Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:13): I rise to speak on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Victoria offers an incredible variety of natural environments to explore, from pristine beaches to lush rainforests. We are so fortunate to have countless opportunities to experience the state’s wildlife. These lands have been cared for by First Peoples for tens of thousands of years. Despite its name, the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill has little to do with recreation. Caring for Victoria’s natural environment means more than simply enjoying it. In fact if we do not care for it, we will not be able to enjoy it for much longer. True stewardship of the environment means taking responsibility for its protection, respecting the deep knowledge of First Peoples and ensuring that our forests, rivers, coastlines and native species are preserved for future generations. Just as traditional owners have cared for country for thousands of years, we too have a responsibility to act as custodians for the land, not simply use it. There is nothing in this bill that reflects this profound responsibility. It is primarily a government restructuring exercise dressed up as an outdoor recreation policy. This bill is not about improving outdoor recreation. It is being driven by other priorities. It merges existing agencies by combining the former wildlife and fisheries regulators into a new body. This does nothing to create new programs, facilities or opportunities for outdoor recreation. It is merely a restructure. The merger of both the Game Management Authority (GMA) and the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) stems from the Silver review and broader government restructure objectives. It is fundamentally a public sector overhaul. Victorians were promised outdoor recreation reform, but what they have been given is some new stationery.

In 2017 the Labor government commissioned Pegasus Economics to conduct an independent review into the GMA after 2000 shooters massacred and wounded thousands of birds, including over 200 protected species. Let me repeat that: 200 protected species. This happened right in front of compliance officers on day one of the season. The report found that GMA was failing its responsibilities. It was neither compliant nor, importantly, independent. Almost 10 years on, this bill does nothing to address the noncompliance of GMA. The Pegasus report explicitly warns that GMA’s promotional work undermines enforcement and creates perceived bias, and this bill just makes it worse. The objective of promoting outdoor recreation in this bill clearly contradicts the Pegasus report, which explicitly warns about the problems with the GMA’s promotional work and its perceived bias. It also argues the GMA was already too comfortable with hunting organisations. The Pegasus report also identifies the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016 and the VFA as having much better protections against conflicts of interests, consultation requirements and restrictions on board members. While Outdoor Recreation Victoria has brought these over, they still specifically only related to fishing. Instead it provides extraordinary powers to these officers, and we are all aware now that they are actively targeting rescuers. Let us be clear: the very people tasked with looking after protected species are instead targeting the people there to rescue these animals. It beggars belief. Breaches of hunting laws are widespread in Victoria, and we are witnessing plummeting waterbird populations. It is also no coincidence that the Premier’s protection of firearms to protect the so-called rights of shooters comes at the same time as this bill. While protected species are dying, the Premier is giving hunters and shooters more guns – and to what end?

This bill raises a fundamental question: if the government genuinely values our wildlife, including but not limited to enjoyment of outdoor recreation, why is its headline reform a bureaucratic merger rather than a plan to improve biodiversity, protect habitats, expand recreational access and support regional communities? If this bill is any indication, the government is not interested in safeguarding our unique nature in Victoria. This bill creates a powerful new panel – and I will get to that in a moment – while completely ignoring the fundamentals: protecting wildlife, safeguarding the environment, conserving biodiversity, applying the precautionary principle and assessing risks to the health and safety of Victorians who visit public land.

Now on to the panel: if any sensible person were going to set up a panel to protect the environment, it would be independent and contain environmental, animal and recreation experts. In contrast, this panel will be handpicked by the minister, with no requirement for environmental expertise. It will have no obligation to make its advice public and no responsibility to consider the impacts on nature. It will operate free from the scrutiny of an independent Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, an expert body the government recently abolished under the guise of saving money. The executive director of Victorian National Parks Association has said he believes that the establishment of a body designed to lobby for access to public land through the Land Access Panel for shooting interests as part of Outdoor Recreation Victoria, paid for by Victorian taxpayers, will have no ecological or cultural guardrails in its objectives, which will be disastrous and dangerous for Victoria.

VEAC is one of Victoria’s most respected environmental institutions. After 50 years of helping to establish national parks and protected areas, VEAC’s independent expert council has been abolished. This is disastrous, and no-one knows why. There has not been transparent decision-making, and power is being concentrated behind closed doors. Independent oversight for this panel is imperative. Changes to public land access must be open, independent and informed by experts. When protections for biodiversity and the environment are obviously missing, it is fair to ask whose interests this bill and the panel are actually being designed to serve.

While this is an alarming environmental issue, it is also a recreational and tourism issue. Fair, safe and equitable access to Victoria’s national parks, conservation reserves and other public lands makes Victoria a drawcard for tourists internationally, from interstate and locally. The safe and easy access to iconic landscapes close to Melbourne is a drawcard for people to get the best of Australia all in one state. The lush rainforests of the Great Otway National Park and the majestic forests of the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Ranges national parks in eastern Victoria, not far from my region, are loved by many people who come here to see them, enjoy them and bask in them. Again, these landmarks and areas are not just tourist attractions; they are irreplaceable natural assets that define our state’s identity. By any measure they deserve the strongest possible protection.

National parks safeguard some of Victoria’s most important ecosystems, providing habitat for natural wildlife and protecting threatened species from extinction. The Otways, Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Ranges contain unique plants and animals that simply cannot survive without healthy and protected environments. This is indisputable. Millions of Victorians rely on access to nature for their health, wellbeing and quality of life. Our First Peoples will tell you something that we all know intuitively but perhaps have become disconnected from: without environmental health, we do not have human health. They are intrinsically linked. Now more than ever we should be strengthening efforts to safeguard these parks and public lands and not weakening environmental protections. It simply does not make sense.

By caring for the landscapes and wildlife around us, we ensure that future generations inherit the same rich natural and cultural heritage that has been safeguarded for millennia. On behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, we reject this bill. It has the wrong priorities. It will actively weaken protections for nature and wildlife, and it will do so without proper scrutiny, expertise or care.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:23): I note before I begin my contribution that for much of today’s debate, if not almost all of it, the Minister for Environment himself has been absent. I think that it says a lot to the people of Victoria that the minister has not even taken the time to be present for the debate in the chamber. In fact I think what it speaks to is a shambolic approach to the environment from this government. We have now had four ministers in four years, and to not have the minister in the chamber, as is often the practice of the ministers responsible for their portfolios when these debates are occurring, sadly, is a reflection upon the importance the state Labor government place on the environment today. That is to say, they place no importance on it whatsoever. It would be remiss of me not to point that out.

I want to commend today’s speakers. I think there are a number of significant issues in this, and they have been well articulated. I even listened to Mr Bourman earlier on before lunch, Ms Copsey and just now Ms Payne, as well as members of my own team. There is much to say in this area, but I think what is incumbent upon me is the alternative. Our shadow minister handling it Melina Bath will cover our matters substantially, but I do think it is important that I give some voice and some agency to those concerns that we have heard already from other members today, because there are genuine questions and genuine concerns.

We have seen this government systematically dismantle, for example, fisheries officers, and we have heard other speakers in this place talk about that today. You need look no further for evidence of that than the extent to which Victoria is no longer covered by fisheries officers when compared to every other state and territory in this country. To say that it is scandalous is to make an understatement. I have two letters here which I propose to read and, for the purposes of Hansard, I will provide to them, because while I do not share and certainly my party do not share every view and every comment, I think it is important that their concerns are aired nonetheless. I think that in the course of this debate, unless we put this on the public record, there is no way of us actually ensuring that we have a robust and thoughtful discussion. I know that in the committee stage itself we will certainly do that.

The first of the two letters that I propose to read is from the executive director of the Victorian National Parks Association. It is a co-written letter with the Victorian campaigns manager of the Wilderness Society, the CEO of Environment Victoria and the secretary of the Victorian Forest Alliance. The letter reads as follows:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Our organisations, members and supporters share great concern about the impact on Victoria’s reputation, public safety and hard-fought environmental protections under threat from the proposed Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. We are calling on all members of the Victorian Parliament to throw out this legislation and the threats it poses to public safety and access to national parks and public lands. Fair, safe and equitable access to Victoria’s national parks, conservation reserves and other public lands makes Victoria a drawcard for tourists both internationally as well as locally and interstate. The safe and easy access to iconic landscapes close to Melbourne is a drawcard for people to get the best of Australia all in one state.

We believe the establishment of a body designed to lobby for access to public land through the Land Access Panel for shooting interests as part of Outdoor Recreation Victoria, paid for by Victorian taxpayers, while having no ecological or cultural guardrails in its objectives, will be disastrous and dangerous for Victoria, particularly as the body responsible – the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council – for assessing and characterising public land was recently abolished. There are no references in the legislation establishing the panel to protect Victoria’s environment and wildlife, assessment of public safety, the precautionary principle, biodiversity, conservation or protection, or any obligation to assess impacts on all public land visitors and their health and safety.

Just an hour or so drive outside Melbourne takes Victorians to the iconic rainforest of the Great Otway National Park or the wildflower fields of Victoria’s native grasslands reserves in the west or into the iconic tall, wet forest of the Dandenong Ranges or Yarra Ranges National Park in eastern Victoria. A trip further out can have you in the Wimmera or Mallee regions, where tourists visit amazing landscapes such as Little Desert National Park or the Pink Lakes or Murray-Sunset National Park. These iconic parks draw over 55 million visitors per year into regional areas every year to safely access these areas and visit Victoria’s great shared backyard and get to know our iconic wildlife and landscapes.

As highlighted in the latest AusPlay data, Victoria’s most popular physical activities are low environmental impact, low-cost, easy and safe to access recreational pursuits such as walking, jogging and cycling. These findings are supported by polling by the RedBridge Group, which found that most common activities are short bushwalks, in which almost half of Victorians – 48 per cent – report having participated in the past year followed by picnics, 36 per cent, photography, 21 per cent, and camping over multiple days and birdwatching, 11 per cent each. Shooting and hunting come in at roughly 2 per cent of visitors to Victoria’s public land, but the presence of shooting impacts over half the visitors seeking peace and quiet, 53 per cent, and 37 per cent say that no shooting allowed and being free of hunting would make them visit national parks more often.

