Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:29): I am pleased to rise to speak on the bill before us today. The bill is seeking to establish a new statutory authority and sole regulator for fishing and game hunting in Victoria and to repeal the acts associated with the Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority. I am not going to talk for very long today. Obviously in past committee inquiries we have spent a long time traversing many of the issues around the regulation of recreational hunting in the state of Victoria. I think that I have made some reflections in this place on that prior work, and I do not propose to add to them today substantively, other than to say that I think it is of importance to all Victorians that we have an effective regulator of recreational hunting and fishing here in Victoria. I am certainly hopeful that the measures proposed in this bill will continue to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of hunting and fishing activities here in Victoria.

There has been a degree of public debate and discussion about some of the measures in the bill, and particularly some of the additions to the objects of the new authority that make it consistent with the objects that had existed prior in the fisheries side of these two pursuits. Certainly there had been an expression made to many of us, including me, that there was some concern that these changes would in some way lead to a diminution of the new authority’s focus on compliance and enforcement activities. They were put to me. I listen, obviously, to everyone who puts concerns to me, and obviously people are aware of the prior work that I did as a member of the select committee in 2023 on some of these issues.

In response to the concerns that were raised with me, I raised concerns with the former minister, Minister Dimopoulos, and wrote to him in late March. I just thought it would probably be helpful to put on the record some of the content of the letter that I sent to the minister and his response. Amongst introductory paragraphs, the letter that I wrote says:

As the new entity gets established, it will be important that the new promotion functions can exist alongside the existing regulatory and compliance functions, that there is no opportunity for conflict between the two functions, and that enforcement and compliance of the law and regulations remains a clear priority of the government.

The letter goes on to say:

The OECD has some useful guidance on these issues, as outlined in their 2014 paper The Governance of Regulators, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy:

If competing functions are allocated to one entity, it is important that the legislation is clear that the regulator is required to make trade-offs and may make these in the context of a framework of considerations and priorities that is specified in the legislation or developed with the minister. The regulator may either be given scope to decide, or be provided with guidance as to how these issues should be resolved. In either case, the process and the reasoning underlying particular positions adopted by the regulator should be transparent.

I asked the minister for any advice that he had on these issues, including how the minister might use the statement of expectation provided to the incoming board to be clear about the continued importance of their compliance and enforcement functions. Minister Dimopoulos, who was then the environment minister, wrote back to me in April, and said in the following terms:

As a core responsibility, ORV will continue to deliver the regulatory functions of the Victorian Fisheries Authority and the Game Management Authority for recreational fishing, commercial fishing, aquaculture, game hunting and alongside Safe Transport Victoria, recreational boating. In addition to this, it will promote participation in outdoor recreation, promote and support access to public land and optimise the benefits of outdoor recreation in a safe, responsible and sustainable manner.

To support ORV’s role clarity, the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 (the Bill) distinguishes the regulatory functions, powers or duties of ORV from non-regulatory functions. The Bill also includes a governance structure that will ensure that ORV’s Board has the requisite governance skills in financial administration, risk management, strategic planning, as well as regulatory and legal experience. This governance structure will support ORV to put in place effective processes to manage and mitigate potential or perceived conflicts between its regulatory and promotional functions.

I think this is the most important part of the letter for me. Minister Dimopoulos said:

As the responsible Minister, I will have oversight of ORV and guide its priorities at establishment, including through its Statement of Expectations. This will highlight the importance of maintaining robust compliance and enforcement and the need to ensure appropriate internal structures and procedures are in place to manage all its objects and functions.

To me, that sets out quite clearly that the compliance and enforcement functions of the new regulator will continue to be a priority. The then minister said quite clearly that he intended to use the statement of expectations provided to the new board of this regulator to make the expectation clear that the new regulator would continue to give priority to its enforcement and compliance functions. I am very pleased to have received that assurance from the previous minister and would hope and assume, based on conversations that we have had, that the new minister, who is in the chamber today, shares that commitment. With those words and with that exchange, I think we can be assured that compliance and enforcement will continue to be important functions of this new authority.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:36): I might just make a comment on Mr Batchelor’s contribution, then – I actually completely agree. The abilities of the new – I am not sure what its name is going to be at the moment – authority, department or whatever must prioritise enforcement. Yes, it should be able to promote proper, sustainable hunting and fishing and so on. But in the end, for better or for worse, their job is also to enforce what goes on in the various arenas. What must not be lost in the chatter here is that this is not just about duck hunting; there is all sorts of hunting that goes on in this state, and it is very important. The other comment I will make is that apparently no-one else other than Mr Batchelor wanted to go first. There has been a lot of jockeying for position to see what everyone else has got to say. Well, here it is – I am going to have at it. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party welcomes and supports this bill and congratulates the government on taking this important step through the establishment of what is currently named Outdoor Recreation Victoria. In particular, the Premier, the current minister and the former minister responsible for outdoor recreation deserve credit for backing and progressing this reform and seeing it through this chamber.

We, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party of Victoria, are the only political party whose reason for existing is to support recreational shooters, hunters and fishers; we do what it says on the wrapper. To be fair, the Animal Justice Party does too. They are open and consistent in opposing hunting, fishing and the sustainable use of animals. We know where they stand. We know where we stand. We know where the Premier and the government stand. What remains genuinely difficult to work out is where the Liberal–National parties stand, and I will get to this.

We have before us two shadow ministers who would carry responsibility for Outdoor Recreation Victoria under an alternative government, and they appear to be saying fundamentally contradictory things about hunting. Presumably one reflects coalition policy and one does not. When this matter goes to a division, we may finally get an answer. Either members will vote differently or they will vote together, and Hansard will record that someone has spent this debate saying one thing and voting another. When I say ‘debate’, I do not necessarily mean the debate in the house. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party may move amendments – not because we think this bill is deficient, but because we think a good bill can be made better. There has been some movement behind the scenes with other amendments, so that is why I say ‘may’. We will see how that works out.

Today I want to do three things: address some of the myths and distortions that have already emerged about Outdoor Recreation Victoria, talk briefly about the pathway that got us here and speak to the opportunity this bill creates. So much has been said about this bill, including reporting by the national broadcaster that in my view omitted important context. The ABC implied that the Game Management Authority had exposed the identity of a protester. What readers were not told was that the court had already released the material and another outlet had already published the man’s name, town and unobscured image. The GMA did neither – it obscured the face and did not identify the individual – yet we have a member of this house describing that as doxxing. That is curious, given that the same member previously used parliamentary privilege in this chamber to publicly identify a GMA staff member and later chose to redact that person’s identity when posting the footage online. Yet all the details of that staff member remain in Hansard and are available to anyone on the internet. Members are entitled to strong views, but they should apply the same standards to public servants as they demand of others.

