Thursday, 9 March 2023

Committees

Select Committee on Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements

Establishment

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, Minister for Child Protection and Family Services) (17:47): I move:

That:

(1) a select committee of nine members be established to inquire into, consider and report by 31 August 2023 on Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements, including but not limited to:

(a) the operation of annual native bird hunting seasons;

(b) arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions;

(c) their environmental sustainability and impact on amenity;

(d) their social and economic impact;

(2) the committee will consist of three members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, three members from the Liberal–National coalition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and three members from among the remaining members in the Council;

(3) the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President no later than 10 March 2023;

(4) the first meeting of the committee will be held within one week of members’ names being lodged with the President; and

(5) the committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk today to the establishment of this select committee. As I said, the select committee is principally inquiring into recreational native bird hunting across the state. This is an issue that I acknowledge has become increasingly contested in this state. I, like many other members in this place, continue to receive a flood of correspondence from many people in my community who are opposed to recreational native bird hunting, and of course I continue to receive representation from those who support recreational native bird hunting.

My views on this issue are well known. I do not need convincing and I am certainly not for turning. My view is that I believe native waterbird hunting should be banned, but I do believe that, given the hotly contested positions on this issue, an inquiry is an important aspect of coming to a decision. An inquiry gives everybody the opportunity to voice their opinions. As I am sure many members in this place would concede, opinions are often voiced on both sides of the argument through inboxes and various other means of representation to us. Certainly this is an issue where it is important that we do have a thorough process, and a select committee is an appropriate way in which to provide a vehicle for those voices to be heard.

Indeed in 2019 at a Victorian Labor Party state conference I moved a motion, seconded by the member for Melton in the other place, calling for a review of the government’s position on duck hunting, and that motion was endorsed by a large majority of the conference. Despite my personal disappointment regarding the announcement of the season for 2023, I am very pleased that post COVID and post emergencies and other important issues that have been at the forefront of government priorities since I moved that motion back in 2019 at an ALP conference this inquiry is indeed happening now and both sides of the argument in relation to the hunting of native waterbirds can and will be heard.

In relation to the terms of reference of the committee – the things that the committee has been asked to consider – I would just like to make a few points. In relation to the operation of the annual native bird hunting seasons, I would note that Victoria’s recreational duck-hunting season, as I think was canvassed by others in this place yesterday, is managed by the Game Management Authority. The authority is in theory responsible for promoting sustainability and responsibility in game hunting, and it is responsible for delivering programs to improve responsible hunting across the state in conjunction with its partner agencies. The authority oversees the game species, seasonal bag limits and dates to ensure that the conservation status of any game species is not threatened. The GMA is also responsible for compliance, and as I have previously said as a member of the other place, I do believe that the Game Management Authority has to be conflicted at its core when it is required to provide for recreational hunting of native birds while also claiming to ensure their protection. I do think that the role of the GMA is one that this committee should give due consideration to – whether or not the same body can be responsible for both providing for hunting and also ensuring the protection of the animals at the same time.

This year the Game Management Authority has announced that the duck-hunting season will commence at 8 am on Wednesday 26 April to 30 minutes after sunset on Tuesday 30 May and has capped a bag limit of four birds per day per hunter. The 2023 season is notably two months shorter than the 2022 season. The Game Management Authority has outlined that this season’s game ducks are the grey teal, the chestnut teal, mountain duck, pink-eared duck, Pacific black duck and wood duck. Although the list of game ducks limits the species permitted to hunt, in practice the evidence tells us that it becomes hard for hunters to differentiate between the species, and this has raised ethical concerns as to whether the species outlined by the Game Management Authority are the only ducks being targeted by hunters. I believe these concerns are backed up by what I understand is the GMA’s own research that shows that up to 80 per cent of shooters and hunters that undertook the waterfowl identification test in December 2020 failed the test. I do think that in giving consideration to the operation of the season and the licensing of duck hunters for the so-called sport there does need to be due consideration given to the way in which the season is set, the way in which shooters are licensed and the way in which shooters are tested. The evidence that the GMA and others have already collected and certainly any further evidence that can come to light may show indeed whether or not shooters are abiding by these regulations or whether it becomes a lottery wheel in many respects out there on the wetlands as to which birds and indeed which animals more broadly can in fact avoid the bullet that might be headed in their direction, whether they are one of those species or otherwise.

In relation to the arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions, I think this is an important aspect of this inquiry. Victoria is one of only four states in Australia where recreational hunting is permitted. As in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory have recreational duck-hunting seasons. Each of these four states have slightly varying versions of game duck hunting regulations. Each year the state authorities are responsible for determining species, dates and bag limits. Tasmania’s regulation permits recreational duck hunting to occur during the season. This year their season will run from 11 March to 12 June with a bag limit of 10 ducks. Their game species are one less than Victoria’s, including the black duck, grey teal, chestnut teal, mountain duck and wood duck. South Australia opens on 18 March 2023 to 25 June, and they have permitted a bag limit of eight ducks per day and have listed grey teal, chestnut teal, Pacific black duck, Australian shelduck and maned duck as this season’s game ducks. The Northern Territory regulation permits hunting to occur on private and public land within season and applies bag limits. The 2023 season dates and rules have not been announced.