Yours sincerely …

the executive director, as I have said, of the Victorian National Parks Association, the Victorian campaigns manager for the Wilderness Society, the CEO of Environment Victoria and the secretary of the Victorian Forest Alliance.

The second letter is from Animals Australia, and I quote from that:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I write on behalf of Animals Australia about the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026, which is before Parliament. I appreciate that members of your party hold a range of views on recreational hunting. This letter does not seek to sway those views. Rather, we request your consideration of the due and proper scrutiny appropriate for a significant new statutory authority.

The bill abolishes two existing regulators and creates a single new body, Outdoor Recreation Victoria, combining a regulatory and compliance role with an express function of promoting the very activities it regulates. As a matter of regulatory design, combining promotion and enforcement in one authority warrants careful examination because it is the kind of structural arrangement that good governance ordinarily seeks to avoid and that this Parliament would scrutinise closely in other sectors.

Those questions are shaped by recent ABC reporting on 3 June 2026 that raised concerns about the impartiality of the Game Management Authority, including a recording of a GMA officer identifying with hunters and a 2017 government-commissioned review that found that the GMA was failing to enforce its own rules effectively.

A former GMA compliance manager has said he was discouraged from pursuing breaches. These allegations raise serious questions about the accountability, integrity and effectiveness around how public compliance functions are performed and funded. Those are legitimate matters for the opposition to test, regardless of one’s view on hunting.

They therefore respectfully ask that we press on these matters and for them to be properly examined, including whether the merger resolves or entrenches the documented concerns and how the independence and compliance decisions will be guaranteed within a body that also has a promotional mandate, before the bill is allowed to pass. That is from the chief executive of Animals Australia.

I think both of those letters illustrate quite clearly what I have been inundated with over these past weeks – if not months, in fact. It is an illustration in so many ways that so many members of our community have not been listened to or heard. The fact that the government have had to make a number of amendments also illustrates the rushed, shambolic way they have gone about this, and it is an embarrassment, I would put to the government, that yet again they find themselves in this position of having promised so much and done so little in the environmental area. If they actually had an understanding of their poor regard in the public eye right now for their environmental credentials, having had, as I said earlier, four ministers, each of which have promised and delivered nothing, including the Wildlife Act, which they promised to redo twice – and I am sure at the next election they will promise that again, like the little boy who cried wolf, but this will be the third time they cry wolf, literally. I just hope the Victorian people will no longer fall for it, and I would appeal to common sense, to cool heads and for respect to proceed and dominate this discussion, because it is not about them or us; it is about how we can genuinely care for our environment. There are those, I accept, who look to engage in the environment every single day and enjoy our outdoors, and they should be allowed to do that. But this government’s track record when it comes to protecting our native flora and fauna is absolutely disastrous, and the fact that the minister has been absent for almost the entire day and the entire part of this debate is an absolute disgrace. I hope every Victorian appreciates that.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:32): I rise also to speak to the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026, and from the outset I reiterate that the Greens oppose this bill. I will speak further to the comments already made by my colleague Katherine Copsey and absolutely back in every single word that she said. Hopefully in my contribution now I can expand on some of those points and offer some further matters or points for consideration of the chamber.

As has been highlighted already, the conservation and national parks organisations, several of those have written to members of this Parliament and they have given in that written correspondence this proposed agency a much more honest name. Outdoor Recreation Victoria (ORV), they say, should now be known as the department of blast and cast.

This bill is not an even-handed attempt to represent the many ways that Victorians enjoy nature. It takes the Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority, puts them under one roof, gives the new body an expanded role in promoting outdoor recreation and creates a ministerially appointed Land Access Panel focused on opening public land. This bill dresses that project up in this language of participation – a language of access and regional opportunity. But the stakeholders – the people who spend their lives protecting these parks, forests, wetlands and wildlife – can see exactly what is happening here. The government is creating a publicly funded body with a mandate to promote hunting and fishing and this type of access to public land while failing to give nature protection equal legal force.

Today the Victorian National Parks Association called for this bill to be flatly rejected or, at the very least, substantially amended. Its executive director Matt Ruchel put the basic principle very simply:

… parks and public land are for enjoying and protecting nature. One shouldn’t come at the cost of the other.

National parks are not vacant land waiting to be activated, state forests are not an unused estate waiting to be opened up – this language we hear all the time. Wetlands are not shooting venues that happen to contain wildlife. These places are living systems. They are habitat. They are water catchments. They are carbon stores. They are cultural landscapes. They are country. They are refuges for threatened species and places where millions of people go to walk, to picnic, to watch birds, to photograph wildlife, to swim, to breathe and to find peace. Matt Ruchel has previously reminded the government that national parks and conservation areas were created to protect nature first and foremost. This bill reverses that order. It treats conservation as a consideration to be managed around access rather than the purpose that must govern access. The imbalance is written into the very definition of outdoor recreation. This bill expressly lists hunting, fishing, boating, bushwalking, hiking, mountain biking and four-wheel driving, but it does not expressly list things like picnicking, birdwatching, wildlife observation, nature photography, swimming, citizen science, family outings, nature study or just the quiet enjoyment of the outdoors.

The government will say the definition is inclusive rather than exhaustive. That may legally be true, I will say that, but it is politically evasive. When Parliament chooses to name some activities and not others, it signals what matters to the government of the day. Those named activities under this bill will shape the new authority’s culture, its priorities, its appointments, its budgets and the advice that it gives to ministers. The evidence shows how badly that list is actually misrepresenting Victorians. Redbridge – we have already heard it touched on today – in that polling that they conducted, commissioned by the Wilderness Society and the Victorian National Parks Association, found that 48 per cent of Victorians had taken a short bushwalk in the previous year, 36 per cent had picnicked, 21 per cent had undertaken photography and 11 per cent had gone birdwatching. Shooting, hunting and motorised trail bike riding – things we have heard about elsewhere in the debate today – were among the least common activities, each undertaken by fewer than 5 per cent of the respondents. People said they valued waterfalls and rivers, good views, wildlife and peace and quiet. More than a third said national parks being free from shooting and hunting would encourage them to visit more often. That is the public that this bill is sidelining, the millions of people who use public land in a gentle way and safely are treated as background scenery under this bill, while a small but very organised, very politically connected lobby receives new statutory access and those types of mechanisms.

The hunting organisations themselves have been remarkably candid here. We can clearly see in their expressions that some stakeholders in this process have been far more equal than others. The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia said that hunting promotion must form part of the new mandate. The Australian Deer Association calls the bill a ‘significant opportunity for hunters’. It says the bill strengthens the focus on access and creates new avenues for representation. They understand what this legislation is perfectly. For themselves, they see a stronger institutional voice. They see a formal pathway to press for access and an authority empowered to support growth and participation for their interests.

Conservation groups see this same structure under the bill from the other side – more political pressure on land managers with fewer independent safeguards for nature. The new Land Access Panel is central to that concern. Its purpose is to advise the minister on improving access to public land and on existing or proposed restrictions, with every member being appointed by the minister. The bill does not require independent conservation expertise. It does not guarantee a traditional owner representative. It does not require the panel to assess impacts on biodiversity, threatened species, cultural heritage or the safety and quiet enjoyment of other visitors, nor does it require the panel’s advice to be published.

The government has recently abolished the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, the independent body that assessed public land through transparent, evidence-based processes. That body conducted investigations, invited public submissions and produced reports that could be scrutinised and tabled in Parliament. As that independent architecture is dismantled, this bill creates a far less transparent panel whose task is not to determine how public land should be protected but how access should be improved and restrictions reviewed for some of those interests that I listed earlier. The Wilderness Society has warned repeatedly about this wider dismantling of environmental governance, with the Victorian campaigns manager Jo Hopkins saying:

The Victorian Government is stripping away the independent checks that stop bad decisions for nature being made behind closed doors.

That is exactly what is happening here. Independent assessment is removed; ministerial discretion expands. Access becomes an institutional objective. Nature is left without an equal seat at the table.

This is particularly dangerous in a state where biodiversity, as many of us have already said in this place, is already in serious decline. Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia. More than half of its native vegetation has been cleared since colonisation, and much of the remaining habitat is on public land. The most recent Victorian environmental reporting found that more than 80 per cent of the 40 biodiversity indicators assessed were in poor condition or could not be properly assessed. Our parks and our reserves are already under pressure from climate change, fire, invasive species, weeds, deer, fragmented habitat and chronic underfunding. The answer cannot be to create another body whose political energy is directed towards opening access to groups like hunters and increasing participation in those types of activities that can create further ecological pressure.

The government also cannot claim to respect First Peoples while designing public land governance without guaranteed traditional owner authority. Country is not a recreational commodity. Traditional owners’ relationship with country is not another stakeholder interest to be weighed alongside four-wheel driving or game hunting. It involves law, culture, responsibility, heritage and unceded sovereignty. The Wilderness Society has publicly said that ‘Future land management must be led in partnership with Traditional Owners’, yet this bill requires only that the Outdoor Recreation Victoria board, collectively, as far as practicable, has knowledge of First Peoples culture, community leadership and perspectives. The same deficiency exists on the Land Access Panel. A body capable of recommending changes to access – who gets access to country – should not be able to operate without traditional owner representation and without a duty to consider cultural values and obligations.

Wildlife organisations are also alarmed because the new authority is built on the well-documented conflicted foundations of the Game Management Authority. Animals Australia is currently urging this house to ‘scrap their conflicted shooting agency’. Wildlife Victoria has previously concluded that the GMA may not be an effective regulatory body. It documented concerns about compliance issues, the shooting of non-game species and injured birds being left in the field. These concerns are not theoretical. Wildlife rescuers have accused the GMA of targeting and intimidating them while failing to act consistently on reports of illegal conduct by shooters. The ABC reported formal complaints to integrity bodies and concerns about the regulator referring to hunters as ‘us duck hunters’. A former GMA board member and veterinarian, Bronwyn Orr, has warned about combining promotion and regulation, saying, ‘I cannot see how they can coexist”.

