Wednesday, 20 March 2024

Production of documents

Duck hunting

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (09:59): I move:

That this house 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 Victoria’s native bird hunting arrangements pertaining to:

(1) the decision-making for the government response to the Legislative Council’s select committee inquiry into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements; and

(2) the 2024 season arrangements, including all communication between the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and the Game Management Authority with the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, the Minister for Environment and the Premier.

In moving this motion to obtain the documents related to the government’s decision to continue duck shooting I hope to understand what possessed the government to so blatantly disregard science and evidence. I also want to learn why the government felt emboldened to increase the length of this year’s season by a month and increase the bag count only to then decrease it back to previous levels in 2025, because right now it seems like a slap in the face to everyone who spent the past year working tirelessly on this inquiry all for nothing – not to mention the decades that campaigners have spent on this issue.

The inquiry unequivocally proved that duck shooting cannot be done safely, responsibly or sustainably and that no amount of reform and regulation can change this. A ban was the inquiry’s top recommendation. It declared that wounding rates cannot be avoided, with a minimum of 6 per cent and a maximum of 40 per cent of ducks that are shot left injured to drown, bleed out or slowly die of starvation or predation. With hunters frothing at the mouth as birds fall from the sky to their deaths, I want to reiterate that these are native waterbirds. We are not talking about an introduced species; we are talking about native bird populations that are in significant long-term decline. The inquiry evidenced disgusting breaches by shooters with reports frequently dismissed and the impossibility of monitoring the vast wetlands, leaving hunters to ravage our native species and land with their guns. Not only is this an animal welfare and an environmental issue, as hunters crush the land beneath their feet and affect natural ecosystems, but it is also an issue of cultural destruction. At the very same time that we work to progress treaty in Victoria, the inquiry showed us evidence of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites being damaged or destroyed by hunters without any consequence.

All of this cruelty and destruction to appease less than 1 per cent of the population, with only half of them actually being active shooters, just does not make sense, and it begs the question: what is the government holding out on the ban on duck shooting for and who is the government protecting? Beyond ducks, this represents a frightening departure from democracy, with the government making a complete mockery of our procedures in ignoring the number one recommendation from this inquiry, which they not only formed themselves but chaired themselves. That we can gather all of the evidence, experts and professionals in this field and we can have the largest number of submissions for an inquiry to date in this Parliament expressing an overwhelming sentiment to ban duck shooting and the government would still disregard it all to make its own autocratic decision – that is not democracy. How can I and how can Victorians trust that the government is acting in the best interests of its people when it tosses aside the insurmountable amount of evidence and submissions contrary to its own personal desires?

My constituents are treating this decision as suspicious, and frankly I do not blame them one single bit, because so am I. I have not seen a single document or piece of evidence to point to to try to explain the government’s decision. This is exactly why the community does not trust us as politicians – because at every chance this government gets it is failing them and it is failing our native wildlife. I will obviously not accept that shooting our native birds is a hobby or a sport or a recreational pursuit or whatever label the government wants to attach to it to self-justify killing native animals, and I will obviously not stop until duck shooting is banned, despite it now being a longer battle than initially thought. Perhaps in viewing these documents we will have reason to believe that this was not a captain’s call, but I suspect we will not. For the sake of transparency – and I note, if we even get these documents – I commend the motion to the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:04): I rise today to speak on the motion put forward by Ms Purcell. At the outset I wish to acknowledge her long history of activism in this space. I note that her motion calls upon the house to require:

… 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 Victoria’s native bird hunting arrangements pertaining to:

(1) the decision-making for the government response to the Legislative Council’s select committee inquiry into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements; and

(2) the 2024 season arrangements, including all communication between the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and the Game Management Authority with the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, the Minister for Environment and the Premier.

As members in this place would well know, my position on this subject is quite well known. I did have the honour of serving alongside colleagues I can see right in front of me: Ms Purcell, Mrs McArthur and Mr Bourman – you are surrounded by them today, Ms Purcell; all your biggest fans are with you on the crossbench behind you and next to you – as well as Ms Copsey from the Greens. I see Mr Mulholland across the chamber, Ms Bath – I think we almost have the entire committee here – and our wonderful chair, which was Mr Batchelor, who is sitting to my left today. I have outlined my response to the government’s response to the report in the chamber in a statement on the report in earlier weeks, and I will not seek to necessarily go over that in the same level of detail again today.