It is important to note that recreational duck hunting was banned in Western Australia in 1990, in New South Wales in 1995 and in Queensland in 2005. It should further be noted that duck hunting is only permitted in New South Wales under the guidelines of the game bird management program. Through this program licensed volunteers can help landholders manage the impacts of native game birds over their agricultural lands, and native game bird hunting can only occur on these private properties where it will contribute positively to farm and regional productivity and economy. The program has limited the native game ducks authorised for hunting to 10 species. I think this is an important point to consider when we look at the allowance of private hunting in New South Wales and in fact the way in which ducks are viewed and can be viewed as a pest in New South Wales in relation to agriculture and in relation to rice fields. New South Wales has a far greater existence of rice fields, where ducks are often considered a public pest. I do not think to draw a direct comparison between private hunting in New South Wales and the possibility of private hunting in Victoria. It should not be viewed as a direct comparison, and I would urge that in consideration of the terms of reference of the committee that that issue be thoroughly explored and a genuine comparison of like for like be conducted.

I would also say that in giving consideration to jurisdictional arrangements, and in particular giving consideration to any hybrid models where some private hunting is allowed, there should be given due concern for public safety. Often in talking about this particular issue I speak to my aunty, who has a property outside of Bairnsdale, not far from the Ramsar wetlands, with a big dam on it. There are often ducks on it that get shot at as people are driving towards the Ramsar wetlands, including when she happens to be down yabbying at the dam with her grandchildren, so I do think that public safety issues around any allowance of private hunting also need to be adequately considered. It is very easy to just say, ‘Allow private hunting and not public.’ I would also say that when comparing Victoria’s duck-hunting arrangements to other jurisdictions, it can be seen that this is definitely a policy area in which our government has and indeed this Parliament and this committee have significant room for reconsideration.

I want to speak to the term of reference in relation to environmental sustainability and impact on amenity. This is a particularly important issue in the context of climate change, and the environmental sustainability of native bird hunting must be looked at in the broader context of climate and the consequent risk to the future biodiversity of Victoria. The CSIRO in 2021 revealed that the significant changes in the cycles of the El Niño southern oscillation have been an important factor in the recent stagnation and decrease in the harvest rate of game birds and this directly impacts upon bird population levels as a cycle as it reduces vital food and water resources, whilst research compiled between 2004 and 2017 by BirdLife International sourced from Australian academic journals and the CSIRO indicates fire patterns in Australia threaten 17 of Australia’s 52 vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered bird species.

There is a limited range of datasets regarding Victoria’s game duck populations, and I think this is something that the committee should give due consideration to. However, the most reliable, expansive and long-running survey, the annual Eastern Australian Waterbird Aerial Survey, shows a continued trend of decline in bird numbers over recent years, whilst the October 2022 annual summary report revealed that total population abundance of the number of species breeding in the wetland area index continues to show significant declines despite two successive La Niña years with record-breaking rainfall. And although the 2022 total waterbirds abundance increased from 2021, it remained significantly below the long-term average, accounting for the 11th lowest in the last 40 years. The 2022 report also revealed population numbers for the majority of duck species surveyed were well below long-term averages, and indeed six out of eight species continued to show significant long-term declines. Not only did the report outline the declining population abundance, but it also highlighted a decrease in breeding among a number of the surveyed species. Around 96 per cent of the total breeding recorded consisted of only five of eight species – straw-necked ibis, Australian pelican, royal spoonbill, whiskered tern and egret.

It should also be considered what the impact of a hunting season is on other bird populations, and a report published by the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has revealed that duck-hunting season, sadly, has adverse impacts on other bird populations too. The hunting of six species of native duck takes place on wetlands that are also home to many other animal species, as I mentioned earlier on. Many other birds and many other animals get caught up in the duck-hunting season. The potential adverse effects have been listed as reduced feeding and resting opportunities, abandonment of nests or young due to the close presence of hunters and reduced habitat availability resulting from the temporary abandonment of a wetland due to disturbance.

In considering the term of reference in relation to social and economic impact it is important to note that this inquiry does call for there to be given due consideration to the social and welfare impacts in relation to animal welfare. As I said in my inaugural speech in the other place, and indeed as Pope John Paul II is reported to have said:

… animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.

At the time that I was first elected to the other place we came into government having committed to outlawing puppy farms, and that was an important step forward in the animal welfare agenda, but there was definitely a lot more that needed to be done, and it remains needing to be done, to protect our finned, feathered and furry friends. All animals, big or small, deserve our care and respect, and indeed the government’s own research confirms that the wellbeing of animals is a high priority for our community as a whole. That is why the Daniel Andrews Labor government developed the Animal Welfare Action Plan, which both recognises the sentience of animals and promotes their wellbeing, and it is the first of its kind in Australia. The plan itself outlines that animals experience feelings and emotions such as fear and pain, both of which are feelings our ducks and other native waterbirds and animals are exposed to during open hunting seasons. An important consideration in looking at the social impacts of duck hunting is animal welfare and animal cruelty. The RSPCA reports that every year many thousands of ducks are shot in Australian wetlands in the name of sport, some killed outright and many left crippled or wounded and left to die within a few hours or days.

Another significant consideration is the importance of consulting with First Nations people about hunting generally and, for the consideration of this committee, hunting in relation to ducks. It is important that that voice and those organisations that have expressed views on behalf of the First People who they represent have an opportunity to participate in this inquiry.

Currently the regulation surrounding duck hunting for recreational purposes in Victoria in my view does not align with the values outlined in the Animal Welfare Action Plan that this government has been so proud to support. In my view there is much consideration to be given as to the consistency of duck hunting with the priorities of the Parliament. In relation to the economic impacts of duck hunting, it can be argued that licensed game hunters make a contribution to Victoria’s economy through a range of hunting purchases, including equipment, accommodation, meals and fuel, but it can also be argued on the other hand that there will be a not insignificant monetary impact if duck hunting and native waterbird hunting is to be banned. There are certainly economic positives out of that and opportunities to actually grow our economy. A report published in June 2020 by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions outlined the economic contribution of recreational hunting as $356 million, which represents 0.1 per cent of Victoria’s gross state product. It seems that of this only $65 million of GSP is a product of duck hunting. On the other hand, it can be said that there are not insignificant opportunities for growth in tourism and local economies if duck hunting is to be banned, so I think there are due considerations on both sides of that argument that can be considered by this committee.

