Game Animal Council Bill

I move, That the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a first time. I propose to refer the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

This bill delivers on the Government’s 2008 confidence and supply agreement with United Future to proceed with the establishment of a big game hunting council as part of a national wild game management strategy, with a view to it becoming a statutory authority. That provision had, in turn, grown out of United Future’s 2005 agreement with the previous Labour-led Government, which led to the establishment of the game animal panel. After receiving over 4,000 submissions and hearing from a wide range of groups, individuals, and organisations, the panel, chaired ably by the Hon Margaret Austin, proposed amongst its recommendations the establishment of a statutory organisation to coordinate and foster management of recreational, guided, and commercial hunting. So in many senses this bill arises directly from the game animal panel, and I want to acknowledge this afternoon the work of Margaret Austin and her team.

During the last Parliament the panel’s work was taken a step further through the work of the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee, chaired by Garry Ottmann, whose contribution I would also like to acknowledge this afternoon. The establishment committee conducted a further round of public consultations, and the upshot was this bill, introduced shortly before Parliament was dissolved for last year’s election. So this bill is a culmination of a deliberate, thorough, and considered process under both Governments over the last 6 years, involving all the key stakeholders, and it is therefore with a real sense of pride that I bring it before the House today.

The bill establishes a Game Animal Council, including specifying its make-up and functions. The purpose of the Game Animal Council is to improve the management of game animals—namely, deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pigs—including the improvement of opportunities to hunt those animals, while also providing advice to the Minister of Conservation on issues affecting the hunting sector.

Secondary objectives for the council include providing information and education to the hunting sector; reducing conflict within the sector; the promotion of safety initiatives, including firearms safety; education and training; raising awareness and advocating for the views of the hunting sector; and conducting research into game animals and their management.

The bill creates powers for the Minister of Conservation to manage what will be known as herds of special interest to hunters for recreational hunting outcomes, and allows for those powers to be delegated to the council. A herd of special interest to hunters would be a game animal herd of a particular species or subspecies in specific locations that was considered to have high value to hunters, either because of the hunting experience and the accessibility of the animals or the quality and the significance of the trophy. The bill provides the Minister with the ability to designate a herd to receive such a status, based on the recommendations of the council along with input from the Department of Conservation and other stakeholders. Upon a herd being designated as a herd of special interest, the Minister would in turn delegate to the council specific management functions to be carried out under a herd management plan. The Director-General of Conservation, on recommendation from the council, will have the ability to appoint warranted enforcement officers similar—but more limited in function—to Fish and Game rangers. The enforcement officers’ role will be to ensure compliance with the conditions of herd management plans and to prevent other illegal actions, including the liberation, conveying, and capturing of game animals.

A localised example of the herd of special interest model already exists with the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. In the past 6 years alone the foundation has removed nearly 5,500 predominantly red deer from Fiordland, and that has been paid for, and managed by, recreational hunters, and constitutes a classic win-win situation. Conservation values are being enhanced by the reduced number of deer, while hunters enjoy a wapiti herd with far greater genetic integrity and trophy value than it had before. Members of the foundation have further contributed to conservation by laying up to 70 kilometres of pest control lines and funding the reopening of the blue duck hatchery in Te Ānau, and last December the foundation finally achieved formal recommendation of its efforts with the signing of a management agreement with the Department of Conservation. The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation did all this from scratch and in the face of much scepticism. That is a great achievement on its part, and I congratulate it heartily on it.

What the Game Animal Council will do is provide hunters with the legislative and organisational framework to be able to achieve similar outcomes in other parts of the country. Funding for the council will come primarily through a levy on the export of game trophies, supplemented by a small Crown contribution of $50,000 per animal. Provisions also exist in the legislation for other forms of self-funding to be explored in the future. It should be noted that the establishment of the council will not in any way alter current levels of free access to hunting opportunities provided to recreational hunters.

The council will have a minimum of nine and no more than 11 appointed members, and those who are appointed to the council will have knowledge and experience reflective of the diversity within the hunting sector and the game animal industries. Members will be selected after a public nomination process, and both the public and organisations with an interest will be able to submit nominations to the Minister.

I must emphasise, though, that this bill does not dilute existing powers to manage wild animals for the purpose of protecting conservation values. Herds of special interest to hunters must be managed consistent with statutory management strategies, plans, and policies relating to conservation. But by allowing outdoor recreationists a greater stake in the management of their recreational resource, I believe that, like the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, the Game Animal Council will achieve huge gains for both recreation and conservation. New Zealand’s back country is a special place. However, it would not be half as special if people were not inspired to go and use it. For many New Zealanders, our connection with our outdoor heritage is a major part of what it means to be a Kiwi. But the New Zealand back country is not, as some may wish it to be, an exhibition in a museum, nice to look at but never to be touched—just another picture on the wall. It is a place steeped in history, rewarding of adventure, and offering a lifetime of enjoyment. In some small way, I hope that this legislation and the organisation that it will create will uphold and enhance those values for the enjoyment of generations to come. It is therefore with a huge degree of pleasure and pride that I commend this bill to the House this afternoon.

The real reason behind why this bill finds its way to the House today in the form that it does is contained in the very first words of the bill’s explanatory note—on the front page: “The Game Animal Council Bill delivers on the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future Party …”. What else did we discover today in the House? What else does that confidence and supply agreement deliver to the National-led Government? Asset sales. That is exactly why we find ourselves today debating the Game Animal Council Bill and the recommendations it has in its current form.

The Government knows that it needs the votes of Mr Dunne and Mr Banks—because that is it. What is between asset sales—selling off the assets built up by past generations; selling to supposed mum and dad investors, who already own those assets—and no asset sales is the vote of Mr Dunne. It is the vote of Mr Dunne, and if he is really going to represent the people of Ōhariu in this House, he should be listening to them and saying that asset sales are the wrong thing to do for New Zealand. Whatever benefits there might be to causes that Mr Dunne is interested in, such as around the hunting of game animals, it is not worth it, Mr Dunne. It is not worth it to sell off the legacy of past generations, the things that will generate income—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I realise that the debate does range widely in this time of the debate, but we are talking about asset sales to the exclusion of everything else. It is hardly on the subject of the Game Animal Council—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am the judge of that. The member has brought it back to the subject, but with a couple of minutes gone I am sure he will now focus on the 8 minutes ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Indeed I will, but it is important to note that in the explanatory note of the Game Animal Council Bill, Dr Calder, that is how it starts. It starts talking about the confidence and supply agreement. The main reason that Government over there wants that confidence and supply agreement is to pass its agenda of selling off this country’s future, and on this side of the House we will be opposing that.