The article also relied on selective excerpts from a clandestine recording made of remarks by a GMA officer and used them to imply a bias. The proposition that regulators should not have subject matter expertise, including familiarity with hunting, is difficult to take seriously. Some GMA officers hunt and some do not. What matters is that they fairly enforce the law. Should we preclude traffic police from driving? Should we preclude cybercriminal investigators from having computers? The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, promotes involvement in aviation, yet they enforce the rules. The real problem here is not about regulation or anything; it is about people not liking hunting. The data does not support the narrative presented anyway. Across the 2025 and 2026 duck seasons, approximately 93.5 per cent of GMA compliance action related to hunting offences and only 6.5 per cent to public safety offences – protester offences. That is not evidence of a regulator protecting hunters; it is evidence of a regulator regulating hunters.

The article also relied on selective excerpts of a clandestine recording of remarks made by the GMA officer about letting children break the law. That is incorrect. It gets a bit complex here. The comments related to narrow public safety restrictions only applying at specified hunting times and areas, not a general prohibition on unlicensed people being present. Section 58C of the Wildlife Act 1975 specifies that a person must not enter on or remain in any specified hunting area, and so on, and there is a fairly hefty punishment of 60 penalty units. That is pretty straightforward. But the article ignored that Victorian criminal responsibility laws apply. Children under 12 cannot commit an offence. Removing a child from an area, rather than issuing a penalty that cannot be lawfully imposed, is not selective enforcement; it is applying the law as made by this Parliament. I note those baying about how bad this situation is are the very same people who supported raising the age of responsibility from 10 to 12. Well, here you are. In case you are wondering, I voted against that change.

The ABC article also cited the 2017 Pegasus review as evidence of systemic failure within the GMA and incorrectly stated it was commissioned by the government. It was not. The review was commissioned by the GMA board following the marshes incident – a regulator voluntarily submitting itself to scrutiny. The article also admitted what happened next: all the accepted recommendations were implemented and substantial reform followed. The article then relied heavily on George Bucchorn and treated his criticisms as authoritative evidence of the current culture within the GMA. Mr Bucchorn is entitled to his views, but the readers deserve context. The context is that Mr Bucchorn was the head of GMA compliance at the time the problems were occurring.

During the parliamentary inquiry into native bird hunting, committee members questioned why compliance and prosecution outcomes were lower during Mr Bucchorn’s own tenure, rather than before and after it. He disputed that proposition, but the data does not lie. The inquiry also established that the ministerial engagement he relied on had been facilitated through the Animal Justice Party – hardly an unbiased witness. Imagine the carry on if I had done a similar thing – it would all be about the fearsome gun lobby. More broadly, Mr Bucchorn’s credibility has been publicly tested before. During IBAC’s Operation Gloucester, counsel assisting described aspects of his evidence as ‘the height of ridiculousness’ before proceedings were adjourned after Mr Bucchorn did not return from a break. I invite anyone who wants to to look up what Operation Gloucester was about. I actually have a personal connection to that, but anyway.

Criticism is easy; reform is harder. The leadership that followed Mr Bucchorn did the hard work of cleaning up his mess, implementing the Pegasus recommendations and building a stronger regulator. The article also relied on commentary from former GMA board member Dr Bronwyn Orr, suggesting regulation and promotion cannot comfortably sit together. I disagree. Regulators should be judged on governance, transparency, decisions and outcomes. But if Dr Orr genuinely believes promotion and regulation are incompatible, perhaps the RSPCA can explain which functions it intends to stop performing. More fundamentally, I do not think the objection here is governance. If this bill removed the hunting promotion from Outdoor Recreation Victoria tomorrow and instead created a separate statutory authority solely responsible for promoting lawful, ethical and sustainable hunting, I do not believe those critics would suddenly support this model. The objection is not promotion by a regulator; it is the promotion of hunting itself. If that is your political position, then it should be argued openly.

The GMA did not have an easy start. It was created to give hunting specialist independent regulation, but its early years were difficult, and the marshes incidents represented its greatest test. To its and former Minister Pulford’s credit, the response was not abolition; it was reform. Governance improved, compliance expanded, education increased and the organisation matured into the independent regulator it was intended to become. The Victorian Fisheries Authority took a different path but proved the value of specialist agencies focused on participation and delivery.

Victoria has developed a distinctive model. Recreational participants are recognised as the primary use of the resource, while commercial activity, though important, is secondary. That reflects the broader idea our natural resources should create environmental, economic and social value for the greatest possible number of Victorians, not just the cultural elites inside the goat’s cheese curtain. This is why the ministry for outdoor recreation, or whatever it turns out to be, matters. Hunting and fishing are no longer square pegs awkwardly fitted into the environment and agriculture portfolios. They are recognised as important recreational activities and critical economic drivers, particularly in regional communities like eastern Victoria.

This bill is an institutional reform bill. It does not change who can hunt or fish or where they can do it. It establishes an organisation whose job is to regulate, promote participation and improve access. For me, the most exciting part is the Land Access Panel. Access is not just permission; it is roads, signs, facilities, information and confidence. Done properly, this could quietly become one of the most significant land access reforms in decades. We may move amendments to the bill, not because I oppose the direction of the bill, obviously, but because it is a once-in-a-generation reform and getting the settings right now matters.

I am going to conclude. This bill recognises something many Victorians already understand. Hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation and commercial fishing of course matter. Today I have spoken about the facts, because criticism should be fair; the history, because the institutions can improve; and the future, because Outdoor Recreation Victoria can be better than what came before it. The direction of this bill is right. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports this bill and commends it to the house.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:47): I rise to speak on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. Can I start by saying that we will not be opposing this particular bill. We do, or did, have a number of amendments to make the bill better – to improve governance and ensure the voices of those affected by these changes are properly heard – and I look forward to continuing to support Ms Bath in that process. Can I thank Ms Bath, who has done a fantastic job with stakeholders that would be impacted by this bill. I am of the understanding that the previous Minister for Outdoor Recreation Mr Dimopoulos completely stuffed up the stakeholder engagement in regard to this bill and it has been left to the new minister to clean it all up, which is not surprising given the incompetence of this tired, old Labor government.

I would also point out and make comment – he was not particularly keen to promote it; he just mentioned previous views – that we had the original speaker Mr Batchelor speak of previous views but not articulate them. I note that both Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea voted in favour – there was a majority vote in favour – of banning completely recreational duck and quail hunting by the start of 2024. Had they got their way, duck hunting would be completely banned here in the state of Victoria and would have been banned for over two years now. Thankfully, a few things got in the way of that, which means that recreational outdoor activities – generational activities – like duck hunting can continue into the future.

