, because the Minister was provoked by a comment that you made as a member from the side seat. I think we’ll just sit down and we’ll tidy up from here on in, and I’m taking a call from— Shanan Halbert: Thank you, but was actually in response to his comment in the first place. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, but you actually attacked directly towards the Minister, so I’d ask the member to sit down at this point. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (11:00): Madam Chair, thank you very much. Minister, you’ve talked about a fulsome process, and I must say, as a member of the select committee, it was a fulsome process, when you have one operative page changing one part of the bill. It is an important part of the bill, as members of the Opposition have said. But to say that this has been a truncated process where views were not heard just shows the attack lines that were dreamt up from the very first day that this was introduced. I have to say to members of the Green Party who are asking questions that are completely off the mark, we just went through a whole select committee process where we heard these, we debated about it. I can’t believe the myth-making that is happening right now. Minister, you’re right. It is a small bill addressing one part of the statute, section 4(2)(b) in the National Parks Act, the 4(2)(b) provision, which means that it’s been incredibly difficult to get herds of special interest over the line. During the select committee process, we understood about why this was needed, why Parliament’s come in. We don’t need to go through the history of what’s been going in the courts previously to try to get us to this position. But I did actually put an alternate view on behalf of the ACT Party into the report back on this bill, in which I raised some concerns that I have about the term “overriding considerations” and its use in section 16 and section 19 of the Game Animal Council Act. The concern that I have here, Minister, is we went through this full process to try and make it possible to be able to designate herds of special interest and have the management that hunters have proven that they care about and that they’re able to provide at an extreme financial benefit to the Crown. To be able to do that, they’ll need to be able to actually establish these and maintain them at a level where the overriding considerations don’t mean that the hurdles that have to be jumped through are so high it makes a herd of special interest too difficult to either establish or maintain. Minister, I’m asking this question of you because I hope to hear you speak about what you see, for the record, “overriding considerations” mean so that when herds of special interest are designated, if there was to be some kind of court process, it would be on record to make sure that it has been read into the Hansard of this House, that people can look back on and say “This is what Parliament intended. Parliament intends to create herds of special interest.” so that hunters leading management can get on with the job they have proven they can do and not to be held up in vexatious or judicial processes to try and kibosh that noble aim. I hope you can speak to that, Minister. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:03): I think the core point that Mr Luxton makes is a good one. There were, throughout the select committee process, I think very valid concerns raised about to what extent would the requirement to be consistent with overriding considerations essentially render any herd of special interest null and void because of the high bar that would set. I’m confident, and the advice I’ve received consistently from officials has been that going through the process separate to this of designating a herd of special interest outside of this particular bill, there are multitudes of national parks plans and area plans and things you have to get through, but draft herd management plans that have been developed so far—every step of the way, the advice that I’ve had is that they have been consistent with the overriding considerations of the Conservation Act and various plans. Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t people out there who take a different view. I think towards the end of last year, when the bill came out of select committee, we looked very closely at the potential for making further changes to help address some of the select committee’s concerns. I think we all probably know that the narrowness of this bill has meant that being able to make slightly larger changes to areas around overriding considerations—whether or not you’re consistent with or have regard to—was outside the scope of this bill. But it’s certainly something I think that is worth looking at, because ultimately you want to have a process where the end goal is better conservation and better hunting outcomes. You don’t want to have a process which has been built into statute—and has been built into statute for over a decade now—be rendered void by a strong or an extreme interpretation of what overriding considerations might be. We can’t make those changes today, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to make those changes in this bill, but it’s certainly something worth looking at. If the legislative timetable allowed, we could do some more work on that. But perhaps it’s something that like-minded people could go out there in the next couple of months and advocate strongly for—that clarity in the law around that. I’ll close on the final point in that I understand you’d like this for the record so that future litigants might be able to reflect back on it. My warning to future litigants would be—I’ve always held this view—don’t take what parliamentarians say in the House as gospel. Read what it says on the paper as to what the intent of the words may be. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take my first call on this and really just to set the scene on what we’ve been told is going on here versus what Labour sees is going on here, which is we’re being told that clause 4 is a technical clarification. I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb summed it up in the first reading speeches when he said what this is really about is trophy hunting. I’m glad that the Minister has just, in his recent contribution, clarified that it is not the Game Animal Council that makes these determinations but the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, noting—not casting any aspersions, but just noting—many members of this House have gone on those parliamentary hunts, and noting that the Minister himself was promoting the Game Animal Council hunt on 31 October 2025 on his Facebook page and also 20 August 2025 in the Otago Daily Times, particularly hunting herds which now Forest and Bird are saying are potentially subject to this change in legislation, so that’s an interesting connection. Where I would like to interrogate the Minister is really about the process, saying it’s clarification versus a fundamental change in the law, because the Government’s own process shows that the change was introduced without the evidence base, consultation, or testing that Parliament should expect, and that is to do with some of the documentation that is missing. For example, there’s been no inquiry, no review, no evaluation, no regulatory impact statement, no further impact analysis, no cost-benefit analysis, very little external consultation—it’s really only been through the select committee consultation—and no testing of the proposal. For us, as has been said by my colleague the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, the problem is not hunting. I agree with the Minister’s sentiment that it would be great to find a balance. But the question is: where does that balance lie if this is to be enacted, and also what doors does that open for future Ministers to be able to change thresholds or allow other species which could do further damage? What we’re really seeing is clause 4 asking Parliament to legislate first and then make assessments later, due to that lack of scrutiny. My question to the Minister is: why is he justifying clause 4 when his own disclosure statement says that there was no publicly available inquiry, no review or evaluation that informed the policy, no regulatory impact statement, and no further analysis. That’s said in Part Two of the disclosure statement, at section 1 on page 4. Given that happened, what inquiry, review, or evaluation does he have to support this change? Given that there was no regulatory impact statement, how can he conclude that clause 4 is a clarification rather than a fundamental change in the law, which we have heard from submitters, they are saying is what’s happening, and which appears to be what’s happening on the face of the words? How can he make that conclusion without a regulatory impact statement to evidence his contention? We also see in the disclosure statement, in Part Two, section 4, page 4, that there hasn’t been an environmental impact analysis. Where is his environmental impact analysis, or what documentation is he relying on, and has that come only from the Game Animal Council or can he point to other sources of evidence; if so, could he please table those in the House? There’s no cost-benefit analysis. How do we know that the benefits of clause 4 to hunting either strike a balance, as he has contended, or outweigh the risks to the conservation estate? These are statements that he’s making quite boldly in this committee without the evidence to back that up, and so if he could please present that to the committee, that would be really useful. The other thing is: why have herds of special interest outside national parks not been tested, as the New Zealand Conservation Authority has suggested? I’m going to leave my initial questions there. I do have some Supplementary Order Papers, which are around providing some safeguarding and scrutiny within the legislation itself, which is abundantly missing. But it would be really good to understand the evidence base for the Minister’s contention that this is a minor alteration rather than a fundamental change to the law, as we have heard from submitters. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:11): Well, I can come to those conclusions for a couple of reasons. The first is that the Ministry for Regulation determined no regulatory impact statement was needed because there are no or limited economic consequences, and the second is that I can read legislation. If the members actually take the time to either rewind the clock about 15 minutes to what I’d said at the start of my contribution and actually read the legislation—I can point them to it again, as I said at the outset. If they go to section 16(1) of the principle Act: “The Minister may, by notice, designate any species of game animal in a specified area on public conservation land to be a herd of special interest if … (b) The Minister has regard to— … (ii) the status of the land, particularly the designation of the land as a conservation area, national park, or reserve;”. So it’s quite clear in the Game Animal Council Act that, first of all, you can designate a herd of special interest in a national park, and so that is the existing law and that’s status quo. If the members want to argue against that, if they are privy to some special argument which would enlighten me as to the fact that, you know, the statute doesn’t allow a herd of special interest to be designated on a national park, then do tell me because that’s not what the statute says. Then, secondly, section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act says that in so far as possible, any introduced animal, which would be an animal, which would be a herd of special interest, must be exterminated as far as possible. Now, the argument is that there’s a clear contradiction there, because to designate a herd of special interest, you must have a herd management plan. A herd management plan could not be “exterminate all animals in that herd”, because that