This bill comes to this House in a form that has a great deal of concern for the Labour Party. Because regulatory impact statements for bills do not come to us as members of Parliament in the same way they used to, it is important nowadays to make reference to the regulatory impact statement about this bill. It is a regulatory impact statement that makes absolutely clear that although there may well be issues to be resolved in how we have communication, cooperation, and participation in the game animal area, this regulatory impact statement tells us that this is not the way to do it. This is what Treasury and the Department of Conservation say in the regulatory impact statement: “Given the Game Animal Council’s proposed functions, the Council does not need to be a body corporate and require separate legislation. A Ministerial advisory committee under the Wild Animal Control Act would be a more appropriate structure.”

So why are we establishing a whole new structure here, a whole new council, that actually sets up competing interests here, two organisations—the Department of Conservation and this body—in terms of the management of wild animals? Why would we do that when the Department of Conservation and Treasury, the Government’s two key advisers in this matter, are saying it does not make sense, it is not necessary, and there is another way?

💬 Andrew Little: There must be something in it for him.

That is right, Mr Little. There must be something else in it, and that brings us right back to asset sales.

But if we go on, this Government on the other side of the House tells us time and time again that it is all about efficiency, and it is all about making best use of the resources. Well, let us look at what the regulatory impact statement has to say about that: “Introducing separate legislation to create a Game Animal Council would have the highest costs in regulatory time and resources.”—the highest costs in regulatory time and resources. Well, so much for the efficiency of Government; so much for making the cutbacks. Those officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or Te Puni Kōkiri, they can be damned—as long as the vote is there for asset sales. It does not matter that this is the most expensive option that is available in this area. As long as it delivers that vote of Mr Dunne for asset sales, that is fine.

The regulatory impact statement goes on to say: “Establishing the Game Animal Council under section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act would have the least cost in regulatory time and resources. While this would be the simplest and most cost-effective way to establish a Game Animal Council, it would allow the Minister of Conservation to disestablish the council at any time.” That is the excuse given for why it is not going to take that option.

This bill will make it to the select committee, but what we want to say is that when it gets to the select committee we want those other options considered. Yes, we want there to be more cooperation, more collaboration, and more participation by those in the hunting community, but let us look at all the options. Let us look at an option that does not create confusion, does not create two bodies that are involved, and actually makes sure that we have the protection of our conservation values and allow the hunting of game animals.

The Labour Party wants to make clear we respect the long traditions of the hunting of game animals in New Zealand. New Zealanders do enjoy this. It does actually help to control animal numbers and protect biodiversity, but let us not set up a situation, a regulatory framework, that is going to create confusion and that is going to lead to outcomes that might diminish some of that conservation area.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out that the council could effectively, if it chose to under the proposed law, halt 1080 operations for possums, rats, or stoats if it thought game animals were going to be at risk. The balance of how you make decisions about that is something that we believe the Department of Conservation has the key role in. By all means let us have an advisory committee. Let us have some kind of structural process that is going to help this happen, but let us not do it in a way that undermines the conservation values that we all hold dear in New Zealand.

So we understand that this is an area where there does need to be further work done. This is something that we want to make sure that all members of the House are able to participate in, and we will vote for the bill to go to the select committee for that reason. But I want to make absolutely clear in this House that we have grave concerns that this structure not only is expensive, potentially unnecessary, and possibly damaging to our conservation values but also is a straight-out sop to the United Future party and Mr Dunne to ensure his vote for sales of State assets. We need to be absolutely 100 percent clear in this House that that is what this bill does.

In a first reading I know that we are obliged to talk about the bill, and I have done that in some depth, but it is a matter of serious concern to this side of the House that this bill finds its way to this House today on the back of the sale of assets built up by past generations of New Zealanders. This is on the back of the sale of assets into the worst possible state of the global economy, where the worst possible price—which Mr English does not even know; he is guessing at it—could be gained for New Zealand for those assets. It makes no economic sense; it makes no social sense. But Mr Dunne is voting for it on the basis of the support for this bill to establish the Game Animal Council.

In our contributions during the select committee process we will look seriously at the other options that might be available for the management and participation of interested groups in the management of game animals, but we do so knowing that this bill potentially creates a situation where the Department of Conservation will not be able to fulfil its role in the way that New Zealanders would expect in terms of protecting conservation values. We do see a place for the hunting of game animals in New Zealand, but we do not believe that setting up a body like this—in competition, effectively, with the Department of Conservation—is a good thing. We would like to see some form of committee or expanded committee created. We will listen to the submissions in the select committee process and we will ensure that New Zealanders’ conservation values are protected while hunting continues to take place.

It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on the Game Animal Council Bill. Can I say that the last speech from the Opposition was a load of puffery and posturing, but it was very good to hear at the end that it is likely to vote for this legislation. What great confusion there is on the other side of the House! But at least they are showing that in some things they are consistent, and that is in opposing absolutely everything.

A great disservice was done to Mr Dunne, actually. Mr Dunne started on this journey along with hunters and recreational enjoyers of the outdoors in New Zealand some years ago. In fact, I think Mr Dunne’s first discussions were held under another Government, when Labour was on this side of the House. Can I say to you, on behalf of hunters in New Zealand, I recognise your commitment and the hard work that you have put into making sure that they have a seat around the table and a voice around the table. I think that recognition certainly is there.

The reason it gives me pleasure to stand and speak on this bill is that I want to declare an interest. I am a member of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, and whenever I have an opportunity I enjoy going out and hunting.

💬 Andrew Little: An honorary membership, surely.