My concern – and we know it through the established data and polling – is that at best all the Labor government can hope for is a thin hung Parliament with the Greens, and it ought to frighten Victorians what that means for duck hunting here in the state of Victoria, what that means for outdoor recreation and what that means for our national parks. It ought to frighten the bejesus out of all Victorians who cherish the great outdoors, because we know from the record the views of colleagues like Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea. What we do not know is how far this government would be willing to go in a deal with the Greens in order to hang on to government. That is frightening, and I know it is frightening for many Victorians. The only way that Victorians can avoid that is by voting for the Liberals and Nationals.

At its core this bill proposes to merge the Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority into a new body known as Outdoor Recreation Victoria. The government will streamline this administration, improve coordination and create a single point of oversight for a range of outdoor recreation activities. While there might be merit in reducing duplication and improving efficiency, the Allan Labor government has once again fallen into a similar pattern, unfortunately: announcing significant structural reform before properly consulting many of the people who will actually be affected by it. Outdoor recreation is more than just a pastime; it is a way of life for hundreds of thousands of Victorians, whether it be recreational fishing, hunting, camping, prospecting, trail bike riding, horseriding or four-wheel driving. These activities connect people with the great outdoors. They strengthen communities and support regional economies.

I had the privilege of being on the native bird hunting inquiry, and some of the arguments in questioning put forward by Mr Batchelor, but other groups as well, seemed to suggest we could just ban things like duck and quail hunting and regional economies would not suffer because there might be some ecotourism. There might be people coming to take photos of birds. By the way, all the areas in native parkland where duck hunting happens – areas around Sale that we went to – that used to be sand are now tropical oases. I did not see any ecotourists volunteering to change deserts into tropical parklands. We see some incredible parkland around Gippsland and around Geelong. We only needed to speak to some of the local chambers of commerce that spoke to the inquiry about the uptick in activity they get during duck-hunting season and the commerce that goes through the town, the uplift in the accommodation bookings and the uplift in people going to the local milk bar or the local bakeries. The local bakeries do a roaring trade during duck-hunting season. We also heard the personal stories of generational duck hunters, which I found quite moving. Of course Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea want to take that away, but I found them quite moving.

I will be honest: I am not a duck hunter. I have never hunted ducks. I have never taken an interest in ducks, and despite the many invitations, I still have not taken it up. It is not something that interests me. But what interests me is my admiration for the generational activity that is duck hunting. I was not going to let it slide. I was not going to allow people like Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea to have their way and completely ban duck hunting, and so what I did was I got organised with colleagues like Ms Bath – and Ms Kealy as well, I have to say. We organised a duck hunting forum up in Craigieburn. While this issue obviously affects those in the regions, it is a huge issue in the growth areas of Melbourne. They love their recreational duck hunting. So I actually organised a forum in Craigieburn. The Hume Global Learning Centre in Craigieburn was full. We sold out. We could only take 400 people. We had to double the room. It was 420 people in the end – standing room only. It was a huge crowd of really, really passionate people – really passionate, salt of the earth people. There were many people there in Electrical Trades Union hoodies. There were many people there who had just come off a Big Build worksite and come straight to the forum because their generational recreational activity was going to be taken away by Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea. I was not willing to make that happen. I know there were many forums like those hosted by Ms Bath, Mrs McArthur, Danny O’Brien and Emma Kealy. These kinds of issues always seem like a fait accompli. Whether it be duck hunting or the Lord’s Prayer, by standing up we are able to make a real difference for people and force the government to backflip on a significant issue.

But again, this fight is not over. There are significant risks should Labor’s best-case scenario happen, which is a minority government with the Greens. For the chance of holding on to power they will do a dirty deal to ban duck hunting. They will do a dirty deal to impost and create more national parks and limit the opportunities for outdoor recreation in our regional areas. That is a huge risk, and I think many duck hunters know it. They fought tooth and nail to force a backflip, but there is a huge risk coming in November.

As I said, I am not personally a duck hunter – I have no interest in it – but I do absolutely support the people that enjoy it as a pastime. I have had many invitations to go and see for myself some of the activities they do. I was privileged to go and visit the working dogs club in Riddells Creek, I believe, in the seat of Macedon, to see some of the training of the working dogs involved in hunting. It was absolutely brilliant to see the training that goes into training these dogs and the care with which they deal with the ducks and quail themselves. I really want to again put on the record my support for the great outdoors, my support for outdoor recreation in general, and my support for good, hardworking people who take part in a generational family tradition like duck hunting. I think they know –

Melina Bath interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: absolutely they do, Ms Bath – that the risk is that in Labor’s best-case scenario of a hung Parliament with the Greens they will absolutely fold and ban duck hunting in this state if people like Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea get their way. That is the risk coming in November, and it is one that all duck hunters and people that love the great outdoors should be wary of.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:59): I would like to also say a few words on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. I will start by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. In fact the idea of merging agencies and hopefully creating some efficiencies is a good idea.

I would like to outline a few things actually from Libertarian Party policy. We have had a lot to do with developing our own policy on the great outdoors. In Victoria we have a beautiful natural environment, and millions of Victorians enjoy outdoor recreation activities every year. But as we have seen, since my time in Parliament, many of these activities are under threat or have been cancelled. We have seen the Mallee Rally, rock climbing in the Grampians and Arapiles and lots of activities being shut down. There was a threat to duck hunting, and the government actually made a good decision – to keep the status quo, effectively. The Libertarian Party helped organise several public protests around these issues around land access and opposing new national parks. But many people who enjoy our natural environment are also concerned about closures and restrictions to that environment. It is not that we do not value the natural environment. Some of the people who speak at these protests are wildlife rescuers and others who volunteer their own time doing habitat restoration, as do many duck hunters.

The government themselves have a poor track record of environmental management. The criticism of national parks as breeding grounds for pest species is a valid one, but the government can also shield companies that are causing pollution problems. As long as they are operating within their licence conditions, people can be prevented from suing for nuisance. There was recent reporting about a recycling plant in Reservoir that was causing issues for local residents. Causing pollution and other problems for neighbours is a violation of their property rights, and the government acts as a shield for this violation.

Natural asset management should leverage some sort of user-pays systems wherever possible, like we see with fishing. It is quite well managed, and I do not really get complaints from constituents about the fishing system or complaints from the fishing community. It should also be decentralised and involve local communities wherever possible. We are yet to see where the discussions around land access at Mount Arapiles land, but through public pressure a more comprehensive consultation process was undertaken. Local people and the diversity of user groups should be involved in helping to shape policy around the spaces that they use, rather than government or favoured groups being able to simply dictate terms.

