Tuesday, 18 November 2025

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (13:59): I rise to speak on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The Greens will be supporting this bill, which at long last will create the Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg national parks. As my colleague the member for Melbourne said in the other place, this is the result of decades of environmental activism and love for these forests by communities across Victoria. That includes everyone involved in the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council’s Central West Investigation: Final Report, and this bill will fulfil other outstanding commitments from the government’s response to that inquiry in 2021. Those commitments include but are not limited to creating the Cobaw, Hepburn and Mirboo North conservation parks; adding land to Bendigo Regional Park; extending the Wimmera River Heritage Area Park and revoking several native game sanctuaries in central west Victoria.

We are also really supportive that this bill will grant Aboriginal title over several parks to the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation and the Taungurung Land and Waters Council. The Greens will always back the return of country and land management to their original custodians. We appreciate that this bill will change the name of the Yellingbo Landscape Conservation Area to the Liwik Barring Landscape Conservation Area, and we support last week’s separate but related announcement for a cultural reserve pilot on Taungurung country, which was a call from the Strathbogie Ranges Immediate Protection Areas process. The Greens support these new parks and the progress on land back, and we will be voting to support this bill.

But the Greens were really concerned that this bill as initially drafted would have handed over tens of thousands of hectares of Victoria’s native forests to recreational deer hunters. Labor’s bill would have given access to whole new areas of these three new national parks in Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg, as well as existing areas in the Errinundra and Snowy River parks. The plans for Mount Buangor were particularly worrying because hunters would actually have had to share that land with existing bush users and businesses. I want to emphasise that: the proposed hunting zone would have covered roughly 2800 hectares of forest already used by outdoor recreation businesses, camping sites and public hiking trails like the iconic Beeripmo Walk. The bill would also have revoked a game sanctuary nearby at Mount Cole and opened 6000 hectares of that state forest to recreational deer hunting for the first time. It is actually not necessary to open those parts of the national park up at all. Hunters had more than twice that amount of land in the game sanctuary. The Greens do not want any game hunting in national parks. National parks are for people and nature, not just game hunters. We also know that deer are a pest, and that means we need laws and funding to eradicate them, not treat them as game. I will say more on that later. The proposed hunting zones at Mount Buangor would have threatened hikers, campers, businesses and even schoolkids. I think everyone in this chamber can appreciate why that is completely unacceptable.

Following a collaborative discussion with the government – and I really thank them for their engagement on this – the Greens are pleased to table amendments that will just remove deer hunting from that national park while maintaining it in the former game sanctuary. This is a really commonsense amendment that protects the existing bush users and the businesses that rely on them while still creating a net gain for deer hunters. To understand why we need this critical amendment, I want to cite a joint letter received in October from the Victorian National Parks Association, Outdoors Victoria and the Australian Camps Association. These groups all specifically called for a targeted amendment to protect existing bush users at Mount Buangor and Mount Cole and disallow deer hunting in this new national park. They were perfectly fine with opening up the 6000 hectares at the game sanctuary to deer hunting; they just said, ‘Please leave the 2800 hectares at the national park alone.’ VNPA groups even provided a map demonstrating how the new hunting zones across Mount Cole and Mount Buangor directly overlap with walking tracks, recreation sites and outdoor recreation and educational organisations. I received a similar letter from the Pyrenees Shire Council, who I thank for advocating for the safety of their local bush users and businesses. These groups go out of their way to stress that they do not even have an ideological objection to recreational deer hunting. They just point out the obvious: deer hunting is fundamentally incompatible with safe recreational and educational use. I will directly quote the CEOs of the Victorian National Parks Association, Outdoors Victoria and the Australian Camps Association:

The perception of a loss of safety alone would likely be enough for many schools and other community groups to withdraw from camping in the area. Parents are unlikely to allow their child to participate in camp activities in an area where hunters may be stalking.

The proposed seasonal hunting area is hardly big enough for any hunter to operate safely, having to be always certain they are a safe distance from a road, walking or Mountain Bike track, campground or place where a member of the public or school child may be.

I think most of us here, and hunters themselves, would agree that outdoor enthusiasts, schoolteachers and schoolkids should feel safe from a stray bullet in a national park. It is a fundamental safety issue, regardless of your perspective on recreational deer hunting. So we are really glad that Labor has come to the table and agreed to at least not introduce deer hunting in the Buangor national park. The amendments can be circulated.

The Greens still do not believe we need to open up any new national parks to recreational deer hunting. We need to treat deer as the pest they are, not the game that some hunters want them to be. Right now we have more than 1 million feral deer in Victoria trashing our farms, polluting our forests and increasingly running into our towns and cars. The Invasive Species Council, the Victorian Deer Control Community Network and the Victorian National Parks Association have all been very clear about what is needed to rein in those numbers, let alone actually eradicate them – that is, for the government to finally start classifying deer as pests and funding a statewide multisector control program to protect high conservation value areas. That kind of program would require supervised professional hunters, active pest control support for landholders and thermal-assisted aerial programs that could reduce deer populations faster than they could reproduce. That impact on population levels is crucial. Eradication means numbers go down, while game hunting means they either stay stable or go up.

The government’s own 2021 statewide deer control strategy says that recreational hunting on its own is not an effective means of controlling deer numbers. That is because game hunting does not have an incentive to eradicate deer. If anything, recreational hunting incentivises healthy and stable populations. That is why hunters have bag limits. They focus on male deer or even deliberately move populations into new areas, because this sport cannot exist without something to kill. That is not the fault of the hunters; it is the fault of a government that treats deer as wildlife and game, not as pests. Those same game hunters could actually be part of that multisector solution, but they need laws and regulations that encourage eradication, not recreation.

Unfortunately, in Victoria we have a government that specifically chooses not to manage deer as an invasive species and treats them instead as wildlife. Victoria is the only mainland state left that protects them as wildlife and game. In fact every other jurisdiction has come to its senses and started classifying deer as pests. Last month Labor had the opportunity to fix that when they finally delivered their response to the 2021 Wildlife Act 1975 review, and guess what Labor did? They chose not to join the 21st century and rejected the expert recommendation to list deer as pests. The difference between these classifications is one of both regulation and legal obligation. Classifying deer as pests would create new obligations on both the government and landowners, who would have a legal responsibility to prevent them spreading and eradicate them where and when possible.

It is also an ideological barrier to creating a state geared towards eradication. To quote Peter Jacobs from the Victorian Deer Control Community Network:

Under current arrangements, feral deer continue to enjoy the same protections as native species, creating confusion and preventing a coordinated landscape-scale response.

Landholders receive no government support, funding or advice for control, and in many cases must navigate complex permits to remove animals causing damage on their own property.

Yet for some reason Labor rejects that recommendation and plans to keep eight deer species protected as wildlife and six of those further protected as game species, which on top of everything else can require special hunting licences to kill. The minister tells us with a straight face that classifying deer as wildlife is not a barrier to effective control, which flies in the face of those expert Wildlife Act recommendations as well as just common sense. Labor cannot claim, on the one hand, to be doing everything possible to eradicate feral deer while on the other refusing to even classify and treat them as pests. It is an outward contradiction but one that should not come as a surprise.

Sadly, this bill is hardly the first cave-in to the shooting lobby from Labor this term in Parliament. First, Labor under Jacinta Allan backflipped on Labor’s own inquiry’s call to ban duck hunting. Then we saw Labor commit to investigating new national parks through the Great Outdoors Taskforce, which was set up in 2023 as part of Victoria’s $1.5 billion transition out of native forest logging to investigate new national parks across eastern Victoria. Labor once promised to create the largest environmental protection plan and largest expansion to our native forest reserve system in our state’s history. It sounded very exciting, but Premier Allan backflipped on this promise too, later withdrawing the taskforce’s remit to investigate national parks.

Ahead of announcing this welcome but very overdue bill, the Minister for Environment promised hunters that Labor would not pursue the decades-long plan for a great forest national park in the Central Highlands. We saw all these backflips come to fruition a few weeks ago in Labor’s tepid response to the review of the Wildlife Act 1975 and Great Outdoors Taskforce: Recommendations Report. The government sat on that Wildlife Act review for more than four years, only to reject 10 out of 40 expert recommendations to fix Victoria’s broken wildlife laws. That short-sightedness is genuinely disappointing from a government that, for its many faults, has overseen the end of commercial native forest logging in this state, complete with more than $1 billion in transition funding. So we know they can do it. That presented this government with a once-in-a-generation chance to permanently protect Victoria’s irreplaceable forests and safeguard millions of hectares of public land for both people and the planet. But looking at all those recent backflips together – the concessions to deer hunters in this bill, the bans on new national parks that preceded it and those backflips on duck hunting – it really seems like Labor has shirked that historic opportunity.

None of this is to say that there has not actually been good work done in this term of Parliament to ban large-scale commercial logging and transition to plantation harvesting – I do want to highlight that. It is just that there is still work to be done to end it entirely in Victoria and ensure it never comes back under future governments. It is not just the Greens saying this; the Great Outdoors Taskforce may have been neutered before it could propose any new national parks, but it did catch these logging loopholes. Recommendation 5 calls on the government to:

Change relevant legislation and regulations to prevent the return of large-scale commercial native timber harvesting in state forests. This should not limit Traditional Owner or the government’s forest and fire management activities.

Labor has done a good job transitioning workers from commercial-scale native forest logging, but it is yet to show any progress on closing these loopholes.

The Greens have identified five major loopholes to permanently transition from native timber harvesting in Victoria. First, we have a law that could enable future governments to bring back native forest logging at the stroke of a minister’s pen: the Forests (Wood Pulp Agreement) Act 1996, which once committed large volumes of Victoria’s native forests to Japanese timber company Opal. Two, we have the Forests Act 1958, which can be used to grant forest produce licences and permits that enable people to log, remove and sell native forest products. Thirdly, logging of native forests is actually still happening on private land in Victoria. We saw that in March this year when East Gippsland Shire Council was forced to accept a plan to harvest timber at Cabbage Tree Creek after the Minister for Planning shirked responsibility for this issue. Fourth, it is currently still legal for companies to harvest native timber in other states and then just process it here in Victoria. That is why we have been seeing ancient wonders being shipped to Victoria from Tasmania. Finally, there is a risk of disaster prevention and recovery being weaponised by the native forest logging industry.

We understand that the loopholes around private land and other states deal with complex planning laws and constitutional issues, so we will not be attempting to address those in this bill. We also understand that the Victorian government probably cannot appeal the wood pulp agreement, considering its current court case with Opal, although we do hope that once that is resolved the government will repeal that agreement as an urgent priority. Instead we have developed what we believe are really commonsense amendments to address the threat of future governments bringing back commercial-scale logging under forest produce permits, those concerns about bushfire prevention and recovery being weaponised as well as those fears around expanding recreational deer hunting.

I understand those amendments have already been circulated, and I will just go through them briefly. Amendments 2 to 10 would remove this bill’s expansion of recreational deer hunting in the new Mount Buangor National Park, which I have already explained. We would love to see deer hunting removed from the Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg national parks, as well as the existing Errinundra and Snowy River national parks, but as I indicated, after some good faith negotiations, we are glad that the government has agreed to at least protect those existing bush uses at Mount Buangor and pass our commonsense agreement as an urgent and crucial compromise.

Amendments 1, 11 and 12 address two loopholes in the ban on native forest logging: forest produce permits and salvage logging. These are, again, commonsense changes that we urge this Parliament to get behind. They would amend the Forests Act 1958 to ban timber from any forest produce permits being sold for profit. This would stop licences being used for native forest timber logging while still enabling things like beekeeping or firewood collection. They would also stop bushfire prevention and recovery being used as an excuse as a cover for logging – logging under another name – including by adding to the purposes of this bill and creating new ecological monitoring requirements and investigative powers. These are all really non-controversial – they just reaffirm the government’s existing ban on commercial native forest logging – so I hope they will all be supported. We would really encourage everyone in the chamber to do so.

To summarise, we will be supporting this bill. We really welcome the creation of the new national parks. It is something that is well overdue and something I think all Victorians can celebrate. We thank the government for compromising on the Mount Buangor deer hunting issue and hope that the outcome achieved is one where all interests can be well served, but we urge the government and other members of this chamber to take on board our further amendments, which we believe would strengthen this bill and the commitment to preserving our forests for people and the planet.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:17): I join the debate on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. At the outset I say that I will be opposing this bill, along with my Liberal and National colleagues. This bill substantially upholds the commitments made by the Victorian government in 2021 in response to the 2019 Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Central West Investigation Final Report in that it transfers large areas of multiple-use forests to national or conservation park status, but it breaks a key promise that was made by the Premier in Bendigo last year that she would not lock up any more public land.

The main provisions of this bill, in parts 2 to 4, amend the existing land acts, part 5 makes amendments to the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, parts 6 and 7 amend the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 and Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and part 9 amends the St Kilda Land Act 1965 to allow long-term leases. Parts 10 to 11 revoke the native game sanctuaries. I do not intend to make any comments on that. It is part 8 of this bill that I intend to concentrate on. It creates three new national parks: the Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg national parks. It creates three new conservation parks, in Cobaw, Hepburn and Mirboo North. It does permit some deer stalking in designated areas of the Mount Buangor, Pyrenees, Wombat–Lerderderg, Snowy River and Errinundra national parks, which is the only part of part 8 that I might agree with. As I said, clause 8 will permit deer hunting by stalking in designated areas of the existing Snowy River and Errinundra national parks and also in designated areas of the proposed new national parks in Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg.

Hunting is a big industry, and it generates significant visitor income for gateway towns, where hunters pass through to access the public land. It is also an activity that reduces pest animals. These are hard-hoofed animals. The government has been ardent in their shooting of brumbies, but they tend to protect deer, which are doing equally as much if not more damage – actually more damage, because the deer wallow where the brumbies do not wallow. The Liberals and Nationals support expanded recreational hunting opportunities for law-abiding hunters, and so we do like that part of the bill.

The Liberals and Nationals will move an amendment to omit part 8, clauses 49 to 59, clauses 74 to 115(1) and 116; and schedule 1, part 2, clauses 1 to 12, which establish the three new national parks. If these amendments fail, the Liberal Party will oppose the bill in its entirety. There is more in this bill that is bad than is good.

At the Bendigo bush summit in March 2024 the Premier publicly promised not to restrict activities in Victorian state forests, saying:

As Premier, and as a proud country Victorian, I will never put a padlock on our public forest.

That statement has now been proven to be a lie. This bill is proof that Premier Allan has reneged on the promise she made not to lock up public forests. The Premier claimed that hunting will still be allowed in the Wombat–Lerderderg National Park but only during the designated season and only in designated areas. The Premier claims that activities like camping and fishing will still be allowed, but everyone knows that these freedoms will die the death of a thousand cuts as Labor gradually ban activities one by one as they acquiesce to the Greens’ demands. Permission to hunt, fish, four-wheel drive and camp will all be at the mercy of Labor ministers, who will be able to ban hunting or impose restrictions with just a stroke of their pen. Labor’s creeping restrictions in national parks will eventually end traditional activities that Victorians have enjoyed in their forests for so long. The Premier promised to keep access to state parks open, but once again Labor has betrayed Victorians.

The area of park that is to be locked up as a national park is approximately 44,000 hectares, and it will be made up of approximately 20,000 hectares of the existing Lerderderg State Park – so 45 per cent of the new park – and approximately 24,000 hectares from the Wombat State Forest, which is 55 per cent of the new park. As I said, the types of activities that are currently allowed in state forests compared to national parks are quite extensive. Firewood collection, prospecting, dog walking, horseriding, drone use and timber harvesting are all allowed in state forests but not in national parks – they are strictly prohibited in national parks. Pest hunting is allowed in a state forest but it is prohibited in national parks, with an exception in May to September, when a season is allowed. Fishing, four-wheel driving and trail bike riding are also prohibited in national parks except in designated areas. The government says that most existing recreational activities will be able to continue in the new national park, but this will only be by exemption, which means that the government can change that and can ban all activities with the stroke of a minister’s pen.

I will now turn to some of my concerns in this legislation, and they are really around Parks Victoria’s capacity, because no-one benefits from a national park. Changing the status does not guarantee any additional resources for the management of this park. This bill increases the amount of land under the responsibility of Parks Victoria but does nothing to increase the staffing or capacity of Parks Victoria to manage that land. Effectively, land and fire management have deteriorated under Labor. Parks Victoria annual reports show a decline in management capacity despite land under management increasing by 20 per cent over the last 10 years, yet the operational funding for Parks Victoria is down by 35 per cent and ranger numbers are down by 28 per cent, so there are less resources, more land to manage and more land that will be left to decline. Operational decline in land management means increased fuel loads, invasive weeds and pest animals, and it means increased bushfires – and bushfires that burn more intensely and that will destroy much of our natural bushland.