There is the interesting thing—already we have Opposition members calling that into question. If you live in a city, you probably do not understand fully what this legislation is about, but in provincial New Zealand, parts of the country where we hold all of the seats, this is very important.

All over New Zealand hundreds of thousands of recreational huntsmen and others enjoy going out and spending time in the wild. One of the larger concerns I have had in the 4 years I have been the member of Parliament for Rotorua—an area where we have fantastic hunting, by the way—has been that there is not enough recognition of the recreational side of this activity.

Although hunters come together in groups, are responsible, and care as much about the environment and management of species as anybody else does, they do not have the same amount of say as they should. The very important thing here is that this bill recognises everyday New Zealanders. It recognises that they are in pursuit of their leisure activities, and allows them to come to the table and have greater involvement—not control, but involvement—in decision making in some of the areas that affect them.

Can I say to the members of the Opposition and to the last speaker, Grant Robertson, I can confirm that as a species Mr Robertson is not covered by the scope of this bill, so he can now relax. I want to recognise a couple of people particularly, and the work that they have done. Tim McCarthy—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I think that comment was unnecessary and I ask the member to withdraw it.

I withdraw, and I will carry on without debate. Can I say that I want to recognise Tim McCarthy, the National President of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, for his work. I certainly want to recognise Alec McIver, from Rotorua, who is the immediate past-president of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and put a huge amount of work into this. I also recognise Garry Ottmann, who has also spent many, many years getting people from the recreational community together in one thought and one voice on the way we should move forward.

I want to make a very special mention of someone who emails me a lot, and I am sure emails other members a lot, and that is “Honest Dave” from Serious Shooters in Rotorua—a passing comment about him. But again, what I want to say is that very clearly this legislation is about recognising the rights and obligations of everyday New Zealanders in the pursuit of their leisure activities.

I commend the Minister of Conservation for working equally hard over the last couple of years to deliver what I believe is a very important and very good piece of legislation to this House. Can I say that I look forward to it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, passing through the committee’s consideration quickly, coming back to this House, and entering into law, because many people on all sides of this House actually support this legislation, for reasons other than those pretended at by members of the Opposition. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe. The preceding speaker, Todd McClay, identified himself as a member of the deerstalking community. The term “stalk” seems suitably apposite, based on the quality of that contribution and the gratuitous insult hurled at our colleague Grant Robertson from this side of the House, who was pointing out that there are a myriad of interests whenever you deal with the conservation estate and wildlife management. Every single one of those stakeholders is entitled not only to bring their views forward but to amplify their views, which is why I look forward to the Game Animal Council Bill and I support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I want to acknowledge the presence of members of the hunting and recreational community who have worked tirelessly to bring together a group that is probably more disparate than the 72 tribes I was working with when I was the chairman of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. I would say to them, and I would say to the Associate Minister of Conservation, that I do feel, as this bill wends its way through the select committee and Committee stages, that I look forward to seeing inclusion of tangata whenua in whatever committee finally survives the travails of parliamentary debate, and that we find space to appoint tangata whenua to the board—or to at least have criteria guiding the Minister’s appointments to this board—so it can draw upon the expertise, the relevance, and the capacity of the tangata whenua in order to add something to this large wildlife management question. I would like to put that to the Minister and also to members of that community. Who knows to what extent we will support this bill in its final form, but if you want it to gain a higher level of acquiescence and enjoyment amongst the larger tribes, such as Tūwharetoa and, dare I say, Tūhoe, then be proactive in that sense.

There are concerns about this bill. Let us deal with one concern at the moment. You can create these advisory boards and these committees, etc., and give them whatever statutory status may be required as a consequence of a deal between the major party and Mr Dunne’s party, but, at the end of the day, what will the level of obligation be upon the Minister either to delegate down to this specialist body or to take any notice of what this specialist body might say? I think those are some of the reasons why members on this side of the House are right to be a bit sort of leery as to whether things will actually change. Unless there is a positive duty on the Minister of the day, the Director-General of Conservation, or the regional staff to pass on meaningful powers or to take on board sensible recommendations, it can actually turn into a talking shop. A great deal of hot air, time, energy, and possibly money will be expended, but it may not actually make it into the statutory processes for the management of this resource.

There is a debate between the deep ecologists represented by the Green Party and those others of us who have environmental awareness but possibly live with a more pragmatic view of life. I certainly fit into the latter group. It seems to me that the deep ecologists’ view is that wildlife ought not to be managed but to be wiped out. That view is not consistent with my conception of how trophies, how wildlife hunting, and how improved wildlife management can contribute to regional development, and how in a host of different areas around Aotearoa what is needed is an expansion of the type of economic activities that are capable of generating jobs and turning into a platform for export dollars.

No one in this House is perhaps as well informed as you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, I believe that you are peerless in this particular respect of understanding the capacity of wildlife hunting, better wildlife management, and its ability to contribute to regional economies. You are so persuasive on this matter that you had Kelvin Davis, Ricky Barker, and me go out into the wilderness and demonstrate that we are capable of shooting mallard ducks—oh, I should not have said that—and ring-tailed pheasants, as has been my wont in the far-flung areas unfortunately poorly represented by Hone Harawira, in the absence of Kelvin Davis. We tend not to shoot the swans up there, because they are sitting targets until they start to munch too many of the flounders upon the seabed and foreshore, which hopefully my tribe is rapidly regaining—but that is another matter.

I would like the record to show, without my indicating what will be the final shape and form of our party’s status and stand on this piece of legislation after it has been to the select committee, that your powers of persuasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, moved us in that direction up in the boohai beyond Taihape. Amongst other things, cellphones did not work there. In addition to that, probably the most intelligent creature I saw up there was the dog that was dispatched to find the deer that was shot but ran into the bush. Far be it for me to say who shot that deer—far be it for me to say that. I think it could have been a National person and it was Bambi, but that is another matter—that is another matter.

There are some aspects to do with this bill that we will not be supporting—I can tell you right now. They lie between the debate as to whether it should exclusively remain the role of the Department of Conservation to manage this resource, or whether it should be seen as something akin to possums—i.e., the chamois, and the various other types of deer—and be eradicated. That view is reflective of deep ecology, and I fear it represents zero growth, something I have got absolutely no time or support for.