This bill makes some small moves in that direction, which we support. Environmental regulation should be simplified and streamlined wherever possible. The gap between idea and implementation can sometimes be vast, but what the government is proposing through consolidating different areas of government is probably a good idea. Whether it leads to better outcomes, though, may come down to implementation.

Radical data transparency can also assist in better land management and better environmental outcomes. The government seems to have an allergic reaction to transparency on these issues. Nobody has been able to get even basic information about how many non-disclosure agreements have been signed with groups engaging with this government. While some of this might be appropriate, the sheer scale of it seems to be a uniquely Victorian issue. Some other parties have proposed amendments to improve transparency, and this is something that I have generally supported in my time here and will again with this bill.

The Libertarian Party supports hunters, fishers and the vast variety of parks users. Whilst there are some things that we would like to do differently, this bill moves very slightly in the right direction, and we will not be opposing it. Some other parties have put forward some proposals to improve it, and we will give those due consideration in the committee stage of debate.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:03): I also rise today to speak on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026, and I would like to start by thanking my colleague and the shadow minister Melina Bath for all the work that she has been doing on this particular bill. She has been working very hard to make amendments, which now the government has seen the importance of, recognising that this is a rather rushed bill that has not been thought through as well as it could have been. As Mr Limbrick said, it is going to come down to a level of implementation. It is not just a matter of having the structure of a bill and restructuring something but also how that is going to work out in lived experience for people.

I first of all want to say that obviously hunting is a recreational sport. I have a very diverse family, particularly on my husband’s side. He has a lot of siblings, and some of them are very keen environmentalists and others have been keen hunters, so it is an extremely diverse background. I know that hunting is not always widely accepted by some of the public, but it is very loved by those who are engaged in it, and for those, often in rural areas or on the periphery of the rural areas, there is a lot of history that goes behind that. So while I have tremendous empathy for animals, I am also very empathetic towards the desire of people who have that hunting background and who wish to continue. I think that we live in a free country, and part of our liberal values is to support people’s freedom of choice.

At the same time, I want to speak in particular on the issues of fisheries. I have three sand-belt seats in the south-east and a number of fishing areas, like the Patterson Lakes area, but also a number of people that will travel not too far away to go into regional Victoria to enjoy recreational sports, and of course this bill is impacting them as well. I want to speak in particular to put on the record the importance of situations to do with enforcement and compliance. I think that is of the greatest importance in terms of how things are going to be worked out in fishing. Remember in the fishing industry we have the commercial fisheries, which have to be sustainable and have to be regulated, but we also have recreational fishing, and recreational fishing is enjoyed by at least half a million Victorians. That is a lot of people. It could be more. I think the number of people that are estimated to have licences might be about half that, about a quarter of a million. But given that the government handed out fishing rods, my guess would be that it could be well into the 800,000s, the number of people that would consider themselves to be recreational fishers, and we want to continue to encourage that. This is a very good pastime. It has obviously got good mental health properties, and people having that opportunity to sit still in nature and just be patient and fish is a wonderful thing for people to enjoy and to enjoy as a family.

The Victorian recreational fishing body VRFish is a fishing community advocate body to the government, and VRFish’s concerns are that the Victorian Fisheries Authority’s major cutbacks of fishery officer positions and sacking of science staff et cetera have led to higher levels of illegal intake and inadequate regulation in Victoria. Most importantly, VRFish was to provide the government with further evidence of the fishing community’s major concerns, and I think VRFish surveyed about 2000 recreational fishers and prioritised their findings into what the community values most. The issue of greatest importance was enforcement and compliance.

With the government getting rid of fisheries officer enforcement, for example, by closing two stations – one in the Bayside area, the other in Altona; each had about four or five fishery officers based there – recreational fishing in Port Phillip Bay is now not being properly regulated. I want to put that on the record, because I think, as we said, it is how this is going to work out in compiling all these groups together. It is important that these things are noted, and so I want to put these things on the record. Recreational fishing needs well-resourced fisheries to be sustainable, and that goes for commercial fishing as well. If it is not well resourced and if it is not properly regulated, then it is not sustainable.

Victoria had the reputation of being exemplary in this area. They were working very, very hard to maintain through scientific process the levels of fishery intake and stock so that there was enough fish around of different types for people to be able to access and so that it was always working within a system that was really well monitored. When you take that monitoring away, what happens? It is no longer regulated. There are certain species that can come under threat, and suddenly we become – instead of a state which everybody is looking at and thinking, ‘Gee, they’re doing a good job’ – a state that becomes a basket case. And just about everything in Victoria has become a basket case under this government, because they are continually making changes and shifting things around without consulting the people that need to be consulted. I think that this is another one of those cases. I am very thankful that our shadow minister Melina Bath has been listening to people and working with them.

The need for well-resourced fisheries also relates to the second-greatest concern of the recreational fishers, and this is the significance and importance of good fisheries management. Scientists, until now, have been monitoring the sustainability of fish stock. Now they are under-resourced and there are not enough of them. They were using an evidence-based approach to ensure fish stocks were sustainable and sustainably managed. Now the government are axing the scientists. I think I met one when they came out to Parliament. There is only one left that I think is overseeing a large area, and he seemed to be incredibly stressed with the burden on him. Now that they have been axed, there is no-one monitoring the sustainability or providing good management for recreational fisheries.

Filling a fishery department with subjective Labor operatives who are not trained or, because of their own ambitions or allegiances, are unable to provide genuine, objective, evidence-based clarity on what recreational fisheries require, will be problematic for sustainability. I want that to be on the record as well. I think it is really important that we understand the restructure reduced the number of fishery officers from 69 to 39. It was a 44 per cent reduction from what we can gather. But as I said, I met one person doing a huge area. He seemed to be quite stressed, and he said he was once part of a full department of people working adequately in this area.

For us to continue to be a leading state in this area, where people can look to us and look up to us, we need to look at what is working, or was working, rather than trying to rearrange everything so that it no longer works. I understand that this decision has been made, and we have worked through some of the changes that are going to take place, but I do want that on the record so that we can be aware of the issues and make informed decisions and choices when we are moving forward. I think that we need to be looking at the Victorian Fisheries Authority’s sustainable management, and we need to make sure that Victoria’s marine and freshwater resources are sustainable for the long term. I think that we need to consider that the cost saving the government is looking at is going to, in the long run, affect the millions of fish and the stock that we have. We need to consider too the loss of coverage reducing the capacity to enforce regulations and respond to illegal fishing activity. We need to consider the impact that we have had with the reduction of the fishery officers.