But in rising on this motion, and confirming that the government will not be opposing this motion today, I want to acknowledge the extensive contributions we received from many in the community and, to be fair, from both sides of this debate in those hearings. We received 10,402 submissions, which was by a measure of at least 8000 a singular record in the number of submissions ever received by a parliamentary inquiry in this state. I think that underscores the importance that many in the community place on this issue and the strong beliefs that are held by both proponents and opponents of recreational native bird shooting.

As Ms Purcell notes, the central recommendation, recommendation 1 of this report, was not adopted by the government. Other recommendations have been adopted, including ones which will, amongst other things, remove the use of lead shot, which is currently permitted for quails even though it has been previously banned for other species of ducks. Also, as part of its response to the report, the government will be implementing a variety of improved training mechanisms from the 2025 season, which, whilst again is not the ideal outcome that I was seeking, I acknowledge will make a significant difference towards improving the situation. If we are going to have this as an activity in Victoria, it is imperative that we do it in the safest possible way and that we reduce wounding as much as possible.

As I said in my earlier contribution, the proof will be in the pudding. We will see once that takes place, once those measures are in, if those wounding rates come down. For those who spoke to our committee most vociferously in favour of keeping it, if their predictions come true about those wounding rates coming down drastically, I will very happily bear witness to that. I think it is upon them as the hunting community, with the goodwill that has been extended by the government to them, to demonstrate in return their commitment to the practice of native bird hunting and killing being done in a way that is as safe and as least harmful as possible. We will see how that bears out.

I again wish to acknowledge that this has been a very long committee process. Despite what has been alleged, I think it has been a mark of democracy that we have been through this process, we have seen the outcome and we have seen quite strong responses from both sides of this argument as well. I also want to acknowledge that those witnesses that did appear before our inquiry, almost bar none I think, engaged in that process respectfully, which was really, really good to see and appreciated by those of us on the committee. As I say, the government will not be opposing this motion.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:10): As is the custom with short-form documents motions, the Nationals and the Liberals will not be opposing the request for government to provide responses in relation to their documentation and their evidence around the select committee inquiry into recreational bird hunting and also the 2024 season, which was ultimately the call of the Minister for Outdoor Recreation.

I am just putting on the record that from the outset of this inquiry we had Minister Blandthorn stand up and actually say in her opening lines that she wanted to see the complete demise and end of native bird hunting. They were her opening lines. We also saw in that inquiry that it had a 5–4 split, if we can coalesce people into their positions. We had three from Labor; the Animal Justice Party member, who we have heard from and who has moved this motion; and the Greens. That is five. Then on the other side we had a Nationals member – me; two Liberals; and Mr Bourman. I would say that those of the four were not always comfortable with that split – for me, hanging out with Mr Bourman – but in this case we had a lot of agreement in relation to the science.

We wanted to understand and see the science in relation to this, and we did. We heard from scientists. We heard from professors Klaassen and Kingsford, who have been conducting a 40-year study, the eastern Australian waterbird survey. In that study they shared some of their very sensible comments. Also the government put forward a model, and that model, in conjunction with Klaassen and Kingsford, is the interim harvest model, which leads on to the harvest model. This is about a safe and sustainable model for duck hunting in Victoria. When I put to Professor Klaassen how robust this model was that he had worked on, he said:

Regarding robustness, I think it is robust. I think we did a good job there.

…

We proposed this model, and it was accepted. So for the 2022 hunting season and this year’s hunting season the model was used to advise, ultimately, the minister to make a decision …

There is a model there that the scientists, over 40 years, have compiled to advise the Labor government. If they are not independent, who is? The ecologists have come up with this model and have said it is robust and the government should be listening to it.

Of course from that model the Game Management Authority then takes on the advice. It includes a raft of elements of data: bird species, quantity, populations, water in the landscape – and it goes on. From that the GMA makes a recommendation to government. Over the past few years we have seen the GMA make recommendations to government, which are ultimately watered down by the minister. This year the GMA – in 2024 – made it a nine-bag limit per day and a full-length season. Indeed if you go back to the transcript and listen to those ecologists, they say the need to have that approximately full 12-week season actually leads to better outcomes not only for the safety and security of hunters and protesters but also for animal welfare, for ducks.

The minister reduced that nine-bag limit and full season down to a six-bag limit and an eight-week season. I am really interested to see what was behind that. With all the evidence and the scientists’ model going through to the GMA, lo and behold, the minister made a captain’s call on this. I think it is really important that we actually do see the evidence. I am interested for exactly the opposite reason to the member from the Animal Justice Party. She started off with a whole lot of inflammatory commentary around hunters crushing the earth when they go out to hunt. I am sorry, do protestors hover above the earth? I mean, it is just a silly, silly statement. I am looking forward to seeing this evidence, because it will corroborate the science around duck hunting continuing.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (10:15): Thank you, Ms Purcell, for moving this motion. The Greens agree with you, as do the 68 per cent of Victorians who want duck shooting banned. We are appalled by Labor’s spineless decision to continue this barbaric practice.