The notion that there should be a game trophy levy and that we should actually be able to charge a fee once these magnificent animals are hunted, etc., and turn it into revenue is beyond cavil. That, I do not think, is going to attract a great deal of negativity, but then I can also see some people opposing it for fear that it represents an incentive not to reduce numbers but actually to maintain them for that profit motive. But all these things can come out in the select committee. We can have those who genuinely feel that the Department of Conservation is being denuded of powers. There are others who feel that at long last the empire known as the Department of Conservation, which is often a feeling reflected on the maraes of Māoridom, is going to have to listen and be statutorily required to take on board the views of this part of the wider New Zealand recreational community. And let those views come forward in a credible and manageable process.

I would say that, personally, I feel a lot more reassured, and I am quite sure I speak on behalf of my Māori colleagues as well, when we see there is some specific or explicit duty, rather than an assumed silent duty, to deal with the tangata whenua, given that a number of our hapū and iwi have this wildlife on their own whenua. They have strong relationships with the Department of Conservation, and they ebb and flow depending on the political tide or the bureaucratic tide. I would encourage advocates from the recreational hunting community, the Minister, and members on the other side of the House to bear that in mind.

There is actually going to be a very large debate when this bill comes back. Largely, as I say, there is the ideological dimension, because we just will not agree with that element of the confidence and supply equation that enables the Government to proceed and sell the assets—but I am not going to talk about that. We are talking about a different type of asset here: whether the wildlife resources may or may not be better managed through the erection of this committee, and whether they themselves turn into assets.

That is for the future, but I can say that I look forward. I am going to endeavour to inveigle myself on to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am a proud member of the Primary Production Committee. I have waited 6 years to join that committee, and after the level of toil that exhausts us on that committee, I am sure it will be just a walk in the park going on to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am going to seek permission to be one of the Labour people who from time to time go on to that committee, to ensure that the Māori dimension is not overlooked and that people do bear in mind, despite our institutional concerns about the proposed structure, that the members of the recreational hunting community are a strong, credible voice in the broader environmental management challenges that face us in Aotearoa. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on the first reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. The Green Party opposes this bill because of the pre-eminence that it gives to introduced deer, tahr, chamois, and pigs in the management of our public protected lands, and the way that that cuts across the statutory purpose of conservation legislation. The bill creates the Game Animal Council as a statutory authority, and in so doing, elevates and gives special status to hunting and problem animals such as deer and tahr. The bill is a big lollipop for United Future, but it is a huge backward step. It is poisonous for conservation, and particularly our indigenous plants. Our alpine flora evolved without browsing mammals, and species such as Ranunculus lyallii, the Mount Cook buttercup, are very vulnerable to the heavy browsing and trampling of big introduced herbivores such as tahr and chamois. So we believe that our conservation lands should be managed to protect their indigenous ecosystems and provide for a range of recreation, not managed as game preserves for hunting. These game preserves are in direct conflict with the purpose for which conservations lands are managed, and that is to protect our natural indigenous ecosystems, wildlife, and habitats.

Although Mr Dunne may say that this bill does not dilute existing powers in the legislation, it creates very real tension between the delegated functions of the Game Animal Council and the Department of Conservation. We have seen how many hunters interested in protecting deer from by-kill through 1080 operations have opposed and raised a lot of public concern about 1080 in order to protect their hunting interests, and that same tension will be evident with this Game Animal Council.

The bill enables the Minister to designate herds of special interest, and allows the Game Animal Council, not the Department of Conservation, to manage areas of conservation lands for hunters and recreational hunting. In giving this privileged status to hunters and hunting, we seem to have forgotten the deer menace and the huge financial and resource investment by the Crown over many decades in controlling deer and other pests on Crown land. Deer were declared noxious animals in the 1930s, and it was the Department of Internal Affairs and then the New Zealand Forest Service that employed professional cullers from the 1930s right until the end of the 1980s to eradicate deer from New Zealand. We understood then the ecological impacts of deer browsing. We understood that it could contribute to erosion. We understood that it severely reduced the capacity for forestry generation. So the Crown funded those professional cullers, and that saw nearly 3 million deer culled between the 1930s and the mid-1950s.

It was that effort in professional deer culling and helicopter recovery of venison that dramatically reduced deer numbers in the South Island. It was this House that passed the Wild Animal Control Act in 1977, in recognition of the need to control these harmful species and to regulate the operations of both commercial hunters and recreational hunters, if we were to get effective wild animal control. This bill undermines that past commitment and that investment of Crown resource, because of the privileged status it gives to hunting. In our view, the Government’s conservation priorities are all awry. Having cut conservation funding by $54 million, the Government is now proposing to allocate $100,000—it says in the regulatory impact statement—to the Game Animal Council, when the Department of Conservation is having to pull back on its work. How is that $100,000 to be found? Through reprioritisation within Vote Conservation. So it will be robbed from work on our indigenous species. A tramper emailed me only yesterday to say how impressed he was by the work of the department in the Hurunui Valley, where staff are working to protect great spotted kiwi. They and he were worried that those staff would lose their jobs in the next round of restructuring in the department. The Government can increase the spending on noxious animals such as tahr, but not on our indigenous species.

As the regulatory impact statement highlights, there is no need for this bill and no need for the Game Animal Council. I quote from the statement: “There is no information clearly establishing that current institutional arrangements in the management regime for wild animals requires change to improve participation among the different groups with interests in these animals and their effects”. It goes on to say: “There is no evidence that current user groups and organisations (for example the Deerstalkers’ Association) are deficient in representing their members’ interests.” We already have the Conservation Authority and conservation boards, which enable people to participate in the management of conservation lands.

We have an example of what happens when you get a herd management plan, in the tahr control plan in the central Southern Alps. Himalayan tahr numbers were reduced to around 3,000 in the early 1980s. Now, with that plan, which emphasises the role of recreational hunters, we have seen tahr numbers climb to over 10,000, with huge impacts on the alpine flora of that region, including a number of threatened plants, like the Mount Cook buttercup. So this bill, in putting hunting interests first, potentially compromises all of those indigenous ecosystems.