While I am aware that there is this restructuring happening, that it is important to look at all the aspects and that people think we can just lump all this together, I am not sure in the long term how sustainable it is going to be. It will depend on how it takes place in terms of the rollout and working it out in the community. If it is not structured effectively, if the money does not go where it needs to go and if it is not considered – and let us say there are 5000 hunters and there are 800,000 people recreational fishing, and then you have got commercial fishing as well – I do not know that a ‘six months here and six months there’ approach is going to be effective. I think that it needs to be well thought through. I am all for outdoor recreational things being put together if it is going to be workable, but I am not sure how this is going to work. It remains to be seen.

My father was once employed by the government when I was young in what was called the Forests Commission Victoria, and that was all about having the wildlife sustained and looking at how the forests could be maintained. I wonder if when we try to lump things together and restructure things, whether we really consider all of the impacts that is going to have in the long term.

My time is still going, but I am going to wind up. I just want it to be recorded that we do need to pay careful attention to recreational fishing, because it does concern a large number of people in Victoria, and we do need to have sustainable fisheries. Not only is this a source of income for a lot of people, but also it has been so enjoyed by Victorians. We have amazing fish, and we have such an abundance of them when they are well looked after. But when the industry is depleted and it cannot look after its stock, then we have issues and we have challenges. I know that under a Liberals and Nationals government we will be in great hands under Melina Bath, who hopefully will be our minister moving forward next year. I know that it will be a big task to roll out all the changes, but I can guarantee that the Liberals and Nationals coalition will be listening to the industry experts and to the people so that we can provide the best possible opportunities moving forward and keep these industries sustainable, keep our fisheries sustainable, keep our wildlife and opportunities sustainable and do our very best. You cannot keep everybody happy all the time, but we will do our very best to make sure that the compliance is working in a way that is fair and reasonable for every Victorian.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:16): I rise today on behalf of the Greens to speak in opposition to the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. This bill abolishes the Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority, and it transfers their responsibilities to a new body, Outdoor Recreation Victoria. This new authority will regulate game hunting, recreational fishing and boating, commercial fisheries and aquaculture. At the same time, it will be responsible for increasing participation, developing recreational sectors, facilitating access to public land and maximising the benefits produced by outdoor recreation.

There is nothing objectionable inherently about reviewing the machinery of government or consolidating agencies whose responsibilities intersect, nor is there any dispute that Victorians should be supported to spend time outdoors. The question that this bill puts to us is much more specific. Does this bill establish a regulator with clear responsibilities, proper independence and strong environmental and public interest safeguards? It does not. The government describes what it is doing here as integration, but integration without institutional safeguards can simply concentrate conflicting responsibilities inside a larger organisation.

The problem with this bill begins with the objects in clause 7. Outdoor Recreation Victoria is directed to promote participation, support access to public land, develop recreational sectors and optimise the social, cultural and economic benefits of outdoor recreation, and it must act in the manner it considers best achieves these objectives. There is no equivalent freestanding objective in this bill requiring the authority to, for example, conserve biodiversity, protect ecological integrity or safeguard cultural heritage. The bill refers to sustainability but largely as a qualification on the pursuit of recreational and economic activity. Environmental protection is not established as an equal institutional purpose in its own right. That matters because objects shape organisational priorities. They will guide decisions about staffing, budgets, grants, performance measures and ministerial expectations. When access and participation are expressed as organisational objectives but ecological protection is primarily just something to be taken into consideration, the legislation creates an imbalance from the beginning.

The minister’s second-reading speech asserts that access will only be supported within the sustainable capacity of the land and that the rights and responsibilities of land managers will be respected. But those statements are not a substitute for enshrining these objectives in legislation. Parliament should assess what the bill requires, not what the current minister says the authority intends to do, because ministers change, priorities change and administrative guidance changes, so the protections that endure and the ones that matter are the ones that we place into the act today.

This bill also gives the minister of the day substantial influence over Outdoor Recreation Victoria. The authority will be subject to written ministerial directions, and those directions need only be disclosed through the annual reporting process. The board will consist entirely of ministerial appointees. The legislation does not establish any kind of independent compliance commissioner, and it does not create a separately accountable enforcement division. It does not require separate compliance funding, and it does not establish an independent board committee responsible for regulatory integrity.

These omissions are particularly serious given the history of the Game Management Authority itself. In 2017 we saw the Pegasus review into the GMA, and the 2017 Pegasus review found that the GMA had not effectively fulfilled its compliance and its enforcement responsibilities. It found widespread noncompliance by the GMA and a lack of effective sanctions handed out. It found vulnerability to regulatory capture and, importantly in relation to this bill, the Pegasus review found that there was tension between the authority’s regulatory responsibilities and its advisory and promotional activities. We have been here before, and we have done the work before to unwind the kind of conflict that this bill creates for the new authority. Pegasus did contemplate placing regulation within a larger organisation, but that recommendation from the Pegasus review came with an essential safeguard. Compliance and enforcement functions should be separated from advisory, developmental and promotional work.

We are going back to the future today, with the government putting before us a consolidation and discarding the safeguards that would have made consolidation of these two functions of the authority defensible, because there is nothing in this bill requiring operational separation between Outdoor Recreation Victoria’s promotional responsibilities and its regulatory decisions. All of those responsibilities ultimately sit within the same authority and under the same board. The government may say that the internal administrative arrangements can manage the conflict, but in our view that is not enough – and in part based on past experience that is not enough. If separation is necessary to preserve regulatory integrity, then it should be required by the act, it should be visible to Parliament and it should be visible to the public to create confidence in the authority’s ability to carry out its role.

Turning to part 5 of the bill, part 5 is the section that establishes the Land Access Panel. This is going to be an important panel. It is going to advise the minister about community access to public land, restrictions on access and ways of improving access for outdoor recreation as defined under the bill. The way that the government conceives of outdoor recreation, though, is problematic in that what is drafted into this bill does not actually reflect how most Victorians currently use and value our national parks and public land. This bill expressly defines outdoor recreation as hunting, fishing, boating, mountain biking and four-wheel driving alongside camping and walking. But this is a pretty narrow set of activities, and it does not align with how Victorians today use our national parks. Of course all of those activities are undertaken, but how about some of the other popular activities that we know are highly valued by Victorians – things like picnicking, birdwatching, wildlife observation, photography and art, swimming, nature appreciation and the simple enjoyment of the peace and quiet of our wild and natural spaces. The government may argue that this definition is not exhaustive, the definition that it has written into the bill, and I certainly support that interpretation and hope that it is interpreted that way and that that is the case. The activities that the government has chosen for express recognition reveal its priorities and its favouritism of certain cohorts within the Victorian community.

Many of the activities as well I note that the government has defined often require much more exclusive use, especially, as we have noted, with hunting seasons, which lock huge portions of the community out of our public spaces for many months of the year. The activities that the government has chosen for express recognition will inevitably shape the work of Outdoor Recreation Victoria and of the Land Access Panel.