In conclusion, my views on this issue are well known and were blatantly obvious as I talked to this motion in and of itself, but I do think that this select committee, despite the disappointment of many with the announcement of the duck-hunting season, is a positive step forward to give an opportunity for the voices in relation to the pros and cons of recreational native waterbird hunting in our state to be considered by this Parliament and ultimately by government. I commend this motion and hope that it is supported by this chamber with a view to giving every voice in this conversation a parliamentary process through which it can be heard and moving forward the conversation from one where we are all, from both sides of the argument, routinely lobbied about this issue to one where we can have a parliamentary and government conversation about what is in the best interests of Victoria going forward.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:06): Well, what an interesting conversation the minister has just had with the house. This is supposed to be an inquiry to look into the Victorian recreational native bird hunting arrangements, but clearly we have heard a speech on the banning, the cessation, of duck hunting in Victoria. Why don’t we just cut to the chase, Minister? Why don’t we just cut to the chase and bring in the legislation? It is an absolute charade. This is a charade, this inquiry. This is a charade, and the Nationals and the Liberals will be opposing this motion before the house.

Minister, we heard you talk about Pope John Paul, His Excellency, all of that. You may as well provide your resignation to the Labor Party and join the Animal Justice Party (AJP), because what we have just heard is the total cessation of all livestock, all management of animals, and birds for that matter, and this is a foregone conclusion from your point. You are not even attempting to be impartial about a motion before the house. What I will say is that it is very clear that the Andrews government has had conversations – and I will keep it on the light – with the Greens and with the Animal Justice Party, and we are going to have a stacked inquiry. We can already see the composition of that.

This inquiry is going to waste taxpayers money and it is going to ignore the science that is regularly before the Andrews government via the Game Management Authority and the work that they have done on the sustainability of duck hunting. It is going to give paltry lip-service to the testimonies of hunter-conservationists, hunter-environmentalists, hunters who spend hours, weeks, days and years on wetlands transforming them from arid wastelands, and I will go to Heart Morass in detail later on. They have made conservation efforts with habitat restoration over decades, and they are going to be given paltry lip-service on that: ‘Well done, go away.’ Then at the end of this inquiry we are going to see the chair feeling ‘compelled’, and I am using quotation marks, by the weight of so-called ‘evidence’, quotation marks, to recommend the cessation of recreational hunting. That is what this inquiry will bring back, and we do not agree with a foregone conclusion and a waste of taxpayers money to do it. I guess what it does do is it gives the people you are needing – you have got 15 members in this Parliament; you need some extra bodies to get you across the line for the next four years – a run out, and that is what this inquiry will do.

I want to take the opportunity to refute much but not all – I will not take all the time – of the false and misleading propaganda that we hear and that we have heard. Let us look at the science. We have heard before from the minister that recreational hunting is highly regulated. We have got the Game Management Authority, and this government amended the GMA legislation some few years ago; it had the opportunity to do exactly what the minister wants to do right now. It could have stopped that. But it probably did some polling – and it is probably some of that very expensive polling that the Premier loves to use taxpayers money for – and thought, ‘Look, we can’t just stop it right now; we’d better do a bit more research and have an inquiry and let various people have the conversations,’ because there are probably voters in some electorates that they want to try and somehow appease.

People will not have the wool pulled over their eyes – and I am assuming we are still allowed to shear sheep in the process. What I really feel needs to be understood – and I have heard it before on radio a number of times that we are one of the last pariah states because there is no longer any hunting in the other states, ‘There’s no longer hunting in New South Wales,’ ‘Western Australia banned it before I was born,’ I heard from the member for AJP the other day. It is as if there are no ducks killed in New South Wales or in WA. It is misleading, and it is unfair.

We have an adaptive harvest model. That was agreed through this government. It was agreed with the previous ministers in this place to look at the best way for outcomes to keep a harvest, and I say ‘harvest’ because people often use the word ‘shooting’. Well, it is not a sport; this is a tradition that has gone on for decades and decades and decades. It is a harvest, and those members who do that, the fraternity that goes out and hunts in the correct season, are legislated to have to take those ducks that they killed home and use that meat, and they do. It is a table response. They must be able to do that, and they do. We hear this, and we heard it just then, ‘Oh, we’re worried about the behaviour of hunters,’ and it just gets stuck in my throat in relation to this. It is controlled by the wildlife act of 2012. We see daily limits on harvest. We have seen that in the past it could have been for three months but now it is down to five weeks and a four-bag limit.

In terms of what we hear about hunter compliance, let me look at that. We see we have got these people making sort of rash commentary about this. Well, let us look at the data that is actually from the GMA. We can see the 2022 GMA results: 641 patrols; 216 individual wetlands, and there are about that many across the state; more than 1200 game licence holders were checked; 970 hunter bags were checked; and one hunter was found to have a bag in excess by one duck. So if we are looking at the mathematical statistics around that, let us round that up and we are in the area of 99.98 per cent compliance. Yet we have the Premier coming out being dodgy with those comments that he makes in the public, casting aspersions on a law-abiding fraternity. Well, the statistics do not lie, and that is what these are saying. I find that I get the right just to go off on a gambit on what is said in the media. Now, with Raf on Drive on 24 February, the member for Animal Justice said:

But in terms of the birds that have been taken off the shooting list this year, we just don’t think that’s progress at all, because shooters have shown themselves to be lawless year after year …

The next quote:

… they go out there and make it just an absolute bloodbath on our native wildlife.