Last year I was a member of the Select Committee on Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements, as were many members who have contributed to this debate. We recommended that the shooting season end for good. The inquiry broke the record for submissions. A ban would have seen Victoria join Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, which prohibited recreational duck hunting in 1990, 1995 and 2005 respectively. Shamefully, Premier Allan has ignored the results of her own government’s inquiry and made a captain’s call to announce that the slaughter of our waterbirds will continue. It is extremely disappointing to see the Victorian Labor government cave to pressure from the shooting lobby again. It is not the action of a progressive government; it is a cowardly decision that will guarantee the horrific deaths of thousands of waterbirds.

Ecological experts made it clear that our native waterbirds could be at risk of extinction if the annual slaughter is allowed to continue. Our native ducks are struggling. Waterbird numbers continue to see long-term decline due to drought and habitat destruction, exacerbated by the effects of climate change. We are in an extinction crisis. We do not need our native birds being shot. We know that so many Victorians will be feeling angry and disheartened by this decision, and we stand with them in solidarity and with activists. We will not give up. We will continue to fight alongside you until our waterbirds are safe.

The community deserves to know why Victorian Labor has gone against the recommendations of its own select committee, an inquiry that saw a record-breaking number of contributions – more than 10,000 – from people across our state, and given the go-ahead to another year of brutal slaughter of our native birds. The Victorian Greens will be proud to support this motion.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:17): This is awesome. I am not going to oppose this motion in any way, shape or form, because I know what is going to come out of these documents and, more to the point, I know what is not going to come out of these documents. There is no smoking gun. The facts, the science, the data and the logic spoke for themselves. The committee report had eight recommendations; the government took up seven of them. You cannot say they are ignoring the report, just that they ignored the recommendation that did not make sense. If the other seven did not make sense, why were they there?

A whole lot of stuff has been said, a lot of it inflammatory, but the science was there – not from citizen scientists with no training and no credentials but real scientists. The real scientists said that the problem is habitat destruction or a reduction in habitat. What that means is – I think the word was ‘infinitesimal’, and I hope I am not misquoting the actual scientist here – that the difference that duck hunting makes is infinitesimal. The problem is habitat reduction. If they were really that worried about duck numbers, they would be working on trying to preserve habitats, and that would actually mean working with hunters, because hunters do the habitat protection. They put in the breeding boxes. At Lake Connewarre they pull out all the foam and rubbish that blows out of the building sites and in there. I have not seen a whole lot of protesters doing that. Protesters and activists – they seem to protest and be active instead of actually helping.

I am going to finish up with a quote someone gave me: ‘You can have your own opinion; you cannot have your own facts.’ The facts spoke for themselves.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18): I rise to make a contribution on Ms Purcell’s motion 354. It is a documents motion calling for the government to release a range of documents, but unfortunately I do not have very much time on the clock. Thanks to a change in the sessional orders brought about by Mr Davis and supported by the crossbench, I think I have got only a minute and something to go on it. They do not want the government to say anything about these matters; they want to gag us. Nevertheless the government’s position on this motion is that we will not be opposing this motion.

Our record on documents motions is pretty clear. The government consistently upholds its obligations to the Parliament to provide responses to motions whenever they are passed. It is an accepted principle that in some circumstances the government may withhold documents when disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The basis for withholding documents is called executive privilege.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Mr Mulholland, I could take up your interjection and note that our record on documents motions is far superior to yours. In fact the LNP government provided no documents for 50 per cent of those motions that were brought in the 57th Parliament, so facts do outweigh people’s opinions. Nevertheless the government does receive legal advice, including from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, to inform its decisions to claim executive privilege. It is not appropriate to comment on the merits of individual government decisions to claim executive privilege in respect of particular documents. No doubt the government will go through its own processes and look to the information and legal advice that it receives in regard to providing any documents in regard to this matter.

I do want to acknowledge Ms Purcell’s activism in this. Ms Purcell knows my position on ducks, which I am not going to go into now because this is actually about a documents motion. I know everyone wants to talk about the report, but I can say to the chamber: all of us sitting here on the benches today can actually read the report for ourselves, and selective quoting of it does nothing to aid that case.

Motion agreed to.