would not be the point of a herd management plan for a herd of special interest. Therefore, to clear up that possible contradiction, you could have an interpretation of that which would say, well, obviously, the requirement in section 4(2)(b) to exterminate introduced animals as far as possible would be interpreted in light of a herd management plan to not mean eliminate or exterminate every single animal, because otherwise you’d have in one statute saying one thing and one statute saying another thing. So that is the existing law. To clarify beyond all doubt—and to actually take care of some ongoing litigation which is happening in the deep South—we have decided to make it very, very clear to everyone in the country that when you designate a herd of special interest, you can do so in a national park, and the requirement to exterminate, as required in section 4(2)(b), will no longer apply to an animal in a herd of special interest because it would contradict the purpose and the nature of a herd management plan. I think that is the clear reason for having this change in here. It is a simple clarification of the existing law. It’s a shame that we have to have this clarification because, you know, it is subject to challenge in some parts of the country. So, for all avoidance of the doubt, if a herd of special interest is designated in the future, it is clear in the statute that it can be designated in a national park, and the requirement to exterminate, as far as possible, will not apply. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (11:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a number of questions for the Minister. I rise to speak as the associate conservation portfolio person in the Green Party, but I also rise to speak as a mother of hunters. It’s not quite as good as “Mother of Dragons”, but “Mother of Hunters” will do me. I think we need to reflect on the history of conservation in this country before we come to the detail of what the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill actually does. There’s a proud history. There are National Ministers like Denis Marshall, who really set up the conservation estate, and, more recently, the Rt Hon John Key led off with the predator-free strategy. But despite the protestations of Ministers—most recently, I believe, Minister Bishop, at the Environmental Defence Society, said, “Environmental protection is at the core of the National Party.” Well, I can tell you that the audience erupted in laughter at that point. This very short bill cannot be seen in isolation from the other parts of the war on nature. I would like to now move to some questions, before the Chair frowns at me, and— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well read, Ms Wade-Brown. CELIA WADE-BROWN: First of all, I’ve got some examples of what’s going on outside our national parks, and I just wondered if the Minister might reflect on some of this in his response. For example, we’ve got Wild Deer Free Northland. [Scott Willis helps hold up a flyer] Thank you, my beautiful assistant. Wild Deer Free Northland actually promotes this, even to real estate agents, that the values of Northland are better protected without wild deer. Grant McCallum: Very few deer in Northland—that’s why. CELIA WADE-BROWN: And isn’t that great? Next, once upon a time, there weren’t any wild deer anywhere, and I would like to show the Minister and other members and anyone watching a couple of examples. This comparison: this is Te Wharawhara/Ulva Island taken in January 2026. Beautiful dense undergrowth; wonderful place. Same latitude, same month, same weather, same ecosystem—Rakiura/Stewart Island. Too many deer. Now, you can’t blame the pigs here because there aren’t any wild pigs on Rakiura, but I think the contrast between those pictures shows exactly what happens when we have too many deer. I would also like to ask the Minister to reflect on the outcomes of the Ruahine deer pilots. They compared recreational hunting in the Ruahine Ranges with the Department of Conservation’s helicopter culling. They found that the recreational hunters did not reduce the herd sufficiently. It kept growing, and the only way to get the numbers down—not necessarily to zero, but to get the numbers down—was helicopter culling. I will seek leave shortly to be able to table these photographs. I also would like to ask the Minister if picking the national parks, rather than the forest parks, or, of course, if hunting’s available on private land—we welcome not only my two sons but other people from the Wairarapa come and hunt on our place, and I am delighted when they get rid of deer and pigs. But does promoting the national parks as the best place to have herds of special interest mean that we are trying to attract just the richest overseas tourist trophy hunters and that, potentially, we are going to exclude the average Kiwi hunter? Some of them work on the conservation estate as well and some do not. I have more questions. [Bell rung] Point of order, Mr Chairperson. May I— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought—are you seeking leave to table those? CELIA WADE-BROWN: I’m seeking leave. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There’s no objection. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I will just say that you have indicated more questions. You’ve done some very good contextual work, and I’d expect much more nuanced contributions in the future. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure there were too many questions about the actual clause, but to address the contextual stuff—I mean, the member makes pretty good points. If you want to talk about the Ruahine programme, it seems like a great justification to have better, more structured management of deer control, such as identifying a herd in an area which we might want to take an adaptive management approach to. We could almost call that a herd that has particular value to the people in that area, almost special value, and we could come together with a local operator—the Department of Conservation, the Game Animal Council, iwi—and put a management approach in place to manage those animals. Well, you just described a herd of special interest. That’s what the idea around the herd of special interest proposal is—in the central North Island, the Sika Foundation, in and around the Kawekas and the Kaimanawa Forest Park areas. The reason for the focus in this bill on the national parks is that there are national parks in our country where there are active balloted blocks and active areas where hunters go and hunt. Take the Wapiti block area in Fiordland National Park; you’ve got **tahr all through Tai Poutini National Park; up my way in the back of South Canterbury and mid-Canterbury, you’ve got tahr through there; you’ve got white-tails and reds down in Stewart Island / Rakiura. I mean, I’ve been on Ulva and I’ve been on Stewart Island, as well, and so, I think, again, this is another example of why you might want a strategic adaptive management approach to managing the numbers down on those islands. Because I’ll tell you what, if you go to Stewart Island and you go to the locals and you tell them, “Sorry, but as of next week, we’re going to be nailing every single part of this island with whatever control measure we are to remove all the deer.”, you’re not going to be welcomed back on Stewart Island. You’re not going to be welcomed back with much fanfare. Try telling the people that live in those areas and that rely on those resources that you’re going to go and eliminate every single animal in that area. It’s not practical. It doesn’t actually engage with what the community wants down there. Now, the member raised a whole bunch of other issues, too. I’ll just touch on a couple of them. Should we do more about encouraging hunters to get access to private land in order to help them with their animal problems? Absolutely. New Zealand Deerstalkers Association (NZDA) have a landowner access programme where they can partner experienced hunting groups with landowners to go do management on their property. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are working with Department of Conversation (DOC), Game Annual Council, NZDA, and landowners in the Hurunui, Wairarapa, and the Rangitīkei on feral deer control programmes at the moment. The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, of course, as part of their management programme, remove animals by what’s called wild animal recovery operations—WARO—which are helicopter operations; they fly in, take out animals, fly them out, and do venison meat recovery. All of these things that, I think, members are thinking are novel approaches to game animal management are in place. The purpose of a herd of special interest is to recognise that a piece-by-piece approach that we’ve taken for the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years doesn’t work. When you look at what does work—when you look at what the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation have done down in Fiordland, and you look at the data that was presented to the Environment Committee, which showed that the browse levels in areas controlled by the Wapiti Foundation is far, far lower than areas outside of that, that shows that when you take a managed-control approach to this, it leads to good hunter and good conservation outcomes. Now, I’ll touch on the final point, because I can’t let this go on the record. Hunting in these areas is not about, “It’s all for the wealthy.” In fact, it’s very difficult, if you had unlimited amounts of money, to do any kind of hunting in that area, because you can’t land helicopters. You’ve got to get concessions for this kind of stuff. If you enter the Wapiti ballot, it’s $100 to enter the ballot and $200 if you’re successful. I’ve been to the ballot down in Fiordland in Te Anau, and I’ve seen the immense excitement on the faces of people who win a ballot spot because they’re so precious to come by, and they get 10 days to hunt in the wilderness by themselves. If they’re lucky—if they’re very, very lucky—they’ll come across a trophy at some point. If they’re not so lucky, they’ll come across a hind or a doe and they’ll take some venison off the land to take home. But you’re not talking about people paying millions and millions of dollars—although that’s a great idea, and I think if we extracted more economic value out of our hunting sector, we could pour more back into the trapping programmes and the track management programmes and the hut restoration programmes. I’ll just leave it on this: I mean, we talked about these animals being introduced, we talked about deer-free Northland—I think everyone in Northland, and everyone in the game animal sector, agree that deer-free Northland is a good thing. You actually need different management approaches to different parts of the country, because in Northland, they don’t want deer; that’s fine. They’ve got other animals to hunt down there. But in my part of the world, in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, we want red deer, we want fallow; in Central Otago, they want white-tails; in Fiordland, they want wapiti. They want these animals, they want these resources, because it is a part of their culture and it is a part of what it is growing up in New Zealand. I’m sorry to break this to people, but most of us in in this room—looking around, I’d hazard to say half of us and our families and our ancestors in this room—came to New Zealand after the first herds came to New Zealand. Basically, Governments introduced deer herds into New Zealand as far back as 1851. I mean, good on you if you’ve got ancestors, like I do, who came to New Zealand before 1851, but some of us have not been here as long as some of those deer have, right. And so, it’s all well and good to say, “Well, we draw a line in the sand. They weren’t here in 1850, so, therefore, everything after 1850 should go.” Well, that’s not a very palatable policy pitch, I think, to any New Zealander who likes to hunt, who likes to fish, and who actually thinks we can do this in a pretty well-intended and managed way. I think we’ve got to draw back from the rhetoric on this a little bit and actually look at what the change does. The change just clarifies and confirms in the law that a herd of special interest can be designated in a national park. That’s all this bill does. It doesn’t guarantee a herd of special interest is designated; it doesn’t guarantee that the management plans will be perfect or will work; it doesn’t guarantee that hunting outcomes will be beneficial for everyone across the country. I happen to think they will, but that’s not what the statute does. The bill makes it clear in the law that designating a herd of special interest in a national park can be done. That’s all it does. That’s it. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I will note that, by ranging even wider than Ms Wade-Brown did, the Minister has opened up several new topics. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. You’re absolutely right: the Minister for Hunting and Fishing has opened up a fair few points that we would like to debate today. But I want to, firstly, seek some clarity around the role of the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA), and then I will move on to new areas. In his previous contribution, the Minister laid out very clearly—and I thank him for that—the inherent contradictions between the Game Animal Council Act and the National Parks Act. The Minister pointed out, also, quite rightly, that the Minister, through legislation, has the right to designate a herd of special interest. We’re not actually here to debate whether that’s right or that’s wrong. That is already there in legislation. Whether that’s right or wrong is a debate for another day and we will defer, in terms of our views there. To my previous question around the role of the Conservation Authority, the Minister made the point that the Game Animal Council Act requires herd-management plans, and through those plans, the NZCA is consulted. The point that I’m trying to make, and the clarification that I’d like from the Minister, is this: this legislation expressly allows for section 16 to override section 4(2)(b) of the National Parks Act. That’s why we’re all here today. Now, section 4 of the National Parks Act lays out across its various subclauses how national parks will be maintained for the purpose of preserving their perpetuity as national parks, and goes on to all the distinctive features of national parks and so on and so forth. Section 4(2)(b) basically says that the parks need to be maintained such that indigenous plant life and animals are protected, “except where the Authority otherwise determines.” The Minister has responded to the second part of that clause, which is the part about animals and plants being exterminated as far as possible, and has clarified that that cannot be possible because of the objectives of the Game Animal Council Act. I accept that. That’s not the bit that I am relitigating, Minister. It is the first part of that subclause that I’m asking the Minister a question about. The New Zealand Conservation Authority themselves have said that, previously, they had a decision-making role there, that the protection supported by the National Parks Act had to be followed unless the Conservation Authority determined otherwise. That is what’s being overridden through this legislation that we’re debating in the House today, and I would like the Minister to confirm whether that is his view. Is what he was saying previously, that that is replaced by the consultation that is required through the Game Animal Council Act through herd-management plans—is that what the Minister is saying? Can he confirm that, previously, there was a decision-making role for the NZCA that is now being replaced with consultation through herd-management plans? That’s my first question. The second bit that I would like a response to—and if there is no response after this, I will leave it and move on—but Te Wāhipounamu is a Unesco World Heritage area. Does this change in the bill, which now reduces protections for national parks, affect that particular designation of Te Wāhipounamu, which is also home to the Fiordland National Park? My third question is, the Minister has made the point quite clearly—and I also want to put on the record, the Minister has implied that members on this side of the House consider hunters the villain. We do not. We have been at pains to say, through various contributions, that we do not consider hunters to be villains. That is not what we are arguing. What we’re arguing is what DOC themselves have argued previously: that we need a toolkit of responses, of which hunting is just one part. Relying on hunters to provide conservation value is flawed, because the primary motivation of the Game Animal Council Act and hunting in this context is to maintain a herd for hunting purposes. The primary motivation is not to increase conservation value. That may be a byproduct of what hunters do, and I don’t disagree that it often is. However, what herd number is low enough, Minister? That is the question that I would like to ask the Minister. Given that he wants to protect introduced species to a certain population level within national parks and is reducing protections supported through the National Parks Act, what number is low enough such that the conservation value of national parks will also be protected and not just the interests of hunters? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:31): Section 4(2)(b) will not apply to a herd of special interest. The requirement to exterminate as far as possible is something that the authority can give an exemption to. In theory, if a herd of special interest was designated and there was an argument that the herd management plan would then require extermination as far as possible, the authority could then provide an exemption to that. What this does is say that the exemption to that requirement to exterminate will be provided by the designation of the herd of special interest rather than the Conservation Authority. Of course, the Conservation Authority still maintains the ability to provide exemptions for every other animal that may exist in an area. The second question was around reducing protection to national parks. It does not reduce protection to national parks. This clause simply clarifies that a herd of special interest can be designated in a national park, as has been the law since 2013. The third question was around what herd numbers would be. The determination of something like herd numbers or browser levels are outlined in the herd management plans, a draft of which is available and has been consulted on since about October or November last year. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really appreciating the fulsome answers from the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, who has indeed opened up a number of questions. Sitting here listening, my impression is that the Minister certainly does know a lot about hunting. My questions have been around the process, the official parliamentary and executive process, and evidence base for the decision making, and I haven’t heard many answers to that. In fact, what I’ve heard is that having a more piecemeal approach that has more flex might be better, but I haven’t heard what the safeguarding is around that, so my questions will interrogate that. I also want to ask the Minister if he stands by what he said in the first reading: “this bill further supports our Government’s view that the hunter-led and community-led conservation effort is the key to improving and protecting our nation’s biodiversity.” That seems to contradict what he’s saying today, which is that hunting plays a part in it, and I’m wanting to understand from the Minister what his final position is on the role of hunting in the conservation space. I’d also like to just draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that we have more questions on clause 6, which we haven’t embarked on, and my five tabled amendments, but my short, specific questions, to tidy up this last part, which are different from the previous speaker’s, around the New Zealand Conservation Authority, are really about the submission they made, where they say it contradicts “long-standing legislation and statutory provisions designed to protect New Zealand’s most treasured conservation lands and waters, namely National Parks.” They also say they’re “concerned that this proposed amendment erodes its responsibilities without specific consultation with the Authority.”, and, critically, they say, “The Authority was never given the opportunity to make that decision.” That’s on pages 3 and 4, paragraphs 8 to 16, of their submission. My questions are: why are we legislating instead of asking the New Zealand Conservation Authority to exercise its existing statutory power? Indeed, the submission from the former member of this House, the Hon Eugenie Sage, says there are existing provisions that could have been used. Why are we legislating? That opens up, also, the question that the Minister himself brought into this debate, which is that he referred to some litigation happening in the South Island and said this is around clarification. I’d like to understand from the Minister: is this bill in response to litigation? Is he comfortable with this House becoming involved in law-changing while litigation is under way? That does seem to be a philosophical difference between our side of the House and his. We have seen bills entered into the House with the deliberate intention of overriding the courts, and the Minister, as a lawyer, will appreciate the jurisprudential issues around that. Yes, there is parliamentary sovereignty, but I’m really wanting to understand the role that that litigation has played. If he can, please, advise who the parties in that litigation are and when that case was taken. Is that case still currently before the courts? I think that’s a really problematic situation that needs further discussion and debate, if that is indeed the purpose of this bill. I’d also like to ask the Minister: if the existing pathway was available through the New Zealand Conservation Authority, why hasn’t he used it? How does he respond to concern from multiple submitters that clause 4 removes independent oversight? I will hopefully get a call on my tabled amendment to correct that if he is insistent on putting this bill through the House. Finally, how does he respond to the fact that, although he’s saying this is a clarification, many submitters are saying that clause 4 is fundamentally inconsistent with the National Parks Act? We’re hearing from the Minister that there are good, practical, and common-sense reasons why there should be a patchwork of responses across the country. We have not heard from the Minister the legal and official and evidence-based procedural response to how he justifies this overriding of that Act by this bill. We need that to be satisfied this is not a Government that thinks it knows best, because it knows a lot about hunting, and that there is an evidence base for the bill that’s currently before the committee. We will have questions on clause 6, as indicated, Mr Chair. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:37): Yes, I stand by my comments in the first reading. Hunting plays a part in the conservation estate—a very key part—because the hunters who go out there and take animals off the land also maintain tracks, traps, and huts that recreational users who enjoy our great outdoors use very often. The member Ingrid Leary says that it contradicts legislation in the National Parks Act. Well, if that were the case, the ability for the Conservation Authority to provide an exemption to the extermination of all animals would itself be a contradiction. I assume the member is going to put up a member’s bill to fix that one as well. She said it removes independent oversight. It doesn’t remove independent oversight. All this bill does is clarify the existing law, which is that a herd of special interest can be designated in a national park. In my reference to ongoing litigation—a publicly known challenge that Forest and Bird has brought to the management of wapiti down in Fiordland, around the community agreement—it’s nothing to do with herds of special interest, but that challenge over the years has raised a number of issues as to whether or not a herd of special interest could be designated in a national park given the arguments being made by some of those litigants. The hunting sector has raised those concerns often and frequently. They are fearful that well-financed, highly powerful, determined, motivated, politically well-supported litigants would challenge the good conservation work that they’ve been doing in and around Fiordland for two decades and that all of the hard work they have done to improve the conservation value of the outdoors they so dearly cherish would be undermined by court battles. It has informed what we would think about how a herd of special interest might apply in areas like Fiordland and areas like Stewart Island and areas like parts around my patch, but it is not to interfere with or to make any difference to whatever stage that litigation might be at down in Fiordland. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ingrid Leary, you’ve indicated you’ve now got some specific questions. We’re at the stage now when we’ve had some pretty broad issues covered here, so we’re ready for some reasonably nuanced questions. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:39): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister for Hunting and Fishing if he would consider, since he seems determined to progress with this bill, some safeguarding that would provide some more assurance around the conservation aspects that he is claiming it has. I have proposed an amendment which would insert a subsection (4) after new section 16(2), that the Minister must not designate a herd of special interest unless satisfied that the proposed herd management plan contains measurable ecological objectives for the protection, preservation, and restoration of indigenous biodiversity within the relevant national park, and also, that the measurable ecological objectives must have indicators for monitoring progress towards them, and that there should be specified management actions to be taken if those objectives are not being achieved. This is really to respond to the fact that the Government’s own disclosure statement shows that that there wasn’t the consultation. I’m not going to go back through that. I’m happy to take a seat and ask the Minister about my next amendment, unless he would like me to proceed. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:40): Thank you. No, we won’t support that, because in section 16(1)(b), the Minister is already required to have regard to purposes of both the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and, in subparagraph (iii), the overriding considerations. Then, down in section 16(3), the notice designating herds of special interest must also outline “the expected benefits to be gained by managing the animals for hunting purposes”. In section 16(1)(c), a herd management plan must also be made under section 19. It’s hard to get too specific about these things, but I’d be surprised if a herd management plan didn’t have some sort of guidance about what the outcomes of the herd management should be. In fact, if the member wants to go and look at the draft herd management plans for both the wapiti herds of special interest and also the sika of herds of special interest, it is full of all sorts of numbers around browse levels and around canopy levels that must be attained. I’m confident that there is sufficient in the statute as it is. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:41): Just in the interests of back and forth and given that this is not my area, as the Minister has pointed out, can I take it from the Minister that he would be comfortable to at least have on the Hansard his expectation that not only the anticipated benefits would be recorded but that there would be some kind of monitoring of those benefits? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:41): I’m comfortable being on the Hansard, but the Hansard has no legal force, so I suggest that people who are developing herd management plans need to look at the statute and the laws that Parliament passes and regulations they pass and not the passing comments of politicians on the debating floor. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:42): Given that, could the Minister then please consider my alternative amendment, which is to replace section 16(3A) with “The Minister must not designate a herd of special interest in a national park unless the New Zealand Conservation Authority has first provided written advice to the Minister on the proposed designation and the Minister has had regard to that advice before making a decision”. That would mean it would include whether the proposed designation is consistent with the purpose and principles of the National Parks Act 1980, the likely effects of the proposed designation on indigenous biodiversity and ecosystem health, the likely interaction between the management of the herd of special interest and the pest animal controls undertaken by the Department of Conservation, and any conditions the authority considers necessary to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse ecological effects. Given that the Minister himself has said the Hansard is not good enough, that, in my view, might answer some of the concerns we have. Would he entertain, please, amending the bill to include new section 16(3A)? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:43): No, because section 16(2) of the Game Animal Council Act says, “In determining whether a species of game animal is of special interest to hunters and can be managed for hunting purposes, the Minister must have regard to the advice … of— … (e) the New Zealand Conservation Authority;”. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (11:43): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll give a challenge for some new material to come from speakers. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a new question that has not been traversed before to ask the Minister, but just before I do that, I want to ask a further question of the Minister on the previous point that he made, which I have then gone and looked up. I asked the Minister what is the optimal herd number. The Minister spoke a fair bit about the fact that the aim through the Game Animal Council Act is to lower the number of deer in a herd of special interest, for example, because that benefits hunters as well. I take your point. But if the Minister is also saying that conservation values will be protected, which is what the legislation also says, then what is the tipping point or what is the optimal number? The Minister said that that’s in the herd management plans. I’ve gone and looked at the herd management plans. We’ve heard through various select committee submissions that—basically, all of the peer-reviewed evidence, the Department of Conservation’s own scientific documentation that exists, basically shows that there is no actual number. The herd management plan itself says, basically, that the herd needs to be of a sustainable number. It doesn’t talk about ecological thresholds in relation to a number that would both be suitable to hunters but also reduce the impact, ecological impact, on national parks. I’d just like the Minister to clarify that. My new question to the Minister is, basically, that we’ve also heard from many that there are no international jurisdictions where such a change has been promoted. If you look at various countries that we generally compare ourselves to, including the likes of Canada, their general stance is not to allow any populations of pests or introduced browsers in areas with significant ecological value. We’ve heard from many around Australian national parks, for example, where the—Australia, the US, and Canada are the examples that we’ve heard as a select committee, where there doesn’t seem to be a narrative there that there is any herd size that would be small enough to not then lead to damage to ecological value. We don’t see this being promoted anywhere else in the world, as far as we’ve heard. But does the Minister have any evidence and has the Minister received any advice that will point to him that it is possible, I guess, to strike that balance that he’s talked about between a herd of an optimal size for hunters but also a herd at such a size that it doesn’t reduce the ecological value of national parks? Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:46): The herd management plan has browse levels. That’s the measure that much smarter people than I use to monitor whether or not the health of the ecosystem is in a good state, and browse levels correlate directly with the number of animals on site. In terms of what other countries do overseas, it’s all very interesting, but, of course, other countries have browsing animals as native animals, so there are multitudes of countries around the world which actually have very high protections in place for those animals, and I don’t think it’s a comparison for our ecological system to draw on the management practices of other countries as to what’s in and what’s out. We should do what’s right for us, and what’s right for us is to pass a bill which clarifies that you can designate a herd of special interest in a national park without any more confusion. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (11:47): Thank you. I wanted to follow up that particular answer. First of all, I agree with the Minister that our ecosystems are unique, and I hope he would agree with me that deer are not moa. I just wanted to follow up a little bit about his comments about browsing levels. If you are not a botanist, it’s very easy to see there is still some greenery there; the browsing levels are fine. The fact that it’s all crown ferns or all horopito or all some other unpalatable species is not necessarily plain to the average person out on the hills. I just wonder if the Minister feels confident that there will be enough resources for the Department of Conservation to do the more precise monitoring of and comparisons between exclusion areas, because that’s quite expensive. The other question I have for the Minister relates to how the ecological impact would be measured, with his level of understanding and perhaps his expectations of the hunters’ understanding that there are a number of species, particularly of insects, that are completely dependent on one or two other species. The browsing levels if you take the number of plants might be fine, but if the ice cream species have been picked off by the deer, that doesn’t just affect that species; it affects all of the web of other species that are connected. Thank you, Mr Chair. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (11:49): Given that this bill doesn’t designate any herds of special interest, there’d be no advice or discussions about whether or not resourcing is available for a herd of special interest, because all this bill does is clarify that a herd of special interest could be designated in national parks as well as the existing law. It just provides that statutory clarification. But if a herd of special interest was to be designated, I’d be very confident that the Department of Conservation would have the resources to undertake the adequate ecological monitoring required. SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (11:49): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendments to clause 4, section 16, inserting new subsections (2A) and (3C) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendments to clause 4, section 16, replacing subsection (3A) and inserting new subsection (3C) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendments not agreed to. Part 1 agreed to.