Fire track access is also a major concern because prohibiting camping and four-wheel driving means fallen trees will not be cleared from tracks, leaving obstacles in the path of fire tracks when they need emergency access to national parks. Also, once the land is declared a national park, firewood collection will be permanently banned. This is a financial kick in the guts to rural and regional Victorians who rely on collecting firewood as a low-cost energy source during a cost-of-living crisis when Labor’s disastrous energy policy is pushing energy bills higher and higher. The public should be able to collect fallen timber as firewood prior to fuel reduction burns. There are around about six coupes in the Wombat–Lerderderg park that will be closed once it becomes a national park. Basically that means that there are almost no coupes in northern Victoria that are to the north-west of the Hume Freeway, from the edge of Melbourne to the border and west until you reach Warracknabeal or Creswick. In fact most of the coupes in the west of Victoria are dotted along the Western Highway. This means it will be a very long trip for residents from the Moira, Campaspe, Gannawarra and Loddon shires and residents in the cities of Mildura, Greater Bendigo and Greater Shepparton to reach their closest coupes.

This bill represents the government pandering to a tiny number of green activists who want state forests converted to national park status. The people that use our state forests and parks do not want any new national parks. Over 66,000 Victorians have spoken loud and clear and signed petitions saying they do not want new national parks in Victoria. Ms Bath had a petition that had 40,208 signatures; Mr Farnham, 13,969 signatures; and my own petition specifically objecting to the Wombat–Lerderderg and Mount Buangor national parks was signed by 11,974 Victorians. That is 66,151 Victorians who have signed these petitions, but this government continues to ignore the wishes of the people of Victoria.

Bush users love Victoria’s wilderness areas. Whether they live in the country or travel from the city to our state forests, the people who signed these petitions are people who make the most of the Victorian bush to walk their dogs, fossick for gold, fish, hunt, drive and explore back-country tracks. They want to protect and conserve bushland while continuing to enjoy using our public land and participating in traditional activities in the bush.

It is not only bush user groups who oppose the new national parks. Even Lisa Neville, a former Labor government minister and who chaired the Great Outdoors Taskforce, agrees. Her report said that:

… the Taskforce does not believe large scale tenure change is required to enhance protections in Victoria’s forests. It will not be making any recommendations for large-scale changes to land tenure, including not creating any new national parks.

I am further concerned that this bill could significantly hurt local economies by limiting tourism and visitor numbers to communities where these parks may be established. The government continues to tell us that making somewhere a national park will increase tourism. But that never happens, and it does not replace the economic activity that has been generated by traditional activities. The Victorian Apiarists Association, which represents 10,000 beekeepers, has raised concerns that this bill fails to mention apiculture or the use of public land for bee sites and makes no reference to the existing Apiculture (Beekeeping) on Public Land Policy. They have warned that without access to public land, this sector cannot function.

In conclusion, the Liberals and Nationals and regional Victorians support the Wombat–Lerderderg and Mount Buangor state park and state forest remaining state park and state forest, because these areas operate as multi-use public land and balance conservation with community access, recreation and local economic activity. In a state forest hunting, dispersed camping, firewood collection, bushwalking, hiking, horseriding, dog walking, prospecting, forestry, fishing, drone use, four-wheel driving, trail bike riding and off-road driving will go eventually. In state forests they are permitted. National parks on the other hand prioritise environmental preservation and restrict public use when they are managed by Parks Victoria. One of the reasons the coalition oppose the creation of additional national parks is because the government cannot manage what they have already. The government’s decline in public park management capacity means campgrounds are closed for extended periods, broken facilities are not restored after bushfires and fuel loads, invasive weeds and pest animals are not addressed. Pest animals – foxes, wild dogs, pigs and rabbits – are causing widespread environmental damage, and without adequate controls these pests will destroy native vegetation and threaten biodiversity.

Pressing ahead with this bill shows disregard for the bush user groups that cherish our bushland and wilderness areas and have long enjoyed outdoor recreation activities in state forests. Communities are concerned that this proposal will mean areas of state parks and bush will no longer be accessible and users will be locked out of a range of activities. We will oppose this bill because it is a bad bill that does nothing to increase resources for the management of public land in Victoria and because it breaks a promise made by the Premier just 12 months ago.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:31): I stand here to tee off on this legislation because this is perfect carrot-and-stick legislation, which in the last 11 years or so I have seen in a number of cases. This sounds good to us in some ways – ‘us’ being hunters specifically. It sounds good that in the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks we get to go hunting seasonally, but that is the carrot. The stick is the new national parks. Originally when this was proposed as a coherent bill, there were going to be three new national parks that were of interest to us. There were a few more. There was the Buangor State Park, the Pyrenees, the Wombat–Lerderderg and others. Originally there was going to be seasonal hunting in all of them, and then due to concerns, there is now not going to be any in Mount Buangor. I do not know Mount Buangor State Park as it is now really well, but for 20-odd years I used to have to go past it and occasionally through it on my way somewhere. I would suggest it has at some point been probably harvested, and as an environmental value other than having trees, I do not feel there is a blinding need to make it a national park.

I used to live opposite the Pyrenees State Forest, as it was then – now to become a national park – when we first moved to Victoria back in the 1980s. At least from the 80s it was a decent area, and Wombat–Lerderderg has been an ongoing thing. So I feel I understand why the government is going here, but I reject it. In fact the whole reason I reject these is that while we might be able to have seasonal hunting in some of these places in which we do not have it now, the very fact that the Greens are able to deliver an amendment to get rid of them, for reasons that are really not logical, shows the folly of doing it this way. I feel an opportunity was missed. I probably never would have voted for new national parks anyway, but there was an opportunity, I suppose, if the government had stood tall, and they did not. That is the downside and that is what we are going to have to deal with come the committee stage, and I will have some questions then.

I started writing what was wrong with the Greens contribution. I cannot use props, but I started running out of space on the page. It was just getting worse and worse and worse. First of all, apart from just the general hunting sort of thing, national parks are bad news for anything that is not a national park now. You cannot have prospectors; four-wheel driving and camping are all severely limited; and you cannot hunt with dogs – you certainly cannot hunt with hounds there. These are all things where it is perfectly okay now. I feel this has just become an ideological grab, an ideological need to do this. Maybe it is fulfilling a promise made by a previous Premier. I do not know; in the end it really does not matter. Here we are standing with it. There is a lot going on in this. As I said, a lot of it I am supportive of. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers do have a principle of not locking up public land. There was a 2018 Crown land reserve bill that went through. That was quite a carry-on, but we ended up getting through that okay. Public land is public land that should be accessed by the public. Changing tenure sometimes is a risky business.

The rest of my contribution, and I have got plenty of time, is going to deal with some of the mistruths. I am going to take them as made in the proper belief that they are true. Deer do not have bag limits, except for hog deer. Hog deer are the only deer in Victoria that have any limit on them at all, and that is because they are endangered on a worldwide scale. The problem that we have as a group is that hog deer have such a small footprint in this state. They are basically down the bottom part of Gippsland and on some of the islands. You can hunt them, but it is controlled hunting. It is one of those things where you do not want to hunt them to extinction, when the problem is that there might be an actual extinction in the near future. This is where game management comes into it.

Deer do not have bag limits. We pay to hunt them. Dr Mansfield sounded like she was reading from an invasive species or national parks association textbook on what rubbish you say when you have got no facts. They are not feral. I am being pedantic here: anything that is feral was domesticated or cattle or something like that – an animal that was brought in for the purposes of farming. Deer, for worse, were brought in to be released. The 1800s was not a pretty time in Australia. We brought all sorts of rubbish in from overseas and put them in here. They may have had what they felt were good intentions, but now we have got rabbits, foxes, prickly pear, deer. But while rabbits and foxes are pests, deer are not, and there are a number of reasons why it should stay that way.

First of all, you cannot hunt pests in national parks. Even in the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks there are still no changes, as far as I am aware, to hunting pests. The obligation now will be on the landowner to control them. I have seen and heard from a lot of farmers who get a lot of grief from the council and I say ‘parks’ in the global sense – there are all sorts of environmental people going through that – about not controlling blackberries and rabbits and stuff like that. At the moment as a farmer, subject to animal welfare conditions, you can shoot deer whenever you like with whatever you like. You can shoot them at night; you can shoot them during the day. As long as you are using a suitable calibre it is happy days. You can just go for it. Calling them a pest will not change that whatsoever. It will not, absolutely, except the farmer will have to do that, whereas right now they do not have to even though they can. What farmers do not need at the moment is another requirement.

National parks cannot have dogs, and you cannot camp – we have gone through that – and cannot collect firewood. It is always hard to tell how many deer recreational hunters have removed from the environment, because obviously, like unregistered guns, we do not register our deer. We do not know where they are or how many are going, but there is an estimate of 167,600 deer being removed from the environment. It looks to be that the majority were removed on farmland, which is good, as it means that at least farmers are getting their end of the bargain done, and 52,600 or so were done on public land. That might not sound like a lot, but that is 52,000 deer that are not there, mostly sambar, a few fallow – fallow tend to be in the lowlands and the pastures and things like that. But with this obsession that the Greens have with stopping people recreational hunting, you can be assured that there is going to be a whole lot less than 167,600 deer removed from the environment. Why? Because contractors and helicopters can only do so much. They cannot be there all the time. And the experts that they are relying on – I should not say experts, I should say so-called experts – continually come up with these falsehoods. The reason, perhaps, is when you look at where the head office of the Victorian Greens is and when you look at where people like the Victorian National Parks Association and that live, it is all at 60L – 60 Leicester Street. They share an office, so I do believe they must sit around with their vegan coffees and their sustainably sourced water or whatever it is and their mung beans and come up with these things.

I have said so many times in this place that you can say these things all you like, but if you are continually getting them wrong, you cannot call yourself an expert. I mean, these so-called experts cannot even get the basics right. They are not feral, they are not a pest and nor should they be a pest. For reasons that I have said, making deer a pest is going to just create problems. We have got enough problems in the environment without adding to them. The Victorian Community Deer Control Network people are registered in Katoomba in New South Wales. Sometimes you cannot make this stuff up, but here it is.

I am going to keep my contribution reasonably brief. I will not be supporting this. I will be withdrawing my amendments because they are effectively exactly the same as the Nationals’ amendments. I will be supporting the Nationals’ amendments. The Greens’ amendments – no chance. As usual, I just find that they are based in the la-la land that they live in, and I am not going to be part of that. I do not commend this bill to the house.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (14:42): I am pleased to be able to speak today on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I live in Bendigo, my office is in Bendigo, and it is known as the city in a forest, so I am surrounded by it, as are many other thousands of people in Bendigo. For many it is our backyard and it is our lifeline. But this bill threatens that lifeline. This bill is not just about maps and boundaries; it is about whether local families can afford to heat their homes, whether bush user groups can continue their traditions and whether our forests are managed for safety or left to become tinderboxes.

I do want to start with firewood, because for thousands of households firewood is not a quaint tradition, it is an essential, affordable fuel source. Pensioners, families and farmers rely on it to keep warm through winter, and when the government shut down the timber industry it also shut down the state’s major supplier of firewood, and that decision created a crisis. I have been contacted by a number of people about the issues with firewood. I have spoken in this chamber and raised concerns with the minister because people contacted me and they said, ‘We’ve been to the designated fire collection areas, but there’s just no wood.’ I have heard that families are travelling hours and hours on return trips in search of very scant supplies. Why? Because the government’s policy only allows collection from the side of tracks and not deeper into the bush, and those areas are stripped bare within days. I was also made aware that Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action work crews were undertaking industrial action, and there was actually a ban on the felling of trees for firewood. But we know at the moment electricity prices are soaring, gas prices are going up and people are desperate. So what happens next? People face two choices: to cut firewood illegally or freeze during next winter. That is the reality that many families are facing. This bill makes it worse.

Once land becomes a national park, firewood collection is permanently banned under the National Parks Act 1975. Bendigo Regional Park gets a very short reprieve. Collection is allowed just to 1 July 2029, but after that, nothing – a countdown to a cliff. So think about this: Victoria has record fuel loads in the bush and a firewood shortage. One problem could solve the other: allowing reasonable firewood collection would reduce fuel loads and help keep families warm. But instead, government policy padlocks the forests and drives some of this illegal activity. That is not just bad policy; it is dangerous. This bill does not just hit firewood collectors, it actually locks out entire communities. Prospectors and fossickers have worked these forests for generations, and they contribute so much to our regional economies. I know through tourism people travel from far and wide. They seek accommodation in these areas and they go out prospecting and fossicking.

I do want to thank Melina Bath for her work on that and for highlighting that there is a section missing – section 32D of the National Parks Act – that is needed to permit these people to access and go out and do what they enjoy. There are horseriders also, who maintain trails and connect with nature, and trail bike riders and four-wheel drive clubs who keep bushfire access tracks open. They are often doing a lot more than contractors in maintaining those tracks. I will say too that recently I was speaking with a beekeeper that talked about the need for those roads to be maintained so that they can actually access their hives. There are campers and bushwalkers who fear over-regulation and the loss of freedom and traditional owner groups who practise cultural land use and forest gardening. These groups are not vandals, they are stewards. And yet this bill excludes them, while failing to fund proper management.

The community knows what is at stake here. As Ms Lovell pointed out in her contribution too, there are over 60,000 signatures on petitions opposing the new national parks, and we have seen that across both chambers. I know Ms Bath’s was a record petition for some time as well, with over 40,000 signatures. Even blue-collar unions like the Electrical Trades Union have joined the fight for continued access. And let us not forget the Premier’s words at the Herald Sun bush summit that was held in Bendigo in March 2024:

I will never put a padlock on our public forest.

Yet this bill does exactly that. Locking up land does not solve environmental problems. Parks Victoria’s capacity has collapsed. Funding has been reduced by 35 per cent, ranger numbers have been down 28 per cent in the past year, weeds like blackberry and serrated tussock are spreading unchecked and across northern Victoria we are seeing pests such as wild dogs and foxes just out of control. Fuel loads are building, and the government is doing less than a quarter of the planned burns recommended by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Experts said 5 per cent annual burns were the minimum for safety, and we are doing less than 1.5 per cent. When I walk through our forests, there is so much fallen timber on the ground and the fuel loads are extremely high. I was speaking with the CFA recently, and the conditions over the next two years, they say, will be very similar to Black Saturday, yet our CFA approaches this fire season with reduced funding, the oldest fleet and fewer active volunteers.

There is a better way forward. We can protect biodiversity without punishing families and bush users. We can extend firewood access beyond 2029 for Bendigo Regional Park and other areas. We can fund real management and restore ranger numbers and fuel reduction programs. We can consult properly, reinstate structured engagement for bush user groups and traditional owners and designate responsible access zones for recreation and firewood collection. But this bill locks out families of bush users, it erodes cultural practices and it undermines regional economies. It imposes a countdown to a firewood cliff in 2029, and it ignores the voices of tens of thousands of Victorians who very clearly said no. We need a public land policy that is practical and encourages people to use our forests, not padlock them away. Instead, this bill creates a ridiculous scenario: record fuel loads in the bush and a firewood shortage in our homes. That is not progress, that is a policy failure.

Just on the weekend I turned on the TV and came across a show with a couple of chaps. They were talking, and straightaway I heard them say, ‘Oh, this is not like the national parks. These tracks are open.’ I thought that summarises what so many know. This bill seeks to create three new national parks that impact 65,000 hectares, and I do not want to see our state forests locked up and becoming national parks. I want to see more Victorians getting outside and enjoying our great outdoors. I do want to thank my colleague Melina Bath, the shadow minister, for her work on this bill. We stand with many, many thousands of Victorians that have made it clear that they also oppose this bill.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:50): I also would like to speak on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. If I look at our fundamental principle on this, our party has a long history of maintaining that if we are going to have public land, then the public should have access to use that land to the greatest extent possible. The fear of national parks is not that we just do not like national parks; the idea of reclassifying public land into national parks brings with it an entirely new system with how it will be managed and also the ability for shutting down activities that have traditionally been happening in those areas. As has been brought up in the debate, prospecting, for example, is a very popular activity in many parts of the state and has been for a very long time.

