Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House Clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is the part of the bill which tells us what the title is, when it starts, and what Act it amends. First of all, the title of the bill—which will be the title of the Act—will be the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill. That’s because it amends the Game Animal Council Act and it’s because it’s to do with herds of special interest. The general view around titles is it should describe what the bill does, and that’s what it does—it means the primary Act in relation to herds of special interest. It’s probably best to skip to clause 3, which actually outlines what the principal Act is. It says that this bill amends the Game Animal Council Act, and that’s what it does. Then back to clause 2. Clause 2 is the commencement clause and it says that the Act will come into force on the day after Royal assent. That will be the day following the date on which the Governor-General provides Royal assent to the bill, and then it will come into force. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (12:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. I feel that a more appropriate title for this piece of legislation would be the “Game Animal Council (Not Possible to Both Protect Herds of Special Interest and Ensure that National Parks are Protected to the Highest Possible Level) Bill”. Therein lies our opposition to this bill, because this amendment bill ultimately overrides the protections that are in the National Parks Act for a reason. They are there to provide for the control of introduced browsers while ensuring that we preserve national parks, which ultimately is a status that is accorded to some of our most stunning landscapes and significant ecosystems, which are also scientifically important for us. This is the highest level of protection that we can accord an area, and this amendment bill, which we are here debating at committee stage, just does one short thing. It sounds really simple, but it changes the protections to our national parks, and that is why the Labour Party opposes this bill. I will say this again, because there have been a number of implications from the Minister that we consider hunters to be the villain. So I will say this again: we do not consider hunters to be the villain. We absolutely accept what the Minister has said, which is that in various parts of the country there is a culture of hunting and that communities in those areas choose to hunt—that is a fact. But what we do oppose is changing the law to reduce protections within the national parks, wherein the status quo would have required the New Zealand Conservation Authority to have a say in how much of indigenous plants and animal life is protected, and the fact is that introduced browsers must be exterminated. This bill changes that, and our interpretation of it, and the interpretation of many who have submitted to the Environment Committee, is that that change weakens the protections for our national parks and that there is no actual need for that. The Department of Conservation (DOC) themselves have said that there’s about 7 million hectares of public conservation land that hunters can hunt in. There is no need now to override protections to protect a specific herd of introduced browsers within national parks just so that they can be hunted there. That’s why I believe that the title is not quite reflective of what this bill does. The Minister for Hunting and Fishing has been quite clear that this is not to introduce or to increase the population of introduced browsers massively. That’s not the point of this legislation. The Minister has said quite clearly that it is to control the population size to an optimal level such that it’s protected for hunters but will also improve conservation value, but he hasn’t been able to then articulate what that size is. He has said that it’s in herd management plans, but I don’t see it in there. There isn’t a focus on biodiversity measures within herd management plans, just the requirement to manage them to a sustainable level, but we were trying to tease out what that means. That then again points to the point that I’ve made, which is that it’s not possible then to protect both—to protect a herd to a sustainable level and to increase conservation value in national parks. All of the evidence that we have seen and we have considered says there is no scientific evidence to say that you can do both and that the acceptable level of introduced browsers to improve conservation value and national parks is zero, which means exterminating as far as possible that particular population, or all introduced pests basically. I take the Minister’s point that all the others can still be exterminated, just not this one that the Minister designates for the purposes of hunting, but the acceptable level is zero. I will end where I began. This should be the “Game Animal Council (Not Possible to Protect Both Herds of Special Interests and Improve the Conservation Value of National Parks).” SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (12:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from that excellent submission, I think that’s a worthy title. However, I think I have one better for the Minister for Hunting and Fishing. I do think it is worthy of the Minister’s consideration because we have heard of the tensions that exist in the conservation estate from managing a herd. We’ve heard from the Minister of the excellent work of the Wapiti Foundation, but we’ve also heard through submissions of the impact of invasive browsers, even within the Wapiti Foundation area, degrading our conservation estate, even within what is possibly going to be designated a herd of special interest area in a national park. The title that I’m proposing for the Minister is a very simple title, and it is the “Game Animal Council (Herds of Invasive Browsers in our Conservation Estate) Amendment Bill. Now, I think that is a very accurate designation of what this bill is about. As my colleague has just mentioned, this is essentially, as the Minister has said, about controlling or maintaining or having a sustainable level of invasive browsers in our conservation estate. We don’t yet know what that means. We’ve heard that it can’t be done, but