As I have said, the evidence tells a very different story about what Victorians value, and this is not just assertion on my part or a brainstorming that I have done of other things that people like to do in our wild spaces. RedBridge polling has found that short bushwalks are by far the most common activity and are undertaken by 48 per cent of Victorians, followed by picnics at 36 per cent. Photography is at 21 per cent, and camping and bird watching are at 11 per cent each. Shooting and hunting are actually among the least common activities that Victorians use public spaces for. More than half of respondents, importantly, said that peace and quiet, appreciating waterfalls and rivers and accessing public facilities like toilets and short walking tracks are the kinds of priorities that would encourage them to visit national parks more often. These are not marginal interests. Victoria’s national and state parks recorded 54.7 million visits in the most recent statewide visitor survey, but this bill gives special legislative prominence and a new access advisory structure to a narrow group of interests – interests that are quite extractive in nature and contain higher impact activities such as operation of motorised vehicles – without properly representing the millions of people who visit our parks to walk, to picnic, to observe wildlife or to spend time with their family and connect quietly with nature.

Public land access decisions do have major consequences, and they can affect habitat, threatened species, fire management practices, biosecurity, cultural heritage, water quality, visitor safety and the capacity of traditional owners and public authorities to care for country. Despite that, the Land Access Panel envisaged by this bill is almost entirely a creature of ministerial discretion rather than public input. The minister appoints every member of the Land Access Panel. The minister may determine its terms of reference. The minister may give it additional functions. The minister may determine its procedures, its objectives and its reporting arrangements. And the only general qualification for appointment is knowledge or experience relevant to the panel’s function.

A huge oversight of this bill, and one that I am quite shocked to see, frankly, given that our state has just made a major step forward with treaty, is that this bill does not guarantee representation for traditional owners, it does not require ecological or conservation expertise for the Land Access Panel and it does not guarantee representation for public land managers or for the many Victorians whose recreation depends on healthy, peaceful and well-protected natural places. The government says that it intends to appoint traditional owners, land and waterway managers and other stakeholders. I do have a number of amendments, which I will circulate shortly, and one of the issues that the amendments will go towards is remedying this omission.

Another major oversight with relation to the Land Access Panel is that the bill does not require its advice to be made public, it does not require the minister to publish a response to the panel’s advice and it does not establish a specific conflict-of-interest framework for panel members. This panel could consequently become really influential in relation to public access to land in Victoria without it being meaningfully transparent or accountable. The concern around this is reinforced by clause 18, which the government has described as a transparency principle. That clause refers to decision-making involving game hunting, recreational fishing and boating, commercial fishing and aquaculture. It does not expressly cover the authority’s decisions concerning public land access or the operation and recommendations of the Land Access Panel, so it is deficient. It is a significant omission because if the government genuinely intends public land access decisions to be evidence based, to be consultative and to be transparent, it should state that explicitly in the legislation. We are suspicious that that is not the case, given this omission.

As I said, the treatment of First Nations people by this bill is shockingly inadequate. The panel’s collective skills should, as far as practicable, include knowledge of First Peoples’ culture, community leadership and principles. But I will make the point that knowledge of First Peoples is not the same as First Peoples’ representation. It does not guarantee traditional owner representation or a position on the Land Access Panel, and it is not shared, therefore I do not think it goes far enough to effect shared decision-making and self-determination. A body making decisions about access to country should not merely have someone who the minister considers knowledgeable about First Peoples’ perspectives. Traditional owners should have a guaranteed role in the governance and decision-making structures themselves.

Commercial fishing and aquaculture raise different but equally serious concerns. These are primary production industries that involve food production, employment, exports, resource allocation and long-term management of natural assets, so they are not simply additional forms of outdoor recreation. Seafood Industry Victoria has warned that primary producers should not be regulated by an agency focused on recreation, which is a reasonable concern. Commercial regulation must be scientifically rigorous. It needs to be properly resourced and protected from pressure to pursue recreational participation or sector promotion. This concern should not be dismissed simply by saying that existing regulatory staff will simply move into the new authority. Organisational purpose matters, governance structures matter and the allocation of resources matters. The way also that an agency measures its own success or its success is measured against performance indicators also matters. So what are the indicators that are going to be measured here? Will success be measured by increased participation, more access and sector growth, or will it be measured by compliance, ecosystem health, sustainable catch levels, cultural outcomes and protection of the public interest?

A big oversight is that the bill does not resolve that tension. It arrives in a broader political context in which organised shooting and hunting interests have repeatedly sought and received privileged access to government decision-making, particularly in the latter part of this term of this Parliament. A very live example of that is the government’s decision-making around the rapid review of Victoria’s firearms laws, which has been recently undertaken and where, despite significant expert evidence and competency in conducting that review, Ken Lay provided the government with his review recommendations on the completion of his rapid review into Victoria’s firearms laws and this Premier responded by rejecting out of hand one of the key recommendations of that inquiry report, flying in the face of evidence, flying in the face of the recommendations provided by Mr Lay and aligning instead with the interests of shooters in this state. The government is going to move on 15 of the 16 recommendations, but key to its rejection is the recommendation that there be an enforceable cap on the number of guns that someone can own in Victoria.

The context in which this bill arrives does not give us great comfort that the Premier and this government have landed on the right balance when so clearly we see that the interests of the small minority of Victorians that are interested in gun ownership get such a willing ear and such a permissive framework from this government. We are now being asked in this place to establish an authority that will actively promote game hunting while, we are told, also regulating it without the statutory separation that the government’s own previous review in relation to Pegasus recommended. This is very significant. Far earlier in this term of Parliament we had the Select Committee on Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting.

That committee heard extensively about the failures of regulation, the failures of the GMA and the massive destruction of our wildlife, which led to terrible, terrible scenes where thousands of native waterbirds were shot, killed, wounded and left to die painful, horrible deaths. We had a regulator at that time that was so subject to capture and so conflicted in its own internal priorities that it was not able to prevent this mass destruction of our wildlife – this impact on, destruction of and damage to our beautiful wetlands and wild places. We are, I fear, under this Premier and under this government, going to repeat the mistakes of history. We had made progress in Victoria. We had seen a declining proportion of Victorians participating, particularly in relation to the killing of our precious native waterbirds. That is a diminishing activity. Victorians do not want to see our wildlife shot for sport – that is just the fact of the matter. This government, in establishing this bill, I fear is again taking a narrow set of interests and casting that as the primary way that people engage in outdoor recreation, when it does not bear out the facts and it does not bear out the attitudes of the Victorian public.