Well, if that is something that is accepted by the government, those sorts of statements, it is totally misrepresenting the facts, and it is totally misrepresenting law-abiding citizens who want to continue their pursuit after many, many years.

Talking about the wetlands, the Game Management Authority collects, and before its incarnation licences were used to purchase what basically was semi-arid or poor-quality land to be used for state game reserves. The one in my electorate that I have been to, Heart Morass, is an amazing story of wetland regeneration. We saw back in about 2006 – and there are photos and evidence to prove this – that it was somebody’s turnout paddock. It was salt ridden, it was dry, it had flooded and there was no life there of any note. It was taken over, there was a trust set up and then over the past almost two decades we have seen volunteer conservationists, duck hunters and others regenerate that land with thousands and thousands of conservation hours and with their manpower and womanpower. Now not only have we had a variety of waterfowl come back, of a flourishing nature – and I have been down there on a number of occasions – but new species that were not in that area are back and in that region. And we see people coming and doing studies on various types of other waterfowl, insects, frogs, small marsupials and mammals, so we see regeneration.

This is what this inquiry let be known: if you take those licences away and you take the right of law-abiding duck hunters away and they are not allowed to do this, do you think they are going to go out and continue? They will have a very bitter taste in their mouths. If they cannot practise their tradition and their pursuit for a short period of time, they are not going to provide that conservation effort for 12 months of the year, which they do now. I thank them for it. In fact I think Pud Howard – Gary Howard – recently won an award for his efforts in conservation and has been recognised by his community, and we thank him for it. I think it may have even been in the Australia Day honours list.

The minister spoke about the economic benefits. If we listen to the government, the whole creation of tourism will be the panacea for all of the industries that the Andrews Labor government is shutting down. We value our tourism industry. The Andrews government locked us out of country Victoria for almost two years, and our tourist industry was on its knees. They are still struggling to get back, if they survived. And now apparently everything will turn to tourism. Well, the economic flowthrough both direct and indirect from hunting has been investigated and reported by the government’s own department – the name has changed, but at the time it was the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions – and by RMCG, an environmental and agricultural consultancy, back in June 2020. This report states to government:

The gross contribution to GSP from recreational hunting by game licence holders in Victoria in 2019 was $356M. This is made up of $160M of direct contribution and $196M in flow-on economic activity.

If we look directly at the duck hunters and the contributions they make – teasing that out a little bit more – 23,000 hunters contribute $65 million annually to the state’s economy and provide in the vicinity of 600 full-time jobs. What we also know is that the majority of those jobs and that economic activity – almost 70 per cent – is located in regional Victoria, and boy do we need some survival strategies in regional Victoria.

The minister is right. I have been written to by a number of both the pro- and anti-duck-hunting fraternity. There was one gentleman who wrote to me – I happened to be in the office; my office is in Traralgon – Steve Asmussen from the Aussie Disposals in Traralgon. I took the opportunity to walk down and respond directly, and he said over the last two years he has been shut down and shut down and shut down. He had employed a number of young people in the area, which was fantastic, but he basically broke down because this sort of indecision and shortening of seasons when there has been high rainfall and favourable conditions is absolutely attacking his bottom line and his ability to survive in business. He sells waders, boots, ammunition, carry bags et cetera, but he is saying he had to indent – so, forward buy, as you do if you are in small business. With that very short notice that we had you cannot then go and order. He has ordered, and he looks at losing $30,000 because of this reduced season. What he also said – and this is so true for so many of those duck-hunting fraternities – is that it is not just about the hunting. It is also about, for those people, having a family pursuit, experiencing nature, looking around at the work that they have completed in the last 12 months and bonding with their family and friends but still having an ethical way of dispatching the birds for their table as required by law.

I will conclude in a moment, but the whole idea is that the GMA provide information to the government on the sustainability and on the facts and the recommendations for the minister. I am aware that this hunting season should have been extended because of good numbers, and the fact is that the minister basically ignored them and made her own decisions, rather than listening to the science, rather than looking at the science. Indeed there are multiparty wounding recommendations for improving outcomes for birds in terms of animal welfare. There was a strategy and a plan, and it had the RSPCA. It had Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Field and Game Australia and others there. They put the recommendations to the now Minister for Outdoor Recreation. But then, over five months ago, they put them to Minister Tierney, and they sat on somebody’s desk. If this government was actually responsive and really cared about animal welfare, why didn’t it look at those joint recommendations, which could have seemed to be opposing, but in actual fact we know that the hunting fraternity want good outcomes in terms of animal welfare. It could have actually taken those recommendations and been using them. It could have dealt with them and be incorporating them right now into regulations. The fact is that it is crying poor, this government, about bird outcomes, yet it has not done anything about it. It is sitting on its hands.

I get very concerned when small numbers of voters vote in one-policy groups and then those policy groups are negotiating with the government to bring the outcomes that they want and our communities, particularly our regional communities, suffer. The science around accessibility and understanding duck hunting and population species is certainly improving, and we want it to evolve and improve all of the time. Hunter compliance is at a high. It is at an absolute high. What many people are actually concerned about is that 10-metre distance – that protesters can come onto wetlands and actually be 10 metres from a hunter. They are very concerned. I have been speaking with many hunters, and they are concerned that that will actually compromise human safety. That is where I think the protesters are reckless in their decisions and their attitudes, particularly on those hunting grounds.

