Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Production of documents

Duck hunting

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:26): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) duck hunting in Victoria is tightly regulated by the government;

(b) every year the government engages relevant eminent scientists to provide data based on scientific principles to the Game Management Authority, who produce a report outlining recommended seasonal changes based on that scientific evidence to the government;

(c) the seasonal changes announced for the 2023 duck-hunting season were incompatible with the report provided by the Game Management Authority, which was based on the evidence from the government scientists; and

(2) requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all documents relating to the 2023 seasonal changes to the duck-hunting season for all ministers involved in the decision, including but not limited to the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, Minister for Environment, Minister for Agriculture and the Premier.

When I started in this place I never thought I would end up spending most of my time in here supporting duck hunting. At the time I was not a duck hunter, whilst I obviously supported it. But in 2014 I recall the Premier stood up and supported duck hunting. I would suggest in 2018 before the election a similar thing was done, and also there was not a mention of it before the 2022 election. So imagine my surprise when we got back and away we went. It all started falling down on us. I started hearing about hunter misbehaviour and all this sort of stuff, and I was going, ‘Oh, okay. From what I’ve read on the Game Management Authority website that wasn’t really a big thing.’ I think what they had up there at the time was if every offence had been caused by a hunter and a hunter only, it was 0.012 per cent or 0.12 per cent of hunters. When I looked at that I was wondering what was going on.

We move on, and now all of a sudden we have got an inquiry forced upon us. Now, I am a little bemused about the inquiry just for the simple reason that the government has its own scientists. I did not pay for these scientists. The hunting organisations did not pay for these scientists. These are all government scientists saying that we need to have a duck-hunting season and why. So we cruise around, and we get the extremely short announcement. I asked a question in here, and the response was effectively something about precautionary principles and hunter misbehaviour, all this stuff I am a little bit dubious about, for want of a better term.

Moving along from that, then all of a sudden the quail season gets done. Now, quail had not been mentioned at all in any of this. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion quail are endangered. Stubble quail are the only quail you can hunt, and suddenly that got done. So I went sniffing around, as did many other people, looking for the release of the data. I think it was the Game Management Authority that released a fair tranche of stuff. But what was not released was the interesting stuff, and that is what I want out of this.

One of the best documents I have ever seen released was the waterfowl hunting reduction action plan. It had a face sheet, and the next 30 or so sheets were redacted – nothing. I do not even know why they bothered putting it in there. I have got a fair idea what that was about, because it was produced by the government. I would suggest that at some point in time someone, including the government and other organisations that are involved with this – and not just hunting organisations – has come up with a plan to address one of the so-called issues, wounding. I also know there was a wounding study done, and from the results it was very near impossible to interpret anything. It is probably something that should have been done a long time ago to have a dataset built up. Somewhere between, I think it was, 2 and 40 per cent was the possible wounding rate. It is impossible to draw a conclusion from that, because you cannot be aware of ducks that have flown away and died. In fact it was impossible to draw a conclusion; between 2 and 40 per cent is just going nowhere.

The reason I did this motion is I have looked at some of the wetland closures and have decided to go ahead with this even though we have got most of what we want. It is what we have not got, including emails between the ministers and other parties, that I want to see. Let us have a look at Anderson Inlet, for instance. Anderson Inlet is in my patch and is one of the hunting areas in East Gippsland. It was closed, I believe, because someone thought they saw an orange-bellied parrot. I am not into studying ornithology – I think that is the term – but I believe the orange-bellied parrot was last seen in Tasmania. Someone may well have seen a rosella, they may have seen a parrot of another sort, they may even have seen an orange-bellied parrot, but to shut down the whole wetland to hunting because someone thought they saw something is not really defensible. And that is the sort of thing I want.

Another area in Gippsland that was shut to hunting was shut because – I find this one very farcical – there was a colony of bats. I cannot remember if they were flying foxes or fruit bats or whatever they were, but they are the same thing that the government is issuing authority to control wildlife permits for. So apparently we are not allowed to scare them there, but we can shoot them, or whatever method we use, elsewhere.