There are three main new parks that are being setting up that are most controversial: the Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg parks. The idea that removing certain activities from these areas – we have seen what happens and the social disruption that happens. I have spoken many times in here about what has happened in Arapiles with the climbing community and the social issues that have been caused by removing or restricting those activities. We have the same sort of potential issue with removing some of the activities here, like prospecting, like some of the other potential restrictions on camping and other things that might go on here.

Fundamentally, we oppose this restriction on parks. I agree with my colleague Mr Bourman: it is a bit of a carrot-and-stick sort of bill. There are some good things in this. The government is expanding access for deer hunters, which I am sympathetic to, and I think that is a good thing – we do have a problem with too many deer in Victoria. As Mr Bourman rightly pointed out, deer hunters not only undertake this activity with their families and to obtain meat to feed their families but also perform an environmental function in ensuring that we do not have too many deer in this state. My understanding is we do have a few too many deer in this state at the moment, certain types, so hunters certainly play their part, and I am glad that the government has expanded that.

Nevertheless I am fearful that setting up these national parks will restrict activities further and will restrict both the local communities, who do things like firewood collection, and also the visitors to these parks who do things like hunting and camping and other things, many of which come from my electorate. Everyone thinks of deer hunting as a regional issue. I was surprised to learn just how many there are in South-East Metro – more than any other region, I was told. There are a lot of guys – mostly guys, as it is usually men with their sons – who go out on weekends, and a lot of them are tradesmen –

Bev McArthur interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Yes, a lot of them are union members, that is correct. In fact it was quite interesting. Our party did a stand at a hunting and firearms exhibition last year, and the vast majority of the people there looked like they were Labor guys. So I can see why Labor did not want to restrict duck hunting and is quite keen on deer hunting as well, because these guys, they love it. They love going out there and participating in this activity. But there are other activities as well, and I fear that these activities will be shut down. For that reason the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. I will be considering the amendments being put forward by other parties, but I also state that I will be opposing the Greens’ amendments.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:55): I too rise to speak on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill is the latest attack on the inheritance of Victorians. The proposal to convert more than 60,000 hectares of central west state forest into new national parks threatens to shut people out of the places they have known and loved for generations. These are not abstract landscapes on a map; they are real places where people bushwalk, camp, ride horses, fish, hunt, prospect and simply spend time in our wonderful natural environment. These pursuits are part of our culture. They support regional Victoria, not to mention our mental and physical health. They bring families together and they build memories across generations.

I have had countless letters to this effect from Victorians devastated about how restrictions will stop them sharing their passions with their children and grandchildren. These activities connect us to the land, yet the government seem determined to restrict access, reduce activity and lock up the bush and throw away the keys, all in the name of environmentalism – while failing abysmally to manage the parks they already have. The state of our existing national parks is enough evidence that this government cannot meet the basic obligations of maintenance: weed control, feral animal management, track repair and fire preparedness. Until they can do these things, they have no business expanding their operations.

I want to pay tribute to the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria and to the many other recreational and community groups who have spent years trying to make the government listen, including unions. Their experience, their knowledge of the land and their dedication to responsible use should be valued. Instead, they have been sidelined by a government that listens only to activists and pressure groups, who hold no stake in regional Victoria and who reject any human presence in the bush at all.

This entire bill rests on the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council’s central west investigation. That report is incomplete, out of date and widely rejected. More than half of the submissions opposed the creation of these national parks, and many raised serious concerns about fire access, safety, recreation, economics and cultural use. Those concerns were largely ignored. There are also legitimate questions about whether VEAC even followed its own act. Yet the government treats its report as gospel, as if the simple act of locking up land equals environmental protection. It does not. The belief that people and nature should never interact is not conservation, it is ideology, and it is seriously damaging to communities, to local economies and to the environment itself. I have spent my life in the country. I was born in Terang, raised on a farm at Tylden and went to school at Mount Macedon. I now live on a farm near Camperdown. My children grew up there. I have always believed that the more people experience nature, the more they value it and protect it. Good land management requires people. It requires use. It requires the presence of volunteers, campers, riders, walkers, prospectors and timber workers. These are the eyes and ears of the bush. When you force them out, you create empty forests with growing fuel loads, rising weed infestations and uncontrolled feral animals.

I have spoken in this Parliament many times about fire. Fire management in Victoria is failing. The government abandoned the planned burn targets recommended by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. They failed to maintain tracks. They failed to reduce fuel loads. Farmers constantly tell me the same thing: the worst neighbour to have is the government. Their land is choked with weeds, their fuel loads are out of control and their pest management is inadequate. Their approach to the native timber industry has been a disaster. The end of timber harvesting removed a skilled workforce that has always played an essential role in fire response. When the next major fire comes, it will not be the activists in Fitzroy fighting it; it will be locals who know the land, and they will be expected to work in a forest the government has let deteriorate. Emergency agencies were not properly consulted about these park conversions. Fire crews need access, they need tracks and they need clear lines of retreat. When you convert state forest into national park, you change the workplace of every firefighter in that region. It is extraordinary that the government is proceeding without a thorough understanding of what this means for their safety.

The economic analysis in this bill is equally weak. Prospectors and fossickers contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the regional economy. Yet the VEAC report could not even differentiate between a miners’ right, a small prospecting licence and a full mining licence. It had no grasp of the scale of economic activity involved. Independent analysis has estimated a loss of more than $2.5 billion in net present value and the likely loss of more than 1000 jobs. That was calculated when gold was $2000 an ounce – it is now close to $6000. The opportunity cost to regional Victoria is massive. That is before we even consider the impact on apiarists, forestry contractors, firewood collectors, local tourism operators and small businesses who rely on long-stay visitors.

There is also a cultural side to this debate, which the government refuses to acknowledge. The people who use these forests have done so for generations. Their parents and grandparents walked these gullies, prospected in these creeks and camped in these clearings. This is their culture. It matters to them just as deeply as any other cultural tradition. Some have told me that their time in the bush is part of their recovery from trauma, part of how they stay connected and well. In an age where mental health is supposedly a priority, the government treats these benefits as irrelevant. We have already seen the consequences in the Grampians, where climbers were wrongly locked out and blamed by Parks Victoria for something they did not do. This bill continues that pattern. It prioritises ideology over evidence. It values the voices of activists over the experience of regional communities. It ignores fire, ignores economic reality and ignores the cultural connection that so many Victorians have to the bush.

The opposition have made it clear we do not oppose every part of this bill. There are technical provisions that can and should proceed, but we cannot support the central west park lock-ups. I repeat: we cannot support the central west park lock-ups. That is why we moved a reasoned amendment to withdraw the bill and divide it. Let the non-controversial elements pass in one bill. That would be a good idea, wouldn’t it? Let the central west proposals be examined properly in another. Victoria deserves land management that is practical, balanced and informed by those who live on the land. It deserves a government that works with communities, not against them. This bill does not meet that standard. I repeat: this bill does not meet that standard. It will damage regional livelihoods, reduce public access, weaken fire preparedness and undermine a proud bush culture that has shaped this state for more than a century. For all those reasons I cannot support it. But I absolutely support our amendments and oppose the Greens’ amendments.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:05): Victoria has the grim title of being the state with the most land cleared in our nation. About 70 per cent of all our native habitat has been destroyed since colonisation. This makes what we have remaining even more precious. Most of us feel better when we spend some time out in nature, and I think there are very few people who would say that they do not appreciate our beautiful native forests and our national parks. Our wild natural places help connect us to our planet in a way that many of us who live either in the city or in the middle or outer suburbs crave. Being in the forest reminds us of the beauty and the timelessness of our trees, of our native creatures and of the connectedness of these ecosystems. We rely on a healthy environment to thrive, and beyond what we personally gain from spending time in nature, our national parks are critical to the health of our planet and its other inhabitants.

I am very pleased to, alongside my colleagues, support this bill and these laws that will at long last create the Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg national parks, as well as conservation parks in Mirboo North, Cobaw and Hepburn. This is a real win for the environment, and it is a victory for the traditional owners, for the communities and for the environmentalists who have been fighting to protect these places for many, many years. These new parks will protect huge swathes of native habitat that are home to hundreds of rare and threatened animals, plants, fungi, entire ecosystems – our biodiversity. These parks will be protected from the destruction caused by logging, by resource exploitation and by neglect. These parks will keep water catchments clean and safe for the nearby regional communities and will empower traditional owner co-management and cultural authority over country. If we want to come back from being pushed to the brink of ecological destruction, if we want to protect the many plants and animals that are facing extinction, then we need to truly commit to preserving and restoring nature in this state. But beyond this bill, our Labor government have said they will not create any more national parks, and that is simply not good enough. We cannot limit our vision in restoring and rewilding our state. There is just too much at stake. Our planet relies on our forests; we must protect them at all costs. There is literally no other option if we want a safe and livable planet for our generations and those that follow us. So alongside my Greens colleagues, I commend this bill to the house.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:07): I rise to speak on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Can I just say I am incredibly pleased that I am finally able to make this contribution today. Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands in which these national parks lie and recognise their continuing connection to the forests and the waters of Victoria. It is my hope that we can continue to empower traditional owner co-management and cultural authority over country. I also want to recognise the organisations and individuals who have worked tirelessly for this: Wombat Forestcare and its fearless leader Gayle Osborne; the always brilliant boys at the Victorian National Parks Association Ben Gill, Jordan Crook and Matt Ruchal; the Bendigo and District Environment Council; Mount Cole–Pyrenees Nature Group; and all of the passionate locals who have campaigned for more than decades to protect these forests. I know many of them are here with us in the gallery today, and I want to say to them: this win is yours.

I would like to share just how long this journey has been as well. Victoria’s very first state of the environment report, and the third-ever catchment condition report, published in 2008 and 2007 respectively, first highlighted the lack of conservation reserves in central Victoria. The organisations I listed first launched their campaign for the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, VEAC, to assess these areas in October 2010. It was not until March 2017 that the government finally listened and commissioned VEAC to undertake a central west investigation into these areas of public land. The investigation’s final report was published in June 2019. The government’s response to that report was tabled in Parliament three years later, in June 2021. It was there where they accepted almost all of the recommendations, including to create the parks being established in this very bill. But it is only now, four years later, that we are finally seeing this legislation come through the Parliament. This has been one of the longest processes to create new national parks in our state’s history. The national parks I refer to are the over 65,000 hectares of forest that will soon become the Wombat–Lerderderg, Mount Buangor and Pyrenees national parks. The three new national parks contain over 380 rare and threatened plants, animals and fungi. The threatened species include the greater glider, the brush-tailed phascogale, the powerful owl and the swift parrot.

The forests being reclassified by this bill are largely within my electorate of Northern Victoria. I am incredibly privileged to have the Wombat forest right near where my electorate office is in Woodend. The bill will also expand the Bendigo Regional Park to include Wellsford forest, and in northern Victoria it will also create new conservation parks in Cobaw and Hepburn.

Legislating protection for these areas is just the first step. After decades of logging, these forests need substantial investment in ecological restoration. Sadly, with this government, adequately funding for environmental protection is about as rare as the grassland earless dragon. The now three-and-a-half-years overdue inquiry into ecosystem decline recommended that to ensure active and adaptive land management in Victoria’s parks the state government should spend 1 per cent of gross state product. Instead we have seen funding for Parks Victoria, the Office of the Conservation Regulator and other bodies consistently cut. The Auditor-General is currently examining the $875 million spent on the forestry transition program. We know that very little of the more than $1 billion spent transitioning Victoria out of native forest logging has been spent on real ecological regeneration.

Investing in our national parks does not just improve ecological outcomes, it also generates economic return for regional communities and for the entire state. Across Victoria our national parks contribute over $2 billion to the state economy. An independent economic assessment showed that investing the very bare minimum in the creation of these new parks would double the economic return on investment. Local councils, tourism operators and outdoor education companies all see the benefits of investing in nature-based economic opportunities, because when we have well-funded, peaceful national parks, people do visit them.

What people do not want in their national parks is the sound of bullets flying, but thanks to the Allan Labor government that is exactly what they are going to get. Not only does this bill allow for hunting in three new parks but it includes one of the largest expansions of seasonal deer hunting that we have ever seen. 130,000 hectares of the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks will be open to seasonal deer hunting. This means most public land in eastern Victoria will now be open to it and sit alongside the 1.8 million hectares of state forest already available.

When the minister announced the new hunting expansion, he described it as a win for regional communities, saying that expanding deer hunting means more visitors, more jobs and stronger local economies. Putting my personal views about hunting animals for fun aside for just a moment, this claim completely contradicts an overwhelming amount of evidence. The recent Great Outdoors Taskforce consultation gave us an insight into what people value about protected areas. In East Gippsland shire the number one response from the community is that these places are important for conservation and biodiversity. Number two was for education and learning about nature. Public safety was also a key theme throughout the whole report.

The government is undermining the steps taken by local communities to decide their own economic future. The Errinundra to Snowy District Community Plan was developed by the local community and clearly identifies nature-based tourism, including hiking, birdwatching and camping, as the priority for future development in the region. We know that the presence of firearms in national parks reduces visitation and deters the very tourists regional towns depend on. The government constantly refer to the economic benefits from the 58,611 licensed hunters across Victoria, but they ignore the impact those hunters have on the almost 50 million Victorians who visit national parks for literally any other reason at all. Independent polling shows that, when asked what visitors valued most about national parks, 53 per cent cited peace and quiet, while 37 per cent explicitly identified ‘no shooting and no hunting’ as a reason they would visit national parks more often. The government have also argued expanded seasonal deer hunting is an effective way to manage feral deer populations. This too is untrue. The Victorian government’s own deer control program explicitly states recreational hunting alone has not been proven to stop population increases or range spread. There are more humane and more effective ways to reduce introduced species like deer. They just prefer to outsource the job to amateur shooters. I have flagged that I will be moving amendments to remove the expanded hunting provisions in this bill, and I ask that these be circulated now. I note that Mr Bourman and I are moving exact opposite sets of amendments.

Jeff Bourman: I’ve withdrawn mine.

Georgie PURCELL: I missed that, Mr Bourman. I was going to say we have been agreeing on far too many things recently. I will also be supporting the amendments moved by my crossbench colleagues in the Greens. Although I will be moving to strip all hunting from the bill, I particularly support its removal from Mount Buangor. VEAC did not recommend its inclusion there, and for very, very good reason. As usual the government have announced these drastic changes and given the community and stakeholders no real detail for how it will be managed and particularly how they intend to guarantee the safety of other visitors. The Alpine National Park management plan, which covers these areas, has not been updated since 2016. I will be raising many of these questions during the committee-of-the-whole stage of the bill, and considering the magnitude of my concerns, I hope that the government are in the mood to provide answers to these questions.

The government’s media release for this bill declared they will not be creating any new national parks. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not accepting that for a moment. Among many other changes, the great forest national park in the Central Highlands and Emerald Link in East Gippsland are projects which do need to happen. I want to make something very, very clear: making these forests national parks is not an automatic or a perfect solution. In her contribution to this bill Ms Bath commented that reclassifying state forest to national park is putting a name on a piece of paper – it does not protect the forest, it does not protect the land; it is simply a reclassification. In a way I agree with those comments. Without investing in real restoration and protection, the change is fairly negligible. The classification itself is not perfect. Much of Victoria’s current public land legislation derives from 19th century legislation and could be considerably improved. I did acknowledge traditional owners and their connection to land at the start of my speech, but beyond acknowledgements we need to ensure legislation allows for real Indigenous self-determination over the land that they have been custodians of for over 65,000 years. None of this is perfect, but Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia. Our native animals are facing a worsening extinction crisis. The classification of national parks is the best mechanism that we have for long-term protection in front of us right now. In saying that, I commend the bill to the house.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (15:20): I would like to thank everyone for their contributions on the Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill is wideranging and addresses a number of changes in relation to public land across Victoria. This debate has been similarly wideranging, and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the concerns that have been put forward. One of the key claims put forward by the opposition is that national parks restrict access and stop people from doing the activities that they love. They claim a large list of activities are either illegal or not permitted, and this simply is not true. National parks are important tourism assets as well as environmental assets. They have an international brand, known as places where visitors can enjoy the incredible natural environment of a state or country. Tourism Research Australia reports that across Australia, visitation to national and state parks has grown by 73 per cent since 2014. We expect that there will be more visitors to these beautiful parts of Victoria following the creation of these national parks, not less.