The other thing that this finger on the scales for shooting interests under this government does is potentially narrow access to our wild places for other Victorians who want to use them and want to use them safely. Another thing that we heard consistently throughout the committee’s evidence was how poorly regional Victorians are affected by annual shooting seasons and about the impact that has on residents’ use of public land that they are able to access the rest of the year – able to go and walk through with their families, spend time with their families, seek quiet contemplation and solace and get their steps up in a beautiful natural environment. We see access for ordinary Victorians shut off for months of the year because of a narrow sector of interests going in and using that land in a way that creates real safety risks. As well as just shutting people off, it creates real safety risks for people who want to use that land and also who live close by it. We have seen, with the expansion of residential encroachment into areas that are close to existing wetlands, people who would normally be able to access public lands freely very concerned that they will encounter shooters. We have even seen stray bullets from these activities go close to people’s properties and in some cases impact people’s properties.

These are real tensions that exist in the community at the moment. Our deep fear is that they are going to be inflamed by the conflicted tension that the government is reinstating in this new Outdoor Recreation Victoria body. We are concerned that the narrow set of interests that the government has defined are going to take further precedence and exacerbate a situation that we know is already causing not only consternation, annoyance and frustration but real fear and safety concerns for people who live adjacent to some of these public lands if we see a regulator then become a promoter and seeking to increase shooting and slaughter activities on our native biosphere and public lands. That is the core of our concern around the way that the government is defining outdoor recreation.

I have spoken about the fact that no comfort is given in the way that the Land Access Panel is constructed. It appears secretive, like it is going to be a black box, with little knowledge of actually who is providing advice to the minister in relation to these matters, what that advice is and what considerations have informed it, and we will not know the minister’s consideration of those matters either. As I mentioned, I do have amendments to the bill on behalf of the Greens, and I ask that they now be circulated. These amendments, which I am putting forward on behalf of the Greens, go to some of the concerns that I have outlined and seek to remedy some of the oversights that we believe the government has made. I want to be clear that we do not consider that these are the only problems with the bill. We still have serious concerns about the way in which the government has approached this issue. However, we think that these would be sensible improvements that would remedy some of the oversights, and we would welcome engagement with the government on these. We think that they are worthwhile improvements to the bill – and all parties, please do consider these.

We seek to expand, firstly, the definition of ‘outdoor recreation’. I know that this is similar in nature to amendments that may have been foreshadowed by Ms Bath. As I said, there are a number of activities that we know are extremely popular and undertaken by in some cases a majority of Victorians, and we think that those should be included in the definition of ‘outdoor recreation’ that this bill seeks to legislate. The activities that we would insert into the expanded definition of ‘outdoor recreation’ include picnicking, birdwatching, photography, swimming and quiet enjoyment of nature. As I said – and I will speak to this a little bit more when we come to speak to the amendments in committee – we have looked into some of the research that is available on what activities people actually undertake, and we found that this is a set of activities that are very popular, that are already undertaken and that should be considered and represented in the Land Access Panel’s consideration of outdoor recreation promotion activities and also in the organisational remit of Outdoor Recreation Victoria. That is our first amendment.

The second and third amendments that I am moving go to the inadequate representation of First Nations voices within Outdoor Recreation Victoria. I want to acknowledge and thank the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations for their engagement on this bill. I know that they have been in contact with the minister as well regarding their concerns about this bill. The amendments that we have drafted would require traditional owner groups to be involved in the integrated decision-making that the bill outlines through engagement principles, and they would also require the Land Access Panel to include both a traditional owner representative and members with experience across all listed outdoor recreation activities. I will speak more to the amendments in the committee stage, but that is their function.

As I wind up and come to the end of my time, I want to reiterate our deep concerns about the government’s approach to this matter, and it is concern that I have heard mirrored across the community. I have received and I am sure members of Parliament on all sides of this chamber have received hundreds of emails from people very concerned about the lopsided consideration of interests that this government is seeking to institute and the conflicted nature of the authority that it is seeking to create. There is real community concern about this that the government has not allayed. We think that the government should give serious consideration to the amendments that we have circulated, and that would go some of the way, but we do not think that the government has actually got the approach on this bill and on this entity right at all.

The Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill does nothing to establish environmental protection and care for country as explicit and equal objectives of the authority. It does nothing to guarantee traditional owner representation or to require ecological and conservation expertise on the board and the Land Access Panel. It does not establish clear statutory separation between the compliance and enforcement work and the promotional or sector development functions of this new authority. It does not require publication of ministerial directions within a prompt period; rather it leaves disclosure just to a minimum in the annual report. It does not require Land Access Panel advice or the minister’s response to be published, creating a black box. It does not ensure that public land access recommendations are subject to transparent ecological, cultural or safety criteria.

It does not explain why commercial primary industries are being governed within an organisation publicly constituted and named around outdoor recreation. The government has not included those protections. This Parliament should not establish a powerful new authority on the basis that deficiencies in this legislation can later be repaired through goodwill, internal policies or ministerial promises. We have not seen a track record from this government that warrants that kind of trust. The issue is not whether, as I have said, Victorians value outdoor recreation. Of course they do. We know that. The issue is whether that recreation will be governed within ecological limits; with independent regulation; with proper traditional owner authority; with free, informed and prior consent; and with transparent public decision-making. It is also whether the government’s conception of outdoor recreation even matches the way that Victorians like to recreate in outdoor spaces. We do not think it does. We think they have defined it too narrowly and they are deliberately prioritising a narrow set of interests.

This bill does not provide any guarantees on these matters. The Greens are deeply concerned about the way that the government has approached this. There are significant community consternation and a lack of trust, and so there should be. Labor have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to put the interests of the community and the interests of our wild spaces ahead of the interests of the shooting lobby, so the lack of trust is warranted. The Greens do not think that the bill is correct. We urge the government to engage with us on the sensible amendments that we have put forward, and we will not be supporting this bill.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:46): I want to say at the outset that we are not opposing this bill, but we are not waving it through either. This bill abolishes two specialist regulators and rolls them into one centralised body under tighter ministerial control. The Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority were built on expertise. The bill bets that bigger is better. We will support sensible reform, but we will not sign a blank cheque for bureaucracy. At the outset I want to congratulate our shadow minister Melina Bath, the Shadow Minister for Outdoor Recreation. She has done an exceptional job in working through this bill and working with the government to make sure we get a good outcome for outdoor recreation in Victoria. I also want to congratulate the minister, Enver Erdogan, for fixing up the mess of his predecessors who got this completely wrong.

I support all Victorians to use and utilise and enjoy the great outdoors – all of them – but the government’s approach has been to lock up the forests and parks and throw away the keys. That is a totally hopeless way of operating, and worse still, they do not actually manage the state’s resources they have. Vermin and noxious weeds are out of control in most of the parks and forests that the government are meant to maintain. They have reduced the number of Parks Victoria staff that actually do work to maintain the area, but of course they have increased them in head office.