There is something really going on in this whole thing that is not gelling with good principles of wildlife management, game management and government. This just stinks highly of political interference. I am going as far as suggesting that a minister’s personal opinion is now colouring their output. I have seen other ag ministers whose personal opinions I understand about duck hunting but who went with the science. That makes me respect them more as people and politicians because they actually, against their own impressions, their own thoughts – whatever you want to call it – went with what the scientists said. The scientists do say – and some of these scientists are no fans of duck hunting – we need duck hunting for a number of reasons. I am not going to go too far into this just for the simple reason that no doubt we will get into this in the inquiry. I do hope we will invite them. But it is not like it is not sustainable. If cruelty was a problem, then why did we have a wounding reduction plan that a whole lot of people agreed on? Basically, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I went to the effort of doing my waterfowl identification test and passed it and have now got a duck-hunting licence, which is something I had started to feel compelled to get because the attack on duck hunting is an attack on hunting. The amount of times I have heard, ‘If duck hunting goes, you can go deer hunting.’ I am pretty sure shooting a deer is just as cruel as shooting a duck, if you are into that sort of thing. I am pretty sure the deer would agree with that. So it is not about ducks, it is about hunting. In fact recently on Facebook – the fount of all information; if it is on Facebook it is true! – someone said, ‘Go shoot deer.’ I said, ‘What’s different about shooting deer to a duck?’ and they said, ‘Well, they aren’t blasted out of the sky.’ They are shot on their feet because deer cannot fly.

The whole issue is a non-issue. Some people do not like it, I understand that, but if you do not like duck hunting, do not do it. I also understand that not all hunters do the right thing, and I actively encourage the government to catch them and prosecute them to the fullest, just as I encourage the government to get all the protesters that are breaking the law, to catch them and prosecute them to the fullest. I think any member of Parliament, no matter who they are or what party they represent, should have the same stance – you should not be advocating for law breaking.

A minor segue here: I have noticed a very disturbing new trend. A friend of mine who went duck hunting on private property had trespassers that were following them around on private property, and they were being, let us call it, harassed. I am not aware of that happening before. If it is on Crown land where there are rules and regulations – whether you stick to them or not is another thing – there are avenues to make your point known. Private land is private land. This is one of the things where I am noticing a very large change in attitude by people who think that bad laws are there to be broken. Some laws, whether you think they are bad or not –

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Jeff BOURMAN: Yes, that was deliberate. Some laws whether you think they are –

Georgie Purcell: I said that as a joke.

Jeff BOURMAN: You might have said it as a joke, Ms Purcell; not everyone does.

Harriet Shing: Look at you two, getting along over there.

Jeff BOURMAN: I know. Moving right along, we have laws for a reason, and I can say that if duck hunting does get banned at the end of this, the vast majority of people will not go hunting ducks. It is just the way it is. There will be some that will go and hunt or shoot them – they will be culled under an authority to control wildlife. The numbers will have to be reduced; that is just a fact. If the numbers get out of control, nature basically fixes it by giving them botulism. We saw, just before the original start of the hunting season occurred, an outbreak of botulism in the northern part of Victoria. I think it was 400 ducks. Everyone was screaming, ‘It was hunters, it was hunters’ – no, it was nature. Nature takes care of it, and I have to say botulism cannot be a pleasant way to go.

Georgie Purcell: Neither is duck shooting.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will take up that interjection. I would say getting shot is probably preferable to going down with botulism.

Georgie Purcell: A 40 per cent wounding rate.

Jeff BOURMAN: Between 2 and 40 per cent. You have got nothing to stand on.

I am running out of time. I did have another motion regarding duck hunting. Basically I think I have gone through the majority of that. But to recap, there is a whole lot of stuff going on that I do not think passes the sniff test from a government point of view. No matter what your personal opinion is on these things, there is a rule, there is a regulation, there is a way of doing things. I am absolutely stunned that the government has gone to the adaptive harvest model plan. They have got all the scientists, everyone has agreed to it and then all of a sudden it is not happening. It is just, ‘No, we’ll do what we want instead.’ I do not think that is a good look for anyone, because if they are doing it for this, then what are else are they doing it for? That is something the government needs to think about on a wider level, and it does not engender trust.

Moving on to the quail season, I have got to point out that I did ask a question, ‘What happened to the quail season?’ – that is paraphrasing it – and I got a response the day before yesterday or something like that saying something about a ‘precautionary principle’, that it was shortened due to the precautionary principle. I had a bit of research done about the precautionary principle. The application of the precautionary principle is often cited as a rationale for government decisions that do not accord with all the available evidence. The principle is central to international environment law. In Victorian law, the principle is laid out in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, which requires decision-makers to give consideration to the precautionary principle, such as: if there are threats to serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. You could say that is a reason why they use the precautionary principle, but what it is saying is that lack of evidence is not a reason to do something. If there was any evidence about quail hunting, then I am sure it would have come up. We sit here in this place and we dispute about duck hunting and hunting in general, but at least there is evidence we can throw backwards and forwards. In the end I do not think any of us are going to change our mind on this, but it is kind of how it works.