I look forward to being on the Local Government and Environment Committee and hearing public submissions. There will be, I think, a strong swell of opposition, because of the way the bill cuts across the Conservation Act and the conservation purpose to preserve and protect our indigenous biota. Thank you.

It is a huge pleasure—a huge pleasure. [Interruption] We have got eager people supporting the Game Animal Council Bill on this side of the House. We are men of the land here. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Game Animal Council Bill.

The contribution from Mr Grant Robertson was audacious and barefaced in its disregard for reality. I have confirmed with the Hon Peter Dunne that, in fact, support for the Game Animal Council Bill was part of the 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government. The only difference between the Government in 2012 and the Government in 2005 is that we on this side of the House, as a Government, honour our promises. We honour our promises, which is no surprise to the people of the country, and that is why we were re-elected.

This is an excellent bill. I have to declare an interest. From the age of about 8 years old I have early memories of getting up before light; popping into a smelly, old, rattly truck; driving to the foothills of Mount Egmont/Taranaki, as it was then known; picking up an old single-shot, bolt-action, “V”-sighted .22; and heading off into the foothills of partially cleared native bush and pastoral land to get myself a possum. That was my first introduction to hunting, and it was something that has remained with me ever since.

Sadly, because of circumstances beyond my control, it is not often that I do get out into the bush, but I have had the pleasure of going fishing in the Joes River with the Deputy Speaker, who is in the Chair at the moment. We saw only old spoor there; we did not see any fresh sign, nor did we see a live animal. But I have had occasion to open my account in the central North Island plateau in the last couple of years, and to get a wild pig down in the Marlborough Sounds a few years prior to that.

The species that this bill covers are deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pig. You cannot go into your neighbour’s piggery and ping one and say it is covered; it has got to be a wild pig. There are, of course, herds of special significance, as we have heard—the wapiti—and this is where the Game Animal Council will have a role. The Game Animal Council will have a role to have delegated power to manage herds of special interest. We have heard from the Hon Mr Dunne how this is happening to great effect in Fiordland with the wapiti legislation.

My friend and colleague on the other side of the House Shane Jones was concerned about whether Māori would be involved in the Game Animal Council. I can put your mind at rest. Hello, Gary, it is lovely to see you and thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of getting this bill to where it is, and your colleagues around you. I want to mention Alec McIver as well, a past-president of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, who has worked. These interest groups will be on the Game Animal Council: recreational hunters, commercial hunters, meat exporters, deer farmers, safari park owners, Māori hunting interests, and conservation. They are all in the mix, and they will be able to inform the Minister of Conservation and give feedback to her.

This is an excellent bill. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill. I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to speak to this bill, the Game Animal Council Bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill. We note, as Mr Robertson did, that this bill has come before the House solely in order to satisfy one part of the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future party.

New Zealand First does support responsible hunting. I am in fact a keen hunter—not too keen nowadays, since entering this House and in fact since the election campaign, which as members will know is time-consuming and does not allow one to roam the hills with a weapon, which is perhaps not a bad idea.

New Zealand First regards this bill as being quite simply an unnecessary piece of legislation. The general policy statement in the bill’s explanatory note states: “The primary purpose of establishing such a council is to improve the management of deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pig, including the improvement of opportunities to hunt those animals.” New Zealand First contends that this bill, as it is constructed, will in fact reduce the opportunities to hunt the aforementioned animals, currently enjoyed by many in the New Zealand hunting community, and that it will add unnecessary additional costs and bureaucracy where little to none currently exists.

New Zealand First believes that the management of the animals listed does not need to be improved, and that the existing hunting methods and activities permitted and carried out by recreational hunters are working well, with regard to preventing the species named from increasing to pest proportions, and that the breeding populations of these animals on conservation lands are stable and easily controllable by present hunting practices.

As other speakers have indicated, regulatory bodies already exist and are not problematic. This bill therefore attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, and in so doing it creates an expensive regulatory regime that includes some quite Draconian provisions and that carries the potential to restrict the freedom of recreational hunters in New Zealand to continue harvesting food from the bush, and at the same time performing the valuable service of pest management for the nation, in the manner in which they have long enjoyed.

The bill as it comes before the House is in some ways poorly constructed and self-contradictory. It provides for the Minister of Conservation to appoint members of the proposed council, when perhaps a more balanced and effective body could be formed, were it to be elected by the hunting community itself. Clause 8(1) of the bill specifies that “The Minister must appoint no fewer than 9, and no more than 11, persons as members of the Council.” However, subclause (7) then states that “The Council’s powers are not affected by any vacancy in its membership.” In addition to this anomaly, clause 16(1) provides that “The Minister may … designate any herd of game animals in a defined location on conservation land to be a herd of special interest …”, yet clause 30 makes it an offence for any person to liberate an animal that belongs to the herd of special interest or to allow it to escape, which to my mind begs the question as to where an animal is supposed to be able to escape to if it already lives in the wild.

In addition to allowing the Minister to appoint the members of the council, the bill provides for the Minister to delegate his or her powers to that council, and further stipulates that the members of the council will not be personally liable for any act done or omitted, provided that such an act or omission is made in good faith. So we have a proposal for a council appointed by a Minister, largely on the recommendation of one small section of the hunting community, who gave their support to the United Future party, who may then receive delegated powers from that Minister, giving them a quite unprecedented level of ability and authority to determine rules that will apply to all of that hunting community.

With all due respect to Mr Jones, New Zealand First is also concerned by reference in clause 8(3)(vii), which states that the Minister must consider that members of the council should have knowledge and experience relating to Māori hunting interests. We ask why this quite unnecessary and divisive provision needs to be included, given that all the species of animals listed are ones that have arrived in New Zealand since European colonisation. We see no need whatsoever for this deliberately separatist provision in the bill.

New Zealand First notes that clause 11 provides for members of the council to be remunerated for their “services at a rate and of a kind determined by the Minister:”, without any further form of explanation or reference, which we consider to be unacceptable. Perhaps if this were to be paid by the trophy levies it would not be quite so bad; otherwise we consider that all Government expenditure does need to be accountable.