We have a regulated, high-compliance, ethical duck-hunting season and pursuit. We need it to continue for economics, for mental health and for traditions in our state, and the Liberals and Nationals will be opposing this motion today.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (18:25): That certainly was an interesting fairytale from the opposition, and I have to say I am flattered that Ms Bath is following me so closely. I truly hope that these conservationists will continue their important work when they are no longer able to shoot the animals that they claim to conserve.

I rise today to speak in support of this motion to establish a select committee to examine the future of Victoria’s duck-hunting arrangements. However, from here I will refer to it for what it actually is: recreational native duck shooting. While I support this motion, it is long overdue. This government has long been privy to the evidence. For years we have presented data on non-compliance, animal cruelty and the prevalent public sentiment against duck shooting – the same data that resulted in outright bans in New South Wales and Queensland decades ago and in Western Australia before I was even born. Inquiries should be established where the pathway forward is not clear and all of the information is not apparent, and to the majority of Victorians a ban on duck shooting is as clear as our undisturbed waterways on a summer’s day and as apparent as the daily sunrise over a peaceful wetland without the slaughter of our native waterbirds.

I note that limiting the 2023 duck season to five weeks with a bag limit of four birds per day still equates to 80,000 dead birds. This assumes that shooters play by the rules, yet every year they show that they simply do not. For 10 years I have joined volunteers on the wetlands. This year will be my 11th and I hope it will be my last. The behaviour we have all seen is atrocious. There is nothing that will ever let us forget the opening weekend of the duck-shooting season in 2017. It was one of the most traumatic experiences of my entire life. Non-compliance was the order of the day for the shooters. Rescuers, as usual, far outnumbered the Game Management Authority, who stood back, were bewildered and had absolutely no control of the situation in front of them. I spent sunrise to sunset trudging across the Koorangie marshes in Kerang. We covered kilometres but continuously had to make our way back because our pillowcases, backpacks and even our pockets were full of dead and dying birds. As the sun set our collective hearts all broke as we knew there were more birds out there suffering. We knew that because we could hear them, but we could no longer locate them in the darkness, and at this point in the day the Game Management Authority had packed up and gone home hours ago.

The following year an independent report found non-compliance by shooters to be commonplace and widespread. Back then the Game Management Authority was already perceived to be incapable of oversight, including by members of its own staff. Five years have passed, and I can assure you that nothing has changed. Earlier this year when the Premier signalled at non-compliance by shooters when questioned about the future of duck shooting in Victoria, shooters were quick to respond that only one shooter was fined on the opening weekend of the last duck-shooting season. This is not because shooters were not breaking the law, it is because we have an authority that is more interested in penalising rescuers. With the help of Animals Australia this year we provided some 70 pages of evidence regarding shooter non-compliance, all of which had already previously been reported to the Game Management Authority. The vast majority of those reports, with evidence such as photos, locations and videos, were never even investigated.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Lee TARLAMIS: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day pursuant to standing order 4.01(3) be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Georgie PURCELL: In fact the Game Management Authority has the impossible task of monitoring Victoria’s 25,000 wetlands that span across our state with just a handful of officers. But even when the evidence is literally handed to them by volunteers they fail to act. It is no wonder that individuals leave the Game Management Authority to join other organisations and then publicly oppose duck shooting, now, is it. Just last month, prior to this government making a decision to have a 2023 duck-shooting season, an experienced vet who was appointed by this government to the Game Management Authority board specifically to oversee animal welfare concerns left before her term on the Game Management Authority was even over, joining the Australian Veterinary Association instead. As their new spokesperson she was quick to say:

As veterinarians, our goal is to protect the health and welfare of animals.

Hunting ducks with shotguns often results in non-fatal injuries, where the birds are hit with the outer cluster of pellets, but not retrieved.

This results in an ethical animal-welfare problem, as the bird may live for a number of weeks with a crippling injury, receiving no veterinary treatment.

We are calling on the Government to take swift action and follow the suite of other states and territories that have banned duck hunting altogether.

The terms of this inquiry are broad, yet the evidence for banning duck shooting will, as always, be clear. A disappointed collective of volunteers and organisations that have stood for years for what is right, stood steadfast in the face of shooters, will show up once again, like they have shown up for our precious native birds year after year, decade after decade. We do not need to scramble to get paid experts to specifically represent this cause at the inquiry, as shooting organisations are currently fundraising for, because it will speak for itself. Each and every individual involved in saving ducks on those wetlands, nursing wounded ducks back to health, cleaning up the beer cans and the shells year after year are our experts.

A shooter called my office last week in a predictably threatening manner, and a few minutes into our conversation he said, ‘Wow, you really know your stuff.’ Yeah, mate. I do. I have been doing this for 11 years now, and I know that the Game Management Authority recently conducted a general knowledge test and that less than 5 per cent of shooters passed. I know that in that test 80 per cent of shooters could not tell the difference between game and protected species and that 86 per cent were unaware of the risk they posed to human safety. I know that the 2013 massacre at Box Flat saw over 800 waterbirds killed and left to rot; 104 of those were freckled ducks, one of the rarest waterbirds in the entire world. Swans and whistling kites were also on the list because, as the shooters say, if it flies, it dies. I know that the Liberal government at the time hid the report into these wildlife slayings away under lock and key, where it lives to this day, because it had even more damning evidence than we already have. I know that shooting spray pellet bullets into flocks of birds results in up to 33 per cent being wounded instead of killed, and I know that the failure to retrieve these birds means they suffer from horrific injuries for days and even weeks until they die. I know that when recreational duck shooting is banned in Victoria, shooters will seek to exploit loopholes in order to continue shooting.