The whole thing – being up here – is starting to get old. I want to do more than just duck hunting, but I cannot let this go. So I am going to finish up, and I am going to quote from an inaugural speech. It is just a part of it, not the whole thing; we do not want to be here for 20 minutes. Blah, blah, blah, blah:

… the value of democracy and the need for public institutions to uphold the highest standards of integrity, discipline, accountability and transparency. People in public office are in positions of trust. It is incumbent upon each and every elected representative in this Parliament to put the public interest of Victorians above all else – even politics.

Well, for those that do not like duck hunting: happy days. You do not have to like it. I do not expect you to like it. If you do not like it, do not go duck hunting. I have heard ‘If you don’t like something, don’t do it’ in this place so many times it makes my ears bleed. But if you do not like it, do not do it. It is regulated. But I want out of this whole motion. I do not want in four weeks to get something from the government saying they have not got time. Well, they gave us an inquiry with not enough time, but we will get it done.

The government can give us what we need. The government should give us what we need, and in that documentation it should be explaining why, against its own evidence, these things are happening. It should be explaining why the precautionary principle is being used when there is no evidence, using the quail example. It should be explaining why it is now May and it is almost impossible to get meetings with the responsible minister, and that is not just me; it is all hunting advocacy people. If we were talking about fishing here, we would not be having this thing. Fishing is hunting, whether you like it or not. Fishing is one of those things. Now, I understand the Animal Justice Party has a thing about fishing, so I am leaving them out of this, but fishing is hunting. You can sit there and say, ‘Oh, they’re not fluffy, they’re not cute.’ Culling deer is hunting or culling, but hunting deer is hunting. Hunting or shooting rabbits is. There is no real difference, except that ducks are possibly cuter.

Georgie Purcell: And they are native.

Jeff BOURMAN: The numbers have still got to be controlled. You are helping me with running down my time, thank you. Yes, they may well be native. Let me use my 3 minutes to discuss that. Let us go back to what I said – the numbers. One thing is that white men came here in the 1700s – a bit earlier if you went over to the west – and what we brought with us were our farming methods amongst other things, and that has taken water like you would not believe in a continent that is known for its droughts.

Duck numbers: I am not going to say that they are better; they are probably better than they ever were back then but not since we have held records. Habitat destruction is the clearest danger to the ducks, if you want to get down to that. I mean, look at Connewarre, where we were. Habitat destruction: when suburbia gets there, and it is not going to be long, at some point in time someone is going to drain that swamp and turn it into a paved paradise or turn it into a parking lot, and then at that stage the ducks will move on somewhere else. At that stage habitat reduction will be a problem. Shooters shoot thousands. I am sure Ms Purcell will help me with the number.

Georgie Purcell: 80,000.

Jeff BOURMAN: Eighty thousand out of how many millions is the question. Where would those 80,000 that have been cut go, if they lived? They are going to go elsewhere, and eventually they are going to run out of habitat.

Georgie Purcell: No, conservationists will just keep doing their work.

Jeff BOURMAN: Actually, it is the hunters that do their work, thank you very much. I defy anyone to show the people, particularly at Connewarre, that a conservationist other than a hunter has done anything. But moving right along – I am getting well and truly off track here.

I understand this will end up probably going through on the voices, but I think it is important that the government does not just give me another letter in four weeks and tell me they cannot do it because there is not enough time. I also think it is important for transparency that we see the actual reasons why the minister or ministers – I am not going to point fingers just at one person all the time – have done this against their own advice. I think that is hugely important. Because otherwise ministers can pick a portfolio and do what they want, and I do not think that is a good thing for any government.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:45): I rise, perhaps with some trepidation, to speak on this motion put forward by Mr Bourman today. I do thank him for putting this motion forward. It does allow me to speak on a matter which I know has been very contentious amongst the community. It is a matter of great interest to a number of people. I love the juxtaposition every time I look over at this corner of the chamber and see the two of you sitting there, but for hunters and animal justice advocates as well as the broader community, this is a particular area of interest. That is one of the reasons why we have the select committee on Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements. As many members may know, I am a member of the committee, as are Mr Bourman and Ms Purcell. I also see Ms Copsey and Mr Batchelor in the room, and they are on that committee as well.