The government was warned about this structural conflict years ago. The independent Pegasus review found widespread noncompliance with hunting laws, weak enforcement, vulnerability to regulatory capture and tension between regulatory functions and promotional or advisory roles. It recommended that regulatory functions be separated from advisory, development or promotional activities. Instead of learning from that failure, this bill, under this government, enlarges it. The new authority will regulate hunting while promoting participation in outdoor recreation of that kind. It will oversee compliance while supporting sector development of interests like hunting. It will manage wildlife impacts while operating within a framework designed to increase access and participation of groups like hunters. The two should not go together. RSPCA Victoria’s position is clear and unequivocal: because of the animal welfare harm associated with wounded birds and failures to kill retrieved ducks humanely, it believes duck hunting should be banned, plain and simple.

The government is not creating an independent wildlife welfare regulator. It is creating a larger promotional and regulatory body that hunting organisations celebrate as the new era. That is why the phrase ‘department of blast and cast’ is so accurate, because it captures the government’s distorted view of public land: blast wildlife, cast a line, drive in, open up, increase participation and then call that balance. But where is the department for the family that wants a safe picnic beside the wetland? Where is the statutory panel for birdwatchers and wildlife carers? Where is the access guarantee for people who do not want to share a reserve with gunfire? Where is the institutional voice for threatened species who cannot lobby a minister, who cannot join an advisory panel and who cannot make political donations to the major parties in this state?

The government talks constantly about a silent majority. Here is the actual majority: 84 per cent of Victorians say national parks are important to them and 80 per cent support creating new national parks. That support crosses metropolitan and regional Victoria. It crosses Labor, coalition and Greens party lines. It crosses all of those groups. Victoria’s national and state parks receive tens of millions of visits each year. People travel to the Otways, the Dandenongs, the Yarra Ranges and the pink lakes of Murray–Sunset because these places offer beauty, wildlife, quiet and a sense of escape. Their value to regional economies depends on them remaining healthy, distinctive and safe. Conservation is not the enemy of access; conservation is what makes access worthwhile. A dead wetland is not an outdoor recreation asset. A forest stripped of hollow-bearing trees is not an improved visitor experience. A national park where families feel unsafe during shooting is not more accessible. A landscape whose traditional owners have been sidelined is not fairly governed.

The stakeholders are not asking Parliament to prohibit everyday recreational activity; they are asking for some basic guardrails. They want nature protection made a core object of the ORV. They want the Land Access Panel to include independent conservation expertise and traditional owner representation. They want its advice published and ecological, cultural and public safety impacts assessed before access restrictions are changed. They want promotion separated from regulation and enforcement. Those are modest safeguards, and the fact they are absent is really quite telling.

This government has chosen to write hunting explicitly into this bill but not wildlife observation or conservation. It has chosen to establish an access panel but not an ecological protection panel. It has chosen ministerial appointments but not guaranteed conservation or traditional owner seats. It has chosen promotion and sector development but not statutory separation from enforcement. These are very specific policy choices that the government are making, and it is quite telling who they are listening to and who they are not. This bill should be flatly rejected.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:47): I did not intentionally get myself last, but I am glad that the Minister for Outdoor Recreation is here to hear my contribution on his terrible bill. This is a terrible bill, and I have tried to communicate that to your office for over one month now, with no engagement, no interaction and no response. I have always made my position clear to the government. I am not here to be an obstruction. I am here to work with the government, even on things that I hate, so that I can advocate for my community in the best possible way. I just want to make it clear that at every turn I have been blindsided, I have been kept in the dark and I have been disrespected – just like the day that the government refused to ban duck shooting in Victoria.

I would like to note that on Monday I did meet with the minister’s office to go through my amendments, after begging to go through my amendments that had I flagged a long time ago. I was advised that my amendments are actually quite reasonable and would be considered and that they would seek departmental advice. I am speaking on this bill now, and I am yet to hear what that advice was and whether they will be supporting the amendments. I presume that is not the case, because it is clear that the government has cut a deal with the Nationals to make this legislation even worse. That is just absolutely appalling. I hope that Victorians, the many Victorians who love our wildlife and care for the environment, remember that at the November election.

[NAMES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I want to note that there are actually two duck rescuers in the public gallery right now, Nat and Bree. I hope the minister understands what this bill will mean for the work that they do and the wildlife that they protect and, more importantly, what he is giving to the people who harm our native animals and the officers who continue to strongarm volunteer wildlife rescue work across our state – trying to criminalise us, to penalise us, to intimidate us and to instil fear in Victorians that dare to care for our native animals. To see the way that this government has gone, it is an appalling disgrace. I cannot believe that I once had faith that the people on this side of the room would be better than the people on that side of the room. Mr McGowan’s speech was one of the best contributions we have had on this bill, and that is how you know things have gotten incredibly bad in this state. This government has lost their way when it comes to the protection of animals, the environment and our wildlife.

I want to, at the top, thank the coalition of groups who have been opposed to this and made their views really clear. Of course, we have heard from many MPs in this place, and I really want to thank my colleagues from the Greens and Legalise Cannabis for understanding just how diabolical this piece of legislation is. I want to thank Animals Australia, the Wilderness Society, the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Victoria, Seafood Industry Victoria, the Victorian Forest Alliance and the Victorian Fisheries Protection Alliance. Of course, there is also Geelong Duck Rescue, End Duck and Quail Shooting Alliance, the Coalition Against Duck Shooting, Wildlife Victoria and the Wilderness Society – the list really does go on and on and on. There are some surprising names in that list and that is because, once again, the government has cooked the consultation on this. That is exactly why, at the very least, I am so pleased that the hunters will not be handed the special agency that they got promised from 1 July. At the very least, we will hold this up in the upper house and make the Assembly wait to take it back at the end of July. It is clear the gun lobby gets whatever the gun lobby wants in this state, and for once, they can learn the hard way, and the government can learn the hard way just what happens when they cave to these vested interests.

Many people have gone through what this bill does. It abolishes the Game Management Authority (GMA) and the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA). I just want to make it really clear, because I am sure we will hear from the government, ‘Oh, this was a Silver recommendation.’ No – Silver recommended abolishing the two agencies and creating one regulator to streamline compliance and enforcement in this state. That is not something that I would be opposed to, and that is not something that a lot of MPs in here would be opposed to. What we are opposed to, which the government chose to do of their own volition, is tacking on promotion of these industries – to legislate a model that the former Minister for Agriculture tried to stamp out when it became clear in 2017 just how conflicted the Game Management Authority is. Now here we are, all these years later, with the same Labor government under a different Premier endorsing this model when she sat around the cabinet table dealing with this disaster. I will go more into the details of how that came about soon, but I just want to make it really clear that the government’s intentions with this bill are not to focus on compliance. We know that because the minister, despite all the times I have asked, cannot even tell me, with all jobs being retained, if all the compliance officers will still be compliance officers. Will they be promoters now? We do not know. Will they be doing both? Well, that is a massive conflict of interest.

Outdoor Recreation Victoria (ORV) will be responsible for many things, but what is most concerning is this top-secret Land Access Panel. Many people have spoken about the fact that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council has been abolished and the Marine and Coastal Council has been abolished – we have no independent oversight bodies when it comes to environmental protection in Victoria. The government said, ‘Well, let’s not stop there. Let’s create a secret ministerial advisory taskforce, and we’ll pick the people that are on it. They don’t need to have qualifications; they’ve just got to like the bush and guns. We won’t tell Victorians who is on it and we won’t publish the advice, no matter what it does to the environment.’ I mean, this is the stuff that I expect from – you know, not even the opposition. This is incredibly dangerous. To know that a Labor government in the so-called progressive state is backing this in – I mean, where is this country going?

We are talking a lot about the political landscape right now. These guys are pretty complicit in it as well. It is a real ‘trust us’ exercise. That is what we keep getting told: ‘Trust us. Just trust us.’ Well, I might want to talk about why I would not trust this government. Anyone remember this report? I am sure the government likes to pretend that it never happened, but this is a parliamentary inquiry into duck shooting in Victoria. I was obviously on that committee. We worked very, very hard on that report. I know Mr Galea did as well, and of course the chair, Mr Batchelor. They went into that process with really no view, actually, and they were compelled by the evidence and the science, and all of the submissions and evidence that we received from witnesses about just how desperately this needed to be done in our state. Labor governments in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia all banned duck shooting – some of them before I was even born. Now here I am in this Parliament at the end of the term, when the one thing I wanted to do was ban duck shooting and the government indicated they would do it, but of course they caved to the gun lobby and we have only gone downhill from there. I do not know how we got here three years later. I never thought this was possible, when we had put absolutely everything into this and made it clear that there was no other option. Then years later this government turns around, not only backing in duck shooting but backing in their conflicted regulator.

I want to talk about this report, because when the government did not ban duck shooting, the government acknowledged that the regulator desperately needed to improve. In 2017 duck shooters committed a massacre at the Koorangie state game reserve near Kerang. I do not have to talk about that in descriptive terms from other people because I was there and I have never seen anything like it before in my entire life. It sounded like a war zone. In fact it was incredibly scary. We watched as over 2000 shooters began shooting birds before the legal start time, including protected species, while the Game Management Authority stood around chatting to duck shooters, watching what was going on and losing control of the situation. When we dared to go in to rescue some of those birds, rescuers got fined, got penalised, got arrested and got dragged through the courts.

This situation was so bad that the Game Management Authority did not know what to. They realised they could not rein their own cowboys in, because many GMA officers are duck shooters themselves. There was no reason why they could not take off their uniform when their shift was over and join in on that massacre. They went home. They left the wetlands as the massacre was still occurring – as the bodies still lay across the water and duck rescuers, including me, walked until the sun set and we could not see anymore with our phone lights and our torches, still picking up birds. There was one moment when every step that I took there would be another bird.