Soon this committee will officially know all of this and so much more. I am confident that this government will ensure that the inquiry is fair, reasonable and robust. We have faith the government will finally ban duck shooting after this process with all of the information before them – I mean, why would you do anything else? In a parliamentary inquiry, just like on the wetlands, there is simply nowhere left to hide. I am confident that this inquiry will finally draw a line in the sand and that Victoria will join other states on the right side of history so that we can get back to enjoying our wonderful wetlands in a manner that is kind and environmentally sensitive. I support this motion because, although it is too late and so many birds will suffer this year, I will always support pathways to positive change and I will simply never stop giving a duck.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:35): I rise to oppose this motion by the government. It is breathtaking in its audacity. We have just been debating a bill where we have taken away the rights of people in Victoria to opt out of having their health records made public, yet the government has come in here and the same minister, who totally denies Victorians the right to opt out of their health records, has now put forward a motion, which is clearly, as Ms Bath has said, a total farce.

There is a predetermined outcome for this committee of inquiry. And as for Ms Purcell suggesting it is going to be fair, reasonable and robust – what an absolute joke. It is completely stacked. We have got three members of the Labor Party, three members of the crossbench and three members of the coalition. You cannot tell me it is going to be anything like fair, reasonable and robust. Sure, we will have these people trying to put a case in a committee of inquiry that is absolutely farcical. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You have voted to make sure Victorians have no rights in relation to their health records; you actually care more about ducks. No surprise, though – you can see why the government got that bill through. Look who voted with the government to put that bill through and look what happened a few minutes later. There is certainly quid pro quo here.

I want to talk about the great things that happen with recreational shooters. In my electorate in Connewarre there is a fantastic wetlands area where Field and Game Australia, the Geelong branch, do an amazing job. They have built nest boxes and henhouses and introduced modelling of avian migration strategies, population dynamics and conservation strategies with Deakin University. They actually do research on bird populations, and they help to multiply the population. They benefit the community and the birdlife via scientific research and volunteer effort, not ideology. I wonder, Minister, Ms Purcell or the Greens, who are going to obviously support this motion, how often have you been out on the wetlands doing some volunteer work? How long have you been trudging through the water, making sure the bird boxes are all working?

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: All you do is go out and protest. You do not do anything practical. You are not there to do the hard yards. Minister, I bet you have never been out trying to save the wetlands or develop them. The benefit to the community and the birdlife via scientific research is enormous. They support the breeding ground of 230 bird species, of which only seven or 3 per cent are listed for hunting. So 230 bird species are being encouraged to breed in that area. You will shut this down. Their nesting boxes provide homes for magnificent birds, including rainbow lorikeets –

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Why would they keep doing it? You do not go out there and help. They also help eastern rosellas, red-rumped parrots and many others, as well as the black swans nesting in the rehabilitated wetlands.

Lizzie Blandthorn interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, have you got something to say? You’ve said it – too much really.

Just to tell you a bit about what the Geelong Field and Game branch have done, they took on one of the largest projects in southern Victoria, which involved digging kilometres of channels and regulating structures to bring water from the Barwon River across a swamp system that was otherwise isolated whilst restoring the natural flows of the wetlands and river. The members constructed Baenschs Lane wetland, which is over 200 acres in area – which was a shell grit wasteland and is now a highly productive wetland system – over 40 years ago. The Geelong Field and Game organisation has in excess of 800 members, and they come from all walks of life. They are of all ages and from all backgrounds. They are wonderful people who care about the environment and the conservation of wetlands and also bird species. The Reedy Lake story is another case in point, where Field and Game members in 1979 were witness to the decline of the Reedy Lake complex and they set about one of the biggest freshwater projects in southern Victoria to restore those wetlands. It was invaded by carp, and they have eradicated that. They do an outstanding job. These are people that support duck hunting, but they support absolutely the conservation of birdlife in all its forms and other animal life. Also they do an amazing job in education. The Connewarre Wetland Centre has continued to host the Bug Blitz program, funded by the Hugh DT Williamson Foundation, which provides exceptional education opportunities for students, and I know they take students from deprived low socio-economic areas who had no idea what bugs exist in the water and that that is what the birds feed on. They spend hours with them educating them. It is a fantastic foundation, and Geelong Field and Game do the work to help them.

There is a huge economic benefit also that is provided by the duck-hunting fraternity and should not go unnoticed. The Economic Contribution of Recreational Hunting in Victoria: Final Report,completed for the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions by RMCG in June 2020, states:

The gross economic contribution measures the footprint of recreational hunting by game licence holders in the regional and Victorian economies in terms of Gross State Product (GSP), Gross Regional Product (GRP) and employment. GSP and GRP are the regional equivalents of Gross Domestic Product, which is commonly used to measure the size of the national economy. The gross contribution to GSP from recreational hunting by game licence holders in Victoria in 2019 was $356M. This is made up of $160M of direct contribution and $196M in flow-on economic activity.

This is important, and in rural areas where duck hunters go it is a major economic benefit in towns.

Melina Bath interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes. Minister, we know what your position is on this. It is extremely biased. There is no way you are putting forward a committee of inquiry that is in any way transparent or fair to start with. You have a predetermined outcome, as Ms Bath said. You may as well have just introduced legislation to ban duck hunting. You may as well have done that instead of going through this farce of having a committee of inquiry which is actually going to serve no purpose in reality because the votes are cast. But we will do all we can to make sure that the real story comes out and that this traditional activity is maintained in rural and regional Victoria.