Jeff Bourman: And Ms Watt.

Michael GALEA: Sorry; I did not see you over there, Ms Watt. Ms Watt is also a fellow member of the committee. Given that as a government member of the committee I am speaking on this today, I will keep my remarks relatively circumspect. I think it will be important to provide some broader context on the committee’s work and the purpose of the committee. Of course this issue has become a big area of debate within the Parliament and outside it as well. Over the past few years – and I note in particular during the term of the previous Parliament – there has been lots of discussion over the issue of recreational native bird hunting. As with any issue that arises at this level of debate, there are many passionate people from both sides, and I do want to commence my contribution by going over some of the parameters of what this committee actually is and is not looking into – what those parameters are. The select committee into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements is not looking at deer hunting and it is not looking at fishing, just to be very, very clear from the outset. I know there has been some conjecture in some elements of the community to say, ‘Oh, this is all about going after deer hunting.’ It is not. The clue is in the title: this is a committee on Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements.

What does that cover? Well, there has been some discussion by Mr Bourman about quails as well, and I do note that quails are also a topic of discussion that we are looking at in this committee. It also does look at a number of species of duck. The species of duck that can currently be hunted in this state in a regular season are the blue-winged shoveler, the grey teal, the chestnut teal, the hardhead, the mountain duck, the pink-eared duck, the Pacific black duck and the wood duck. Those eight species of duck, plus native quail, are covered by the scope of what the committee is looking into. I do note as well, for the sake of clarity, that two of those species of duck, the blue-winged shoveler and the hardhead, are both exempt from this year’s hunting season on the grounds of low numbers. I think in providing this context it is really, really important that all members remain relevant to what we are actually here to talk about. This is not in any way looking at other hunting arrangements. It is not looking at deer, it is not looking at other game species and it is certainly not looking at fishing. Those things are well outside the scope of this inquiry. ‘Native birds’ means native birds – start of and end of.

Many people are dedicated to having their views heard and reflected in the future of recreational native bird hunting. The regulations surrounding duck hunting in particular have been a primary focus of community interest. That concern and interest is now extending to the recreational hunting of those other birds, as I mentioned, including the stubble quail. As a member of this select committee, I am particularly looking forward to the hearings that we will be having in possibly several weeks time. We have already received a very large number of submissions to this inquiry, and I would like to take this chance to remind people that submissions to the inquiry into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements are still open and close on 8 May, so quite soon now. I do urge all interested parties to make sure that you have your say either by registering yourself for a hearing or by putting a submission through. You can refer to the Parliament website for details on how to do that. As a member of the committee, as I say, I am definitely looking forward to those hearings and hearing in more detail from both sides of this argument.

The regulation around duck hunting as well covers a few separate areas of government, so I think it is worth covering what that actually looks like too. So each year, as members may know, the government makes decisions taking into account the consideration of advice particularly received from the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions, the Game Management Authority and other government agencies and including the Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Outdoor Recreation and the Minister for Environment, all having coverage of this area. They receive the advice and take the proper care and consideration into determining what the duck-hunting season will look like. Beyond the advice given by the DJSIR and the GMA, and I would note that the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action also have some involvement here, the government has listened to and consulted with stakeholders. Engaging with these stakeholders from both sides is crucially important, and that is why we have already engaged as a government with numerous groups both in favour of and against duck hunting, including Field and Game Australia, Regional Victorians Opposed to Duck Shooting, the RSPCA and the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, amongst others.

The consultation process has demonstrated the increased concern and contention surrounding recreational native bird hunting. Amongst Victorians there has been growing concern surrounding the wounding rates of native birds, instances and risks of illegal hunting behaviour and the overall effect that recreational hunting has on native bird populations, and I really do believe that it is important to acknowledge that all sides of this debate have expressed concerns and have raised arguments, which we are here to listen to. I also do want to acknowledge that many different supporters from many different sides have also raised concerns about wounding and, as Mr Bourman referred to earlier, ways in which we can address that issue.

The current hunting and stubble quail season has opened for 2023, and as has been widely reported and mentioned in members statements this morning, along with my fellow committee members I did go to the Lake Connewarre wetlands near Geelong last Wednesday. We had the opportunity to observe the commencement of the hunting season by visiting three locations around that lake, starting at the Reedy Lake, I believe it was called, and then going around to the south side near Baenschs Lane as well. We got to meet with the animal rights protesters and with some hunters as well. Whilst – I am not going to say it was a little bit of a circus – we had a lot of news crews there, and it was very good to see interest from the media as well and was certainly welcome to have the attention on it, it may not have been perhaps the most accurate reflection, seeing a parliamentary committee stomp around the wetlands followed by TV cameras in tow. Nevertheless, though, it was still a very valuable insight into exactly how this operates and how it works. As other members have said, there was a relatively low turnout at those wetlands on the day, but it was still nevertheless a good opportunity for us to meet with and engage with people and even the Game Management Authority as well over how they propose their compliance and monitoring of duck-hunting activities. I know I speak on behalf of certainly the Labor committee members and possibly others as well when I say that we all found that experience to be valuable in spite of the fact that it possibly was not the normal picture of what you might see without Channel 7 watching you the whole time.

There will be many more lines of inquiry that this committee will be looking at within those scopes and those parameters that I have already mentioned and, as I said, in particular those hearings which will be taking place over the coming months. Our committee is due to provide a report back to this chamber by 31 August this year, so I know there is going to be a power of work to be done by all committee members, notably our chair Mr Batchelor as well, and we are all putting our minds very seriously to this task to ensure that whatever outcome we do deliver is the best outcome for Victoria as well.

This current hunting season, as mentioned, did start last Wednesday, on 26 April. It will be running until Tuesday 30 May. Ordinarily you have a limit of 10 ducks that you can shoot and bag in a day. This season it has been reduced to four, and as I also mentioned earlier, both the blue-winged shoveler and the hardhead ducks are exempt from this year’s duck-hunting season as per regulations under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

In closing I would just like to say again that we do have a committee that is looking at this very issue. It is important that we do so. It is an important area of discussion that the community from all quarters of this state have raised, and as a member of the Select Committee on Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements I am very much looking forward to further engaging with both sides of this debate as well as the broader community over what the future of this activity looks like in Victoria.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:55): I am really pleased to rise to show the Nationals’ and the Liberals’ support for this documents motion. Normally documents motions are non-controversial; they are about accessing information that is hidden from public view but is of significant public interest.

I might just say at the outset of my discussion on this topic that Mr Bourman has moved the motion and we are happy to support Mr Bourman, but he was not happy to support the Nationals or the Liberals in the seat of Morwell. Indeed his candidate’s second preference went to the Labor Party. Here we have a member of the upper house from the Shooters and Fishers, and they were supporting the government, which has stated on this inquiry – I have heard Mr Galea talk about the upper house inquiry and the minister at the table the Honourable Lizzie Blandthorn has said:

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 …

That is an interesting partnership where we had the Shooters and Fishers directly supporting the Labor Party. They did not get up. The member for Morwell is the Nationals member Martin Cameron. They were directly supporting them in one context, and then we have got the Labor Party saying this about the shooting and hunting fraternity and that native bird hunting should be banned.

Nevertheless I am very interested to follow this line of conversation in relation to ministers. There seems to have been a vacuum on ministers. I was reflecting earlier today on a picture that popped into my head: the Chinese proverb about the three wise monkeys. Three ministers must sign off for there to be a variation on the duck season and the quail season – the native bird hunting seasons. They are the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Agriculture. In reflecting on the three wise monkeys in no way am I suggesting to this house that the ministers are monkeys, not at all – that is the furthest thing from the truth – but nor am I saying that they are wise in this decision, because clearly there has been compelling information, documentation and scientific evidence delivered unto them and they have turned away from it. They have rejected it.

My vision of that was that they have closed their eyes to a clear recommendation from the Game Management Authority (GMA) about a full duck season. They have closed their ears to compelling evidence from independent scientists, and a great array of them, and they have zipped their mouths shut in relation to this season. We did a bit of a fact check, and nowhere in this new Parliament, in the 60th Parliament, has any of those three made any mention to hunting in outdoor recreation or in any of their portfolios, so here we have this vision of the alternate version of the three wise monkeys.

The GMA has presented a comprehensive paper to the Andrews government, to those ministers. It has presented a full season for 2023, it has presented a four-bag daily limit in duck season, and it has presented from 15 March to 12 June for the full season – a tad over two months – and that was because of the midweek opening on 8 May. It also recommended the blue-winged shoveler and the hardhead be prohibited from the species that could be hunted during this season.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.