I will go through a list of all of the activities people will be able to undertake in the new national parks. You can go camping, including dispersed camping with campfire; fishing; hiking and bushwalking; car touring and four-wheel driving; mountain biking; trail bike riding; dog walking; horseriding; and recreational deer hunting by stalking. Other recreational activities will also continue in the nearby and adjoining state forests and regional parks, like prospecting. It is also important to note that we deliberately excluded most of the key prospecting areas from the national park boundaries, keeping them in surrounding regional parks and state forests, where prospecting can be undertaken. We have found the right balance, we believe, to protect what needs to be protected while keeping the land open and accessible for the activities Victorians and visitors love.

Another claim from the opposition that they have raised is that we are not looking after our existing parks well enough to consider adding new ones. Again, this is simply not true. Parks Victoria is working tirelessly to keep our landscape healthy. Parks Victoria treated 1.6 million hectares of land in the 2024–25 financial year to minimise the impact of weeds and pests. That is around 40 per cent of their land estate, and we will continue to back our Parks Victoria staff and support them in their work. The opposition have also claimed that Parks Victoria are not carrying out repairs of their assets. Not only is this factually incorrect but it also ignores the fact that closures at Parks Victoria sites are often due to damage caused by extreme weather events such as fires, storms or flooding; natural hazards, including unstable rocks, trails or trees; seasonal challenges such as flooded, snowy or icy roads; or the delivery of essential works, including infrastructure maintenance, capital projects and conservation programs. We have upgraded and reopened almost 40 sites in the last 12 months, from the Wattle Park tram shelters in the south-eastern suburbs to the Thurra north campground in East Gippsland, the new Erskine Falls lookout platform in the Great Otway National Park and everything in between. These facts are ignored by some members simply to suit their narrative.

The other issue that has been raised by those opposite is firewood access. We aim to carefully manage access to firewood in public forests for domestic purposes in a fair and sustainable manner, with an emphasis on availability for local communities and those who depend on firewood as their primary source of heating. We recognise that firewood is a limited resource with unpredictable availability and that demand can exceed supply in some areas. It requires ongoing and careful management to balance community needs and safety as well as environmental impacts. Domestic firewood for local communities in central west Victoria can be sourced during the firewood collection season from firewood collection areas in state forests in the region and, until 2029, in firewood collection areas in the proposed regional parks near Wombat–Lerderderg National Park and the Bendigo Regional Park addition. Some firewood may become available from time to time from land management activities in the new parks, such as removal of storm debris as part of fire management activities, treating hazardous trees or ecological restoration works. In addition, the state and federal governments have various support programs and concessions available for people on low incomes who need to purchase firewood or need assistance with energy costs, and they include the energy assistance program, the Energy Bill Relief Fund, the power saving bonus, the non-mains energy concession and the non-mains utility relief grant scheme. We will continue to support local communities who use firewood as well as keep our environment healthy.

Another concern that was raised by those opposite was in relation to bees and whether apiarists would continue to hold their current licences in the new national parks. I am happy to confirm that there will be no change to existing licences in the new parks. We will continue to support apiarists in their important work supporting a healthy ecosystem and driving regional economies. The opposition also raised concerns about alleged job cuts in Parks Victoria on the front line and alleged funding cuts. I am happy to confirm that since the new CEO has come on board, Parks Victoria has appointed or will be appointing 84 new rangers. This will put more boots on the ground, which of course is a fantastic achievement.

The opposition also expressed concern around the transfer of management responsibilities to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, particularly around operational funding. I am advised that jobs, depots and offices, vehicles, equipment and funding that currently exist within Parks Victoria in the Great Ocean Road area will be transferred to GORCAPA, and this is expected by 1 July next year. I am advised that GORCAPA’s operations are principally funded through the revenue generated from land management activities, including caravan parks and commercial leases, supplemented by government appropriations for the operation of local ports and the management of national parks. As required under the act, all revenue is reinvested into the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority to protect the environment, improve visitor experiences, advance community priorities and enhance local infrastructure and amenities. I am also advised that establishing a sustainable funding model is the next step in the evolution of the authority to ensure that it has the resources needed to deliver all of its responsibilities. The government is committed to delivering a sustainable funding model for the authority and will have more to say about that very soon.

There are also other concerns raised by the Greens here and in the other place, where they claim that recreational deer hunting does not remove enough deer to lead to a reduction in numbers. I can confirm that the recreational deer hunting will be happening alongside deer control programs by Parks Victoria. We are continuing our comprehensive control programs whilst also opening up more opportunities for hunters and growing regional economies. The 2024 deer harvest report estimates 167,600 deer were harvested in 2024. That is an increase of 22 per cent on the estimated deer harvest in 2023 and an 83 per cent increase in the long-term average of 91,100. With more than 45,000 licensed deer hunters across Victoria who contributed over $200 million to the Victorian economy between 2013 and 2019, it is seen to be important to continue to support these users of the great outdoors. The Greens also raised concerns about how we keep other users of the parks safe when deer hunters are utilising the spaces. I want to point out that there are several national parks already open to hunting, including Baw Baw, Alpine, Lake Eildon and the Mitchell River national parks. In all these parks there are restrictions in place to ensure the safety of all visitors. We want to implement a similar approach in the Snowy River and the Errinundra national parks, and we are employing two additional Parks Victoria rangers for the Gippsland region to support the implementation of that decision. Parks Victoria will also ensure any required signage is in place to inform visitors where deer hunting is permitted. Information on deer hunting is available to the public on several government websites, notably those of Parks Victoria, the Game Management Authority and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.

I also wish to take issue with a matter raised by the member for Melbourne in the other place, suggesting that we have backtracked on a promise to create new national parks, including the great forest national park. Other than the central west national parks that we are delivering, I can confirm that this government never promised to create new national parks, and that simply is a fact.

Finally, I just want to raise another issue that has been mentioned by the Greens, and that is the concept of salvage logging, which we again refute. Salvage logging, or logging by stealth, does not exist. Native timber harvesting has ended. To insinuate fire management efforts are logging by stealth is factually incorrect. Strategic fuel breaks are key to reducing the impacts of bushfires on local environments and communities. We engage independent environmental experts to guide us to make sure that we are having the least possible impact on the environment while we are doing the work necessary to ensure their efficacy.

I take this opportunity to thank everyone again for their contributions on this bill in this chamber and in the other place. I look forward to seeing the progress of this bill to secure a healthier, more accessible environment for every Victorian to enjoy. I understand members will have questions in committee. I hope that I have answered some of those concerns already in my summing-up, but I think that this will be an afternoon where we will agree to disagree on many things. I commend this bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

 The PRESIDENT (15:41): I have considered the amendments on sheet SMA44C circulated by Dr Mansfield. In my view amendments 1 and 4 are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:42): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider an amendment and new clause to the Forests Act 1958 to enable the secretary to enter into agreements and arrangements relating to the prevention and suppression of fires and recovery from fires.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:42): We will not be opposing the instruction motion on principle, because that is the common practice in this house, but we certainly do not support the intent of the amendment.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (15:43): I just wish to advise the house that the government will not be supporting the instruction motion.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (15:47)

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, are you able to provide an estimated timeline for the creation of management plans for the new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding it will be within 12 months of them coming into effect.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you please clarify if the expansion of recreational hunting will also permit the hunting or lethal control of native dingoes?

Gayle TIERNEY: That was the expansion of regional hunting – was that the question?

Georgie PURCELL: My question was: will the expansion of recreational hunting within the three new parks include the hunting or lethal control of native dingoes?

Gayle TIERNEY: No, only deer species will be able to be hunted.

Georgie PURCELL: If seasonal recreational deer hunting is permitted, which the bill does allow in parts, how will predator species, including dingoes, be protected from unintended impacts?

Gayle TIERNEY: As is the case in all national parks where deer hunting is permitted, it will be an offence to shoot any animal other than deer, including any native wildlife. In addition to the National Parks Act 1975 and Wildlife Act 1975, hunters are also required to abide by the Firearms Act 1996. Significant penalties apply to offences committed under these acts, including the possibility of imprisonment for the most serious offences. Also hunters are required to complete a Victorian firearm safety course. It is also noted that one of the rules in the Firearm Safety Code is to identify one’s target beyond all reasonable doubt before shooting.

Georgie PURCELL: Thank you, Minister, for the fulsome response. Could you please advise what oversight mechanisms will exist to ensure that ecological objectives of new parks are met?

Gayle TIERNEY: Parks Victoria will be responsible for ensuring that the new parks are managed in accordance with the National Parks Act and its ecological objectives. Part of the Parks Victoria conservation program includes monitoring, which is an important aspect of park management. Monitoring enables an understanding of the status of conservation assets and threats and how these change in time and space, which in turn supports decision-making based on evidence and promotes continuous improvement in effectiveness of management. Parks Victoria will also determine what monitoring may be required in the new parks as part of its broader monitoring program.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will 1080 poison baits be permitted in the new national parks of Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg?

Gayle TIERNEY: Parks Victoria delivers invasive species control programs to protect native fauna from predation and competition and habitat damage caused by the introduced animals, including foxes and feral cats. Invasive species control programs for these parks will be developed and implemented in future using the best available science with a range of control methods selected based on need and assessment of risks; they may include the use of 1080 where it is considered appropriate.

Georgie PURCELL: How will the government ensure the safety particularly of companion animals in parks where 1080 programs are underway when we know that signage is often difficult to spot and does not effectively deter people from the area? We have had a lot of tragic incidents of companion animals consuming 1080 baits, and of course there is no antidote or solution except for death when this happens.

Gayle TIERNEY: Prior to the use of 1080 and PAPP pest animal bait products at a specific site, Parks Victoria staff will conduct a risk assessment to reduce the risk to non-target species, which will include of course assistance dogs. Bait products are usually not deployed in areas of high visitation, including campsites, car parks and formalised tracks and trails. Clear signage is installed when bait products will be used, along with updates to Parks Victoria’s website. Assistance dogs would be expected to be on leads and under control of the owner. It would also be expected they would not be taken outside visitor sites and walking trails. Parks Victoria encourages visitors with assistance dogs to check the latest park information on potential hazards which might affect the dog, including baiting.

Georgie PURCELL: What lethal control management methods are permitted in these new national parks and on what animal species?

Gayle TIERNEY: As an important part of supporting nature to thrive, Parks Victoria undertakes site-specific evaluation of invasive species risks to inform the most appropriate selection of animal control tools to achieve effective, safe and humane outcomes. The tools to be evaluated and commonly used in other locations for introduced animal control include poison baiting, shooting and trapping. Program design will also consider and determine appropriate control approaches for a range of introduced animals that are established in Victoria, including deer, feral pigs, feral goats, rabbits, foxes and feral cats.

Georgie PURCELL: How does permitting deer hunting in national parks align with the conservation objectives of the National Parks Act 1975?

Gayle TIERNEY: Recreational deer hunting by stalking is permitted in several parks under the National Parks Act through specific provisions in the act. They provide additional recreational opportunities in those parks where it is permitted. The Victorian Deer Control Strategy recognises that, while providing some benefit, recreational hunting on its own is not an effective means of controlling deer numbers. Recreational hunters collectively kill a considerable number of deer in the course of their recreation. For example, in 2024, as I mentioned in my summing-up, an estimated 167,600 deer were killed, including 52,600 on public land; 60 per cent of the sambar deer and 58 per cent of the fallow deer were females. The removal of females can contribute of course to population control. Parks Victoria will continue to carry out deer control programs in national parks, including involving accredited recreational hunters.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you have touched on this: the government has recognised that recreational hunting is not an effective means of controlling deer numbers. Can you cover off what alternative methods of control the government is also considering to take both a more humane and a more effective approach to introduced species in these national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: As an important part of supporting nature to thrive, Parks Victoria undertakes site-specific evaluation of invasive species risks to inform the most appropriate selection of animal control tools to achieve effective, safe and humane outcomes. It is expected that Parks Victoria would carry out deer control programs in national parks, including using professional shooters and also involving accredited recreational hunters in accordance with park management priorities.

Georgie PURCELL: The minister for this bill stated in the second-reading speech that deer hunting in Errinundra and Snowy River national parks will be subject to conditions to help minimise impacts on other users. What are those conditions, and how will the government reduce impact on other park users?

Gayle TIERNEY: The conditions will be included in a notice gazetted under the National Parks Act. As an indication of the types of conditions which might apply, the notice, published in the Victorian Government Gazette on 7 March 2018 to authorise deer hunting by stalking in specified areas of the Alpine and Baw Baw national parks and in the Avon Wilderness Park and the Tara Range Park, includes conditions prohibiting hunting or the use of firearms, bows or crossbows in or within 100 metres of any camping or picnic area, requiring hunters to keep any firearms or crossbows, unloaded in or within 100 metres of any camping or picnic area. There could also be buffers around other features where the use of firearms would not be permitted – for example, along popular walking tracks. The notice also specifies the time of year when hunting may occur. In the Alpine National Park the season avoids the peak summer holiday period between mid-December and mid-February. In the central west national parks the government has committed to a hunting season during the cooler months of the year between 1 May and the start of the spring school holidays to avoid peak visitor periods. Also, recreational deer hunting tends by its nature to occur away from areas where there are large numbers of visitors and in the cooler months of the year. Recent deer harvest figures for 2024 show that most recreational hunting occurred in the winter and early spring – June to September.

Georgie PURCELL: There are very few rangers in East Gippsland. Is the government going to increase enforcement capabilities in these areas that are now open to hunting?

Gayle TIERNEY: There are currently 18 ranger positions in East Gippsland east of the Snowy River. Parks Victoria is getting back to basics with a focus on core land and conservation and asset management. Parks Victoria has appointed or will appoint an additional 84 rangers statewide, as I mentioned in my summing-up; recruitment is underway for an additional 34 rangers, with another 50 to follow. This will mean more local opportunities to deliver on local priorities, work more closely with communities and partners and increase engagement and education capacity in the regions. In addition to authorised Parks Victoria rangers, authorised officers in the Game Management Authority and Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) may also carry out enforcement activities in national parks, as they do now.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, considering the major changes to visitor activities both in this bill and recently announced, will the 2016 Alpine National Park management plan be updated?

Gayle TIERNEY: Parks Victoria will consider what amendments may be required to the Greater Alpine National Parks Management Plan of 2016 to recognise deer hunting in parts of the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks.

Georgie PURCELL: This bill revokes the native game sanctuaries in Mount Cole, Langi Kal Kal and Mount Mistake. It expands deer hunting by stalking in the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks and allows it in the three newly created national parks. What is the total area this bill opens for deer hunting?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that this bill will open up approximately 140,000 hectares for deer hunting.

Georgie PURCELL: What consultation took place to inform the decision to open that 140,000 hectares of public land to deer hunting?

Gayle TIERNEY: The government supports responsible and safe hunting and the additional opportunities the bill will provide for deer stalkers to enjoy recreational deer hunting by stalking in several national parks. The revocation of the game sanctuaries in central west Victoria, including the Mount Cole native game sanctuary, was part of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) central west investigation. The introduction of deer hunting into those two national parks reflects a longstanding desire of recreational deer hunters to access those parks, as I understand it.

Georgie PURCELL: Have there been ecological or public safety assessments of the implications of allowing deer hunting in these high-visitation areas?

Gayle TIERNEY: There have been no specific studies. However, recreational deer hunting tends by its nature to occur away from areas with large numbers of visitors and in the cooler months of the year, as I have previously outlined. It should be noted that hundreds and thousands of deer hunter days are conducted each year without incident. In 2024 deer hunters were active 354,500 days, 49.5 per cent of which occurred on public land exclusively and accounted for 31.4 per cent of the total recreational harvest. The hunting of deer and the use of firearms is highly regulated under the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Firearms Act 1996, and the Firearms Act in particular provides specified offences relating to the safe storage, possession, carriage and use of firearms, including using a firearm in a dangerous manner. Hunting at night, including under a spotlight, is not permitted. Of course anyone in breach of the law can be subject to significant fines and/or confiscation of equipment and/or risk of imprisonment.