Mr Limbrick referred to this, the way that we lock up the forests and throw away the keys, when he was talking about the closure of Mount Arapiles in the Grampians to rock climbers. I remember distinctly that the minister at the time, I think it was Ms D’Ambrosio, blamed the rock climbers for the damage to rock art in the Grampians, and so therefore she blocked them out. But lo and behold, we established that the damage to the rock art was actually caused by Parks Victoria drilling holes into it to put up a mesh screen to supposedly protect it. Of course I called for her to apologise to the rock-climbing community. That apology was never forthcoming. It was an appalling situation, because rock climbers, above all else, are great environmentalists. They love the great outdoors. They are the last ones to do anything to damage rocks and mountains, and the climbing in Mount Arapiles and in the Grampians is world class. People come from all over the world to enjoy that space, and they of course look after it and recognise its importance.

Mr Mulholland also referred to the fact that he is not a shooter. Neither am I, but I totally defend the right of law-abiding Victorians – licensed, law-abiding shooters – to carry out their recreation. In fact I am honoured to be a member of Field and Game Australia. The head office of Field and Game is in my Western Victoria Region electorate at Lake Connewarre, and it is where amazing research is done in conjunction with Deakin University to monitor the birdlife and also the life of other species that are in the wetlands. They also provide habitat to increase the number of species that can use wetland reserves. And this is all done by volunteers, amazingly, a huge workforce that give of their time and expertise to ensure that wetlands like Lake Connewarre and Heart Morass – where we went, actually, when we were on the inquiry.

Melina Bath: Amazing, wasn’t it?

Bev McARTHUR: It is amazing work that is done there by volunteers to preserve, maintain and expand that environment for native wildlife. They also, at Lake Connewarre, conduct a wonderful education program for schoolchildren to come and learn about all the small species that are in the water and the wetlands, an educational experience that is second to none for children that have never been exposed to this sort of wildlife and outdoor activity. But you know what, I have not seen any Greens or Animal Justice Party activists out there as volunteers helping to preserve, maintain and expand these wetlands. I do not know where you have been, but you are certainly not out there with the volunteers trying to make sure that we look after these wetlands, that we expand them, that we do the research, that we provide the habitat for birds to breed and grow. Where have you been in all this activity? You are just nowhere to be seen when we really need you out there doing something practical, working with the volunteers. You are AWOL, but you are very noisy in here and elsewhere when it comes to outdoor activity and so on. You are absolutely nowhere to be seen.

I am glad that Minister Blandthorn has come into the chamber, because it was Minister Blandthorn that moved the inquiry into banning duck shooting, as I recall. And do you know what, I was very pleased to be on that inquiry with Mr Mulholland and Ms Bath. I was really very energised about the extraordinary contribution of that union leader, Troy Gray from the Electrical Trades Union, who absolutely nailed it when he said, ‘You people over there, if you want to ban duck shooting, don’t expect to come onto our worksites in a hard hat and a yellow vest. We will actually shut down the whole Big Build.’ And even though the government had the majority on that inquiry and they made sure they recommended that duck shooting would be banned, clearly Mr Gray and his union colleagues had their way. They made sure that the government did not support the recommendation of the inquiry. They knew the government knew where their bread was buttered. Even if those members like Mr Batchelor and Mr Galea – he is not here; I do not know where he is – were on the inquiry, they voted to ban duck shooting but they were overrun by their friends in the union movement. Well, congratulations, Mr Gray. You obviously did a great job.

Ms Copsey referred to the fact that she thinks everybody wants to go walking, picnicking, birdwatching and have silent use of these wonderful places – I am all for that. You can picnic and walk and hike to your heart’s content. But I am totally supportive of everybody else that want to use it, whether they are fossickers, trail bike riders, horseriders – everybody should have access to it, totally. Of course they should.

Just referring back to that momentous inquiry, there were – how many – hundreds of thousands of submissions. There were lots of submissions. I must say my wonderful colleagues in the opposition here produced a minority report, and I could not do better than to read from that report. I think this sums up the whole issue of outdoor recreation. We said:

Our concerns were primarily to ensure balance, equity and fairness – the cornerstone of a democratic society. We have strived to ensure that our findings are based on scientific and socioeconomic evidence and expert opinion backed with factual data.

Not hyperbole, not nonsense, but factual data.

One of the challenges for rural and regional Victoria has been decisions made in Spring Street –

that is inside the tram tracks, team –

based on the demands of minority but noisy activists, focus groups, and electoral expediency. Many of these ‘city centric’ decisions have resulted in a raft of policies that have had devastating social, economic and environmental impacts on rural and regional communities (e.g. misguided forest, fire, flood and energy policies). We have tried to ensure that the voice of rural and regional Victorians as well as metropolitan Melbourne are heard.

We have tried to ensure that key submissions are used in decision making and that the findings of knowledgeable and experienced experts have been captured. In many cases, rather than paraphrase points made in submissions or hearings, we have quoted verbatim key points, taking care to ensure context.

I urge everybody to read this fantastic minority report. I must say I did not realise how good it was till I re-read it.

We have also strived to ensure that our recommendations are consistent with a balanced approach to ecologically sustainable development, balancing the environmental, economic and social dimension of decision making. Without balance you are unable to deliver equity and fairness and you increase the risk of adverse outcomes.

Based on submissions and testimony it became obvious that the cornerstone of conservation of water birds in Australia is sufficient habitat and more can be done to improve wetland habitat. We also heard of the considerable voluntary work undertaken by hunting organisations to improve water bird conservation.

I referred to them all before. I hope you were all listening.

Rural and regional Australia has always rode on the back of hard working volunteers. At the Inquiry evidence in submissions and testimony spoke of the substantial voluntary contribution duck hunters make to the establishment and maintenance of wetland habitat and breeding conditions for water birds.

This is a prime example of how making something ‘valuable’ helps with conservation, not just valuable in a monetary sense but valuable spiritually. Because duck hunting is a valuable recreational activity, volunteers pitch in and develop new wetlands and maintain them essentially without using the public purse.

It was quite clear in that inquiry exactly what really happens in the wetland space. Duck hunters are unlike our wonderful friends over there the Greens and – I do not know where the Animal Justice people are. But they do not get out there and help make bird habitat and provide the educational experience that all those lovely children get when they go to Connewarre.

Anyway, the government saw what was right, and they did not accept the recommendation of the inquiry to ban duck hunting. Good on Troy Gray and his friends in the union movement for making sure that happened.

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Mr Batchelor wants to do it, and of course they would do it if they got any chance through some ridiculous situation where they get elected with a coalition of the Greens at the next election.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.