The bill provides for enforcement officers and honorary enforcement officers to be appointed, provided that the director-general considers them to be fit and proper persons, but does not specify what qualities or qualifications any such persons should possess. New Zealand First does not have any issue with police officers or other warranted officers of the State, such as fisheries officers, being appointed to such roles, but we do hold concerns around statutory powers being awarded to individuals who may not be trained and vetted in the exercise of such powers.

We are concerned also that honorary officers may exercise powers of halt and seizure at their discretion where herds of special interest are concerned, and that clause 31 appears to indicate that the burden of proof is placed upon persons in areas where such herds normally reside to prove that they are not hunting those animals, and that an enforcement officer may presume that any snare, net, trap, firearm, weapon, vessel, or vehicle can be declared to be intended for hunting if they believe they have reasonable grounds.

All in all, we see this bill as being unnecessary and an intrusion on the rights and freedoms of hunters, poorly constructed, potentially Draconian, and contributing to increased costs for the hunting community at no advantage to the nation or indeed to the conservation estate. New Zealand First does not support this bill. However, we accept that the House will pass it to select committee and we look forward to opposing it there. Thank you.

This is a bill that certainly warrants support. We have heard the previous speaker from New Zealand First, Richard Prosser, saying the Game Animal Council Bill is a United Future agreement bill. Well, I think that sells it a little cheap. The origin, the genesis, goes back quite a long way; certainly it goes back to 2005. I was aware of its discussion. I believe there were 4,000 submissions on it from people, and it certainly is nothing new to the recreational hunting practitioners.

Recreational hunters are very special people, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know that you are reasonably keen on recreational hunting, and have some expertise in fishing, I am told. That is all well and good, and all to the benefit of everybody. I am a very keen fisherman myself, and the hunting I have done I have thoroughly enjoyed. But for those who are really gripped with it, it is an all-absorbing, very, very important part of their lives. I remember asking one standard West Coast deer hunter—and he is not a man who I think has ever lied—“How many deer have you shot in your lifetime?”. Honestly, he had smoke coming out of his ears with concentration, and eventually he said: “Oh, Chris, I don’t know, but it’s thousands.” Thousands, thousands. Not a light-hearted involvement; a thorough commitment to good hunting practices.

I can remember when I arrived in New Zealand how I was struck by the relative freedom we all have to go hunting—that is something that is well worth preserving—particularly in comparison with other countries. It is almost, one could say, a birthright. But management of the hunting stock is something that has been engaged in for centuries—centuries. Gamekeepers were not a casual luxury. They had a real job to do. Game wardens have a real job to do. The Department of Conservation has divided jobs to do in this. The management of the hunting stock by recreational hunters is something that is not just sensible; it is extremely positive from all points of view. It will be a statutory body; a voice for recreational hunters, giving voice by recreational hunters. They will work hand in hand with the Department of Conservation. They will work hand in hand with other users of the recreational estate. I have been speaking today with recreational hunters on the West Coast, which must be one of the bastions of good hunting still remaining in New Zealand, and I have heard nothing except thorough, thorough support for this bill and its sentiments. I have great pleasure in supporting it. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. I am the spokesperson on sport and recreation, so I will bring a different spin on this bill. I want to acknowledge Minister Peter Dunne, who has brought the Game Animal Council Bill to the House. For all intents and purposes it is really a member’s bill, but because of the situation he is in, he has managed to negotiate, as part of his confidence and supply agreement, this bill.

Labour is supporting the debate. I think it is really important that the interest groups have an opportunity to have a say, and actually we have heard about the concerns of some of those interest groups, particularly from the Greens spokesperson. So I want to acknowledge at this point in the proceedings that we are going to take into consideration what the affected parties have to contribute. When I look at the purpose of this bill, it says that the main purpose of this bill is to establish the Game Animal Council “to improve the management of deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pig, including the improvement of opportunities to hunt those animals.” So the premise is, you need animals to hunt, not the actual hunting process itself.

It has been really interesting for me to look at what research has been done in this area. In June 2010 Amelia Woods and Geoffrey Kerr produced a research report for land environment and people. It is a Lincoln University study that looked at recreational game hunting. It looked at the motivations, the satisfactions, and the participation of those hunters. The report found that for most hunters—and these are both overseas and New Zealand hunters—they were motivated to hunt for the following reasons: they enjoyed being in or experiencing nature, they enjoyed the social aspect of time with family or hunting companions, they were engaging in an exciting activity, and they got solitude, challenge, sport, and exercise from hunting. So although getting a kill is a desired outcome from a hunt, not all hunters are primarily motivated by this aspect or this activity. I think that is really interesting to note, given the evidence about the purpose of this bill.

I did want to highlight some of the interest groups, and as sport and recreation spokesperson I have to ensure that—for example, with hunting and fishing, the fact is that for a lot of New Zealanders, enjoying our natural environment is a pursuit that not only they enjoy but also the community enjoys. Actually, when we look at TV shows like the ITM Fishing Show, the TradeZone Gone Fishin’ on TV3, Outdoors With Geoff, and Hunting Aotearoa, this issue and this area are things that New Zealanders are really interested in. But they are interested in them within a context, and that context is the beautiful, green Aotearoa that we have. When I look at, for example, some of the organisations that this is relevant to, I look at Fish and Game New Zealand, which is a statutory body. It was set up under the Conservation Act of 1987 to manage, maintain, and enhance sports fish and game birds for present and future generations of anglers and hunters. When I look at the history of groups that engage in this activity, there has been a dual focus on environmental protection, environmental enhancement, and enjoying our environment, so I think that we have to make sure we are not going to compromise that which a lot of entities are deriving pleasure from. I just want to highlight that—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: The duality the member talks about hasn’t actually happened in practice.

But it is the underlying theory of us, as a nation, having an environment that we can enjoy, so we have to keep central to any bill what the unintended consequences may be from introducing species and their impact on the environment.