We took over a thousand game birds and over 300 protected species to the duck display that year to show what had gone on at that wetland under the government’s watch and under the regulator’s watch, and that prompted an independent review. The minister Jaala Pulford said that the situation was so bad that she would not rule out shutting down the GMA entirely. Their final report says:

The GMA has not been able to effectively fulfil its compliance and enforcement responsibilities … non-compliance with the game hunting laws is commonplace and widespread …

and:

By any standard, the GMA has failed to deliver on its responsibility to enforce hunting laws.

Pegasus said:

… the GMA is failing to adequately fulfil its statutory obligations. There are no easy fixes, and the scale of the challenges will require major change to the regulatory regime if the GMA is to raise the effectiveness of its compliance and enforcement regimes to an acceptable level.

They also said:

… the GMA is vulnerable to capture by the interests that it is seeking to regulate.

Well, it has got to be pretty vulnerable now, because it is being given permission to not just regulate but promote as well. It also said:

There are also tensions and potential conflicts between the GMA’s regulatory and other roles that constrains its effectiveness as an enforcement agency.

And it added:

The GMA is not currently perceived by all of its stakeholders as independent or impartial in its administration of the game hunting laws.

It goes on and on and on, and I encourage members to actually read the Pegasus Economics review into the Game Management Authority, because it really will demonstrate to you just how horrific this piece of legislation is.

I think it is also important to note, as I talk about the history of the GMA, that in 2013, when the Minister for Agriculture, who was actually a National, set it up, he said:

The GMA will be – first and foremost – a regulator. It will perform all the compliance, investigative and disciplinary functions related to game hunting in Victoria.

He also said:

… a good regulator cannot both regulate and promote the industry.

Now here we find ourselves with not just the Nationals but the government supporting creating a regulator and a promoter in the same body, despite both of them in the past saying that this model simply cannot work. Of course I am not the only one saying this. We have heard from a range of people across the board, and no-one is probably surprised that I have this view. We have heard about Bronwyn Orr, who was actually on the GMA board. She is a vet. She is horrified at this legislation. She has said that this is set up to fail, that it is not possible to regulate and promote an industry at the same time and that this will have terrible consequences for animal welfare. We have heard about George Bucchorn, who was the senior compliance manager at the GMA, who actually quit his job following the Pegasus report and the internal culture being exposed at that organisation, where he was actively blocked from investigating animal cruelty. He was told not to investigate animal cruelty and to go after rescuers instead. He did the right thing. After 30 years as a homicide detective, he thought he could bring those skills into the organisation and improve hunting compliance in our state, and he got told, ‘Nah, we’re not interested in that. We just say that we regulate.’

I have spoken about this piece of work – I dug this up and went through it beforehand. Everyone knows what this report said. Everyone knows what decision the government made. I did just want to touch on that the chair and other members of the government in their comments about this inquiry made it very clear that the regulator, no matter how good they are, has an impossible job. It does not matter how good our compliance officers are. When you can go duck shooting at literally thousands of places in our state, including private land, it is just not possible to monitor for compliance. That is one of the many reasons why they should have made the right decision, because they cannot address any of the other issues that instead of banning duck shooting they committed to address – such as wounding, such as identification tests, such as accuracy tests – because you cannot actually test them working in the field, because it is not possible for compliance officers to be in the field. We do not even know how many compliance officers there are going to be now, but they are not focused on the shooters, because of their culture; they are focused on us.

I spent a lot of time doing duck rescue. I first went out on the wetlands when I was 19 years old. I have done it every year since. This was supposed to be my legacy piece. This is why I wanted to get into the Parliament. If I achieved one thing in this place, it was to end the recreational slaughter of our native waterbirds. The government has let down our wildlife and the volunteers who do so much to protect them at every single turn. All of us have lost faith in their ability to do anything to protect these animals that we can never get back, with all of these diabolical policies that they are implementing in this state and the impact it is having on them.

I just want to also briefly touch on something – this is not the largest focus of this bill, but we are seeing a really concerning trend in this state. We have been talking about sexism and misogyny a lot over the past few weeks – a lot. As a member of Parliament with the views that I hold and the industries I take on and the messages I put out there, I am pretty used to that treatment, but I will tell you who is the worst: it is the duck shooters. One thing that I said to the government was: if you make me go through this process and the death threats and the rape threats and the descriptions of violence against me, only to turn around and put me through that and all the female rescuers through that for no reason, not only are you complicit in that behaviour, you will make it worse, and I was right about that. These people are emboldened. They think they are untouchable. They think the Premier and the minister will back them in no matter what the cost is. We have two female rescuers here in the chamber today who know exactly what it is like. I am lucky that I have the privilege and the platform to call it out, but ordinary people do not. It is scary and it is intimidating, and the government does not take it seriously and neither does the GMA. It actually makes me incredibly terrified for what people in my community will go through under this legislation, when yet again the shooters and hunters and the gun lobby in this state will be told, ‘You can have whatever you want, no matter how you behave.’

We are seeing that more and more with bush user groups and other outdoor recreationalists. It is not a coincidence; it comes from entitlement. These people feel entitled not just to our animals but to our environment, to our ecosystems and to our biodiversity, and they feel entitled to dominate and control women. It is not a long bow to draw, and it is not a surprise that we are seeing the political landscape go the way that it is as the government goes more to the right in handing all of these gifts to the gun lobby and to the shooters and letting them have whatever they want while the community that fights this is predominantly women. It just says to them, ‘We don’t respect you; we respect those guys.’ They are reflecting that in their behaviour as well.

I want to talk about the recent ABC article now, after I have given a history of the GMA, because it would have been very easy a few weeks ago for the government to turn around and say, ‘Well, that was stamped out. Minister Pulford put a lot into that. She didn’t shut down the GMA. Things have changed.’ Well, that was until we got a copy of a secret recording at a Bendigo Field and Game meeting of a GMA officer telling shooters how to break the law and how to take children on a wetland with firearms. You launched little anglers yesterday, Minister; when is little riflers coming? It is clear the GMA is waiting for that one. He told them, ‘We will not be looking for illegal behaviour, but if rescuers report it, we’re going to have to look into it.’ He said that they were not going to ever give a kid a fine or any kind of ticket, but that they have to be seen to be fair and reasonable. ‘Us duck hunters,’ he said – I mean, that is something I have touched on; a lot of these blokes are duck hunters themselves.

But what he was talking to when he said all of this was actually our so-called public safety laws. I have heard many ministers over many years talk about our public safety laws, and we have said, ‘Hey, those public safety laws are not actually for the public. They’re for duck rescuers.’ They have said consistently, ‘No, we’re doing this so that our wetlands are safe places to be.’ That is not what this GMA officer said during that meeting. No, he actually confirmed what we have always known. He said, ‘The way that this is designed is to get the rescuers off the wetlands.’ Well, he actually said ‘protesters’. ‘We want to get the protesters off the wetlands. This is why we’ve designed these laws, and that’s what they are for. So if you have got some unlicensed people out there with you, we might just have a chat to you and ask you to take them off.’ Whereas if I hover my toe over the water – I mean, within 20 metres of the water – during the duck-shooting season, they are there ready to launch on us. ‘But don’t worry about those unlicensed people around firearms. That’s not illegal.’ It is, but GMA has confirmed that those laws, as the government has always denied, are not actually set up for the public; they are set up for duck rescuers. We should be concerned when an authority is saying that one law is targeting one group of people. We should be concerned whenever that happens.

I have offered to send the minister’s office a copy of that full recording and asked if the GMA is having an investigation, because the full copy was not on the news; it was just cuts of it. The GMA has not reached out to me to ask for it, so I presume it is all good. Not only that, but they will merge this agency and give these same blokes even greater discretionary powers to target rescuers, to put us more at risk and to hit us with higher fines and higher penalties. Meanwhile, I have also reached out to the GMA a number of times over the past few weeks to make reports to close wetlands. They normally do not respond to me. In fact they responded to me the other day with a list of questions that was so long that it was designed to make us not follow up on it. But if you head out to any wetland during the duck-shooting season, my gosh, you can see our tax dollars at work there – 20 GMA cars and 50 police, pulling in all the departments, for 20 duck rescuers who are out there and want to help our native birds.

They say that they have a focus on compliance and regulation. There is no way for them to even know that, because I do not think they have even looked at a duck shooter over the past few years. It is clear that they are fixated on us. I just think that it is particularly galling that we brought this evidence to the government – I asked a question about it in question time; I got a pretty lacklustre response, and then heard nothing from the agency and nothing from the minister’s office – and now here I am today speaking on this legislation giving these people stronger powers. It is incredibly serious. I am not in the business of coming after individual authorised officers, because this is a cultural problem. But again, I identified to the minister’s office and the department that some of these people have really chequered histories.

There is someone within the GMA who was charged with bashing up a disabled person and then charged with perjury when he got charged for that. I think we at the very least need to check what we are giving these people and whether they are the right people, if we insist on doing this. Are we going to give it to blokes with these dodgy histories and ones who are going along to gun lobby meetings telling shooters how to break the laws, or are we going to clear the decks and, if we insist on doing this legislation, bringing in people with the right skills and the right qualifications to actually monitor the safety, if you can call it that, of our native waterbirds, who are being wounded and left to die on our wetlands?

Something that was picked up on in the duck shooting final report was the fact that wounding where birds are shot and do not die immediately is around 40 per cent. You can go shooting at thousands and thousands and thousands of places in our state. That means that as I stand here right now, even though the duck shooting season has closed, there are birds that are wounded on the wetlands. They will not survive; they will slowly die of infection, predation and drowning. The government has not done anything to address that. All they have done post the inquiry, despite making all of these commitments, is actually give the shooters everything that they want and try and shut us down so we cannot show what is happening out there with increased fines and penalties.

We are seeing laws that were designed to penalise shooters being used on rescuers. When rescuers get a licence so they can legally be on the water, we have now seen the GMA start charging those rescuers who are carrying nets to capture mobile birds with hunting with a prohibited weapon because they are carrying a net. I mean, honestly – spare me. This is not just an incredible policy failure. Our laws are being misused, and no matter how much I take this to the government, they do not care.

We saw also in this story that not only are the GMA content with targeting duck rescuers, they are doxxing them as well. I have never seen them post in depth about a duck shooter on their social media, but we have seen multiple examples over the past few weeks of them posting images of duck rescuers with their faces, with their locations and with a celebration of what they have taken through the courts – using taxpayer funds, might I add – the comments running wild with death threats and abuse, and not doing anything about it. This is doxxing by a government agency. Once again I raised it in question time and got told barely anything.

I am running out of time and I have barely got through the other parts of this bill, but I just want to speak about the Land Access Panel, because the government of course, as I said, chose to abolish its environmental oversight bodies that have any independence to give feedback to the government on the decisions that it is making and chose to replace them with this. According to this bill, the only requirement to be a member of a panel making recommendations on access to our state’s protected areas is that the minister is satisfied that you have knowledge or experience relevant to the function of the panel – no formal qualifications, no expertise. It is so confronting, and forgive us here on the crossbench if that does not give us faith, given the government’s woeful environmental and animal welfare track record.

I also just want to touch on something in this bill that other people actually have not spoken about: it will be the regulator of kangaroo shooting. Kangaroo shooting is a commercial industry in this state, and this government has the confidence to put it under a bill called Outdoor Recreation Victoria. Kangaroo shooting is not a recreational activity, it is a commercial industry. Again, one of the biggest problems with this bill is not that the name of the agency is so promotional; it is that there is no way for members of the public who want to report hunting noncompliance to even find where to do that. If someone sees kangaroos being shot, they are not going to google ‘Outdoor Recreation Victoria’. That horrifies the majority of Victorians, as I would know and as the minister constantly ignores. We have ongoing problems with kangaroo compliance in our state. The GMA’s phone line is only open 9 to 5 on business days. Well, I will tell you when kangaroo shooting happens: at night-time. They tell us to call the police. The police have no idea of the laws. The government has refused to train the police in the laws. It is like an episode of Utopia, except it is clearly very intentional, because they do not actually want to do something about this; they just want to look like they are doing something about this. It is an issue that is becoming increasingly problematic, not just for people who care about animal welfare but for people who live in the country and like their peaceful life and their amenity.

I will be asking a lot of questions of the minister about kangaroo shooting in the committee stage of the bill. I have tried to communicate with his office about that because I do not believe they have the ability to answer my questions, and I will be asking them until I get answers. I just wanted to note that now as they are listening to my contribution.

We have spoken about the fact that First Nations considerations are barely touched on in this bill post treaty. Opening up public land with no consultation and no reason for decision-making is literally the opposite to the commitment that all of us made and celebrated in this place recently. It is absolutely galling to see our environment and native animals that are totemic species to so many First Nations people being decimated by gun users in our state. It is something that consistently comes to my office when we engage with our wonderful traditional owners. This is not where we are meant to be going, and it is not compatible with what this government committed to when we said we would work on reconciliation and a pathway forward.

The VFA are being constantly celebrated because they are being merged in this bill, and they were better, but need I remind anyone that this government cut compliance officers by 50 per cent. Yesterday they were in here launching their little angler kits, out there promoting, while noncompliance has actually gone up. We now are going to see those same officers merge with the GMA. We had hoped that that might stamp out at least some of this culture, but it is not possible when those compliance teams have been cut. There is recent FOI data on this, which I will pursue more in the committee.

In my 1 minute left I want to talk about the failed promises of this government. This policy was announced six months ago. Where is the animal care and protection bill? Where is the wildlife act? Where is the response to the inquiry into ecosystem decline? That was last Parliament. Where is the great forest national park? It is clear this government actually does not care about the environment and it does not care about animals. All they want to do is apparently open up the outdoors. Well, Minister, duck shooting actually locks out the outdoors because it is illegal to be there. It actually shuts down a kayaking business in my own electorate, who cannot function during the duck-shooting season because it is not just unsafe, it is illegal. I have got pages and pages to go with 30 seconds. This is not where I thought we were at the start of this term.

I have a range of amendments. I do need them to be circulated in my final 20 seconds. I will speak to them more in the committee stage of the bill. And there is a reasoned amendment at the very least to have an investigation into the recent failings of GMA, because the government is not doing that, and a bill inquiry, which we can do over this break since we are amending the bill.

I condemn this bill. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation, and the government should be ashamed of themselves.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:18): I too rise to speak on Labor’s Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. I think this is a bit of an exercise in how many ways you can say this is a terrible bill. The Greens strongly oppose this bill, which abolishes the Game Management Authority and the Victorian Fisheries Authority and creates a new statutory authority, Outdoor Recreation Victoria, which is responsible for both regulating and promoting hunting. Once again Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are all teaming up to give Victorian land to the hunters and shooters lobby. These laws sell out everyday Victorians, trash nature and let the hunting lobby decide how public land gets used.

Just weeks ago Labor and the Liberals abolished Victoria’s independent expert advisory body, the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. Now that they have gotten rid of VEAC’s independent experts, they are creating a body to formally lobby for even more public land for hunters and shooters. The bill ignores recommendations from the government’s own independent review of hunting regulation, which warned against combining regulatory and promotional functions within the same agency.

Environmentalists have known for years now that Jacinta Allan’s Labor government does not care about nature. It is why they have backflipped on duck shooting. It is why they are handing hunters more public land. It is why they have rejected demands to reclassify feral deer as pests. It is why they have rejected the federal gun register and limits on guns. It does not matter what the majority of Victorians want, whether they are bushwalkers, farmers or conservationists. All Labor cares about when it comes to land is a small but powerful group of vested interests. Today that is hunters and shooters, but we will see it as well with the gambling companies, big banks, coal and gas giants, property developers, you name it.

Meanwhile, nature groups are furious at this bill. The Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Victoria, the Wilderness Society and the Victorian Forest Alliance have actually written to all MPs in this chamber strongly condemning this bill. So since no-one in Labor or the coalition seems to care what they say, I would like to read out their email in full:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Re Outdoor Recreation Victoria, aka the department of blast and cast.

Our organisations, members and supporters share great concern about the impact on Victoria’s reputation, public safety and hard-fought environmental protections under threat from the proposed Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. We are calling on all members of the Victorian Parliament to throw out this legislation and the threat it poses to public safety and access to national parks and public lands.

Fair, safe and equitable access to Victoria’s national parks, conservation reserves and other public lands makes Victoria a drawcard from tourists both internationally as well as locally and interstate. The safe and easy access to iconic landscapes close to Melbourne is a drawcard for people to get the best of Australia all in one state.

We believe the establishment of a body designed to lobby for access to public land through the Land Access Panel for shooting interests as part of Outdoor Recreation Victoria, paid for by Victorian taxpayers while having no ecological or cultural guardrails in its objectives, will be disastrous and dangerous for Victoria, particularly as the body responsible – the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) – for assessing and categorising public land was recently abolished. There are no references in the legislation establishing the panel to protect Victoria’s environment and wildlife, assessment of public safety, the precautionary principle, biodiversity conservation or protection, or any obligations to assess impact on all public land visitors and their health and safety.

Just an hour or so drive outside of Melbourne takes Victorians to the iconic rainforest of the Great Otways National Park, or the wildflower fields of Victoria’s native grassland reserves in the west, or to the iconic tall, wet forests of the Dandenong Ranges or Yarra Ranges National Park in eastern Victoria. A trip further out can have you in the Wimmera or Mallee regions, where tourists visit amazing landscapes such as Little Desert National Park or the Pink Lakes of Murray-Sunset National Park. These iconic parks draw over 55 million visitors per year into regional areas to safely access these areas and visit Victoria’s great shared backyard and get to know our iconic wildlife and landscapes.

As highlighted in the latest AusPlay data, Victoria’s most popular physical activities are low environmental impact, low cost, easy and safe to access recreational pursuits such as walking, jogging and cycling. These findings are supported by polling by the Redbridge Group that found that the most common activities are short bushwalks, of which almost half of Victorians, 48 per cent, report having participated in over the past year; followed by picnics, 36 per cent; photography, 21 per cent; camping over multiple days and birdwatching, 11 per cent each. Shooting and hunting comes in at roughly 2 per cent of visitors to Victoria’s public land. But the presence of shooting impacts over half the visitors seeking peace and quiet, 53 per cent, and 37 per cent saying that no shooting allowed and being free of hunting would make them visit national parks more often.

We, the undersigned, ask the government to prioritise conservation and safe access and enjoyment of national parks and reserves for all Victorians, not for the interests of the shooting and hunting lobbies.

Yours sincerely,

Victorian National Parks Association, the Wilderness Society, Environment Victoria, Victorian Forest Alliance

All we need to do with this bill is to look at this government’s broader environmental record. We all need to look at its failure to permanently protect forests after the end of commercial native forest logging; its rejection of the great forest national park; the remaining loopholes for logging on private land and through forest produce licences; its weakening of environmental agencies and independent advisory bodies; and its repeated willingness to favour shooting and hunting interests over wildlife conservation and public safety, just as all of those who signed that letter pointed out. Seen in that context, this bill is not an isolated administrative reform. It is part of a broader shift away from conservation and towards access extraction, commercial development and politically favoured recreational interests. That is why conservation organisations have described Outdoor Recreation Victoria as the department of blast and cast. The government says the bill is about encouraging Victorians to enjoy outdoors, but the legislation establishes an authority that will both regulate and promote activities, including hunting and fishing.

It creates a Land Access Panel to advise the minister on increasing access and reviewing restrictions on public land. Yet the panel has no express environmental protection purpose. It does not require ecological expertise. It does not guarantee conservation or traditional owner representation. It does not require its advice to be published, and it does not require assessment of biodiversity, threatened species, cultural heritage, biosecurity, fire risk or the effects on other public land users. These omissions are serious in their own right. They become even more serious when we consider what the government has dismantled around them. The government has abolished the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council as an independent council. For decades VEAC and its predecessors provided science-based advice on the classification, protection and use of public land. Its investigations involved evidence, expert analysis, public submissions and reports that could be scrutinised by Parliament and the community. The independent structure is now being removed, just as this bill creates a far less transparent panel focused primarily on access.