the Minister wants us to believe that it’s possible. Let’s make this really clear. This is what the Minister is asking us to support. This is what the Minister wants the public to understand. This is the “Game Animal Council (Herds of Invasive Browsers in our Conservation Estate) Amendment Bill”. If I think about what’s happening here, we’ve seen today where known deposits of so-called critical minerals can be found on our public conservation land. It’s small surprise that this Government is seeking to sell conservation land to enable its exploitation. What we’re seeing is more exploitation of our conservation estate by this Government. It’s really good to see the New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association joining with Forest and Bird to protect public conservation land, and I’m pretty sure that there’s an understanding here that what we are also protecting are invasive browsers on our conservation land—invasive browsers that we know can’t be managed in a way that sustains our unique flora and fauna of this nation. For the Minister, I’m proposing we can have a sensible title for this bill, a bill that does a lot to make sure we can have invasive browsers in our conservation estate and a bill that will enable hunting in our conservation estate and trophy hunting in our nation’s conservation estate rather than eradication and limiting the number of invasive browsers as far as we can possibly go. For the Minister, I’m aware that the Government is engaging in an attack on our conservation estate all over the space. It’s quite remarkable that Minister Christopher Bishop was laughed off the stage at the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) today for talking about National Party’s conservation values. Let’s come back to clear language; let’s come back to stating it how it is; let’s come back to some honesty in legislation; Minister, let’s call this the “Game Animal Council (Herds of Invasive Browsers in our Conservation Estate) Amendment Bill”. Let’s just make sure that that’s as clear as day from the Minister. Thank you. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (12:17): My question is around the commencement, and I’m really grateful that the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, in the chair, has alerted me to, indeed, the ongoing litigation that has caused this bill to come out of a Cabinet process. My question, really, is whether the Minister is comfortable with passing the bill after the Royal assent when that ongoing litigation is occurring, rather than changing that clause 2 to say, “once the High Court judgment has come through.”? When I look at the legal principles involved, it feels to me that this Government doesn’t have much regard to the role of the courts and the separation of powers. As lawyers, I know the Minister and I both probably passionately defend the separation of powers to make sure that there isn’t too much power vested in one estate of the democracy. That is a fundamental element of our democracy. When I look at this legislation, which, indeed, is currently before the courts, what the bill will do is it will change the framework of the way that our conservation and our special interest herds are managed while the previous process is being tested. That’s a really serious thing to do. And yet, if we look at this Government’s track record, we’re seeing that with the Equal Pay Amendment Act—33 claims that were upended with one stroke of a pen, done in a very covert way by the executive in this House, by the National Government. This term, we’ve seen the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Customary Marine Title Act 2025. Again, when that was going through a court process at great expense of the claimants, this Government decided it knew better and it was going to change that and talk about the will of Parliament, even though the framework had not been tested adequately. We have the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act, which has been favouring the big banks over small claimants in New Zealand. Ryan Hamilton: Relevance! INGRID LEARY: This is very relevant because, once again, we see this trajectory of bills brought to the House where the Royal assent is enough and the Government shows its arrogance, I think, in saying, “We know best. We know how to do this best.” Throughout this committee stage, we have heard a great deal about what the Minister knows about hunting, and, indeed, he does know a lot about hunting. We heard very little, if anything, about the evidence base and the process—the correct process—and the correct governance for making a fundamental law change to how these two bills interact. Now, the courts are really well placed to do that, and that is, in fact, what is happening. I looked up the famous case of Forest & Bird and the Department of Conservation and the wapiti partnership. The place to do that is in the courts. That is exactly what is happening, and yet this Minister has insisted on bringing this bill before the House and saying that it will go through before too long and we will have the Royal assent on it, and then it doesn’t matter that the previous framework hasn’t been tested. That also shows that the resourcing required to make quite a significant change has not been given due regard either, because when we’ve asked about resourcing and we’ve asked questions about what kind of changes would need to made or what kind of monitoring of the impacts would happen, there was a bit of a disregard. We were pointed to some of the management plans. There was no appetite from the Minister to require tracking and require reporting on that of what the real impacts were, rather than the expected impacts, and I’ve proposed a number of amendments that would have provided that safeguarding. If the Minister was genuine about wanting to strike that balance, then he would have accepted some of those amendments, because currently there is no safeguarding. The real worry, I think, of this bill was articulated by the Hon Eugenie Sage, our previous colleague, who has said that it does open the door up to a whole lot of other changes that are going to erode the conservation status of our conservation land. So, Minister, please, can you consider doing the right thing: change clause 2, under the title and commencement, to make this bill pass once we have had a final determination from the rightful place to make these determinations, which is the courts. Finally, I’d like to suggest a title myself. I think we should probably call it the “Game Animal Council (Overriding New Zealand Conservation Authority Powers) Amendment Bill”—you could add an “Explicitly” if you wanted there—or we could have the “Explicit Override of National Parks Act”. Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (12:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. We won’t be changing the commencement date, mainly for the reason that the litigation the member refers to has nothing to do with herds of special interest. It’s a challenge around community agreements. So you could make the commencement date 2056 and Tom Rutherford can sign it into law, but it wouldn’t make any difference to that litigation, because it’s to do with community agreements and not herds of special interest. So the commencement date—we don’t agree with changing that. In terms of changes to the title, I think they are some interesting titles. I’m sure that the members think they’re serious attempts to rename the bill, but we think that the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Act is a good name for the Act. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (12:22): Thank you, Mr Chair. I reject the accusation that they are not serious attempts to improve the title. I think the previous offer was a very relevant option for the Minister, but I do have a second offer, given the Minister’s unwillingness to accept my first offer. I think this is really speaking to the point that we’ve heard repeatedly that this is about ensuring hunters have access to trophy animals in our conservation estate. One of the risks that we see in the Conversation Amendment Bill is its directive to the Department of Conservation to enable the use and development of public conservation land to the greatest extent practicable, which elevates commercial intent and activities above conservation values and habitat protection. One of the things that I am concerned about, as a hunter, is that this bill is going to, essentially, be an enclosure of our commons. It’s a new colonial approach to enclose our commons and to deny access to hunters, to hapū, to people who want to enjoy our outdoors, and to people who want to go into our outdoors and do all kinds of leisure activities. So my proposal for the title—which I think is an accurate representation from what we’ve heard from the Minister—is the “Game Animal Council (Trophy Hunting in our Conservation Estate) Amendment Bill”, and that really reflects what this is about. When we think that we’re going to have the herds of special interest, as the Minister calls them—when we’re going to have sika, when we’re going to have wapiti, when we’re going to have tahr, and when we’re going to have white-tail protected in our conservation estate for hunting purposes, protected and managed in a way that will enable the invasive browsers to reside in our conservation estate for the purpose of trophy hunting, that demonstrates where this Government’s direction lies. It is concerned with the economic return, and not the protection of our conservation estate, not the respect for our native flora and fauna, and not the respect for our taonga species. This is where the Government is heading. So, for the Minister, I would like the Minister to give some serious consideration to entitling this bill and giving it a title that reflects what its intent is. The “Game Animal Council (Trophy Hunting in our Conservation Estate) Amendment Bill” is exactly what this bill is about, and that fits the purpose and it fits this Government’s direction. I think it will help the public understand what this Government’s intent is with this bill and with its new direction in the Conservation Amendment Bill, which is opening up the conversation estate to everything else that we might want to do to it, including mining in our conservation estate. For the Minister, I would hope the Minister will give some serious consideration to my title, rather than simply writing it off as an attempt to distract. This is— Hon Members: Frivolous. SCOTT WILLIS: It’s certainly not frivolous—that is exactly what this Government is. This Government certainly is frivolous in dealing with the most serious of issues: trying to sell off our conservation estate. This is far from frivolous. It is something that I want the Minister to consider and respond to, please. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call—and it’s going to be a call with some content in it—just for members’ knowledge, the Minister has addressed the issues around title changes, and so I’ll just to note that for the committee, as well. He has also addressed the issue around the commencement date as well, and so I am looking for new material. Otherwise, the train is leaving the station. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (12:27): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s really just to ask the Minister about his response when I talked about the Forest and Bird case, which he probably knows more about than I do, but it is clear that when that judicial review occurred, the herds that we’ve been discussing today with the designated herds were not anticipated. Then they were anticipated, and now they do actually fall directly into what would be impacted by that court case. So I’m just wanting clarity from the Minister as to whether he is saying that that is only about a community claim and that that particular case has nothing to do with why this particular bill is in the House. If that’s the case, what is the legislation that he referred to in his earlier reply that has led to the Cabinet paper and then this bill coming before the House? RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (12:28): 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. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. 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. Clause 1 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to. 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. Clause 2 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to. 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. Clause 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted.