Wednesday, 15 November 2023
Motions
Deer control
Motions
Deer control
Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:33): I move:
That this house:
(1) notes that:
(a) around 150,000 game deer are shot by recreational hunters every year;
(b) an impediment to Victora’s 51,000 licensed deer hunters taking more deer is finding a use for the extra venison;
(c) many food charities are struggling with increased demand and many families are approaching some of these charities to keep food on their plates;
(d) there are existing programs in Victoria and other states that allow meat sourced from wild animals to be procured for human consumption;
(2) calls on the government to commit to further discussions regarding the delivery of a pilot program to enable the commercial processing of wild-shot venison to be harvested and donated to food charities on selected government programs and whether funding could be provided for:
(a) the training of accredited volunteers; and
(b) the necessary infrastructure, such as racks on vehicles and cool rooms.
I am not going to go through it word by word, but basically this motion is to utilise the meat from government-run culls of deer by having it processed suitably and then donated to charities – food banks generally. This motion presents basically a binary choice. It is not a debate about whether people should be able to hunt, it is not a debate about the efficacy of government-funded deer programs nor is it a debate about other much-needed initiatives to help the disadvantaged in our community. The binary choice: should the deer that the government is paying to have killed anyway be left to rot and waste or should the premium-quality meat be used to help relieve the cost-of-living pressures for disadvantaged people in our society? At the end of this debate you will be asked to stand up for what you believe in. We will no doubt hear some dancing around and misdirection that it seems like this vote is for something other than what it is for. At the end of the day, however, you either stand for beneficial use or wanton waste. That is the binary choice.
By way of some background, there are about 200,000 deer taken a year by recreational hunters, and there are about 50,000 recreational deer hunters in the state. When I first came to Victoria all those years ago, I heard about this strange thing called deer hunting, and it was only known to a very few out in Gippsland. If you did not know someone who knew where the deer were, no chance. Well, let us fast-forward from, say, the 1980s to now, and people are hitting deer in cars, so we have government-funded deer control programs. Some of these are targeted towards protecting assets; some of them are poorly targeted and frankly are a waste of time, money and particularly venison. I personally strongly oppose helicopter culling, as the meat is totally wasted. The shooters performing the cull can really only shoot to stop, not come back to find the animal later to finish it off, should they be able to find it and of course should it need it. I reiterate this is culling, not hunting, and to fulfil their obligations the shooter will need to do this to get as many animals as possible because helicopters are not cheap. I must say that I also believe that the professional shooters will make a kill shot if they can – they do not want the animal to suffer any more than anyone else – but they have a job to do. So there are literally tonnes of high-quality venison being shot in government-funded programs in easily accessible areas, other than the helicopter culls, that are then left to rot because the land manager is taking the path of least resistance, which is leaving them there or putting the ones that they do retrieve in a pit.
Without too much effort this can be put into the human food chain. Given that it is a community asset being wasted by the government, it is incumbent on the government to put that to better use. What we are talking about here is a win-win-win scenario. We get carcasses out of our public land reserves, we get premium-quality meat to families and charities who need it and we provide income and scale to commercial processors in regional Victoria. ‘Triple bottom line’ is a common buzzword of the government – environmental, social and economic. This proposal delivers triple-bottom-line benefits to Victoria, and the majority of the operation is already being performed.
One of the great progressive achievements of the Andrews government was the introduction of commercial processing for wild-shot game meat. Regulated cullers work under arrangements with primary producers to harvest on their properties and pay them a rate per kilogram for the deer they take. This is not a helicopter cull, where the situation demands some practicalities, but a ground-based cull, which is a much more precise way of taking animals. This initiative has seen overabundant wild deer go from being a problem for some farmers to being an income-producing resource. In a time when regional and rural economies are taking a pounding in areas such as Eastern Victoria, particularly Gippsland, and staring down the imminent departure of forestry and power generation and the downstream businesses that rely on them, this will provide tiny relief for some people – tiny, but relief nonetheless. This program will not have any effect on commercial harvesting, as these deer are already being shot and any protein harvested from these animals will be given to charity and therefore will not impact any commercial arrangements that are in place.
In the last Parliament Minister Symes – or should I say Attorney-General Symes now – made changes to allow deer hunters to take harvested venison to commercial operators to have it processed and packed. This change means that hunters who lack facilities or time to process the spoils of the hunt themselves can pay for it to be done professionally for personal use. The catch with this is that processing cannot happen on PrimeSafe-registered premises. That seems to be counterintuitive – because it is. Surely the local butcher is best positioned to provide this service to hunters. The logical next step is to allow a dual-licensing scheme for butchers so that with appropriate protocols around cleaning and separation they can provide this service to hunters, making it more available and putting more money into regional economies.
Our brothers and sisters in New Zealand across the ditch already process hunter-shot meat to go to food charities. They are a little bit further along this path than we are. In New Zealand the Sika Foundation, a membership-based hunting organisation like the Sporting Shooters Association here in Victoria, provides over 100 kilograms a week of wild-shot venison to each of a number of local food banks to feed the less fortunate. In the short few years that the Sika Foundation’s program has been running, close to 5 tonnes of clean, free-range, wild-shot protein has gone to families that need it.
I want to quote their website, and I apologise for the inevitable mispronunciations – New Zealanders have an interesting way of naming stuff:
Foodbank Support
In 2020, the Turangi Foodbank was the grateful recipient of venison mince made available by the culling of Wapiti/Red deer in Fiordland. It made a huge difference, which is why the Foodbank reached out to the Sika Foundation in April 2021 to see if we could help again.
As a result, an ongoing initiative was launched to provide free-range venison mince to families in Turangi and Taupo that are struggling to make ends meet. The aim is to provide up to 100kg of meat per week, which will cut the local Foodbank’s weekly food budget in half.
Foodbanks are not government funded and rely on grants and donations to operate. They are experiencing high demand for emergency food parcels and Covid-19 is still having a huge impact on our communities. By feeding families we contribute to the wellbeing of the community, take pressure off families under stress financially and mentally, helping to reduce family harm, depression, and many other issues.
We –
being the Sika Foundation –
have been in touch with the Ministry for Primary Industries to check on the regulations for donating recreational catch and have received guidance for such meat donations. The packages are labelled according to MPI’s instructions. The packaging for the mince parcels has been generously supplied at no cost –
I may as well give them all a plug –
by Stephan Pederson from Caspak, and Jaki Carson at Copy Solutions in Taupo has provided labels. The donated venison has been processed by Farm & Game Meats Ltd in Taupo.
Business sponsorship from Ashhurst Engineering & Construction and Genesis Energy … has funded much of the … processing costs. Lahar Wilderness Sika, Poronui Hunting –
I am just going to go for this one –
Maunga Tia Adventures and Robbie from Blood Origins have also made significant contributions.
By May, 2023, more than 4.5 tonnes of clean, organic protein has been delivered to families in need …
And then they want to thank all their sponsors. But they go on to list what the requirements are to donate the protein:
1. Only meat that you would put on your own family’s dinner table is acceptable
2. Meat needs to be cooled or chilled as quickly as possible after harvest
3. Meat should be delivered chilled or frozen – boned out is preferred
4. No damaged (bullet wounds) or contaminated meat (deer hair, dirt, fly-blown, microbial activity) will be accepted
There is a whole lot of things it goes into. But this is also recreational hunting, and one must wonder why I bring up New Zealand. Well, Australia and New Zealand share meat processing standards. If it can be done there, it can be done here. Any problems that we would have, they would have, and any problems they would have, we would have. And they are making it work, so we can.
We get on to the bureaucracy. The meat regulator, PrimeSafe, and associated bureaucrats within the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions stand as major blockers to the better utilisation of wild shot game in Victoria. That is not a criticism as they are doing their job, and it is an important job to make sure that meat we buy is safe. But that does not mean we cannot progress or advance. Just a few short years ago the Victorian government changed the law to enable wild shot game meat to be processed for human consumption in Victoria. The public servants involved opposed this change, but it happened anyway. The government listened to them and took on board their concerns, but ultimately the government chose sensible incremental progress over stagnation. The role of the public service is to both administer government policy and provide frank and fearless advice to help shape it. The role of the Parliament is to make that policy. Hopefully we do that cognisant of but not mindlessly adherent to the advice of the public service.
We hear a lot about progressive government. We hear that it is almost exclusively a plea for the government to advance some self-identifying progressive’s personal ideology and prejudice. Progressivism in its pure form is the advancement of the human condition through incremental change. I am not a progressive, but this motion proposes a progressive change. I say that I am not progressive, but neither are most of the people that say they are. It is really just a lot of reactionaries hiding behind the label of progressivism rather than advancing a genuine argument for a change that they seek.
This initiative will not fix wicked problems like homelessness, poverty or disadvantage; we would have to be out of touch and delusional to think it would. What it will do is send a very clear message that these issues are at the front of mind of government policy in all areas. We need to manage wildlife to address negative impacts. Where we can deliver other benefits from doing that it is not only a desirable thing to do, I would argue that it is a moral imperative. It is a mindset that I am really pleased to say is not foreign to my colleagues in this place across the political spectrum, and for the most I have had nothing but positive comments from pretty well everyone. Even the media, who are usually fairly tough on me, seem cautiously optimistic.
Anyway, in the last Parliament a committee of this chamber conducted a landmark investigation into homelessness. It was a lengthy examination that delivered a compelling report of over 500 pages. It was also an outstanding example of cross-party cooperation towards a common and I would say loftier goal than the cut and thrust of partisan politics. What is perhaps lost in the history of that inquiry is that it was my friend and former member Rod Barton of the Transport Matters Party who initiated that inquiry.
Also in the last Parliament we saw the unprecedented disruption of the COVID pandemic and associated lockdowns. In that confused environment it was the President of this chamber who kept his focus on the most disadvantaged people here in Melbourne. When the Salvos cafe just down the hill closed due to the restrictions, our President pushed forward a solution that not only kept our wonderful parliamentary staff working but also provided hundreds of thousands of meals for people in need.
Food charities in Victoria are struggling as families are increasingly battling with mortgage and rental stress and the general cost-of-living pressures – as we know, there is a crisis about the general cost of living. Whilst much of the broader financial settings that lead to this problem are beyond the control of state government, alleviating some of those stresses is not. In Doveton, in the south-eastern suburbs, the demand for the school breakfast program has tripled. Demand for the services of Foodbank has increased by over 25 per cent in the past few years. Members do not have to walk more than 50 metres from the bubble of this grand building to be confronted with severe disadvantage. Even in my short time here I have seen an explosion in the number of homeless people up this end of town. This is an opportunity to help.
I read some criticism of this motion in the media over the weekend. What I read comes across as combative and misinformed. It is disappointing that rather than examining what is being proposed here objectively and on merit, some have resorted immediately to culture war rhetoric and the good old whataboutism. It is disappointing that rather than addressing this motion for what it is, it was taken as an opportunity to take cheap shots and push a false narrative against recreational hunters. I was also concerned at the openly simplistic conflation of the issue of homelessness and drug harm reduction. It might have seemed like a clever throwaway line to a friendly journo, but further stigmatising the homeless and grossly oversimplifying the complexity of homelessness really helps nobody but subeditors.
Recreational hunters pride themselves on sharing the spoil of their hunts. On the social media of my deer hunting friends you are far more likely to find pictures of the sausages, smallgoods, lasagnes, jerky, biltong and scores of other delicacies they craft with harvested venison than you are to find a grip-and-grin with a dead animal. Experiences overseas suggest that programs like Hunters for the Hungry encourage hunters to take an extra animal to share with those less fortunate, and this is what we would love to get into in Victoria.
But this is not what we are talking about today. What we are talking about today is using animals that are currently being shot to waste by the government to feed the less fortunate. Let us be blunt: those animals are going to get killed anyway; that is just the reality. This question is not about whether they should be killed, it is about whether they should be wasted. I commend my motion to the house.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:49): I thank member for Eastern Victoria Region Mr Bourman for raising this interesting and worthwhile issue. There are two key reasons why I think this proposal is worth further exploration: one is economic and the other is environmental. I want to begin by framing up my argument in this way because there are some who argue these two things cannot mutually exist. For Labor, though, they can and must mutually exist.
First, the economic argument: without a doubt the cost of living is the single most pressing issue for families in our community, but it is an issue that does not just impact outer regional Victoria. We know that food insecurity is increasingly being felt across our state and our nation. In fact we should refer to it as food inequality. Foodbank’s latest hunger report shows that an estimated 3.7 million Australian households have experienced food insecurity over the past 12 months, many of them for the first time. As Mr Bourman notes in his motion, with more and more families struggling to put food on the table, they are increasingly turning to charity. That includes Western District Food Share, which fortunately has another year of funding thanks to the advocacy of regional Labor MPs.
This incredible local organisation supports families experiencing food insecurity across the south-west region, from Casterton to Camperdown to Portland and in between. I had the pleasure of visiting the Western District Food Share warehouse in Warrnambool shortly after I was elected. On one hand, I was devastated to hear just how many schools and other organisations and individual families are on a daily basis using that service. On the other hand, I was blown away and uplifted by the amazing work Amanda Hennessy and her small team achieve. They are supported by a dedicated group of volunteers, some of whom have been helping out at Food Share for years. The well-organised donated food stocks, the cleanliness and well-run logistics are obvious the moment you walk in. I am grateful that their outreach is continuing to grow as they meet increased demand. Every week their army of dedicated volunteers redistribute surplus food from local bakeries, producers and supermarkets. Importantly, support also comes via generous donations from the local community. Many social clubs across the region support Food Share, and I can tell you the Christmas hampers reaching people at an often difficult time of the year are something special due to local support from many organisations.
Importantly, Western District Food Share helps to deliver our school breakfast program at schools across the south-west. We know how important it is for each child to start their learning day. A humble mug of Milo, a slice of Vegemite toast or a single piece of fruit can make a real difference to a young hungry tummy. It is why I am so proud of the more than $39 million this government has invested to expand community food relief across Victoria since 2020, including in the Western District. In the 12 months to June this year Western District Food Share provided support to more than 35,000 locals. Of course we need to make sure that any donations from the public, including deer meat, and we will go on to deer meat, are safe and healthy and go through rigorous checks. I trust that any future change in policy will ensure that these safeguards and many more are included in the thinking.
Feral deer have emerged as one of the state’s most serious environmental threats, and that is the environmental issue that I would like to raise, in particular the devastating impact hard-hoofed animals have had on our continent. Australia is lucky enough to enjoy some of the richest biodiversity on earth. In his book Dark Emu Bruce Pascoe writes that the special softness of our landscape was perfectly pliable for agriculture by First Nations people and perfectly in keeping with the nature of our native animals, because, uniquely, all of our animals and native fauna are soft-footed. It was not until colonisation that hard-hoofed animals ever set foot, or rather hoof, on our soil. Indeed all of the feral deer now living in Australia were first introduced in the 19th and 20th centuries, when English settlers brought them over hoping to make the bush a little bit more like the countryside at home.
Since then, these species have unknowingly wrought large-scale damage and destruction on the land. Preferring to live in grassy woodlands, many deer have taken up residence in our precious eucalypt and rainforest areas in the Otways – where I spent much of my youth camping, driving, hiking and holidaying – areas which are now infested with hordes of feral deer. In fact feral deer have emerged as one of the state’s most serious environmental threats. Their impact on our environment is felt in a multitude of ways. Their hard hooves can damage the soil, leading to erosion and damaging local wetlands and streams. As herbivores they destroy native vegetation by nibbling on new shoots and they spread pests and weeds through the areas they range, forcing natives to contend with even more introduced species. They also provide challenges to farmers through the introduction of those weeds and sometimes the transference of disease to livestock.
A recent report from the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions sought to put a price tag on the impact, estimating $91 million worth of damage, mainly to agricultural pastures. Thankfully, the motion we are discussing here today has the real potential to help limit this damage. At the same time, it is important to note that recreational hunting alone has not been proven effective in preventing or controlling deer population growth. Instead, long-term strategic planning is needed. In 2020 the government released its deer control strategy, providing the first steps towards a clear and coordinated approach to managing deer and their impacts in Victoria. Supporting the delivery of the strategy, the government has invested more than $22 million in funding. It also builds on work being done at the national level, recognising that the threat of invasive species rarely respects interstate borders.
As I said at the outset, I believe this motion has two potential benefits for Victoria: one is economic and the other is environmental. In isolation this motion will not come close to solving the cost-of-living crisis, nor can it undo the damage of feral deer on our state’s environment. But I do think it has the potential to provide some meaningful help, and as such I am pleased to support it.
Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:57): I am pleased to rise to put the Nationals and the Liberals names on this particular motion by Mr Bourman, motion 239 on the notice paper today. I would like to start by addressing the problem and the issue that Mr Bourman has raised, and that is food insecurity and the ever-increasing need and struggle for everyday Victorians to put food on their table. As Mr Bourman has said, this is not the catch-all solution to this problem, but it is certainly worth investigating on merit.
When we look at Foodbank Victoria – it has been quoted before and I would like to do so and put on record my sincere thanks to David McNamara and all of his team right across Victoria for the amazing work they do to support individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table. David McNamara recently said, in 2023, ‘This is the worst I’ve seen it in 15 years.’ There are many programs, and we certainly know the importance of those outreach programs and food distribution centres. I acknowledge that the current government made a commitment to a Foodbank distribution centre in the Latrobe Valley back in 2018. I think only now we are seeing advertising for that food distribution centre, so five years later it is coming on – much needed.
Let us look at some of the statistics around food poverty. We see in the Latrobe Valley, for example, 66 per cent of the population identified that they are experiencing food insecurity, with hunger nearly double that of the state average. Any average above zero is tragic, but Latrobe Valley is certainly experiencing that in manifold ways.
We know that at the Morwell Neighbourhood House 25 people present every single day to use the food pantry and support services. We know that the Enjoy Church, which is also based in Morwell, provide the Re.store pantry, and they have seen an exponential growth in use of the service over even the last two years. They partner with Foodbank Victoria to supply over 200 families and individuals at the open shop that they hold every month. We see that Wellington shire and the food pantry there are now delivering to 100 families, both in Yarram and Golden Beach. We see that in Bass Coast a recent survey provided evidence that nearly 10 per cent of adults experience food insecurity – ‘with hunger’ was the question – and that is almost three times the state average. The proportion of parents who rely on unhealthy but low-cost food – here is the thing, low-cost food – was 23 per cent, nearly 24 per cent, which is double the state’s average. So we can really see the bite that is sincerely affecting many people in Victoria. We also know that the manager of PICAL at Phillip Island has been relating to us that the cost-of-living pressures on those households budgets mean that food insecurity is gaining more and more, and I could go on.
I will just digress slightly from the motion but keep on the issue in relation to counselling. Of course when people come in and request some support and request that counselling, they just cannot meet the cost of bills; costs are exceeding income. We know that the Financial Counselling Victoria service has requested from the current government $1.5 million to provide 300 financial counsellors in addition to their 300 that already exist across the state. Now, these people do an amazing job, and it shows the absolute need in our regions, so we would support that in its entirety.
To the deer, deer are nature’s survivors, without a doubt. They were introduced as a species. Victoria is paradise to deer, and we have seen that their number has grown from, once upon a time, a few thousand to now over 1 million. This has a cost. It has an environmental cost, it has a social cost, it has a cultural cost and it has an economic cost. To drill down into some of those costs, indeed a report released by Frontier Economics last year talks about a cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion over the next 30 years unless we can control our deer population.
Particularly too now driving around Gippsland, as we do, many of the car yards and the panelbeaters deal with the effects of the deer population, and it can be quite damaging and very dangerous for people to drive our roads, not only at dawn and dusk but at other times. We know that socially deer can have a serious impact on the peri-urban areas. Not only are they just in the highlands in Gippsland, now they are encroaching on those peri-urban areas surrounding Melbourne as well as our regional towns. They certainly can destroy fences, and as I have said, they have a very serious implication for road safety.
Culturally, we know that they can impact soil and damage sensitive native plant species, and they certainly can attack cultural sites. Economically, they are grazing on crops and grazing on pastures, orchards, vineyards and market gardens. They are survivors, and they will do anything that they need to to survive. We have seen that in recent times. Post the fires we have seen around 4000 deer culled, so there are not only the recreational hunters but there is also the culling of deer and what to do with that meat, and that is the subject of our debate today.
One of the concerns that my Eastern Victoria colleague the member for Gippsland East Tim Bull has raised on a number of occasions is the fact that when Parks Victoria has employed shooters, some of the time – and these are all licensed, professional shooters – there have been incidents where they have shot deer on the edge of Lake Tyers in East Gippsland. These are pristine waters used for holiday-makers and fishers to a great extent, yet these culled deer are being left to disintegrate in full view. Not only is this an amenity issue but it is also a health issue with that degradation of those lovely waters. We call on the government, when it is implementing these culling programs, to make sure that it is doing it in a responsible way. The department’s own environmental guidelines talk about ‘target animals will not be controlled near waterways’ et cetera, and Parks Victoria says that shooters will avoid shooting on wetlands and waterways. Let us make sure that that is implemented and we do not see that continue.
There is a whole raft of regulations that surround and include the deer control strategy, which was implemented in 2020. One of the current regulations that we see is that PrimeSafe regulates the commercial processing of wild deer for human and also pet food, which is a separate discussion and an important one to have. But it is necessary to look at what is going to be used with that culling. These deer are a problem in our environment and for our communities. We certainly endorse the continued enjoyment of hunters to do recreational hunting, but once that meat is on the ground, how can it be purposefully used? I have identified the need, particularly in my Eastern Victoria electorate – the need is there. This is a pronged attack, this is not a total solution, but it has merit.
What I would say in relation to the motion is it calls on the government to commit to further discussions regarding the delivery of a pilot program to enable the commercial processing of wild venison and then donation to food charities – no problem there. Mr Bourman, I am sure, has had conversations with the government, but what we want to see is clarity across the board for – (Time expired)
Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (11:07): Today I rise in support of this motion to the viability of utilising excess game meat for food charities. This concept is brilliant in its simplicity. This week we will be debating the government’s Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Bill 2023. That bill, and indeed the second-reading speech, places a high emphasis on the responsibility we have in embracing circular economies, and I concur. This pilot has the potential to become a self-sustaining economy that supports two government programs concurrently by utilising what is effectively a by-product to sustain a supply shortage in another sector.
Wild deer in Victoria have a detrimental impact on biodiversity, water quality, public safety, agricultural assets and Aboriginal cultural heritage. Acknowledging this, the previous Andrews Labor government supported the implementation of new eradication and control measures. The Peri-urban Deer Control Plan 2021–2026 was the first of three region-specific plans developed to address the state’s deer control response. The specific plan initially encompassed areas east of Melbourne where deer populations had become problematic. Some hunters on the ground now report the populations in these areas are reaching plague proportions. A key objective of this plan was to establish the most cost-effective methods for management and the most efficient target areas in which to focus the plan’s efforts. This initiative has been a constantly evolving process that will need to be continually tested and adjusted accordingly. The original plan even states that:
The Plan will build on existing control efforts but with more strategic coordination of future control work. Both government and community will need to work together to achieve the vision for this Plan.
This five-year Plan is adaptive to respond to new information and will enable continuous improvement.
As such, there is already provision within the plan to alter or add additional considerations and programs. I believe this is the perfect pilot to implement in order to test this for viability as an ongoing solution to the food shortages reflected in the increasing demand from charity groups. We all know the current cost-of-living crisis is pushing many of our most vulnerable community members into homelessness and families to seek alternative food and shelter arrangements. This already dire situation is projected to get worse as inflation continues to rise and goods remain at a premium. It is not often that a circular economy solution presents itself in such a tidy, obvious and mutually beneficial manner. I think anyone who disagrees with this motion is guilty of politicising an issue that has no truly objectionable grounds if they claim to have Victorians’ best interests at heart.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:11): I rise to speak on member for Eastern Victoria Mr Bourman’s motion that in broad nature refers to a proposed ‘hunters for the hungry’ program. Specifically, motion 239 in Mr Bourman’s name:
(1) notes that:
(a) around 150,000 game deer are shot by recreational hunters every year;
(b) an impediment to Victora’s 51,000 licensed deer hunters taking more deer is finding a use for the extra venison;
(c) many food charities are struggling with increased demand and many families are approaching some of these charities to keep food on their plates;
(d) there are existing programs in Victoria and other states that allow meat sourced from wild animals to be procured for human consumption;
(2) calls on the government to commit to further discussions regarding the delivery of a pilot program to enable the commercial processing of wild-shot venison to be harvested and donated to food charities on selected government programs and whether funding could be provided for:
(a) the training of accredited volunteers; and
(b) the necessary infrastructure, such as racks on vehicles and cool rooms.
There are a variety of programs across the world that deliver similar items, and they have similar philosophies. There are programs that exist in the United States, run by various states such as Maine, Texas and Georgia, a whole range of them built similarly to one another. What do these programs look like? Basically, to put it in simple terms, the program is one where the hunters go out and hunt wild animals – such as deer – recreationally, and any surplus meats that come into their possession from hunting can then be passed over for donations to food banks and charities. Mr Bourman is proposing a pilot program of sorts to test the waters of whether such a program could work in Victoria.
There is a lot of potential in this motion for a lot of initiatives, from commercial potential or even just the expansion of existing programs to government programs and using the resources of the government to promote them. Mr Bourman has proposed that surplus meat from government culling initiatives throughout Victoria, but primarily Wilsons Promontory National Park, can be donated, particularly during the high cull season. That surplus can be donated to a ‘hunters for the hungry’ program, with the collected surplus given to food banks and selected charities that are willing to take it. The end goal is unknown, but it seems to be commercial. The pilot is not the end in itself. This has never been done in Victoria, so it is an interesting concept. How would it work in practice?
Back in my day, in 1985, I was a jackaroo in New South Wales. Although we are talking about venison here, the kangaroos were culled on a large scale up there. On the Hay Plains – if you can imagine how big that would be – they set up camps to effectively try a cull process and sell the meat commercially. One of the things that came out of that was that it became a bit selective. As you know, the older the animal is, the tougher the meat can be. When you are shooting kangaroos, predominantly it is done at night, and with lot of that work, you cannot determine the age, size or sex of an animal, you can only see between its eyes. A lot of animals were knocked off during that process, unfortunately. One of the problems around that culling process was that given the remoteness of the area, there was no power. You needed remote cool rooms to look after the meat once it was processed, and if you had generators that failed under those circumstances, it certainly did not provide a good outcome for the meat.
All the leftovers from the cull itself, what would happen to them? My experience was that they dug some pretty big holes and pushed all the remains into them, but I am sure given the requirements today and the standards that are around, a lot of this stuff could be overcome. My guess is that recreational hunters across the state would be able to donate their excess supply of meat from leisure hunts to various organisations casually or regularly, but then again it is open to experimentation.
The programs conducted over in the United States allow for recreational hunters to hunt and donate wild animals. By Mr Bourman’s own estimation, over 120,000 game deer were killed in 2022. That is a lot of excess meat, a lot of which will end up going to waste under the current system. Mr Bourman made a clear and really good point in an article I read recently: there is only so much meat you can fit in your fridge. This proposal suggests wild-shot venison from hunters can be donated to a program similar to that in the United States, which the government should set up as an alternative to the meat just going to waste. According to the Guardian newspaper, a similar concept exists in the New Zealand North Island towns of Taupō and Tūrangi. It began last year – and I believe it is where Mr Bourman got the inspiration for the idea to use surplus meat from a deer cull – and it has worked. According to the same article, as of May this year our Kiwi hunter friends have donated more than 4.5 tonnes of venison mince to food banks, and this is exclusively meat that hunters have said they would have fed to their families. It must be high quality. On top of this, I want to thank Mr Bourman for his invitation to all members of this place and the other for a lunch hosted with the support of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Victoria) – SSAA Victoria – as this motion is debated.
We know that with the cost-of-living crisis Victorians and Aussies are facing there are food insecurity issues. Those under the age of 45 are earning a low income. Victorians need reliable food sources. That means quality food, not scraps or something they cannot trust. This goes to the heart of section (1) of the motion. This week I attended the 50th anniversary of the Port Phillip Community Group’s founding. I am sure that my colleagues in this place from Southern Metro have heard about it. One of the main functions of the Port Phillip Community Group is the provision of a food bank, and this was never more vital than during COVID. The Share the Food report of the Port Phillip Community Group from April 2020 to March 2021, during the height of COVID, talks about what they achieved. 16,765 parcels of food were packed by volunteers. This is $1,140,000 worth of food. As the community struggled with unemployment during COVID or their mental health made it difficult to visit the supermarket and much more, the Share the Food program could support them thanks to the City of Port Phillip and others. The Port Phillip Community Group packed food relief that met families’ needs, but their resources were limited, and now due to the cost-of-living demands it is bad again. They are seeing an increased demand for their services. Imagine how services like this could benefit from initiatives like this that are mainstream. It is worth seeing if this could be a solution.
One of the biggest issues flagged about similar programs overseas is the concern around health and safety standards. Hunters are donating meat from wild animals that are hunted in leisure to food banks. Some overseas raised concerns about whether it was viable and even safe to run such a program if wild meat was being donated, potentially from diseased animals unknown to the hunter or the consumer. But, as I said yesterday, we do not know what we do not know. Why not investigate and see what can be achieved? Who knows – through rigorous testing on particular game animals, perhaps it could be as safe as farmed animals. But we do not know, so let us investigate it. That is why this motion is important, and I commend Mr Bourman for bringing this pragmatic and principled motion to the floor.
Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:19): I rise to support Mr Bourman’s motion and congratulate him on bringing the motion forward. We struggle with the problem of feral deer in many of our national parks and areas where we have got to look after the environment, and deer are presenting a significant problem. The Invasive Species Council states that deer are having serious impacts on many areas of Victoria and that:
… deer are emerging as one of Australia’s most serious environmental and agricultural threats and Victoria has possibly the largest deer population in Australia, estimated at more than a million animals.
The deer population is expanding rapidly and invading new areas. With a lack of predators, occurrence in vast and remote areas and great habitat flexibility, deer are set to become one of Victoria’s and ultimately Australia’s most damaging pest animal invaders.
…
There are now four wild species of deer in Victoria: sambar, red, fallow and hog deer. Of those, sambar is the by far the most populous and widespread, now occurring throughout most of eastern Victoria.
…
Deer are having serious impacts on peri-urban areas such as outer eastern Melbourne and regional townships where their presence can be intimidating. They destroy fences and gardens and are becoming a serious road safety issue. Irresponsible deer hunting activity can be very distressing for peri-urban residents and recreational users of public land.
So it is vitally important that we utilise the licensed deer hunters of Victoria. As Mr Bourman’s motion suggests, 150,000 game deer are shot by recreational hunters every year, but there is a major impediment to Victoria’s 51,000 licensed deer hunters taking more deer, and the impediment is finding a use for that extra venison.
This motion addresses the other issue that we are confronted with daily, which is the cost of living and the problem that food charities are having in feeding those people that cannot afford to put bread on the table, let alone venison. This does offer an opportunity for properly processed meat, a high-protein source, to be used by families in need, and that is a very good thing. So Mr Bourman is proposing that there be a pilot program to enable the commercial processing of wild shot venison so it can be harvested and donated to food charities on selected government programs, and hopefully maybe some funding could be provided for the training of accredited volunteers and the necessary infrastructure such as racks on vehicles and coolrooms.
I do know that the licensed deer hunters who have a special licence to be able to go onto agricultural properties to reduce the feral population of not only deer but also kangaroos are very well regulated and very highly skilled and, I must say, provide a very good service to many farmers who are impacted by this.
I would also say there is a lot of action by the government to destroy the brumby population in Victoria. Quite frankly, the deer population does far more damage. In the rutting season they ringbark trees, and they breed far more prolifically than one horse, lucky to produce a live foal in a year.
So we can reduce the deer population but make use of the meat. We do not need Parks Victoria or whoever is going to be responsible for going out and reducing the deer population on their feral control program to just leave this meat source on the ground, because all that does is attract wild dogs, wild cats, foxes and other feral animals that are then provided with a meat source. This proposal, with licensed shooters being encouraged to reduce the feral deer population and then make use of the meat in a very productive and resourceful way, is a very good idea and one that should be taken up by the government. We might see a better outcome in our parks and forests if we were to take up Mr Bourman’s proposal, and at the same time the food charities would have another source of meat that is of course at no cost but is high protein and would be very useful in their production of food for those that need charitable food donations.
I must say I am familiar with the deer hunting operations that happen in the UK. Deer are not seen as vermin in any way in that area, and it is a very successful system of hunting. The meat is all used, and it is a highly regarded meat source for top-end restaurants as well. Deer are, in that area, a very useful economic tool in many agricultural areas that cannot farm in any other way – up in the high country of Scotland, for example.
I am very supportive of Mr Bourman’s motion. I hope the government take up the suggestion that we embark on a pilot program to enable the commercial processing of wild-shot venison to be harvested and donated to food charities. I think that would be a wonderful thing, and at the same time we would help to reduce the population of deer, which are doing much to destroy our native forests and areas that we hold so dear.
Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:27): The Greens are not supporting this motion. Whilst it is an admirable attempt to shoehorn the interests of the shooting lobby into one of the biggest issues facing our community today – the cost of living – it is a yeah-nah from the Greens on this one. Some of the measures that are actually being called for to tackle cost of living and food security are starkly different from this morning’s unappetising serving suggestion from the shooters. One of our largest charities, Anglicare Australia, which runs community pantries and provides emergency food parcels, spends its social capital strongly advocating for people and families doing it tough, and it is specifically not calling for food donations – it is calling for an increase to social security payments to at least bring recipients above the poverty line and it is backing a universal basic income.
One of the solutions that we can progress in this Parliament to the rising cost of putting food on the table is to stop the supermarkets from price gouging. Prices for food and other essentials are now through the roof, and the supermarket duopoly continues to post record profits. It is obscene. When did profiteering from essential items become remotely acceptable in our community? The government has the power to act to stop price gouging, but it is currently choosing not to do so. The Greens will keep pushing to cut the cost of living and to make food affordable for everyone.
With regard to food costs, previous Victorian governments have stepped up to control egregious price rises. In the 1980s the Department of Consumer Affairs had a responsibility to deter excessive price rises, and the Cain Labor government in the 1980s tackled excessive price rises by setting a target or ceiling on grocery price rises, backed by legislation, which allowed the prices minister to set prices on declared grocery items. This was credited with Melbourne going from having the highest price increases in the country to some of the lowest in the space of just 12 months.
In relation to deer, which are an invasive species that causes damage to our environment, last year Labor had the perfect opportunity to address this issue in the Victorian Deer Control Strategy. Instead they once again caved into pressure from the shooting lobby, which has a vested interest in continuing populations of deer at high levels so that they can shoot them. So there are still more than 1 million roaming Victoria, damaging our ecosystems, our agriculture and occasionally, when they get really confused, people’s living rooms.
Modernising our wildlife laws is a necessary step so that they can actually protect wildlife.
Bev McArthur interjected.
Katherine COPSEY: I will repeat it for Mrs McArthur, whose interjection just covered up my solution to this problem: modernising our wildlife laws is a necessary step so that they actually protect wildlife. Right now these laws consider native wildlife to be either a resource or a pest, while introduced species, like deer, receive protection. Where population control measures are required, these should be conducted by experienced professionals based on a scientific assessment of what is needed to protect our state’s valuable and unique biodiversity, not the cut-lunch commandos whose idea of a fun weekend is killing animals. Amateur shooters roaming around close to population centres can create a pretty significant community safety issue. It impacts residents’ amenity and wellbeing, and it plays havoc with the use of their neighbourhoods and their wellbeing, as we heard during the committee sessions into the duck-shooting inquiry.
The game shooting fraternity really likes to have it both ways. They say they are keeping populations down, but in actual fact they are lobbying hard to maintain those populations. This ‘let them eat deer’ motion is just another fig leaf for the interests of the shooting lobby, and that same fraternity has spent decades trying to justify barbaric recreational shooting by saying that shooters already use every bit of the animal. This motion simply puts lie to that narrative.
Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (11:31): My staff put my first line on this motion as: ‘The first thing I have to say about Mr Bourman’s motion is, deer me.’
Jeff Bourman: Oh, dear.
Georgie PURCELL: Oh, dear. While I commend his apparent willingness to help the vulnerable populations of Victoria and those experiencing hardship in what is an undeniable cost-of-living crisis, there are many issues with this motion. What I would consider to be a more valuable and practical use of our time in this place – Mr Bourman already mentioned my comments – would be to look into more meaningful longer term reforms to help those groups, including drug harm reduction, addressing the scourge of family violence and affordable housing in this state. Of course I am in support of any program that genuinely supports individuals experiencing homelessness or requiring government support to meet their basic needs in order to live. Feeding them the offcuts of deer seems like a convenience for shooters and for the industry, and quite frankly people in need deserve much better solutions than this.
As I have raised many times, the shooting of animals of any kind in Victoria is not sufficiently regulated. It is geographically not possible. This motion could have focused on better regulation for the whole industry before seeking special consideration for what is essentially a human health risk. Those experiencing homelessness or hardship deserve more than the food safety risks that come with an animal killed, transported and stored in who knows what conditions before reaching their final destination. And let us not forget that deer are not a classified pest species. They were introduced to Victoria specifically as a game animal in the mid-1880s. 123,376 game deer were shot by recreational hunters in 2022, a 49 per cent increase on the long-term average. There is no closed season, and for all but one, there is no bag limit. It has been reported that there were many shot and left to rot, yet the consistent narrative from shooters is that they do this in order to utilise the whole animal. We want to know: which one is it? It seems to change frequently based on what suits their narrative, and I would suggest a better solution might be to stop shooting in surplus and instead focus on solutions that truly reduce populations of non-native species in the long term, because shooting has consistently shown us that it does not do this.
The Game Management Authority self-describes as ‘an independent authority responsible for the regulation of game hunting in Victoria’, regulating through ‘education, research and enforcement to achieve responsible and sustainable game hunting in Victoria’. It explains ethical hunting of deer on its website, purporting that:
… laws and regulations have been introduced to ensure that hunting is conducted in a safe, responsible and sustainable manner …
But there is nothing sustainable about shooting an animal and leaving them to rot. This is not the solution. In terms of respecting killed game animals, the GMA outlines that once a deer is killed:
… it should be properly handled to minimise waste. Bring out as much meat as you can and ensure that the carcass is not left near a road track or a waterway. Never shoot an animal if you know you cannot carry it out. Avoid wasting a valuable game resource. Prepare game quickly and never leave game to waste.
It would appear that Mr Bourman’s motion is in complete contradiction with what the authority, the GMA, requires, again highlighting my point that this is an issue of regulation and shooter behaviour, not helping the homeless. Deer are also completely unprotected on private property, meaning that no permit is required to shoot and consume deer where they are considered a nuisance. Only commercial harvesters can use deer for commercial purposes, and they must comply with the PrimeSafe requirements and standards for the hygienic production of wild game meat for human consumption.
We all have lived experience of a global pandemic. Many do not want to acknowledge this, but its root cause was animals – the conditions that they were kept in and their consumption by humans. We are all aware of the undisputed fact that wildlife populations are the most significant source of emergent infectious diseases that impact human health. This year the CSIRO reported that:
Australia is currently free of many animal pathogens detected elsewhere in the world, such as those causing Foot and Mouth Disease or Lumpy Skin Disease …
However:
… exotic diseases remain a major threat to Australia’s livestock industry as well as to human and wildlife health.
Their research found that:
… ongoing monitoring to determine the presence of pathogens in wildlife is crucial to identifying … and preventing future disease outbreaks.
The CSIRO further states that wild deer populations in Australia currently pose a disease risk and further increases in size and distribution could increase that risk. However, data about the infection status of Australian wild deer populations are not clear, with only six studies reported before 2014, all of them identified in localised surveys conducted 41 to 56 years ago. The CSIRO explains in detail how deer are infected by and susceptible to many diseases, some of which are zoonotic, meaning that they can also affect humans. They summarise that:
… high wild deer densities … may cause concern for human health via the transmission of infectious agents through direct contact, the consumption of venison, or contamination of the environment (particularly water) with faeces or urine.
Recent research from the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions also reveals that the risk posed by deer as hosts of exotic disease is very real.
In the United States most donated game meat is deer, but the presence of ammunition-derived metallic lead fragments in hunted meat is a big concern over there. Despite the risks involved, the vast majority of donated meat is not inspected beforehand so that contaminated meat can be discarded. Studies show that there is an alarming lack of food safety standards and that poses a significant risk to consumers who may already be disproportionately affected by elevated blood lead levels from lead exposure.
With regard to donating food, the Department of Health in Victoria considers meat a high-risk food. The national standard operating procedure on the ground shooting of deer explicitly states that care must be taken when handling feral deer carcasses because they harvest zoonotic diseases such as Q fever, salmonella and others which can affect humans and other animals.
Let us be clear: the majority of deer are shot to cull them, because we view them as an inconvenience that affects agriculture and economic interests. It is true that in some areas deer impact biodiversity, water quality and Aboriginal cultural heritage, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impact of deer is bigger than the elephant in the room – that is, clearing land for animal agriculture. If deer are such a problem, then why are we farming them in this state? Here in Victoria there are several deer farms that sell meat to the public, so one could deduce that perhaps shooters are not treating deer with the respect they deserve as part of GMA’s commitment to sustainable hunting and instead are shooting for fun and leaving animals to rot and, finally, wanting an easy solution. This government should not invest any more of its bucks to chop up diseased carcasses to feed to the already vulnerable population of Victoria.
While I note this motion is in relation to government programs, recreational hunting alone has not proved effective in preventing deer population growth or range expansion. Accredited volunteer shooters are not generally deployed to achieve rapid knockdowns in deer populations, as this is evidenced to be more efficiently implemented using specialist contract shooting teams.
Before we go asking the government to commit any dough to this proposal, let us have a think about the many ways in which it could be better spent, including on community food relief programs that are healthy and disease and risk free, which I note are asking for donations of products with a long shelf life, and fresh fruit and vegetables.
It is clear that I cannot support this motion today, as there are simply too many risks involved. Vulnerable people and those experiencing homelessness deserve so much better than this. It is not apparent that the intention of this motion is to genuinely support those in need. It seeks to expand deer shooting and is using those experiencing hardship as its scapegoat. We can do so much better for people and for animals in this place.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:41): I stand to support the motion put forward by Mr Bourman today. I have many, many conversations about deer in my region of Eastern Victoria. It does not matter whether I am talking to farmers or talking to First Nations or talking to people who are associated with environmental groups, it is a constant conversation. I was up in Bonang the other week talking to a farmer who had a serious investment in the electrification of fences to keep deer out of the property. I talk to other people working in planting in South Gippsland – Landcare and other groups – putting in plants only to see deer come through and mow them down. I will note Mr Bourman did mention that this motion should not be getting lost in all the other parts of the discussion, but I think it is worth raising them because there are a lot of moving parts with everything around deer and a lot of impacts.
I often talk about sustainability, which might be a bit too much of a word for some to want to hear in here. But even if we call it balance, Ms Ermacora made a really good comment before about the balance between environment and economy. It is really important that those two work together, and where they can work together we get a really, really good outcome, because economically when we do not value our natural resources, that economic productivity or that economic surplus coming from them will cease to exist.
I was down at Mallacoota last week at the abalone factory. That is really important. As an industry and a sector, they clearly understand the importance of managing a resource well and seeing that continued profitability. There are the local jobs and the families they are supporting as the biggest employer in town. They are supplying not only Australia but international markets, because we have looked after an industry where other nations wiped it out to a point where it did not exist. That sustainability or that balance between environment and economy is really, really important, because we want to be economically strong and we want to see a value on our environment. We value it through the multitude of ways we can get value from our natural environment, whether that is food in an agricultural sense or whether that is any other resource or whether that is tourism and people getting out into nature and enjoying it.
As I said, I support this motion, but I do just want to acknowledge the complexities involved and why it is important that the discussion is had around it. Mr Berger commented earlier on getting into remote areas, energy for coolrooms, distribution, abattoirs and having the capacity to do the work, but I think this is something we all need to work together on. Ms Bath and I often disagree in our contributions on a number of things, but I think her contribution that focused on the issue of deer today I would in large part agree with. So that is good. Where we have got an issue of sustainability or balance or whatever it might be, let us put the politics aside, particularly with what Mr Bourman is talking about – supporting people in need, something like that. Where there are ways that we can work through and get an outcome that benefits everyone, as I said before, whether it is farmers or whether it is our natural environment or our First Nations people, if we find ways that are a win-win for everybody involved that is exactly what we should be doing.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:45): I also rise to speak on Mr Bourman’s motion. Effectively what this motion is seeking to do is to allow more use of a natural resource in Victoria, which is deer. They are an introduced species. It is quite an interesting solution being proposed here, and I am very glad to hear that the government is interested in looking at it. We have an environmental and economic problem of too many deer in Victoria. They are causing problems for farmers, and they are causing problems for the environment. We have hunters who voluntarily want to go out and hunt these deer and use the resource but, because of government getting in the way, at the moment they are not allowed to distribute that resource; they are only allowed to hunt it for themselves. Obviously for a family there is only so much deer they can eat and store, and this seeks to look at how we might enable the distribution of that protein.
In the motion it is for the purposes of charity. Ultimately I would like to see this go further and look at commercial uses. Maybe these hunters could even, God forbid, make money out of it and sell it to people and make gourmet products. If there is a way for them to make money out of helping the environment by getting rid of excess deer, why not do that? Why not look at that? I acknowledge there are problems with food safety, and they clearly need to be looked at. But as Mr Bourman pointed out, New Zealand has looked at this and manages to do it. In the United States they manage to do it. I do not see any reason why it should not be possible. We should be able to have the technology and procedures to manage the distribution of this.
I am very strongly in support of this, and I am very happy to see that the government is willing to look at it and see whether it might be something that can work. On that basis, I will strongly support this motion.
Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:47): I rise to also support Mr Bourman’s motion. I think that this motion makes a great deal of sense. Deer are an introduced species, as we know. They are not a natural species in Victoria, and people seem to have no problem with shooting brumbies and just leaving them to rot. The Greens have not stood up for the brumbies. The Animal Justice Party barely mention the brumbies, and yet here they are going to oppose the shooting of deer.
Deer do a great deal of damage to our environment. They are an introduced species that wallows and they damage the environment significantly. They ringbark trees with their antlers during the rutting season. I remember a few years ago when the government were proposing a ban on cattle in the high country and they produced a photograph that they said was of damage caused by cattle wallowing in the high country. The mountain cattleman recognised the spot where the photograph had been taken, and it was damage caused by wallowing by deer, not wallowing by cattle.
I recently attended a forum that was run by Mr Mulholland. It was a fantastic forum in Wallan. We had over 400 sporting shooters there. They were opposed to the government’s proposal to ban duck shooting and the Animal Justice Party’s proposal to ban duck shooting.
Harriet Shing: The government has not proposed anything.
Wendy LOVELL: Well, a government-dominated committee made a majority report that recommended the end of duck shooting. We are hoping that the government as a whole has more sense than those people who were on that committee.