You are all from inside the tram tracks of Melbourne and you do not know what goes on. Where is Cesar Melhem? If only he was still here. He would be supporting us on this; it is a shame he is gone. Unfortunately, you put him in an unwinnable spot on the ticket and he lost his seat. What a tragedy. Now we are in this situation where you are going to make sure that this committee of inquiry comes up with a report to ban duck hunting. We will have the Animal Justice Party making sure they vote with the government ad nauseam on every activity in return for this great benefit of making sure this committee of inquiry comes up with this predetermined outcome, which is banning duck hunting, no less.

I do not support this motion and nobody else should either, because it is a ridiculous proposition and we can see exactly what the intention is and we can see exactly how votes are going to be cast in this way. Do not worry about the people of Victoria and their human rights, just let us make sure that ducks have got more rights than the people of Victoria!

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (18:45): I am not going to reprosecute what the Liberals and the Nationals have said. I have said it so many times in this place that I think people would just fall asleep. But needless to say, I agree with them.

I will not say this whole thing has come about as a surprise, but how this has rolled in the house has been pretty ordinary. It is extremely inappropriate in my view to have a minister who is so openly opposed to, in this instance, the practice of duck hunting lead and be the only speaker on this issue. Unless it is a conscience issue, what I am hearing is what is possibly – probably – the government’s stance on this. In which case, why are we doing this?

The minister’s contribution – I am just going to sum it up – was a grab bag of prejudices and misinformation. I am not going to go through it. Animal Justice’s was – I mean, we have heard it before; I am not going to bother with that. I am just going to finish off with what I heard in a press conference this morning – it may not be an exact quote: ‘It is not leadership to do what is popular at the time, it is leadership to do what is right.’ I might remind the government that its own science supports my stance. This stinks of a fit-up, and I am not going to support it.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (18:46): The Greens support this motion to establish a select committee on Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements. However, while movement on this issue is welcome, we are disappointed that the government has chosen to go through this process of establishing a committee to tell us what we already know – that the cruel practice of duck shooting is not in line with the values of the Victorian community, that it creates immeasurable harm to our native duck population and that duck hunting should be banned once and for all, as it has been in several other states already.

The Greens and many hardworking animal welfare groups and passionate community members were dismayed by this government’s decision to announce that the 2023 duck season would go ahead in the face of intense opposition. Year after year we have seen the government green-light the season despite growing community opposition. Polling undertaken by the RSPCA has shown that the majority of Victorians do not support duck shooting. The number of ducks who suffer from this so-called recreational activity is shocking. The head of the RSPCA stated recently that even though the length of this season has been reduced compared to previous seasons, as Ms Purcell has observed, they estimate that a staggering 87,000 birds will be killed, with 35,000 additionally wounded and left to die. Shame.

The Greens share the community’s concern about our native waterbird population. Research has shown that native species populations are dwindling in relation to available habitat and six out of eight game duck species are in long-term decline. Choosing to allow a duck-hunting season to commence this year when data suggests our native waterbird population is already struggling is beyond comprehension. I look forward to the committee hearing evidence on these issues in the course of its inquiry.

We also need to look ahead to the further impacts that a change in climate is going to have and understand how that is going to impact native waterbird habitat and therefore native waterbird numbers. We then need to understand what happens if we are overlaying a duck-hunting season on top of this to determine whether duck populations can be sustained. I hope the committee will explore this to its fullest extent. We need to make sure that the native waterbird population is not just surviving but thriving in what is an uncertain environmental future.

The Greens also note that Victoria is seriously lagging behind other states in outlawing this violent and damaging practice. Western Australia ended duck hunting in 1990, with New South Wales following suit in 1995 and Queensland in 2005. We believe it is well past time that we caught up and acted in line with community expectations and the rest of the country.

We hope that this committee will shine a light on the darkest corners of this barbaric practice to give the Victorian public a fuller understanding of the reality of how duck hunting operates in our state. We know that native waterbirds are suffering and being left to die in horrific circumstances and that many other protected birds are getting caught up in the crosshairs. It is clear that the current regime of regulation is not up to scratch, and we hope that the committee will consider both the effectiveness of our current regulatory system and whether indeed regulation can be effective at all to police a practice that seems rife with bad behaviour and rule breaking. We look forward to the committee’s work, and I hope that we will look forward to the end of duck hunting for good.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:50): A number of years ago, when my boys were much younger, we went up to the Grampians and we stopped at the Aboriginal culture centre there. I think it is in Hamilton. There was an Aboriginal man who was explaining to the audience – mostly kids, but lots of adults too, their mums and dads – about their culture. Primarily he was talking about hunting, and he was teaching the kids how they hunted different animals with boomerangs and spears and stuff like this. Of course the kids asked all sorts of interesting questions. One of my boys asked, ‘What’s your favourite animal to hunt?’ and he said kangaroo, because that is the most delicious apparently. The man said that he travels around the nation hunting, and he goes up to the Northern Territory and hunts crocodiles apparently. Of course the kids asked, ‘What do you hunt a crocodile with? Which spear do you use?’ The man said, ‘Don’t be stupid, I use a gun’, which the kids were very entertained by.

The reason I bring this up is that hunting is part of being human. We have done this ever since forever, and Australia has the oldest living hunting culture in the world. People deride duck hunting. They say these people are cruel or whatever. I have spoken to lots of duck hunters, and mostly the impression that I get from duck hunters is that they are carrying on the practice that has been carried out since humans were human, usually of men – it is usually men that do it – to go out and collect food for their families. I spoke to one man recently; he does deer hunting, not duck hunting, but I think he occasionally hunts ducks. He goes out and collects lots of food for his family, and he said that it works out very economically for him because he freezes the food and does all this stuff.