Georgie PURCELL: What additional resources or measures are being taken to ensure the safety of other visitors who are not hunters?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, this is a good question. Hunting in the new central west national parks and in the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks will be subject to conditions to help minimise potential impacts on other park users. For example, where deer hunting by stalking is permitted in parts of the Alpine National Park, the use of firearms is prohibited within 100 metres of any camping or picnic area, and there may also be buffers around other features where the use of firearms would not be permitted – for example, along popular walking tracks. A number of these points I made in my summing up. Again, recreational deer hunting tends by its nature to occur in areas where there are not large numbers of visitors and in cooler months of the year, and Parks Victoria will ensure that there is appropriate signage in place to inform visitors where deer hunting is permitted. Information on deer hunting is available to the public on several government websites that I have previously mentioned.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, part 8, division 5, of the bill allows Parks Victoria to issue riparian management licences for private landholders who adjoin the Liwik Barring Landscape Conservation Area. How many licences will be issued, and can the minister confirm licences will not allow grazing or other agricultural activity?

Gayle TIERNEY: Riparian management licences may be issued over the three streamside areas being added to the landscape conservation area, which are narrow and linear in nature. A licence may be issued for the purpose of maintaining or improving the riparian environment of the area – for example, managing weeds – or other purposes related to protecting or managing the area. The licence will enable the licensee to manage adjacent public land for conservation, such as undertaking weed management and revegetation with local native species. In some cases, the licence could include a special condition to allow grazing as a management tool to achieve a particular management objective – for example, pulse grazing to control certain weed species. It is envisaged that 15 licences will be issued in the first instance, six of which include a special grazing condition. In no cases would the licence authorise cattle to access the waterway, which would be fenced, and in no cases would they be authorised for general grazing or other agricultural activity.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I think you covered off this detail in your answer just now, but for the sake of clarity, could you just say where the licences will be and how much area they will cover?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is envisaged that there will be 15 licences. That includes 11 in the Little Yarra River streamside area and four in the Britannia Creek streamside area. Of the 230 hectares being added to the landscape conservation area through the bill, approximately 34 hectares will be licensed, about 14.5 per cent of the total area. This includes 3.4 hectares with a special condition to allow grazing as a management tool.

Georgie PURCELL: I just have a few more questions left in relation to traditional owner arrangements. How will traditional owner knowledge and practice be integrated into management plans for the new parks and conservation reserves created under this bill?

Gayle TIERNEY: Relevant traditional owner groups will be asked to be directly involved in the development of the management plans for the new parks. This will provide one opportunity to integrate traditional owner knowledge and practice into future park management. Parks Victoria will also ensure any obligations under any relevant recognition and settlement agreement regarding management plans are met. The process of integrating traditional owner knowledge and practice into park management is of course an ongoing one, and this will be the case with these new parks. The proposed public land bill will enable traditional owners to be involved in the management of public land, including national parks, in a variety of ways.

Georgie PURCELL: How does the bill ensure the protection of cultural heritage sites within the newly created or expanded park areas under this legislation?

Gayle TIERNEY: For Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 will continue to apply regardless of land status. For non-Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, the Heritage Act 2017 will continue to apply regardless of the land status. For those parks managed under the National Parks Act, the act and the National Parks Regulations 2024 will apply, and for the new regional park areas managed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, regulations under that act will apply.

Georgie PURCELL: Will traditional owners be able to carry out cultural burning, cultural uses or other customary practices within the parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: Cultural burns could be carried out in the new parks in conjunction with Forest Fire Management Victoria, as they are now on public land, in line with the Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land 2025. The department – that is, DEECA – supports traditional owners to practice cultural fire on relevant public land, including national parks, where the cultural burn is carried out in accordance with the fire provisions of the Forests Act 1958. There are opportunities for traditional owner groups to secure funding through the Victorian government’s traditional owner grants program. Cultural uses and other customary practices could also be carried out. This could include activities which would otherwise not be permitted under the relevant legislation but where there are exemptions under the relevant regulations or the National Parks Act or where the activity is being carried out in accordance with natural resource agreements under the relevant recognition and settlement agreement.

Georgie PURCELL: What resources are being allocated to enable traditional owner groups to assume or participate in management roles in the new parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: The initial funding that has been provided to five traditional owner groups whose country includes part or all of the central west parks will assist with their involvement in planning for when the parks are created. Additional funding will be sought through relevant processes so that traditional owners can be involved in the future management of the parks to the extent that they wish to be.

Georgie PURCELL: Finally, how does this bill align with broader treaty processes underway?

Gayle TIERNEY: The bill has been developed separately to the process developed by the Statewide Treaty, but it is aligned with the whole of Victorian government treaty alignment principles, which seek to ensure the government meets its good faith obligations under the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 and the Treaty Negotiation Framework. In particular the bill does not aim to pre-empt or limit what may be achieved through the Statewide Treaty, including future chapters and traditional owner treaties, and is not precluded from future adaptation or updates as treaty progresses in Victoria.

Melina BATH: I have a number of questions, and I am happy, if you are happy, to ask them in clause 1 of the bill. Just following up from your comments that you provided in the summing-up, you said 1.6 million hectares of national parks were being treated for weeds and pests. Can you define what ‘treated’ means?

Gayle TIERNEY: You would have gleaned, and you would know also, that in terms of managing the parks it is a range of activities depending on what the invasive flora might be or indeed what the invasive animal may be. There are different regimes depending on what it is.

Melina BATH: This is going to be long, so I will try and make my questions as brief as possible; I am looking forward to some good answers. How does the government document what weeds are treated, what area is treated and what the level of success of control is? Is there some report or document that the public can see or that you can table that responds to weed treatment and pest treatment success and area?

Gayle TIERNEY: That is incredibly operational, and I will seek advice.

I am informed that that information is available in the annual report of Parks Victoria.

Melina BATH: I want to go to comments in relation to what is in and what is out of the new national parks that are being formed. I am not verballing you, Minister, I am responding to some of your comments, and I just want to drill down into this. When it was mentioned that you can go camping in a dispersed fashion with a campfire, is that exactly as it is now in a state forest, or are there dispersed, as the government might call it, camping sites with fireplaces that are designated by government?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised that it is the same.

Melina BATH: So in the new national parks, basically a family can go in and light a fire anywhere they choose to, as they can now? Is it exactly the same as it is now in the state forests, or are there any parameters on this?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised that, in terms of those areas that are currently state forests that become national parks, that will remain the same. And of course it is subject to fire regulations as well.

Melina BATH: In terms of the government’s response to the VEAC report – and looking at page 13, and I will get to that later – it states that you can walk your horse along a major road – this is the government agreeing to this in the national park:

horse riding on formed roads and tracks specified by the land manager (see note 1)

So you can walk your horse in the new national park, but you cannot camp with horses, and they are not allowed to graze or feed in the national park. Is that correct?

Gayle TIERNEY: Horseriding will be permitted in the new national and conservation parks on roads and tracks where it is currently permitted, including in parts of the existing Lerderderg State Park which will be included in the Wombat–Lederberg National Park.

Melina BATH: My question was: can you camp overnight? You can walk your horse through it. Can you camp overnight?

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Melina BATH: In relation to the walking of dogs through the newly formed national parks, the recommendation in the government’s response to the VEAC report says they may be kept on a lead in a specified area. Could you explain exactly what you can and cannot do with a dog in these new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: Dogs on leads will be permitted on vehicle and walking tracks and in picnic areas and campgrounds in those parts of the new parks where dogs are currently permitted. These areas will be designated under the national parks regulations as has occurred for parts of the existing Lerderderg State Park which again will be included in the Wombat–Lerderderg National Park.

Melina BATH: From my take then they are restricted in this new formation. I am going to ask in relation to searching for minerals, and I mean that in terms of tourist fossicking. Is that allowed in these three new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer is no.

Melina BATH: Can we just confirm things like trail bike riding? It states here ‘on formed roads and tracks that are open to the public’. In the past someone could go, we will say, off-road. Is it possible for people to go off-road on a trail bike in the new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: No.

Melina BATH: The same with mountain bike riding and cycling – it says ‘on formed roads’. Are people able to go mountain bike riding on non-formed roads – we will say making their own way on stony ground – in the new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: In terms of off-road four-wheel driving and trail, it is illegal to drive off-road on any public land, including state forests and national parks. Vehicles are required to stay on the tracks. Four-wheel driving and trail bike riding are permitted on tracks open to the public in national parks and will continue to be permitted on tracks in the new national parks open to the public, subject of course to seasonal road closures. Four-wheel driving is a popular activity in many of the larger existing national parks, in particular the Alpine National Park. What was the other matter?

Melina BATH: Mountain bike riding, trail bike riding, off-road vehicle driving.

Gayle TIERNEY: It is the same. The same principles apply.

Melina BATH: Minister, I want to just turn to beekeeping. I was very interested that you said in your summing up that the operation of placing beehives in the state forest will be continuing. You mentioned that current licences will continue and existing licences will continue. But when those current and existing licences expire, will the government permit the beehives to continue – that is, does the government have any intention of stopping or cancelling the rolling over, the renewal, of existing licences for beehives on public land in these new national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: A couple of things: beekeeping will continue to be permitted in the new national and conservation parks and the addition of the Bendigo Regional Park and will continue to be administered under the Land Act 1958. Existing licences are not affected, and applications for new sites will be considered on their merits as they currently are. The Victorian government is committed to a viable and productive beekeeping industry and recognises the important and vital contribution beekeepers make to the economy, agriculture, the community and of course native forest management. DEECA continues to support the beekeeping industry and recently waivered licence fees for the burnt apiary sites affected by the 2020 bushfires in the Grampians and the Little Desert national parks for two years until the next invoicing date of 1 July 2027.

A series of focused, face-to-face joint discussions between the Victorian government and industry representatives, including the Victorian Apiarists’ Association, is being proposed as a way forward to resolve key matters raised by the industry after the bushfires. These include issues such as the varroa destructor mite and opportunities for communication between the industry, Parks Victoria and other government department representatives following the cessation of the Apiculture on Public Land Engagement Group. It is anticipated that these workshops will be held later this year.

The apiculture on public land policy was developed with the industry in 2013 and ensures continued secure access and streamlined administration of apiculture on public land. It is supported by comprehensive licensing provisions inserted into the Land Act in 2016. New applications for apiary sites are assessed on a case-by-case basis, in line with the longstanding policy of licence conditions. There is no evidence that DEECA staff intend to cancel any current apiary licences in any DEECA region. We fully support this industry. It is absolutely critical to our agriculture industry.

Melina BATH: I completely support that position. In rounding out this discussion on that, there are two things. One, will the government consider bringing back the apiculture on public land group? It has got an interesting name, but I will not give you the acronym. That is the first question. And in relation to the national park at Wilsons Promontory, there has been concern that some of the licences there now will not be renewed. Can the minister then state – to all, very positive news – that they will be reinstated? That is a really important one for apiculturists down there.

Gayle TIERNEY: I will seek advice on the Wilsons Promontory issue. In terms of the public land engagement group, I understand that it was ceased. I am not sure about what the circumstances were around that, but as I understand it there are communications going on between Parks Victoria and the industry and government representatives. As I said, they are going to be conducting workshops later this year, and I imagine that there will be frank and fearless discussions about what the composition of any stakeholder group might be going forward. I will just check on Wilsons Prom.

I am advised that there are consultations and discussions going on with the beekeepers at Wilsons Promontory, similar to the wider discussions that are going on across the state. They will continue, and progress will be made.

Melina BATH: I am actually seeking confirmation that the ongoing licences or the locations will continue on. Beekeepers have told me about their very important work in, we will say, the off-season. They are often used up on the Murray for industry and horticulture; also in the off-season they come down and have a rest at a national park and rejuvenate their hives. This is a really important aspect, and you have identified that and are in agreement with that, but it is also important that we utilise those great national parks like Wilsons Promontory.

Gayle TIERNEY: I will need to take that on notice, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: I will just move back now. I appreciate the conversation around some of your points, although I will raise another couple later on, but in relation to VEAC on the economic and recreational impact, can the minister provide evidence to support the VEAC’s claim that converting state forests into national parks – and this is in the document – increases tourism and creates jobs? Given that the historical data over the past 25 years suggests otherwise, where has the government actually accessed evidence to support VEAC’s claim?

Gayle TIERNEY: The national park brand is a significant national and international drawcard. National parks already contribute significantly to local and regional economies across the state. Given the wide range of recreational activities which will continue in the new national parks, their close proximity to Melbourne and the increased profile generated by national park branding, the new parks will complement the other attractions of the region such as historic towns, wineries and hot springs. Overall, it is expected that the new parks will generate greater tourism and economic activity by drawing an increased number of visitors to the region.

Melina BATH: I think you said the ‘national park brand’. Can you explain what that means? When you say ‘branding’, I would also appreciate an approximation of what the cost is to rebrand something from the government, which is the taxpayer. Could you provide some context on that, please?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, I would have to take that on notice because it is a statewide question.

Melina BATH: Has the department conducted any independent economic modelling to verify VEAC’s projections on tourism growth and employment outcomes?

Gayle TIERNEY: No.

Melina BATH: Why has VEAC recommended restricting or removing key recreational activities, such as prospecting, despite identifying that recreation of that nature – prospecting and fossicking – is certainly a major economic driver in the central west region?

Gayle TIERNEY: Recreational prospecting is generally not permitted in national parks, with some exceptions. In accordance with the government’s response to VEAC’s Central West Investigation: Final Report, it will also not be permitted in the new national conservation parks but will be permitted in the Bendigo Regional Park addition. In framing its response to the VEAC recommendations, the government specifically provided additional opportunities for recreational prospecting in central west Victoria by not accepting the recommendations to expand the Greater Bendigo National Park and instead including the proposed addition in the Bendigo Regional Park and including part of what VEAC recommended as the Wombat–Lerderderg National Park in a new Barkstead Regional Park. Do you follow?

Melina BATH: Yes, thank you.

Gayle TIERNEY: Can I just say overall there are substantial areas of public land available for recreational prospecting in the central west and broader region outside the national conservation parks – for example, in the recommended regional parks, state forest and historic reserves. These available areas contain extensive goldfield areas.

Melina BATH: The Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria will argue very strongly that in actual fact the area that is being converted into national parks is indeed a very suitable prospecting region and it has been used for a long, long time. I ask in relation to that: when there are specific rules that you need to have a mining licence – whether you fossick, you still need a mining licence, and there are rules and regulations with respect to that – why would the tourist prospector and fossicker not be allowed to do that in these new national parks? I go to the point where I will, in the right clause, move an amendment to include that in section 32D, where other national parks do have the provision for the minister, if that minister sees fit under the right conditions, to allow prospecting. Why would the government not include that in this area, noting the very superficial nature of prospecting and fossicking?

Gayle TIERNEY: Recreational prospecting is generally not permitted in national parks, with seven exceptions out of 45 existing national parks. These exceptions are set out in section 32D of the National Parks Act 1975. The activity will also not be permitted in the new central west national parks in accordance with the government’s response, as I have said, to the VEAC final report. Overall, there are substantial areas of public land available for recreational prospecting in the central west and broader region outside the national parks, including regional parks, state forest and historic reserves, which I have already mentioned. These areas contain extensive goldfield areas. In making its recommendations VEAC took into account the location of goldfields and noted that the recommended Mount Buangor National Park is of little interest for recreational prospecting. The most prospective parts of the Pyrenees range are in the recommended regional park, state forest and historic reserves adjoining the Pyrenees National Park, and recreational prospecting would be allowed in those areas.

Many goldfields in the recommended regional parks in the Wombat forest would remain available for recreational prospecting. In addition, in framing its response to the VEAC recommendations the government specifically provided additional opportunities for recreational prospecting in central west Victoria. It did not accept VEAC’s recommendation to expand Greater Bendigo National Park by 3152 hectares and instead included the proposed addition of Bendigo Regional Park, where recreational prospecting will be permitted. It included part of the VEAC recommended Wombat–Lerderderg National Park in the new Barkstead Regional Park of 4855 hectares, where recreational prospecting will be permitted. Overall, the areas becoming unavailable for recreational prospecting through the creation of new national parks represent approximately 1 per cent of the public land available for this activity statewide, and most of the area being made unavailable to prospecting does not overlap with the goldfields. Also, I should mention it was Ryan Smith in 2013 who decided against having larger prospecting tools – more than small picks, axes et cetera – in national parks if it is permitted at all.