The government has also abolished the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council, despite growing pressures facing Victoria’s coastline and marine environment. All the members of the Environment and Planning Committee who sat through the climate resilience inquiry would know how critical the work of this council is and how important it is for informing how we respond and adapt to climate change. Sustainability Victoria is also being abolished as a standalone body. Jobs and capacity have been cut right across environmental agencies, including Parks Victoria and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. The government describes these changes as consolidation and efficiency, but the effect is clear: independent scientific advice is reduced, ministerial discretion increases and institutions protecting nature become weaker. This bill continues that pattern. It replaces independent public land scrutiny with a ministerially appointed access panel. It combines promotional and regulatory functions. It leaves biodiversity protection as a secondary consideration rather than a central legal purpose.

The government’s record on forests gives us a further reason for concern. The Greens recognise that commercial native forest logging in Victoria’s state forests ended on 1 January 2024. It was an important achievement, secured after decades of campaigning by traditional owners, conservation organisations, scientists, communities and forest activists. But ending VicForests did not permanently protect Victoria’s forests from industrial extraction. The Forests (Wood Pulp Agreement) Act 1996 remains in force. This obsolete legislation was created to support the supply of native forest pulp wood to industry. The forest act also continues to allow forest produce licences, including licences relating to timber. These provisions should have been removed when VicForests was abolished. Instead, they remain available to a future government determined to restart logging. The Liberals and Nationals are on the record having openly said they want native forest logging to return. Labor knows that, yet it has left legal pathways in place that could help them to do it.

Native forest logging also remains possible on private land. In 2025 East Gippsland Shire Council approved the harvesting of native forest at Cabbage Tree Creek after the Minister for Planning declined the council’s request to take responsibility for the decision. Labor says native forest logging has ended, but it continues to leave these decisions to a planning framework that permits harvesting of native forests on private property. Wildlife does not recognise property boundaries. A greater glider does not know whether its habitat is on Crown land or private land. A threatened forest community does not become expendable simply because the trees stand behind a fence. The government has also failed to establish clear safeguards around salvage logging, fuel breaks and the commercial sale of timber removed through public land works.

Conservation groups have warned that the new by-products framework risks allowing logging to continue by another name. Timber removed during fire management, storm recovery, roadworks and other operations may have commercial value. That creates a dangerous incentive unless the rules are strict, transparent and independently enforced. Fire management must be driven by safety, science and ecological considerations, not by the commercial value of the timber removed. There should be mandatory threatened species surveys before major works. There should be independent ecological assessment. There should be proper oversight of Forest Fire Management Victoria, and there should be no commercial incentive to remove more trees than is genuinely necessary.

The transition away from native forest logging should have been an opportunity to transform how Victoria cares for forests. Former industry workers could have been supported into secure jobs in restoration, ecological monitoring, cultural fire, invasive species control and traditional owner led land management. Instead concerns remain that parts of the old logging culture have simply moved into fuel break and forest management operations. Victoria does not need VicForests 2.0 operating under a different label; it needs a public land workforce focused on restoration, resilience, evidence-based fire management and caring for country.

The government points to its forestry transition funding as evidence it has managed the change well. Supporting workers and regional communities was essential, and the Greens have always supported a fair transition. But the Auditor-General found serious weaknesses in the administration of that program, including gaps in departmental records, problems showing how some eligibility decisions were verified and inadequate monitoring of long-term employment outcomes. That is not an argument against transition funding; it is an argument for competent, transparent and accountable transition funding. Workers deserved secure jobs in industries with a future. Forests deserved permanent protection. Traditional owners deserved an authority properly resourced in the future management of forest country. The government has not delivered that complete transition.

It has also rejected the most significant opportunity to permanently protect forests of the Central Highlands. The great forest national park would have protected habitat for Leadbeater’s possums, greater gliders and many other species. It would have protected carbon-dense forests, water catchments and landscapes close to Melbourne. It would have supported nature-based tourism, recreation and regional jobs. Labor rejected it. The government then announced that after establishing the long-delayed central west parks, it did not intend to create further national parks. Its alternative for former logging forests has been framed around unlocking land for greater access to tracks, trails, tourism and hunting. That choice tells us a great deal about the values behind this bill.

Instead of asking how former logging forests can be permanently protected, restored and managed with traditional owners, the government has asked how they can be opened up and used more intensively. The same thinking appears in the proposed public land act, which the government says will streamline processes and make it easier to do things on public land. But environmental laws and approvals exist for a reason. Public land is not protected by making development and access easier. It is protected by clear purposes, enforceable limits, independent science and transparent decision-making. The starting point should not be what governments, industries and lobby groups want to do on public land. The starting point should be what country, ecosystems and wildlife can sustain.

This is also a government that has repeatedly favoured hunting interests. It rejected the parliamentary inquiry recommendations to end recreational duck shooting. It has maintained the protected game status of deer, despite severe environmental damage caused by feral deer, and it has supported expanded hunting opportunities and infrastructure while conservation agencies struggle for resources. Now it proposes an authority that will regulate hunting while also promoting participation in outdoor recreation and a Land Access Panel with no guaranteed conservation expertise.

I have a lot more I could say about this bill, but I will finish by saying we do not need a department of blast and cast, and for those reasons the Greens oppose the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:33): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. At the outset I just want to acknowledge Ms Purcell’s continued advocacy in regard to animals and animal welfare in this state. I also, in listening to your contribution, want to acknowledge what you spoke about in terms of some of the treatment that some of the women rescuers have experienced out on the wetlands. I just want to say that any of that sort of treatment – violence, threats, aggression – should always be condemned. It is always sad to hear that those sorts of things are occurring. It is sad; it should not be happening. So I just want to extend my sympathies and thoughts to anybody who has experienced aggression and violence while attending rescues. It is unacceptable.

Nevertheless, in regard to this bill, I understand that Animal Justice and the Greens have particular views about this, but I do want to just try and bring this back to basics. The reason for this bill, principally, is to consolidate two agencies – one is the Victorian Fisheries Authority and the other is the Game Management Authority (GMA) – into a new body, which is the Outdoor Recreation Victoria (ORV) agency. This came from the Silver review. The Treasurer has just walked in the room, and I know the Treasurer is very familiar with the Silver review. This is a review that was commissioned by the government to look at how we could get some efficiencies with some of our agencies. I know that the Greens and Animal Justice may disagree with that, but I am standing here saying that that is the intention of the government. It was their intent to bring in some efficiencies by merging these agencies.

In this debate I know there are strongly held views on both sides, with the Nationals and Liberals on one side and environmentalists on the other. I can only reflect and remark upon my own time chairing the largest inquiry in this Parliament’s history, which was the ecosystem decline inquiry. I pretty quickly became very acquainted with strongly held views from lots of different people about lots of different things. Those strongly held views are okay, but it is also important that when we conduct ourselves in the Parliament or outside, when we are talking about these views, we try and be respectful of each other’s views. We can disagree, and that is okay, but we should try and stick to debating the merits of things and refrain from personal attacks and those sorts of things. It is going to be a difficult debate, and we are going to have a late one tonight on this.

The point of contention that is being raised in the context of this debate, the fear from environmental groups, is that it is bringing together an agency that merges advocacy and regulatory roles. That is inherently concerning for environmental groups. There is also some commentary around a failure on the part of the government, that we have not recognised opportunities to do more around conservation and those sorts of things and that perhaps this bill presented an opportunity for that. On the other side you have got the views of recreational users, hunters, fishers and the like, who say that there is an ongoing culture war over how public spaces, parks and Crown land are utilised. You have got this push-pull where different groups are saying that public parks are being locked up and they are being denied access. On the other hand you have got environmentalists saying, ‘We need to get a better balance right so that things aren’t completely trashed and destroyed.’ This is the tension and the push-pull in regard to the debate around these things, but again, this bill does not really touch on any of that. This bill is principally about consolidating agencies into one new agency. That is effectively what this bill seeks to do. I do not think we are going to settle any of the strongly held views that people have today in this Parliament on these issues more broadly. It is something that, as I said, has come from the Silver review, which recommended that there was an opportunity for efficiencies and the like.

I will just quickly remark, as I said, on my role as chair of the largest parliamentary inquiry undertaken, which was on ecosystem decline. I got to learn a lot of really interesting things about the environment, conservation, native species, pest species and the like. There was lots of evidence and information that we received about extinction of species, habitat loss and the like. It is a very interesting portfolio, and I know that Minister Erdogan has his work cut out for him in having to deal with lots of different interests in regard to the portfolio.

The bill will establish a strong governance framework for the agency. It also will create a board. The board will have knowledge and skills in financial administration, risk management, strategic planning, legal experience, regulatory knowledge and the like. Again, it is setting up another agency with a board that is going to have some experience and knowledge to guide it. It also ensures accountability and oversight while enabling Outdoor Recreation Victoria to deliver on its role. Of course there will be a need for transition and continuity. All staff, except for the current CEOs, will transfer across to the new agency, the new Outdoor Recreation Victoria, on their existing terms and conditions. There will be no job losses. At the same time the bill will ensure continuity of operations by transferring power assets and legal arrangements into the new authority, which we would say will provide a seamless transition without disruption.

Outdoor Recreation Victoria will receive base funding which is assigned to the GMA and Victorian Fisheries Authority of approximately $29 million per annum, and the Better Boating Fund and the Recreational Fishing Licence Trust Account will remain unchanged. Initially Victorians can expect to see the delivery of recreational fishing, boating, hunting, game licences and aligned activities like four-wheel driving and bush camping through Outdoor Recreation Victoria, and then in the long term it will be expanding into broader outdoor recreation activities.