Looking at the whole context of hunting in New Zealand, it is interesting to note that game hunting in New Zealand is primarily governed by two factors. One is obtaining a hunting licence or permit, which is administered by the Department of Conservation, and if using a firearm, it is about obtaining a firearms licence from the New Zealand Police. The conditions contained in the hunting licence or permit have to be observed, and some of the conditions around that licence or permit are about not discharging firearms in the vicinity of huts, tracks, or camping grounds; not spotlighting on public property; and not hunting 30 minutes after sunset or 30 minutes before sunrise. Again, all these rules are about ensuring that there are multiple uses of our environment, so we have to make sure that those who are there to tramp, to camp, and to just enjoy what New Zealand has to offer are not going to be adversely affected by this bill.

The other thing I would like to take the opportunity to highlight is that it is really hard to see how this bill will address the issue of an enforceable law—an explicit code of practice for hunters. We do have one for game bird hunting, which has a code of practice, but it is going to be really interesting to see how this code of practice will impact on people who are not in regulated organisations or do not belong to clubs. There are a lot of people I know back in Taupō who hunt because they like to put food on the table, and, actually, they get the permits from the local iwi groups, because they go pig-hunting to feed the whānau. How are we going to make sure that these people are going to also have this code of practice for hunters? It is something just to highlight. But if the underlying purpose of the bill is, in fact, to prevent the types of hunting accidents and tragedies that have happened, then I do not think the bill is the answer. If the bill seeks to manage the hunting of specific types of game animals, then surely the granting of hunting licences and permits is the starting point for this type of control. I look forward to the opportunity for interested parties to have a say, which is why we are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, but we have serious reservations about the unintended consequences if this bill proceeds. Thank you.

I would like to take just a very short call in favour of the Game Animal Council Bill and to advocate to the House that this does get support. I understand that this bill has been a long time in the making and so for the people watching tonight, and the people in the gallery, it will be a very good thing for them to see this bill being passed through its first reading.

I also have to say we should be congratulating the Hon Peter Dunne on bringing this to the House. I know he has been a passionate advocate for the game animal community, and with having this bill going through in his name he will be very pleased. And so what if it came through as the result of a confidence and supply agreement? We are a Government that gets things done. We are a Government that is about action. We are a Government that lives up to its promises. And we are a Government that is going to pass this bill through its first reading this afternoon. And good on Labour for supporting it; it is good that Labour members are going to support it. But if the only opposition they can come up with is the fact that Peter Dunne supports the mixed-ownership model, then that is a very weak seat of opposition they have.

The fact that 4,000 people submitted on this issue, through the process, says to me that the Game Animal Council enthusiasts are passionate people and want to see this happen. Also, the fact that the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation has been operating for some time very successfully, says to me that this bill will have good implications for the community, should it be implemented. The fact that this bill is here tonight, going through the process, and getting put into place is something that the Game Animal Council community is looking forward to, and it will be very pleased to see this happen. [Interruption] The Hon Maurice Williamson asks how this will affect my electorate. Well, there is lots of shooting that takes place in some parts of South Auckland, but I do not think that it is of animals, unfortunately. I look forward to this bill being passed tonight through its first reading, and getting a lot of support from the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Gareth Hughes—is this a split call?

💬 Gareth Hughes: Yes.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A warning bell at 4 minutes.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I am very happy to take a call on this Game Animal Council Bill, because it is a bad bill. This is legislation at its worst. It is all about special interest. It is all about increasing the cost to the taxpayer. It is all about reducing that “clean, green” brand, which brings in $22 billion a year to this country, and which this Government is prepared to throw out the door, and throw down the drain with its “Drill it, mine it, kill it, cut it, and sell it.” approach to economic development.

We have this bill only because the member for Ōhariu, Peter Dunne, has put it in front of the Government. I stood in the Ōhariu electorate with the honourable Minister and I did not hear him once tell the people of Ōhariu, which could be New Zealand’s most suburban electorate, that he was going to be the casting vote for the unpopular asset sales, that he was going to sell off our State assets—those assets that already belong to our mums and dads and everyday Kiwis—and that he was going to cut it, sell it, mine it, and drill it, but what was he going to give in return? What was he going to bring to Ōhariu? The Game Animal Council Bill, a special interest for those hunters in New Zealand.

What we have seen under this Government is special interests flourishing. We have seen special deals for Warner Bros, special deals for Skycity, special deals for MediaWorks, and now we are seeing special deals for hunters. The sad thing is that I do not think the people of Ōhariu wanted the Minister to be using his casting vote and getting only this for the 30 pieces of silver. Ōhariu is getting the Game Animal Council Bill.

In all seriousness this is a bad bill. What it does is establish the council to improve the management of deer, tahr, chamois, and wild pig; allow these herds of special interests; and introduce this game trophy export levy. I agree wholeheartedly with the regulatory impact statement of this bill that said quite simply that it is a solution in search of a problem. But I would go further; it is actually worse than that. It is a solution that is going to cause further problems. Actually, it is a problem that is going to cause lots of problems—and I have got a huge list from our spokesperson on this bill. The first big problem is that it is going to cut across the Conservation Act. This Government is already cutting the Department of Conservation budget, reducing its ability to work, and reducing the focus of our country on marine protection, which Kiwis love and value. It is going to cut across the Department of Conservation not for the benefit of all New Zealanders, but for a few special interests.

It is going to put those hunters in a privileged position. This new statutory body is going to be subsidised by the taxpayer by more than $100,000. So at a time when fiscal austerity is the watchword, this Government is prepared to fork out hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to support this special interest. And lastly, where is the money coming from? It is not coming from the consolidated accounts, it is not coming from the overblown borrowed $19 billion on transport; it is coming from the Department of Conservation—a vote that this Government has remorsefully cut despite its impact and benefits to our “clean, green” brand and our economy. It is $100,000 that Vote Conservation cannot afford.

The bill redefines, or tries to redefine, these animals—the tahr and whatever—from noxious pests to herds of special interest. It cannot be both; they cannot be noxious animal pests as they are at the moment, and herds of special interest. It shows the contradiction; it shows the contradiction that this bill brings to our country.