Melina BATH: Touché, Minister. But on behalf of the prospectors and miners, they cannot see the sense in what is happening here. Given the fact that on so many occasions they actually remove rubbish and rusty old whatever out of the bush and take it away, it seems like an absolute travesty for their part. I want to understand: has the government ever looked at the Alan Moran Regulation Economics report that estimated the $2.8 billion cost to the Victorian economy from VEAC’s recommendation? In doing so, and understanding the current gold price, does the government acknowledge the lost opportunity and cost of excluding areas from future mining exploration in these areas?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, this is a very operational question, and I will seek advice.

It is the answer that I have already given you. I understand that the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria consultant economist claims the net present value loss of the VEAC recommendations would be in the magnitude of et cetera et cetera, and then I gave you an answer that said the national park brand is a significant national and international drawcard et cetera et cetera. I do not have any further comment to make in relation to that.

Melina BATH: In relation to the VEAC process, there was a consultative process, and in that consultative process 3000 submissions were lodged. Going through those submissions, 66 per cent of those submissions actually state that they are opposed to the formation of these national parks in the central west. Did the government give any consideration to these submissions when it adopted, almost entirely, the VEAC report?

Gayle TIERNEY: What I can say is that it was a two-year investigation that included extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and the community, including targeted meetings with various stakeholders; 11 drop-in sessions in regional towns in the investigation area; public meetings in Trentham and Lancefield; and two opportunities to provide formal submissions, initially on notice of the investigation and subsequently on the release of the draft proposals paper. VEAC also established a community reference group to provide advice to the council on the investigation in accordance with the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001. This included representatives of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria, Four Wheel Drive Victoria, Bushwalking Victoria, Central Victorian Apiarists Association and Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) as well as two local councils and several conservation groups. VEAC’s recommendations to government were informed by what they heard through the consultations and advice and careful consideration of the important environmental, social and cultural values of the area. Recreational opportunities in the region were key considerations in the investigation.

Melina BATH: At the Bendigo summit in March 2024 the Premier said:

I will never put a padlock on our public forest.

However, this bill restricts multi-use forest access, and that does not align with the Premier’s statement. What is the rationale behind the Premier saying one thing and this bill doing another?

Gayle TIERNEY: The Shadow Minister for Environment raised in her contribution to the debate on the bill in the Assembly that the Premier had stated at the Bendigo bush summit exactly what you have mentioned. In response, the new national parks will not lock up our public forests. They will provide a wide range of opportunities for visitors to enjoy them. Most recreational activities will continue to be enjoyed in the parks, including walking, picnicking, nature observation, fishing, camping, car touring and four-wheel driving, trail bike riding, mountain biking, horse riding, dog walking on leads and seasonal deer hunting by stalking. National parks across the state welcome millions of visitors each year. Indeed Parks Victoria records that in 2022–23 national parks and other parks and reserves in Victoria welcomed approximately 90 million visitors, contributing significantly to local and regional economies.

Melina BATH: On this point we will have to disagree – and I will move on – because there is exclusion of activities and restrictions on activities. I will go to the creation of the national parks and look more at Parks Victoria. The government has in the last few years cut full-time park rangers, and through investigation I have researched and found 144 full-time park rangers being cut. You have said that there are going to be 84 new park rangers that the current minister is installing. That is still only 60 per cent of what was cut. How will Parks Victoria manage an extra 65,000 hectares when rangers have overall net declined?

Gayle TIERNEY: With respect to the public land estate managed by Parks Victoria, there has been very little change over the past 10 years, with the figure remaining around 4.1 million in terms of national parks, and the National Parks Act annual report 2014–15 records the area of national parks as nearly 2.905 million hectares compared to 2.915 million hectares in 2024–25, a change of approximately 10,000 hectares – certainly not a 20 per cent increase. The Parks Victoria budget comprises ongoing operational funding and fixed-term initiative funding – that is, core funding and project funding. The level of initiative funding to Parks Victoria varies each year based on the Victorian government and departmental priorities. As such, Parks Victoria’s total revenue and net result, as published in its annual report, varies each year. These variances can be misinterpreted as reductions in core funding. Government funding of Parks Victoria has increased significantly in the past 10 years. Funding in June 2015 was $161.096 million, and funding in June 2025 was $265.507 million. Staffing numbers in June 2015 were 957 full-time equivalent. This increased in June 2025 to 1054.8 FTE, which includes 505 rangers, including casuals. Parks Victoria is getting back to basics with a focus on core land conservation and asset management. There are fewer executive roles, a flatter structure, clearer accountabilities for faster decisions by empowered teams, and stronger place-based delivery. Since the new CEO was appointed, as I mentioned in my summing up, we have appointed or will appoint an additional 84. I think I went into a breakdown of how that was occurring in a previous response. This will mean more local opportunities to deliver on priorities, more close work with communities and partners and increased engagement and education capacity in the regions.

Melina BATH: I am reading a different set of annual reports to you, because Parks Victoria spent $2.82 million in 2024–25, which was a decline of 4 per cent after we adjust for CPI on what Parks Victoria spent under a former Liberal and National government in 2013–14, after there had been an increase of management over the last decade. In effect there has been a decline in spending with an increase in per capita, and over the past decade employee numbers have increased by 27 per cent – 1145 in 2023–24. The increase was 43 per cent for executives and managers with only a 3 per cent increase in field rangers. Parks Victoria has too many suits and too few boots. We have yet more national parks to be looked after, and they need to be effectively looked after.

Gayle TIERNEY: I think on this one, Ms Bath, we are going to have to agree to disagree. In addition to all of that, there have been structural changes in Parks Victoria recently, and I understand that there are much flatter structures that are in play.

Melina BATH: You know I have nothing against the current CEO and feel there have to be some changes made. In terms of the KordaMentha review of Parks Victoria, will that be made public in any way? If so, what parts will be made public? I guess I am asking the minister to make it public.

Gayle TIERNEY: I will take that on notice.

Melina BATH: Will the minister commit to increasing the number of field staff in these regional areas to improve on-ground park management and fire mitigation? I have got a series of questions about fire mitigation and protection.

Gayle TIERNEY: From our perspective, we already have, and I have indicated that to you in previous responses. Do you want to go on to fire?

Melina BATH: We will look at the national parks at the moment. But can the minister guarantee that local CFA brigades and Forest Fire Management Victoria will retain full access for fire preventative works on both the new national parks that will be formed and then the other smaller parks that will be created by this bill?

Gayle TIERNEY: I will come back to you momentarily on some of the matters you have just raised, but I think it is also important to note that the secretary of DEECA will remain responsible under the Forest Act 1958 for the prevention and suppression of fire on public land, including parks, under the National Parks Act 1975. This will not change when the new central west parks are created, and there will be no change to the way government agencies acquit their responsibilities. Bushfire risk will continue to be managed under the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action’s strategic, risk-based approach, and according to the code of practice for bushfire management on public land, relevant agencies will be consulted on fire management activities in the parks as necessary. There will be no reduction in firefighting capacity in Forest Fire Management Victoria because of the creation of new parks.

Melina BATH: Great. Has the fire risk assessment been completed for each of the proposed park areas, and will that be published before commencement of any and all mitigation work – that is, fuel reductions or mechanical mitigation?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised that land tenure does not change any of that.

Melina BATH: Given that Victoria’s fuel-driven bushfire risk is primarily influenced by vegetation load and then structure in the forest, what mitigation activities are formally described as fuel management delivery, and how will the government ensure that the new national parks are managed to reduce fuel-driven risk through effective management?

Gayle TIERNEY: The land tenure does not matter in this, I am advised.

Melina BATH: I will ask it a different way: how will the new parks be managed to mitigate fuel-driven risk, considering the restrictions on ecological thinning, mechanical treatments and access track maintenance that may arise from this reclassification?

Gayle TIERNEY: There is no difference. It is the same as what occurs now.

Melina BATH: When were the most recent overall fuel-hazard assessments conducted, and when will the updates on these new national parks be published?

Gayle TIERNEY: I would need to take that on notice, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: While you are there, what is the current fuel load across the three new national parks, and how will it be monitored annually? Also, how does this government justify using recently burnt areas as evidence of reduced risk when dense undergrowth increases fuel ladders? The government uses in its Safer Together program the fact that recent bushfires are integrated into the assessment of its Safer Together residual risk.

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, regardless of tenure, we will always work towards making sure that bushfire risk is mitigated.

Melina BATH: Given that the Safer Together policy has only resulted in a 1.6 per cent annual fuel reduction over the last 10 years through planned burning and/or mechanical burning, compared to the 2.2 million hectares lost in wildfire/bushfire over the last 10 years, what targets will apply to the new national parks to ensure that fuel-driven risk is meaningfully reduced? That not only applies to flora and fauna but also then reduces risk to local communities.

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, we will always work towards mitigating against fires. Vegetation issues are just one part of the regime that is implemented regardless.

Melina BATH: I want to confirm that the CFA and Forest Fire Management Victoria will retain full, unrestricted access for suppression operation fuel management delivery, including bulldozer lines, water points and strategic fuel breaks and mechanical breaks, with any change in this bill.

Gayle TIERNEY: What occurs at the moment will continue to occur.

Melina BATH: We are in one of the most fire-prone states in the world. I want to understand how the government, with this Safer Together policy, is actually able to say that it is protecting Victorians and indeed will protect these new areas when we are just seeing fuel loads driven up and up and up, and I will say, specifically in these new declared parks and settings. How can the minister assure us that Victorians are safe?

Gayle TIERNEY: There is no change. The secretary of DEECA retains the statutory responsibility under the Forests Act for the prevention and control of fire in parks under the National Parks Act, regardless of who is managing the parks. Parks Victoria staff transferring to different areas does not change anything.

Melina BATH: I will ask another couple of questions and then I am happy to return in a moment. I would like to turn to the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, and you made a couple of comments in your summing up that Parks will transfer or has transferred – and I think it comes into effect on 1 November this year, so we have passed that date – assets et cetera to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (GORCAPA). I want to drill down into this a little bit and understand the new land management strategy and how it will affect public access to traditional recreation areas along the Great Ocean Road. That is my first one in this series.

Gayle TIERNEY: So the land management strategy is prepared by the authority and will set out the long-term direction, strategies and priorities for the protection, management and use of the Great Ocean Road coast and parks managed by the authority. The strategy is intended to be a comprehensive, forward-thinking document that will align with and complement the Great Ocean Road strategic framework plan, which covers the broader Great Ocean Road region. The strategy must be consistent with the legislation under which the land is managed and any other legislation applying to the land and the government policies applying to that land. It must also address any matters specified by the minister in a ministerial direction or in a statement of obligations.

Melina BATH: Has the funding agreement been signed between DEECA and GORCAPA ahead of the transition? I wanted to just kind of understand the transfer of assets – so we will say buildings, the toilet block et cetera – and then staff and the management of those assets and funding of staff. Can you unpack how that operates and who will be responsible and the funding stream for that management?

Gayle TIERNEY: The transfer of direct on-ground field management of parks under the National Parks Act within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks from Parks Victoria to the authority will see the jobs, depots and offices, vehicles, equipment and funding that currently exist within Parks Victoria for National Parks Act land within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks transfer to the authority, which is expected to occur by 1 July next year. Parks Victoria and the authority are working closely to build the authority’s capability and plan to coordinate the transfer of staff and resourcing from Parks Victoria to the authority to enable a smooth transition for the authority in taking on this operational role.

Melina BATH: In terms of GORCAPA, will GORCAPA inherit responsibility for maintaining that infrastructure such as campgrounds, visitor centres and walking tracks previously managed by Parks? That is my first question in that. And how many parks staff will be transferred to GORCAPA?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is expected that the authority will deliver on-ground field management services in the national park land that it is responsible for by 1 July. Parks Victoria will continue to provide direct field management services to the authority up until direct on-the-ground field management of national park land within the Great Ocean Road coast and parks has transferred from Parks Victoria to the authority. In terms of the specifics with the number of staff, I do not have that information available, but I can advise you, just in terms of conversations that I have in my electorate, that it seems to be a pretty seamless exercise.

Melina BATH: This is a little bit further from my patch, so this might sound like a simple question, but how is GORCAPA and the assets, the maintenance, the funding for them and the staff framed? Is it framed in an annual report? Is that publicly available? How is it acquitted back to budget funding? How is there transparency around this process, maintenance of assets and staff et cetera?

Gayle TIERNEY: As required under the act all revenue is reinvested into the Great Ocean Road coast and parks to protect the environment, improve visitor experiences, advance community priorities and enhance local infrastructure and amenities. The authority can also request funding via the annual state budget process. For example, in the 2025–26 state budget it received operational funding. Establishing a sustainable funding model is the next step – I think I mentioned that previously – in the evolution of the authority to ensure that it has the resources needed to deliver on all of its responsibilities. The government is committed to delivering a sustainable funding model for the authority, and we will have more to say soon.

Melina BATH: I do not still have a clear picture about the reporting. Is there a report to Parliament?

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes, there will be an annual report.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that. How does this bill ensure that tourism operators and residents are consulted before changes to land use or access are made, so there is that interaction with the local tourism and the local residents? I will ask that question.

Gayle TIERNEY: It will be GORCAPA that engages with them. Again, through fairly recent conversations with some local councils as well as community members who are engaged in community activity – they have been engaged and have been satisfied with that level of engagement on a variety of things. As you probably know, there is a lot happening on the Great Ocean Road with the Geelong City Deal, so it is almost 24/7 the engagement that is occurring.

Melina BATH: In terms of that timeline for the first land management strategy to be developed and approved under this framework, what is that timeline and what is the strategic framework plan? When will it be reviewed, how regularly, and how will performance be measured?

Gayle TIERNEY: The land management strategy, I think I have already mentioned, is prepared by the authority and will set out the long-term directions and the strategies and priorities for the protection, management and use of the Great Ocean Road coast and parks managed by the authority. It is intended to be a comprehensive, forward-thinking document that will align and complement the Great Ocean Road strategic framework plan, which covers the broader Great Ocean Road region. The strategy will be consistent with legislation under which the land is managed and any other legislation applying to the land, and government policies applying to that land must also address any matters specified by the minister, a ministerial direction or a statement of obligation. So the authority will prepare the management strategy, the minister will approve the land management strategy and the amendments will require the authority to consult with the public, relevant government departments and agencies and the relevant Aboriginal bodies for land covered by the strategy. The amendments will require the authority to take into account any submissions received from the public on the draft strategy before finalising it for ministerial approval.

Melina BATH: That is good. That is comprehensive. I would like to move to firewood collection, and this is a really important component that we are very concerned about in general since the closure of the timber industry and the removal of that community firewood and the dividends from the sustainable native timber industry. My question is: why did the government permit the Bendigo park firewood to continue on to 2029? What was the rationale when these new national parks will cease firewood collection, period? What was the rationale behind allowing the Bendigo park collection to continue on to 2029?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is pretty straightforward. It is consistent with the government’s response to the VEAC Central West Investigation: Final Report. Domestic firewood collection will be permitted in designated firewood collection areas declared in the Bendigo Regional Park addition until 1 July 2029, with large old trees and other ecological values protected.

Melina BATH: How many Victorians rely on collection of firewood from state forests in and around the central west? Does the government have any idea of the quantum or the number of households?

Gayle TIERNEY: Can we take that on notice? Because it is quite a specific area.

Melina BATH: I am happy for you to take these on notice, but I would really appreciate on behalf of many people being able to understand this. What mechanisms are in place to monitor and replenish firewood collection areas to meet community demand?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I mentioned in my summing-up, firewood is a scarce resource. Quite simply, as I have said previously on the record, sometimes we just cannot keep up with demand.

Melina BATH: I think there are a lot of trees out there, Minister; some of them fall over and some of them decay, and some of them are, you know, available to be successfully chopped up. Minister, has the government considered integrating firewood collection as part of fuel load reduction strategies, particularly in terms of bushfire-prone areas? You have just said that it is a scarcity, in the government’s opinion. Has the government thought of broadening ways to actually use this as a fuel reduction strategy and use it as firewood?

Gayle TIERNEY: There is the potential, I am advised – in fact it has occurred, and some people in the chamber might know this, that it occurred in the Wombat forest.

Melina BATH: So there is potential for it to continue on?

Gayle TIERNEY: Well, yes.