Hunting is not something I do. I have tried to do fishing. I make the joke that I am a vegan fisherman because I never catch anything. That said, I am not inclined to point the finger at people who have been doing something that humans have been doing ever since the dawn of man and to say that they are cruel for doing that. I think that maybe we need to stop and think a bit about what we are actually saying here, because what is the next step? Are we going to be banning fishing? I know the Animal Justice Party do not like fishing either. Are we going to be banning deer hunting? We actually have to get rid of some of the deer because there are too many of them. They are not native, like rabbits and all these other animals.

We need to look at what it is to be human and whether we are really going to go down the path of saying, ‘We’re new humans now. We’re not going to do this anymore,’ because we look at these hunter-gatherer cultures and think that they that are lesser than us and we are going to say that we are better than that and we are not going to do it anymore, we are going to ban it. I just think that this is wrong and we need to really stop and think about what we are doing here, because it is a really dangerous thing.

I was going to support this committee creation. Rather naively I thought that it was going to be a legitimate and good-faith thing, but after hearing the minister’s speech I am very, very much less convinced of that, because it is clear that there is an agenda here. Nonetheless this committee is going to have to look at something which is clearly very controversial and divisive. There are clearly going to be a lot of submissions, both for and against, I would imagine, as has been indicated by everyone here. In fact I imagine people here will be organising some of those submissions. It is going to have to look at a lot of scientific evidence, and I know that there is a lot of science here, looking at the numbers and all sorts of information. I am not convinced about the date set for this inquiry – 31 August. I am not convinced that a thorough investigation can be done by this committee in that sort of time frame, which is why I am moving an amendment to shift that time frame to 31 October 2023. I move:

That in paragraph (1), omit ‘31 August 2023’ and insert ‘31 October 2023’ in its place.

If the government really wants this to be a genuine inquiry and not just a sham, and if we are going to go to the trouble of setting up this inquiry and this committee, it is going to take time to do that. If it is going to be some really short, sharp thing that is just going to give the government an excuse to come through with the legislation, I agree with Ms Bath: why not just bring forward the legislation if that is what they are going to do? Anyway, I have moved that amendment. We will see what people think about that, but my view on this is: we should think very carefully before prohibiting cultural activities that have been happening for a very long time.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, Minister for Child Protection and Family Services) (18:55): I would just like to respond to some of the characterisations of my own position in moving this motion and also some of the aspersions that have been put on my own perspective in relation to this motion. As I said at the outset, my personal views on this issue are very well known and they have been publicly reported on many an occasion. It would have been disingenuous of me to have stood up here and moved this motion and not declared those personal opinions. What I would say is that a parliamentary inquiry is set up by this chamber. The members of that inquiry are reflective of the people elected to this chamber, and the people elected to this chamber are reflective of the community. I would hope that what comes out of this inquiry is a decision that is reflective of the community position. I do not think anybody in this chamber should be afraid of that. That is exactly what we are all here to do.

I also take offence at the suggestion I am just an inner-city leftie. It is not something I have often been accused of. I am someone who grew up in the Yarra Valley. My dad came from Bendigo, my aunty lives in Benalla and my other one lives in Bairnsdale, just near the Ramsar wetlands in Gippsland that Ms Bath referred to. Indeed as a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), we did an inquiry into the Auditor-General’s report Meeting Obligations to Protect Ramsar Wetlands. Mr Danny O’Brien in the other place took us to some of the very places that you were speaking about, Ms Bath. It was certainly encouraging to see the work that was being done in those places in relation to biodiversity. Coming from my own personal perspective, which I have, as I said, been well known for and which I put on the record again today, I would argue that that biodiversity should be protected. As well as being cultivated, it should be protected. But these will be factors for this committee to consider. From where I sit, I will not be a member of that committee.

I would also just like to say that in my contribution, despite my own personal views on this issue, which are obviously well known and well canvassed and which I have again referred to today, I did talk about things such as the tensions within the Game Management Authority and the roles and responsibilities of the GMA. I also spoke in relation to the economy. There are two sides of that argument; let us have that consideration. I have one view about that personally, but, as I said, the role of this committee is reflective of this chamber and reflective of the people that we represent in the community. It is their job to look at this and to consider both sides of the economic argument, and I am sure they will do that.

Mr Limbrick, just in relation to your contribution, in particular in relation to First Nations voices, I made a point of saying that I think it is extremely important that our First Nations voice is included in this conversation and that we do due consultation with the Indigenous organisations in our community. They have views about this, and I specifically mentioned that for a reason. I do agree with you that that is a very important consideration to which we should give due consideration.

I do reject, though, the slippery slope argument. The terms of reference of this committee are very clear, and I was at pains to go through each of them and explain what I thought were the issues that those terms of reference would consider. The hunting and shooting of other animals was not a consideration in those terms of reference. So I do not support Mr Limbrick’s amendment. I think there is ample time to give due consideration to the many and varied issues. I do think it will be a committee that has a lot of hard work ahead of it in a relatively short space of time. But, Mr Limbrick, when I look at some of the work that we managed to do in PAEC last term in a very short space of time, I am sure that the committee will very ably undertake that task, and I look forward to the recommendations of the committee.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, President, is there an opportunity to speak to the amendment?

The PRESIDENT: I remember I set a precedent. Yes, you can.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (19:00): We will be supporting 31 October as the date, and I concur with Mr Limbrick’s position. I have been on many committees in the last eight years, and I know that they virtually always run over time. If you are going to do this committee justice, and we have heard the minister talk about the variety of and the need for expansive views – unless you want to curb this, and that then goes to the contention that I raised in the substantive debate – you will need to extend this. So I support the extension.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (19:00): I will be quick. I support the extension too. If the government really wants to pretend that this is not just a fit-up, it is going to need to do this, because it is very unlikely we are going to get to it by the end of August.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Noes (15): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.