I guess, lastly, a big problem with this bill is that the new council will be advising the Minister of Conservation. The council has advisory functions but also has management functions. This is just like putting the wolf in the hen house.

In summary, it is a bad bill. The Greens are going to be opposing it, we think there is going to be a tonne of select committee submissions opposing this bill, and that this problem is simply going to cause problems. I guess, to sum up, this is our heritage we are talking about, it is our conservation estate. This is a heritage of our forefathers. To put aside these wonderful areas—we cannot go splitting it up, we cannot have separate hunting estates and conservation estates. Next we will be listening to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, the oil and minerals lobby, which is advocating for coal, gold, and minerals reserves in this country. What is next? This Government is going to keep on picking winners, and it is bad for this country, bad for our conservation estate, and bad for our economy. Kia ora.

Quite frankly, I think the Game Animal Council Bill is a bit rubbish, actually. The Labour Party is going to support this bill’s referral to a select committee and let people have a say on it, but we have serious concerns. I have to say we are not guaranteeing supporting it past the select committee process.

Let us be clear about what this bill is. This bill is the price that National was willing to pay in order to be able to hock off those State-owned assets—this is the price. In fact, it says so under the heading “General policy statement” in the explanatory note of the bill. It is very clear: the very first line of the bill admits that the reason we are even debating it is because that is what the Government had to give Peter Dunne in order to get him to agree to hocking off the State assets—hocking off the State assets, even though he told the voters of Ōhariu before the election that he did not think that selling State assets was a good idea.

It says here right at the very beginning, in the general policy statement, in the very first sentence: “The Game Animal Council Bill delivers on the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with the United Future Party”. This is the price of the asset sales; this is what they were willing to pay in order to get Peter Dunne. I have to say to Peter Dunne that if this was the price, he should have been asking for more—he should have been asking for more—because those State assets that he is going to vote to hock off are worth a heck of a lot more than this piece of legislation.

There are real concerns with this bill, and, in fact, the Government is willing to pay the price that Peter Dunne has extracted out of them, despite the fact that the regulatory impact statement, the Government’s own regulatory impact statement, says that the proposal has the highest regulatory burden—the highest regulatory burden. This is from the red tape - cutting Government; this is from the Government that was all against red tape. There is not a word from the ACT Party on this, who are the great red tape cutters in all of our reducing regulation. This bill has the highest regulatory burden, but National members are going to support it, because that is the price they had to pay to get Peter Dunne’s one vote—their one-vote majority to hock off the State assets. That is what they were willing to pay.

What does the regulatory impact statement say? It said that this bill “is likely to have the highest costs and be the least aligned to the current wild animal control regime and legislative framework”. Once again, another indictment—in the regulatory impact statement—as to what this National Government is willing to put up with in order to get Peter Dunne’s one vote.

Officials recommend establishing the Game Animal Council as an advisory committee, it says in the regulatory impact statement, but, oh no, not for the members of the National Government. They do not really care about that, providing they get their one vote from Peter Dunne in order to support their asset sales, because this is a Government that is barely scraping through with one of the most unpopular—unpopular—changes that we have seen from any Government in the last few decades, the hocking off of State assets. New Zealanders do not agree with it, and Peter Dunne told the voters of Ōhariu before the election that he did not agree with it, and now he is voting for it in exchange for the Government supporting the Game Animal Council Bill.

I return to some of the core concerns with the bill. This bill undermines the position of the Department of Conservation. In fact, there are serious and legitimate concerns being raised by people about pest control. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has raised concerns about the impact this bill could have on pest control, and, effectively, 1080. The use of 1080 poison has been a huge topic of debate in my electorate, but it works, and it has worked. Yet this Game Animal Council being established by this bill could seriously curtail the use of 1080, which has had a fantastic impact.

Yes, it is a point of huge debate. There are people in my electorate who are passionately opposed to the use of 1080 and they come along to all the meet the candidates meetings before an election and they tell me that they are, but it has worked. We have birdlife back in the hills around the Hutt Valley—birdlife that was missing for quite some time—and it is largely because of the use of 1080. So why should the Game Animal Council have the ability to undermine that? It is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, an independent officer of Parliament, who was telling the Government this, and the Government is simply turning a blind eye to that.

This bill is not a good bill. It is the price the Government was willing to pay to get Peter Dunne to vote for State asset sales, despite telling the people who voted for him before the last election that he would not do so. This bill is misnamed. In fact, it is all about defending one endangered species—the Peter Dunne endangered species. That is what this bill is all about protecting, and we can forget about anything else. It is about protecting the endangered species that is Peter Dunne. I say to the House that come the next election, when Peter Dunne is judged, he will be removed.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Assistant Speaker Tisch refused to allow the honourable member here, Todd McClay, to refer to Grant Robertson and point out that he was not an endangered species, so—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s not a point of order.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a point of order, but I think the comment made by Todd McClay was made in an entirely different context. But the member’s time has expired.

I think that listening to the speeches from the other side of the House has confirmed to me why both those parties have struggled to get much support in provincial and rural New Zealand, because they are out of touch with the concerns and interests of those people. It is fair to say that there is not much in the way of game animals in Epsom, but there are plenty of pigs to be found in the Waitakeres. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If members want to have a debate they can go out into the lobby. This cross-chat is not helpful to the occasion.

I am delighted to support this Game Animal Council Bill to go to the select committee for consideration. I think it is a worthwhile bill. There is room for everybody in the conservation estate in New Zealand and a wide range of interests, and this makes good sense that we can allow people interested in hunting game to get out there and have some say and involvement in the organisation of these things. I will not trespass on the time of the House but I do support this bill. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a first time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to cast a vote on behalf of the ACT Party.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Was the ACT Party not called?

It was, and I am afraid that I missed it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action?

💬 Chris Hipkins: He doesn’t need leave—the vote hasn’t been counted yet.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us just clarify this. We have gone past the call for ACT, and the member is asking for that vote to be noted. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I am aware, the Standing Orders allow that any member can correct a vote during that vote being undertaken. They need to have leave to do so only if the vote has been read out.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I will accept the member, and I will instruct the Clerk at the Table to record the vote, so ACT is now recorded.

One vote in favour.