Melina BATH: We are getting the nod from the box. Just on that, it is a really important point that there are some recognised traditional owners, the Taungurung people, whose lands – looking at it – abut the eastern side and around, and then the Dja Dja Wurrung, and I have spoken a lot in relation to the Dja Dja Wurrung actually wanting to forest garden in the Wombat – and I will just use Wombat, but it could be the others as well. When that windrow timber arrangement fell down there seemed to be some argy-bargy, I do not think with the government, but it just seemed to fall over. I want to understand: what will the government enable and what will it look like for the Dja Dja Wurrung to use either windrow timber or ecological thinnings – the Dja Dja might call it something different, but let us say managing the bush for forest gardening? What is the government going to do and how is it going to facilitate those sorts of interactions with the Dja Dja Wurrung?

Gayle TIERNEY: Of course I do not want to make decisions on behalf of the Dja Dja Wurrung at all. These will be issues that need to be worked through with different First Nations groupings throughout the state if and when the issue arises.

Melina BATH: So the minister is saying that all bets are off, that it could well be that the Dja Dja Wurrung want to use the timber, want to thin the timber, want to garden the timber or the trees for the best outcomes for the forest. That is the question, but would the government then enable – and this is a very key point that the Greens I think seem to want to shut down – the Dja Dja Wurrung or the forest managers to actually utilise that timber to the highest value? If that means selling that timber, then I am assuming the government has no problem with that as a philosophy or a practice.

Gayle TIERNEY: As I said, I am not going to offer a view on any of this. I think the world has changed a little bit in that traditional owners need to be able to have the ability to sit down and have the conversation and to work through the issues. I am not going to adhere to any party-political views on any of this, regardless of whether they might be those of the Greens party or anyone else. The important thing is that there is genuine conversation with local Indigenous groups about the things that you are suggesting.

Melina BATH: I am seeking the best way forward for people and for forests. The Taungurung people have a land and water council, and there is a gentleman there by the name of Matthew Shanks, and I have had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Shanks. He is the manager of biocultural landscapes – it is a mouthful. He spoke about it in one of his press releases. I will read it all for transparency. He said:

Cultural Reserves allow Country to be managed in a way that is consistent with our knowledge and values as Taungurung people

He also went on to say:

This is the way Country has always been for the Taungurung – people belong to Country.

Then his final quote in a media release is:

In contrast, National Parks reflect a twentieth century model of conservation that believes the best way to conserve the natural values is through the exclusion of people.

Does the government agree with this Taungurung man?

Gayle TIERNEY: I am not going to offer an opinion on a comment that someone might have made. What I am interested in is a genuine process where people who are close to this issue sit down and work through the issues. That is the important element, and it is consistent with the previous answer I gave you in terms of the Dja Dja Wurrung.

Melina BATH: How does the bill accommodate hunting as a cultural practice for regional communities and traditional owners across the board, but in those areas as well, where these footprints of new national parks are?

Gayle TIERNEY: My understanding is that it would potentially vary depending on whether there is a natural resource land use agreement.

Melina BATH: So if there is an actual land use agreement that says you can hunt on there, then traditional owners will be able to continue on? That is how I am reading it.

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, it would be subject to further discussion with the parties.

Melina BATH: So an agreement is an agreement until it is changed? That is the reality.

Gayle TIERNEY: No. In terms of the specificity, it will require full and open discussion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a reminder that it is not a conversation. Can you wait till you have the call.

Melina BATH: How will the bill ensure that traditional hunting areas are not lost due to reclassification of public land in this bill?

Gayle TIERNEY: There seems to be an element missing in our conversation, Ms Bath, and that is the element of collaboration. I for one am very positive about the ability of people to actually sit down and work through issues. I am not going to offer up any solutions to things, particularly when it comes to this particular area, because I just do not think it is appropriate and it predetermines conversations that possibly have not even taken place.

Melina BATH: This is broad spectrum hunting in general that I speak to now; it is not specific to membership of our Victorian population. Will there be a public review process for changes in hunting access in these newly designated parks, and will there be feedback sought from hunting organisation groups and the like?

Gayle TIERNEY: We welcome feedback in terms of the way that it is proposed to operate and look forward to ongoing communication with individuals but also peak organisations that have got a particular interest in terms of making improvements or suggestions for change.

Melina BATH: Are there any designated zones within these new national parks where deer hunting by stalking will be permitted or excluded, and how will these be managed? Can the minister or Parks Victoria issue special consent for hunting in conservation areas under controlled conditions?

Gayle TIERNEY: Conditions and boundaries within the parks will be established.

Melina BATH: How will they be established, and what is the process for that?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, it has been through stakeholder engagement where it has, for a whole range of reasons, worked out to be logical, feasible and appropriate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, a reminder that it is not a conversation, Ms Bath. You need to stand so that it is picked up by the microphone and Hansard can record what you are asking.

Gayle TIERNEY: I think I mentioned in my summing-up that, in terms of those areas, they will be gazetted as well. I remind the house that it will be gazetted, so it will be on the public record and people will know exactly what the boundaries are.

Melina BATH: I will ask a couple more, and then I will sit down and let other members have a turn. In terms of our forests and the forests that will affected by this bill – and there are a variety of footprints – how will the government facilitate and promote active forest management? And what does the government see as active forest management?

Gayle TIERNEY: I understand that there are a variety of different ways. One example that was just provided to me is work with various communities – it is called healthy forest plans. There are a range of activities that are underway through Parks Victoria and various coastal management activities that I am aware of in my patch that are of huge benefit to the local community.

Melina BATH: This is a broader question. We have been speaking about DEECA. The Victorian government last put out a State of the Forests report in 2018. They are supposed to be every five years, but we are now two-plus years overdue. How does the government know if it is actually protecting vulnerable species, if it is doing that work? More importantly, how does the public know the government actually knows what it is doing or if any of the actions it is taking are being effective?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think, Ms Bath, you are claiming that there has not been a State of the Forests report released since 2018? Is that correct?

Melina BATH: By the Victorian government, as opposed to the federal government report.

Gayle TIERNEY: There were findings and recommendations of the latest State of the Forests report, 2023, and these have informed and are addressed in the Victorian government’s response to the Great Outdoors Taskforce and the eminent panel for community engagement.

Melina BATH: This is a debate that go on all night. I am aware of this, but the government is tasked with conservation, including active management of our forests, and I would argue that the resources have been depleted. Great Outdoors Taskforce aside, where is the landscape monitoring of vulnerable species and where are the results of that monitoring for the Victorian population to see? Where does that exist in the Victorian Allan government’s repertoire? Where do we see this?

Gayle TIERNEY: The monitoring occurs across Parks Victoria and DEECA, and again, as I answered the question about reporting, it is in the annual report.

Melina BATH: Minister, without going through and asking you to read the annual report into Hansard, which I will not, how many threatened species are listed and assessed? How many national parks are they assessed in? We have got vulnerable species; we have got threatened species – what is the degree of that? Because I would contend that it is not as fulsome as it could be.

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, this is a very operational matter and the request is very detailed, and of course I would not be expected to have that level of information at hand.

Jeff BOURMAN: Given native logging has been killed off by this government, what are we protecting these areas from?

Gayle TIERNEY: Basically your question is why do we have national parks; is that right?

Jeff BOURMAN: No, it is actually not necessarily why we have national parks; it is: why are these going to become national parks? Given that the reason that has been given previously for making something a national park is to protect it from logging, and given that logging is no longer a thing in this state, why are we doing this?

Gayle TIERNEY: There are things other than trees, and the forests are full of them, whether they be flora or fauna. So that is one of the key reasons, and that is why they are heavily visited, because they do provide opportunities for people to not only admire and relax in that sort of environment but undertake a range of activities, including in certain parts deer hunting.

Jeff BOURMAN: Following on from that, what is to stop people from doing that – except for the expanded deer hunting in the state parks – now?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think that the main thing is that there are parameters and rules and notifications and signage that inform and enhance the experience by and large.

Jeff BOURMAN: I guess I will make a statement rather than ask a question. I feel that there is no advantage to anyone except for an ideological few that feel that a national park is a good park, but two are state parks. My next question is: what is the practical difference between a state park and a national park? Two are state forests, but neither of them are logged, so I am still at a loss. But my question is: what is the practical difference between a state park and a national park?

Gayle TIERNEY: They both have the same obligations under the National Parks Act; it applies to both the state parks and the national parks. These are being created to have a signpost essentially for people to know that this is a place where you can undertake a range of activities and that there are parameters and boundaries around those activities, as well as geographic boundaries as to where those activities can occur.

Jeff BOURMAN: What is to stop us from putting up a signpost now as they are?

Gayle TIERNEY: Well, you would need a lot of consultation, a lot of community involvement. You would need a range of stakeholders discussing the types of activities that you could or could not or could in a reduced fashion undertake, and it would be gazetted. It would be public knowledge, and there would be information that would pertain to those specific sites that would be available publicly.

Jeff BOURMAN: I could go on for hours about that, but it leads me on to the next question. Who was consulted in the move to make these various land tenures into national parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: There is a long list; I will grab it. This is the same answer that I have previously given about this exercise, which was fed in through the VEAC exercise. It was a two-year investigation, and it included extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and the community, including targeted meetings with various stakeholders, 11 drop-in sessions in regional towns in the investigation areas, public meetings in Trentham and Lancefield, and two opportunities to provide formal submissions – initially on notice of the actual investigation, then subsequently on release of the draft proposals paper. VEAC also established a community reference group to provide advice to the investigation in accordance with the VEAC act. This included representatives of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria, Four Wheel Drive Victoria, Bushwalking Victoria, Central Victorian Apiarists Association, the VFF, local councils and several conservation groups.

Jeff BOURMAN: That is quite a list. I know there are two sides to this story – there was the original VEAC report and what the government has added with the extra recreational hunting, for which I am thankful. With the initial consultation there was a long list of people, but given there was actually going to be a direct effect on hunting by people in the state forests, were any of the shooting or hunting organisations consulted?

Gayle TIERNEY: I will check that for you, because obviously I was not the minister at the time.

It is my understanding that there were consultations with VEAC on the VEAC process and also with the outdoor rec exercise.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, could I have on notice the full list of who was consulted? I just feel that none of the hunting organisations were consulted in the initial report way back when. I know it goes back a while and you pointed out you were not the minister at the time, and I recall that. But if I could get that on notice, that would be awesome.

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes, that is fine. That was in the initial phase, not necessarily the consultations that have occurred in recent times.

Jeff BOURMAN: Moving on to the Mount Buangor situation, why did the government back out of initially allowing hunting in there, given that, as per Ms Purcell’s question, the risk assessment of hunting on public land is that it is quite low?

Gayle TIERNEY: The government supports responsible and safe hunting, and with the additional opportunities the bill will provide to deer stalkers to enjoy recreational deer hunting by stalking in several national parks, the government’s support for this is clear. It is also even further made clear with the over 130,000 hectares that this bill will unlock for recreational deer hunting by stalking.

Jeff BOURMAN: That does not actually answer my question. Specifically, Mount Buangor is being excised by the Greens beside me with the government’s support, so obviously the government supports it; the question is: why? Originally the government was supportive of having hunting in there – seasonal hunting with restrictions and so on – and now it is not. Why is it so?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that the position of the government is that there is a significant amount of land on which the hunting of deer by stalking can occur and that that is considered to be an appropriate amount of land.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, how can we trust the government if it has already sold out on the Mount Buangor thing? The reason I say that is clearly, already – I am not usually one to use these words, but here it goes – the government has caved in to the Greens. The Greens are moving an amendment to cut it out; the government is supporting it. How do we know that somewhere along the line we are not going to get just a little chop here, a little chop there, and before we know it we are hunting nowhere?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, Mr Bourman, the land involved in the area that you identify is really quite small, and the fact of the matter is that there are 130,000 hectares that will be unlocked.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am quite aware of Mount Buangor. For 20-something years I used to drive past there every fortnight or so, and sometimes through there. But it is still the principle, not necessarily the amount. It does not matter whether it is 1 hectare or whether it is 100,000 hectares; originally the government said it was, and now it is not. I would just like to know the government’s thinking, given the government’s answer to Ms Purcell was that hunting, under a risk assessment, is quite low risk.

Gayle TIERNEY: I do not have anything else that I can offer you at this point except to say what I have already said I think on three occasions now – that we believe, in terms of this package, that the 130 hectares that will be unlocked is sufficient.

Jeff BOURMAN: I will not keep on flogging a dead horse – or a dead deer, as the case may be. You mentioned Parks are getting more rangers. What additional cost is going to be incurred to police these areas?

Gayle TIERNEY: Are you talking about the 84 new rangers?

Jeff BOURMAN: Yes.

Gayle TIERNEY: I will just check.

I will take that on notice, because it is a recruitment process that has started, but it has not completed.

Jeff BOURMAN: I forget where I was going with that. I will just leave it at that. Where is the Game Management Authority going to fit into this? Will they get more officers as well given that currently, as it stands, the regulation of game hunters is done by the Game Management Authority in conjunction with other people like Parks Vic? Are the GMA going to get additional resources to help with this?

Gayle TIERNEY: Agencies and department work will happen in collaboration. Parks Victoria is the land manager, and the GMA is the hunting regulator. In terms of the GMA or other departments, conditions will be communicated to hunters via the usual channels soon after the passage of legislation in terms of the ongoing communication arrangements with, I am sure, your members.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am not actually asking for how many – just whether the government intends on upping the numbers of GMA officers. It feels to me that it is more work to police something when it is only available at certain times of the year. Now with these new national parks there are going to be restrictions on the dogs you can have and all sorts of stuff, which you do not currently have in state forests. I am not asking for particular numbers, but is the government intending on beefing up the GMA to at least help it cope with the increased load, given that at times now it is already struggling?

Gayle TIERNEY: Of course, DEECA and Parks Victoria will develop a profile that they think is going to be suitable, and of course there will have to be ongoing discussions with the GMA as well to work out the proper profiling of staffing levels.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, I am going to give you one last question, at least for the moment: given that there has been a statement that there are going to be no more national parks post this by the government, has VEAC been shut down now?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer is no, but there are discussions going on internally in terms of a whole range of things, like GORCAPA and this part of the bill too. We need to work out what needs to be done going forward, and we need to know staff profiling as well. It is all part and parcel of the package.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Clause 27 amends section 62(1A)(d) of the Forests Act 1958 to deem certain lands managed by Parks Victoria as protected public land. It also deletes a couple of subparagraphs from section 62(1A)(d) of the Forests Act: subparagraphs (ii) and (iii). Does all of this mean that the bill maintains the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, and if so, can you please explain that impact?

Gayle TIERNEY: Can I have the beginning of your question – not the beginning of the start of your question but the beginning of the end of the question?

Sarah MANSFIELD: Does all of this mean this bill maintains the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer is yes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Given that is the case, can you explain what the impact of those other changes are on the operation of that act?

Gayle TIERNEY: The advice is that it will not be impacted by any of this.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What is the impact of these amendments – the ones that I referred to earlier in clause 27? What impact will they have on the on-ground management responsibilities between agencies? For example, which agencies will now manage what?

Gayle TIERNEY: My advice is that that is purely a technical correction.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just for some further clarification then, does it mean that higher conservation value areas such as nature conservation reserves, regional parks and the Murray River Park remain under Parks Victoria management?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer is yes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you for that clarification. Does DEECA or the secretary remain in control of forest parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Noting that under section 47BA of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act the Murray River Park is part of the fifth schedule of that act and will continue to be managed by Parks Victoria under this change, can the government confirm if Murray River Park has been formally gazetted?

Gayle TIERNEY: No, it has not been formally gazetted.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I will change tack now. The Forests Act still allows native forest logging through the use of forest produce licences, while the wood pulp agreement could also be reactivated to bring back native forest logging. What steps will the government take to remove loopholes that allow native forest logging under the Forests Act, in line with their commitment to end native forest logging?

Gayle TIERNEY: As the member is well aware, it is this government that eliminated native forest timber harvesting. In terms of other matters that you allude to, those are matters that are currently before the courts.

Sarah MANSFIELD: That might be something we have to pick up once that is resolved in another forum. Why did the government reject the expert recommendation from VEAC for Wellsford forest to be protected as the Greater Bendigo National Park?

Gayle TIERNEY: The answer to this is contained in the Victorian government response to the VEAC final report, and it is on page 32. The government does not accept recommendation A3 for the Greater Bendigo National Park addition, and instead this area will be added to the existing Bendigo Regional Park to a depth of 100 metres below the surface. This will support a broader range of recreational activities, provide another area for domestic firewood collection from designated sites until June 2029 and provide greater flexibility for the north central Victorian goldfields ground release. The government supports mining occurring beneath the park addition and acknowledges that some minimally intrusive surface activity may need to occur in the regional park addition to support this.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What are the activities that the government envisages it needs to provide greater flexibility for in the north central Victorian goldfields ground release in the Wellsford forest, and what impact will this have on ecological values and visitor access?