Sporting shooters make a great contribution to our economy in regional Victoria. If you look at a report called the Economic Contribution of Recreational Hunting in Victoria, a report that was done by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions in 2020, it shows that sporting shooting contributes $356 million to our gross state product, and it also supports 3138 jobs. Deer hunting is the vast majority of that. Deer hunting is a $201 million contribution to the state and supports 1761 jobs, most of those in regional Victoria, and we cannot afford to lose those jobs. If this motion was supported, we would see even more people visiting our region and supporting more jobs and contributing more to our regional economy.
The report goes on to say on the average trips per hunter that 55 per cent of hunters take six or more trips to the country to participate in their sport, and 45 per cent of them take between one and six trips. There are many reasons for those trips, and I will not go into those, because I need to leave some time for Mr Galea. But I would say that this is a sensible motion that will actually support more hunting activity, provide more opportunities for recreational sport shooters and also support the homeless to get access to more meat.
Venison is a very good meat. It is not my meat of choice, but many people pay a lot of money for venison in restaurants – a huge amount of money. I would just encourage Ms Purcell to also have a look at this report that I mentioned, which was conducted by Rendell and McGuckian, RMCG, in 2020. She will see that the vast majority of the sporting shooting activity happens in our region in Northern Victoria, and this makes a tremendous contribution to our region. Ms Purcell should get on board and support recreational shooters and their sport, particularly when it comes to deer – an introduced species, not a native species. This is an activity where sporting shooters actually shoot to kill; they do not leave animals maimed. What we are seeing from this current government is aerial shooting of brumbies – aerial shooting that does not necessarily directly kill. It leaves animals dying, bleeding out in agony because they are not humanely disposed of. Recreational shooters would never allow that.
Harriet Shing: On a point of order, President, Ms Lovell has strayed into areas that do not actually relate at all to the species that are being contemplated by Mr Bourman’s motion, so on that basis you might want to, were you so inclined, bring Ms Lovell back to the subject of the motion.
Wendy LOVELL: On the point of order, President, I can help you there. Ms Shing has actually used up some of Mr Galea’s time, because I had concluded.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:53): I rise to speak on this splendid motion brought to the house today by Mr Bourman, and I do thank Ms Lovell for generously yielding some of her time so that I might make a few comments as well. As I said, what a splendid motion it is. It is a sensible thing for us to be considering. I do think there are some things that warrant noting from some previous contributions. Much as I am grateful to you, Ms Lovell, for giving me the opportunity to speak, I will pick you up on the point that you mentioned – that $201 million of the $356 million that is generated to the Victorian economy by game hunting is by deer hunting. You did let the cat out of the bag: the lion’s share of the economic contribution from hunting in this state is from deer hunting. What is more – and you can read all about this in the excellent select committee report that was released earlier this year – deer hunting is actually increasing as the contribution out of the hunting sector. What is decreasing on the other hand is actually native bird hunting. That has a much smaller economic impact, as our select committee found.
What our select committee also looked at was a recommendation which members of Ms Lovell’s side actually voted against, and that was an explicit recommendation to support the Game Management Authority in expanding its role, in expanding opportunities for other types of game hunting – most notably and explicitly including deer. That was actually included in a draft of the report which was voted upon in our deliberations, and I note that it was Ms Lovell’s colleague Mr Mulholland, who is in the chamber here with us today as well, who voted against that. So whilst I am delighted to see that the coalition are now in support of this motion, of sensibly using deer meat for a reasonable purpose, it was appalling to see them vote against that in the select committee’s deliberations. We do know that is what they did, and it is on the record of that committee; it is on page 220of that committee report. Anyone can go and find it themselves. It is a real problem. Those opposite might not agree. I am glad to see that they have come on board in supporting this today. That is very good. Deer populations are a real problem.
Another thing: deer are not a native species. For what it is worth, neither are brumbies, but let us not go into that whole field of discussion. Deer, unlike native birds, are not native; they were introduced. Let us be honest, it is not their fault that they were introduced. It was some ill-conceived approach by some settlers, no doubt, generations ago – some squatters – which we are now paying the price dearly for. They are a pest. People in my constituency – obviously I have a very urbanised area, but I do have some outer suburban pockets as well – in places like Upper Beaconsfield have told me how much of a problem the local deer populations are and what a pest they are for the local environment, for conservation and for agriculture as well. This is a problem that is affecting obviously our regional communities, as my colleague Mr McIntosh talked about extensively as well, but also our outer suburban communities in places like Beaconsfield and Upper Beaconsfield in my electorate.
Those of us on this side of the house support a responsible means of eradicating deer as best we can. This is in and of itself not a golden bullet solution to the food shortages that some people are facing. There are many, many other things that we can be doing and many other things that we are doing, for what it is worth, too. This is not what I think the government should be pinning its hopes on solely, but it is a sensible thing. I do actually agree with Ms Lovell on one point: I do not much like the taste of venison either. But it is actually a very good meat. It is a very healthy meat to eat as well. It is one of the healthiest red meats you can eat in fact. So if you can stomach it, which I personally struggle a little bit to do, it is something that people definitely should consider trying for themselves, whichever way it is sourced, as long as it is responsible.
I also note in her comments Ms Purcell made reference to lead shot and issues arising from that. I do wish to note for the record that there are many different types of shot that can be used, and lead shot is not the only shot used when it comes to shooting deer. Perhaps as part of the government looking into the issue – which this motion seeks to achieve, if that is what this house agrees to today – the government should look at the types of shot that are used. I know in the duck-hunting inquiry as well that did come up as a point of interest – that whilst lead shot has already been abolished for most native birds, it has not actually yet been abolished for quail shooting. Perhaps that is something that can be looked at for deer hunting as well, because again, it is not their fault that they are here. But they are an absolute pest, and the more that we can do to eradicate them from our farms and from our national parks, the better it will be. This is a very good motion – as I said at the outset, a splendid motion. I do support it, and for the reasons that we have gone through as well.
Nick McGowan: What reasons?
Michael GALEA: Well, you should have been in the chamber, Mr McGowan, if you wanted to hear them all. There are far too many for me to go through again in the one-and-a-little-bit minutes that I have remaining, but there are some excellent reasons. I do wish to reiterate that those on this side of the house consistently support appropriate measures of deer and other similar species control, supporting the right of hunters to responsibly hunt species such as deer. As I say, they are not a native species by any means; they were introduced. Again, we did see members of the opposition vote against the expansion of deer hunting in that inquiry that we had –
Tom McIntosh interjected.
Michael GALEA: It was absolutely shameful, Mr McIntosh. We did see them vote against that, which was a great tragedy to see. I see Ms Bath is in the room as well. She also voted against that splendid recommendation in that report. Never mind. It is good to see some cross-party support for it here today. We have not got full unanimity, but I think we have got enough people that are speaking in favour. I do look forward to seeing this motion hopefully pass and to seeing the results of any investigation that comes as a result of it.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.