Gayle TIERNEY: If there was a proposal for activity, then obviously the proposal would contain a range of information, including potential impacts, and that would be submitted to resources.

Sarah MANSFIELD: My understanding from what you have said is that it depends on the activity and then they have to get that approved. Regional parks allow domestic firewood collection, which can risk further degradation of remnant vegetation and habitat loss in areas that were recommended for a higher level of protection as a national park. What ecological assessment, planning or other measures will be undertaken to ensure that the ecological values of Wellsford forest are protected from the impact of domestic firewood collection?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I understand it, the land manager will determine those designated areas.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I just want to get some clarity about that response. This was about the ecological assessment planning and the other measures that might be taken, so all of that responsibility will be delegated to the land manager.

Gayle TIERNEY: Correct.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Moving on to the issue of deer hunting, what measures and additional resources will be provided to manage the interface between deer hunting and bush users at the Pyrenees National Park and similarly at the Wombat–Lerderderg National Park?

Gayle TIERNEY: Deer hunting has been occurring for some time, and in terms of resourcing, we will be – or DEECA will be – monitoring this to ensure that there are appropriate staffing profiles.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I appreciate that response, Minister, but is it possible to be provided with some specific measures that perhaps already exist that help to manage the interface between deer hunters and bush users to ensure safety et cetera?

Gayle TIERNEY: Most of it is in terms of what is on websites, but there is also signage that is available or will be available in those areas that have not had it previously.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In terms of the time it has taken to introduce this legislation in response to a VEAC investigation, it has taken a relatively long period of time compared to other VEAC investigations. I am just trying to get an understanding of why it took so long in this instance.

Gayle TIERNEY: I do not think I need to go to the box for this one. I think you know the answer, and the answer is that there are polar opposite views on a number of elements in this bill, ranging from hunting to firewood to resources to a whole range of things. A lot of that takes time. As we know, when you consult, when you have got research and data and meetings and meetings and meetings to work through the issues, it all takes time. I think that most people who are familiar with some of the issues contained in this bill would say that this has got lots of arms and legs and significant levels of complexities attached to it, not to mention the different political views.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I know you have been asked about timelines, but I am just wanting to get an understanding of why there are different implementation timelines for different parks and perhaps get an indication of specifically which parks will be created when.

Gayle TIERNEY: Parks Victoria and DEECA will be working together to work out exactly how all of this can come together, but I have been assured it will be all progressed by October 2026.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Does the amended definition of protected public land under section 62 of the Forests Act restrict extractive activities – for example, logging, grazing and firewood collection?

Gayle TIERNEY: No.

Sarah MANSFIELD: If not, given it is not the case, how will these be regulated or phased out?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I understand it, it relates to the fire activities. It is not necessarily about what the general definition of public land is, per se – for example, when you are talking about the secretary of the department and fire responsibilities under the act.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you for that clarification. Changing tack completely, in relation to the parts of the bill that deal with Glenample Homestead, this was identified as part of efforts to spread visitor impacts and experiences along the Twelve Apostles area. The legislation removed the lease of this site, so we are just wondering: what are the plans for Glenample Homestead now?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I understand it, this is again just a technical amendment and it really has not got anything to do with the substance of this bill. But I am happy to talk to you as a fellow Western Victorian on this matter, given that it is in our electorate.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What impact does repealing the National Parks (Amendment) Act 1989 have on wilderness and state parks and access for mining? I think this is an issue that may be touched on in different ways through this discussion.

Gayle TIERNEY: The National Parks (Amendment) Act 1989 made a wide range of amendments to the National Parks Act 1975, mostly in 1989. However, one provision involving an addition to the Moondarra State Park was not proclaimed at the time, pending a decision on whether the land was required as part of an overburdened dump associated with the development of the Latrobe Valley coalfields. The area is not required for that purpose, and the addition has now been proclaimed. This means that the amending act can now be repealed.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Is there any other impact of repealing that act on access for mining in our state parks?

Gayle TIERNEY: No.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In October 2022 Victoria agreed at a national environment ministers meeting to work collaboratively to achieve a national target to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Victoria’s landmass and 30 per cent of Australia’s marine areas by 2030. It would be good to get an understanding of how the new central west parks and other changes contribute to this agreed goal. I do not know if you have got a figure you can provide that explains what contribution this will make.

Gayle TIERNEY: I do not have that level of detail. It does not necessarily directly pertain to this bill, but I get your question. My suggestion would be to contact the minister’s office directly on that, because obviously there is some history to it, and it probably was well before he was even Minister for Environment himself.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a feeling that there may be a response that we can get from the environment minister’s office, so we will follow up on that. According to Achieving 30 by 30 on Land: National Roadmap for Protecting and Conserving 30% of Australia’s Land by 2030, we are currently ranked about sixth out of the Australian states in terms of the percentage of land protected. I am just wondering what plans the government has to contribute to the agreed 30–30 targets. It is a follow-on from that previous question.

Gayle TIERNEY: In creating the three new national parks and two new conservation parks, and in addition to an existing regional park – I have a list here that I think was also contained in my summing up – in total, taking into account the existing protected areas, state parks and nature conservation reserves, these new national conservation parks, along with Mirboo North Conservation Park, will add approximately 44,000 hectares to Victoria’s protected area system. In addition to Victoria’s existing protected areas, this will contribute to the national 30-by-30 target of protecting 30 per cent of Australia’s terrestrial and marine environments by 2030. The national road map for achieving this target acknowledges the contribution of governments towards achieving the target will reflect each government’s individual circumstances, priorities and resources.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I just have a final question, and this follows on, I think, from one of Mr Bourman’s final questions. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council has provided the government with an excellent report here after extensive community consultation, and that has largely formed the basis of this legislation. We note that VEAC does not currently have any active investigations or assessments. They have had a reduction in staff. What plans does the government have for future VEAC investigations or assessments?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think I alluded to this in an answer to a previous question. This is very active at the moment in terms of internal discussions within government in terms of what happens next, and I think it would not serve any purpose for me to make any further comment on that. But it is active and there are a range of considerations and discussions that are being undertaken.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after “land” insert “and to make further provision in relation to agreements or arrangements relating to fire prevention, suppression and recovery”.

I have spoken to all of these in my second-reading speech, but this is an amendment that would stop forest produce licences, permits and fire management activities as an excuse to log. It adds to the purposes of the bill, hence it is being moved in clause 1. One of the issues we know is that despite the government’s commitment to end native forest logging, there is a risk, and we have certainly heard reports of some of these activities effectively being used to continue native forest logging, with the products of these activities being sold and used to make a profit. I do not think it would come as any surprise that we want to see the government’s commitment to end native forest logging completely fulfilled, and we believe that this just closes a loophole in the existing relevant legislation.

Melina BATH: This is in relation to fire prevention. That is what you are suggesting – that it requires additional assessment, ecological assessment. I am very concerned about this. Bushfire mitigation is a very serious business, and I believe that this Victorian government is not doing sufficient work on it as it is now. The processes around organising, planning and applying for and getting a permit for bushfire-preventative or fuel-reduction burns are quite extensive as they are now, and I think anything of this nature is an overreach and is not required. As I said, they are very extensive, and there can be times even when the application goes through and they are about to have the fuel reduction burn but there can be wind changes or the like and then it does not happen. What happens with that then is if it goes on the backburner, for want of a better word, and it does not get done in that year, the fuel load builds up again. If there is a lightning strike or arson or whatever, then our forests become more and more and more fuel laden. Like we saw in 2019–20, the bushfires were massive and did not stop: they incinerated flora, fauna, stock, houses and infrastructure. I am very concerned that anything that slows this very comprehensive program down is a retrograde step.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I call on Ms Bath to move her amendments 1 and 2, which test her amendments on her sheet MB16C.

Melina BATH: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, lines 22 to 25, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

2.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 3 to 4, omit “Mount Buangor, Pyrenees, Wombat-Lerderderg,”.

The Liberals and Nationals do not believe that the formation of the three proposed Mount Buangor, Pyrenees and Wombat–Lerderderg national parks are in the best interests of either the Victorian public or environmental outcomes. We believe that the government can actually keep these as state forests and still provide better environmental outcomes and better active management of our state forests and retain all the access that Victorians have enjoyed for decades.

Sarah MANSFIELD: While I thank Ms Bath for moving these amendments, I think she will understand that we are at the exact opposite end of this one and strongly support the creation of the new national parks. It is the part of this bill that we are most strongly in favour of, so we will not be supporting these amendments.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting these amendments either.

Council divided on amendments:

Georgie PURCELL: This is an amendment to omit deer hunting in the newly created national parks. I have covered it off pretty extensively in my second-reading contribution. I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Mansfield, I invite you to move your amendment 2, which tests your amendments 5 to 12.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

2.   Clause 1, page 3, line 3, omit “Mount Buangor,”.

I explained these amendments at length during my second-reading contribution, but these are the amendments that remove recreational deer hunting from the Mount Buangor National Park. There are then a series of consequential amendments to update the bill with those previous elements removed.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals will oppose this. We believe it flies in the face of deer hunters and their existing provisions in other national parks for similar arrangements. It is a short season, and we believe it is completely in order to keep this provision in the bill.

Jeff BOURMAN: If I may, I will ask the Leader of the Greens in the Council some questions on her amendment. Why have the Greens picked only Mount Buangor to remove?

Sarah MANSFIELD: As he may appreciate, and from my previous contribution on this debate, we would have liked to see recreational deer hunting removed from all the national parks. Hence we supported Ms Purcell’s amendment to do that. One of the reasons we focused specifically on this area was the significant amount of advocacy we had from a broad range of groups around their concerns about this particular national park and some of the other activities that take place there, including school camps. I think it is very sensible that the government has agreed to support this amendment to remove Mount Buangor from the recreational deer hunting areas.

Jeff BOURMAN: Who did you consult with to decide that only Mount Buangor should go?

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I outlined in my second-reading speech, the reason for focusing on Mount Buangor was related to the significant amount of correspondence we received from a range of groups. These included the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA), Outdoors Victoria, Australian Camps Association, the Pyrenees Shire Council and Environmental Justice Australia, and we also did some consultation with the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations. We consulted with a significant range of groups around this. A number of these stakeholders do not have an ideological position on deer hunting but hold very significant concerns about other bush users’ rights and safety with the proposed changes to allow recreational deer hunting in that area.

We believe that the changes that are being proposed here are sensible. The recreational deer hunters will once again have the nearby game hunting reserve available to them to continue game hunting. It is a much larger area than the Mount Buangor National Park area, so in effect they have got a larger area to hunt in as a result of these changes. We believe that this is a sensible change, and it has a broad range of support behind it.

Jeff BOURMAN: Did the Greens consult with anyone from, let us call it, the pro-hunting side to get their opinions of whether there was any mitigation of any of the purported risks?

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I said, we consulted with a number of groups who do not have a strong opinion either way about deer hunting. The groups that we spoke to were primarily concerned with the safety of the other bush users in that area. They may well have supported deer hunting as well. We did not consult directly with some of the groups that you are alluding to. However, we understand that the government has done plenty of consultation in the formation of this bill with those groups, and we feel that their needs have been well reflected in many of the other aspects of this bill. I feel that this amendment is a sensible one that reflects the interests of a broad range of bush users.

Jeff BOURMAN: Last question, Dr Mansfield: did any of the groups that you consulted with do a risk assessment or did they just not want the hunting there?

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I alluded to in my second-reading speech, there were a range of risks highlighted by various groups about potential deer hunting occurring there, and they outlined what those risks would be. Whether that satisfies your requirements for a formal risk assessment I am not entirely sure, but we believe that the risks outlined were significant. We also have had extensive discussions with the minister’s office about this, and my understanding is that they agreed with some of the assessments that have been made by those groups. So the decision to remove recreational deer hunting from Mount Buangor in particular is a direct response to the potential risk to those bush users.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will support this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendment 2 on sheet 18C.

Melina BATH: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, after line 7 insert –

“(va) to provide for certain searching for minerals in certain parks; and”.

I have canvassed this very well. The Liberals and Nationals believe that the minister should have the opportunity to be able to, through ministerial discretion and keeping environmental standards, enable recreational fossicking and prospecting in the new national parks. It is not a green light; it just enables the minister to have that decision and that discretion while still keeping any environmental safeguards.

Council divided on amendment:

New clause 26B (20:07)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

3.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 27 –

‘26B Licences and permits with respect to forests

After section 52(1AA) of the Forests Act 1958insert –

“(1AB)   A licence or permit granted under this section is subject to a condition that the holder of the licence or permit must not sell any timber thinned, cut or removed in accordance with the licence or permit for profit.”.’.

This amendment again I spoke to in my second-reading speech, but this is the one that stops logging under forest produce licences and permits from recommencing. Logging used to happen via forest produce licences and permits under the Forests Act. Our amendments stop native forest logging from recommencing by stopping timber collected under these permits from being sold for profit. This does not ban the permits altogether, because they also cover things like honey harvesting and other issues that have been raised I think in the discussion around this bill. It is about stopping timber collected under these permits from being sold for profit and in essence being commercial harvesting of timber under the guise of forest produce.

Jeff BOURMAN: A quick question for the doctor here: Dr Mansfield, new subsection (1AB):

A licence or permit granted under this section is subject to a condition that the holder of the licence or permit must not sell any timber thinned, cut or removed in accordance with a licence or permit for profit.

Correct? So if they do it for free or make a loss, it is okay?

Sarah MANSFIELD: The intention of this is to stop people selling it for a profit. They would still be subject to any other conditions around undertaking that work. As we said, they could still get a permit. They still have to meet the conditions required to obtain that permit. If they do that, then that permit has been issued. That is fine. It does not ban the permits being issued. It does prevent them from selling it for profit, however. If they have obtained that permit, they are not able to then go on and sell it for a profit.

Jeff BOURMAN: Dr Mansfield, maybe I did not make myself clear. I am being a bit of a smart alec here. It says I cannot do it for profit. If you do not make a profit, if you make a loss, can you do it? Because that is it: if you sell something and you do not make a profit, then by the letter of the law, if not the intent, you are good.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I find it hard to see how you would. I mean, you would have to be doing a pretty bad job to make a loss on this.

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have provided an answer. Our amendment is very clear. You are not able to sell it for a profit. That is the intention of this amendment.

Melina BATH: I think this is quite a narrow-minded instrument, if I can be blunt. Often we talk in this place at length about traditional owners managing their own country, whether that be through thinning or the like, and therefore we are then going to remove the right of those traditional owners to sell that wood for the highest value. Likewise, we have community thinning potentially. I know that there are some very bespoke industries that the government has endorsed – one of them is making guitars out of particular hardwood. This would knock all that on the head, and I think whilst driving an ideology it is actually just cutting out good sense even further.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just to respond to that, the Greens firmly support First Nations forest management and always have; they are the original and best experts when it comes to caring for country. This amendment is really designed to close what is currently a gaping loophole which a future government could use to bring back ecologically destructive industrial native forest harvesting. We are really looking at closing a loophole that exists here. So if the government agrees to fixing this loophole, we would be very happy to see further amendments to the forest projects permit system that could be made to enable First Nations people to thin forests and sell those proceeds in ecological and sustainable ways. There are further amendments that could be made, but we believe that this loophole is so significant at the moment that it needs to be closed as a priority.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 50 (20:19)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the clause stand part of the bill.

Council divided on clause:

Clause 54 (20:25)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

6.   Clause 54, line 29, omit “50” and insert “37”.

7.   Clause 54, line 30, omit “50 and” and insert “37 and”.

8.   Clause 54, page 37, line 1, omit “8A” and insert “8”.

9.   Clause 54, page 37, line 3, omit “8B” and insert “8A”.

10.   Clause 54, page 37, line 9, omit “8C” and insert “8B”.

These are consequential amendments related to the previous amendments that have already passed.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 (20:26)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

11.   Clause 57, line 14, omit “8C” and insert “8B”.

12.   Clause 57, line 16, omit “8D” and insert “8C”.

These are further consequential amendments related to the previous amendments that have passed.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 58 to 124 agreed to; schedule 1 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (20:28): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (20:28): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.