I know there are also transitional arrangements, as I touched on earlier. The new CEOs will not come across, but the staff will. It also maintains regulatory continuity for game hunting and fisheries through transitional provisions, and it provides for operational continuity by establishing the new ORV as a successor in law to the Victorian Fisheries Authority and the Game Management Authority. This might all sound very boring and dry, and it probably is, but the point is this is a result of the Silver review telling government there are some efficiencies and streamlining, which by consolidating agencies, can happen. So these are things that are germane to the consolidation of these agencies. To support Outdoor Recreation Victoria’s role clarity the bill distinguishes the regulatory functions, powers and duties of ORV from non-regulatory functions, and Outdoor Recreation Victoria’s strengthened governance framework and skills-based board will further support ORV’s role clarity by establishing effective processes to manage any potential or perceived conflicts between its regulatory and promotional functions.

Victorians no doubt love the great outdoors. We have people who love fishing, boating, hunting and just camping. There are lots of people who love to experience the great outdoors. Just by way of example, in 2022 the Victorian government committed $96 million through its Go Fishing Victoria plan to get more people fishing more often. I have seen the Treasurer in jodhpurs putting fish into a lake at some point, and I know she loved that.

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is right, reverse fishing – making sure our fish stocks are kept up. It is something that I have done myself as a kid. I have gone fishing many a time, so it is something that I am very familiar with. The Victorian fisheries organisation has led delivery of the plan’s commitments around fishing, and these include tripling the size of our Arcadia Native Fish Hatchery – that commitment has been delivered – and building a new Macquarie perch recovery hatchery at our Snobs Creek fish hatchery. Who would have known much about the Snobs Creek fish hatchery? We all do now. We know about it. It is a very important thing that we have invested in and have certainly delivered on.

We have also looked to improve jetties and car parks with funds from the Better Boating Fund, because sometimes trying to reverse your boat down a jetty can be a little bit fraught. I do not know whether many people in this chamber have tried to do that. I would certainly stay away from it. I am not skilled enough a driver to even attempt that. Perhaps others might be, whether it is a boat or a jet ski or whatever. But improving jetties and car parks definitely helps when you are trying to get your boat in the water. Of course we are upgrading boat ramps and car parks at Lang Lang, Tooradin and Inverloch and also extending the jetty at Cowes boat ramp. That is currently underway. We are also rebuilding piers at Dromana and St Leonards, and the Warneet south and north jetties are underway. We are also building a new boating facility at Tarago Reservoir.

This was spoken about earlier in this chamber, the $1.5 million little angler program through schools, which has been delivered. I know the little angler kits were here in Parliament as well this week. They are very popular with kids. There is the stronger fishing club grants program to attract new members and encourage participation in fishing, and the $2.5 million Fish Habitat Improvement Fund has been delivered as well.

It is always good to get people out and enjoying the great outdoors. As I said, it is better than being on a device and indoors. Being in the great outdoors fishing, getting sun and getting wet, hungry and sunburnt and all those sorts of things that go with it are always much better than being indoors on a smartphone, so I fully support any of that. Here in Victoria we proudly provide world-class recreational fishing opportunities as well. There are record numbers of people going fishing. This also generates strong social and economic outcomes across our regions and towns in both fresh water and marine waters. Recreational fishing provides employment opportunities as well – this is a figure that I find really interesting, and it is really a good figure – for almost 20,000 Victorians, and it contributes close to $2.3 billion to the Victorian economy. There are lots of people that are employed in fishing, so that is good for them, and it is good for our economy as well.

There are currently close to 200,000 recreational fishing licence holders in Victoria, and this also includes participation by kids and seniors. Luckily, there is no licence required for kids or seniors, I believe, which is nice. Also, it is estimated that we have more than 1 million people going fishing annually in Victoria. So it is a definitely an outdoor recreation pursuit that people are embracing in Victoria, and that is fantastic.

Since 2014 the Victorian government has invested over $226 million to improve fishing and boating. I have gone through some of these things, but it is worth mentioning a few other things as well. Buying out commercial netting in Port Phillip Bay and the Gippsland Lakes is returning over 700 tonnes of snapper, whiting, bream and flathead to Victorian fisheries every year, so that is very significant. We are also stocking 10 million fish into over 200 Victorian waterways each year – also amazing. We have invested in over 100 boating improvement projects, and I mentioned some of them before. As I said, there were major boat ramp upgrades. I mentioned Lang Lang before, but there is also Mahers Landing. I did mention Cowes, but there are also Rhyll, Lake Boga, Loch Sport, Echuca, Mildura and Torquay.

We have also, as part of supporting fishing in other associated ways, provided $2.5 million towards habitat grants and improving river health. That was something that we also got to learn a lot about in the inquiry into ecosystem decline. The health of our riverine waterways is something that often gets overlooked, so any grant funding that supports improving the health of our riverine system is fantastic, and that is also well received.

We are upgrading native fish hatcheries by tripling the number of ponds to 130 at the Arcadia hatchery and building new facilities at Snobs Creek, as I mentioned before, to grow more threatened species. Again, that does help with the conservation of these threatened species like trout and cod, as does the recently completed Macquarie Perch Recovery Centre.

As I mentioned before, we do provide fishing rods to children as part of the little anglers program, and we have provided 95,000 free fishing rods to Victorian primary school students. I hope they are enjoying their fishing rods and getting out there and fishing and catching as many fish as they can – it is good fun – and then eating them. That is the whole point. If you are going to go fishing, you have got to eat them – unless it is a toad or something like that; you cannot eat a toad. But hopefully, if you are catching a bream or a whatever, you are going to be able to cook it on the barbie and eat it – that is all the fun. I do not know, Minister, you might have taken your children fishing at some point, perhaps. I commend the bill.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:48): I rise to support this bill in its practical form in bringing together the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) and the Game Management Authority (GMA) into a new statutory authority. At its core it is ensuring better efficiencies within departments that are doing important work in our communities, and much of this work is twofold. In my view it is about ensuring that we are getting people out into regional and rural Victoria and experiencing natural places, which is fantastic, particularly as we have heard in recent days in this chamber how popular Victoria is. More people are moving here, more people want to live here, more people want to play an active part in our economy, but it is also good to get people out, spending money and spending time in our regions. This is not only good for our personal health – personal physical health and personal mental health – but it is also good for the economies in our regions that depend on that economic activity and depend on our tourism. Something else I am quite strong on is that we cannot expect people to value what they do not experience. By getting people out into our bush, out along our coastlines and out into our beautiful public open spaces, we are ensuring that they value them. We have heard other contributions talk about the benefit of getting families out into these places. We want that to be passed down from generation to generation. In our brilliant, multicultural, diverse Victoria that we have, we want to make sure that new Victorians, new Australians, are getting out and experiencing what others have been able to enjoy for generations.

We heard in some of the comments before about changes that have occurred in some of our public land in recent years. We heard Ms Terpstra talk about the netting in the Gippsland Lakes. One of the things I hear constantly in feedback is what an incredible success it has been, getting that commercial fishing out of our lakes and supporting recreational fishing, getting more people out and just seeing people enjoying our lakes – families getting out and local tourists getting out. It is just a wonderful thing. I think people of all political persuasions respect that work. Though they might have been tough decisions at the time, people really respect, value and cherish that that has happened.

The other big piece has obviously been native forestry coming out of 1.8 million hectares of forest. With that there have obviously been challenges, and we are working with a number of towns right across Victoria as their economies adapt and adjust to those changes. But through various programs from the government working with those communities and working with local businesses to seize upon new opportunities to get people employed locally but also to get people out enjoying those public spaces – and we have also seen this with the healthy forests announcements in recent months and other programs that are going on – we know that is something the government is absolutely committed to.

I always enjoy talking to people from different walks of life. We just had Landcare in here today. There are so many people that are working across a mixture of private and public land to get really generational environmental outcomes. We heard that today; Landcare has been going for 40 years now. They are up to about 90,000 volunteers now. We have heard about the work that is done along waterways and that is done on ridges, and when I was growing up, erosion and salinity were such an issue. That work has continuity across generations but also continuity across property types, and that offers these corridors for our wildlife to be able to move for that biodiversity. When we couple that with the work going on in our forests, on our private land and, as I said, on our coasts – we know that coastal erosion and these sorts of problems are big problems that we have to face as well. But we are hearing people share their experiences about getting out and enjoying these spaces, people from many, many, many different backgrounds. I started this contribution talking about a diverse Victoria – that diversity of experience in that diversity of places across Victoria. And we are fortunate it is so rich. When we talk about fishing, there so many different ways, so many different places and so many different little microclimates across our state in which, depending on what time of year it is, there are activities that people can get out and enjoy and be in nature.

Ms Terpstra talked earlier about people getting off digital devices, and that is so important and something the world is yearning for. We have heard so much, particularly in recent years with social media and whatnot, about being able to get out and get out as a community. So to have the authority have oversight and that collective approach will benefit those working within, and we would expect and hope that it benefits users of these spaces.

The bill will increase compliance capacity across both fisheries and game hunting. It is strengthened through the ability to leverage a larger pool of authorised officers to address peak periods and surge events through Victoria’s seasonal outdoor activities. All authorised officers will transition to the new set-up as of day one. All staff, except for the current CEOs, will transfer across to Outdoor Recreation Victoria (ORV) on their existing terms and conditions, so there will be no job losses. I think that is an important part for anyone employed currently to understand and be sure of. At the same time, the bill will ensure continuity of operations by transferring powers, assets and legal arrangements into the new authority so it is seamless and without disruption.

ORV will receive the base funding currently assigned to the GMA and VFA of approximately $29 million per annum, and the Better Boating Fund and the Recreational Fishing Licence Trust Account will remain unchanged. Initially, Victorians can expect to see the delivery of recreational fishing and boating, game hunting and aligned activities, four-wheel drive and bush camping activities through ORV, in the long term expanding out to broader outdoor recreation activities.

Coming back to the Gippsland Lakes, I just want to talk about what an incredible success the oyster program has been there in collaboration with the VFA, Parks Victoria and our First Nations, Gunaikurnai, there over time, identifying rock oysters to put into trials and then expand those trials as a way to not only improve water quality in the lakes but also improve opportunities for local First Nations groups to get out and create income from local waterways. It is something, more broadly, for tourists. Tourists love to be able to get out to any coastal town in Victoria where they have the ability to purchase fresh produce. It is just such a motivator for tourists to spend time in the towns and to come back. We are fortunate that with our geographic location in the world that we have got such beautiful oceans and waterways. For us to be able to make the most of these and offer that to tourists is incredibly important.

I had conversations with some of the Landcare members in yesterday, actually, talking about the opportunity for oysters and mussels in waterways in Gippsland and helping repair damage that has occurred over generations through run-off into some of our waterways and being able to stock mussels or oysters or – what is the word I am after, Ms Terpstra? – crustaceans. We talked about getting those back in and repairing those waterways so that all the local habitat and all of the animal life that feed off that chain can prosper. It just means that we can get out in that water and when people are out camping or out fishing they can swim in clearer water. In that instance the idea is to get seagrass back in, and then once you start doing that, you are going to have more fish breeding in that area so there is more opportunity for recreational fishers and local tourism starts to thrive. For regional towns it is another piece in their armour. For those towns that have traditionally had perhaps one or two industries, adding that industry alongside them is incredibly important because we want economic diversity. As I said before, whether it is people going out camping, whether it is people going out hunting, whether it is people going out fishing, whether it is people going out for a five- to eight-day walk or whether it is people locally coming from across the region to do plantings and various things, it strengthens that local economy.

There is an important part to play in weed and pest management. I gave examples in the waterways there, but it is on our land as well. An amount of people in here yesterday were talking about various pests, and I have these conversations with farmers regularly. Whether it is pigs or deer or other pests that are getting out of the bush and onto farms and creating havoc, we have got to be staying on top of those, so it is about working with farmers and hunters to be making sure that we are putting as much pressure on those populations as possible. I know from talking to the Landcare groups they are going and doing their work and that is getting trampled and beaten down by these animals before it has got a chance to get up in that important rehabilitation work that they are doing.

The bill establishes a Land Access Panel to provide advice and information to government to identify new opportunities for community access across public land and waterways. The panel will comprise six to 12 members with experience relevant to the functions of the panel, and it is intended that members be appointed to represent traditional owners, public land and waterway managers, ORV and external stakeholders – and I talked before about GLAWAC and the incredible work they do across our bush, our waterways and our coastal areas. The bill embeds a whole-of-government approach by requiring the Minister for Outdoor Recreation to share the Land Access Panel’s advice with all ministers responsible for public land, ensuring coordinated decision-making and alignment across portfolios.

With regard to commercial fishing, the establishment of ORV will build on the important work done by the VFA, ensuring commercial fisheries and aquaculture continue to sustainably grow as an integral part of Victoria’s economy and communities. ORV will maintain the existing functions of the VFA for commercial fisheries and aquaculture. These include regulatory compliance and educational responsibilities but importantly also include supporting the development of the commercial fishing and aquaculture sectors.

I will close by just coming back to that point that it is difficult for Victorians to value what they cannot see and experience, so getting them out into our natural spaces is incredibly important. Anything we can do to support our agencies to do that as efficiently and as well as possible is incredibly important.

 Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (16:04): I am very pleased to speak to the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. I think everyone in this house, after the debate I have heard today, would do well to spend some time outdoors, because the great outdoors is good for your mental health and it is good for your physical health.

I know the people that are going to be in the great outdoors this weekend include Max Liddy. He is from Bendigo, and he is one of the inaugural Kokoda scholarship recipients of the Speechley brothers scholarship. They are part of the team that is going over, with Tim Bull leading the way, to Kokoda. They are going to be doing that trek, and they are actually going to be going this weekend down to the Dandenong Ranges to the 1000 Steps and getting in the Kokoda memorial walk. It is quite impressive that he is representing the Speechley brothers. George and Leslie Speechley were two brothers that were killed in the war in 1942. George was 24, and Leslie was just 20 years of age. It was amazing recently to be able to honour those brothers. Max will be representing both of those brothers as he goes overseas on that nine-day trek. They are going to be doing 138 kilometres.

I think I will share a few fantastic places that people might want to visit. I know they are favourites of mine and places that I have encouraged friends and family to visit. Trentham Falls, if you have ever been there, has a 32-metre drop. It is a great time of year to visit. Yes, I am getting nods from Ms Payne. That is an absolutely stunning spot to visit in central Victoria. Another spot is Hanging Rock, with lots of walks that you can do there. Macedon Ranges, Ms Purcell probably knows well, is a beautiful spot. One place that I love to go regularly is the Goldfields Track. That is a beautiful walk that goes from Bendigo across to Ballarat, and it goes through the towns of Castlemaine and Daylesford. It is 210 kilometres. If you are keen, you can go the whole distance, or you can just hop on for a bit. That is a wonderful place to go. I know the Salvation Army recently was raising money for the Red Shield Appeal, and they did part of that trek. I think it was 60 kilometres they did in a day – a really great effort there raising funds for a very worthy cause. Another wonderful spot that is not that well known is the Pink Cliffs geological park in Heathcote. It is quite a unique environment there, with boulders and beautiful colours, and wonderful for photography, which we have heard about in the chamber today. There is a good opportunity to go and get a photo there, and there are some lovely bakeries and places that you can enjoy in Heathcote. Kerang has the stunning wetlands. I have got family in Kerang, so I enjoy walking around on the levee bank there, and it is really beautiful. I know that the wetlands there do attract a lot of visitors to the region, and that is very good for the local economy as well.

There are lots of opportunities to go and enjoy the snowfields. In the off-season you can go mountain bike riding. It is quite incredible how they hang them on the backs of the lifts and up they go. Sugarloaf is another place that you can visit. You can do some mountain climbing there. Many years ago, I did try some abseiling and just about panicked. I freaked out, as the rope went down a lot further than I had hoped. So yes, be prepared and go with people that know what they are doing.

Lake Tyrrell is a stunning spot to visit as well. That is at Sea Lake, and that does attract international tourists. That is beautiful. You can get amazing photos at sunset and sunrise. I think October is probably a good time of year to go there to get amazing photographs of the sunset or stars at night. There is just a very thin amount of water and some beautiful reflections. Of course we do have beautiful lakes and rivers in Victoria – so many of them. Boating and fishing are appreciated by many. Lake Eppalock is a great place to go. There is plenty to do there, and you can have a picnic on the side. I have certainly done that on Australia Day with friends and really enjoyed it. Bridgewater is another wonderful location. The Loddon River, I have certainly done a lot of canoeing down there and really enjoyed that and the swimming hole there, and of course there is the bakery you can visit in Bridgewater. That is a wonderful place to go. Eildon, Cindy McLeish would know well, has beautiful camping to be enjoyed there.

Melina Bath interjected.

Gaelle BROAD: Yes, certainly plenty of fishing – that is exactly right, Ms Bath.

The Murray River is another spot you can go. I know Peter Walsh is going to be going on a paddle-steamer very soon. They have got an event coming up, so I am hoping to be able to join them on that. I know gold prospecting gives another opportunity to get out into the great outdoors. I have mentioned my uncle Doug Stone before. He has written many books on gold and how to find gold with maps. You will see lots of different towns in regional Victoria, certainly in central Victoria, where gold is such an important part of the economy and attracts tourists from around the world to our region. We are very, very fortunate in Victoria to have a small state with such a diverse range of landscapes and outdoor environments. We have got beaches, we have got bays, we have got lakes, we have got rivers, we have got mountains and snowfields, we have got deserts and we have got the goldfields, as I have mentioned. But it does not matter what you get up to. It is good for you physically. It is good for your mental health as well to be out. It might be orienteering – there is certainly a lot of orienteering that goes on around Bendigo – birdwatching, fishing, walking, mountain bike riding, hiking. There is plenty to do.

We will be very pleased, the Liberals and Nationals, to move amendments to this bill. We do not oppose the bill, but we ask that these amendments be accepted. There are two sets of amendments, if we can have those circulated now, please. The intention of these amendments is to enhance governance arrangements, safeguard specialist expertise and ensure balanced outcomes across affected sectors. I do want to thank Ms Bath for her work on this bill. Over 150 stakeholders were consulted, including fishers, hunting and sporting shooters, recreational users, the commercial fishing industry, public land management groups, traditional owners and primary industry associations.

I will just finish with a brief story which I think might entertain some people. My husband went hiking with a friend in the High Country. They were walking and very well prepared for their trip away, but it was pouring rain, and his friend started looking a bit unwell – quite unwell. He started looking almost a bit blue. He said, ‘You don’t look that well,’ and the friend said,’ I don’t feel very well,’ and this continued on and he really started feeling not well at all. They sought some refuge in one of the shelters there, and then he suddenly realised that it was actually the dye from his brand new blue jacket that was coming down his face and causing him to go blue. After he found out it was just the jacket, he felt just fine. I think it is a lesson for us all – as I have heard before, life is 10 per cent about what happens and 90 per cent how we react. I think all of us would benefit from being in the great outdoors to improve our mental health and benefit us physically as well. We thank you for your consideration and ask for your support on the amendments for this bill.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:12): I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the Bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government have conducted a full investigation into the regulatory failings of the Game Management Authority and put forward a model for a true regulator of hunting and fishing.’

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Environment, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (16:13): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026. I want start by taking this opportunity to thank all members that have contributed to this debate. It has been quite a robust debate and I know a debate in which passions run high. I want to thank everyone. Although I might not agree with everyone’s contributions, I do appreciate the range of views, and I think it is a good demonstration of our democratic system at work that people can express their views freely hold quite different views and we can come together.

I note last night, Ms Bath, you referred to my enthusiasm in taking over this bill from the previous minister. I can confirm I am genuinely pleased to have carriage of this bill. It is a really good bill, because we all know that spending time outside helps people connect with each other and with nature, while also improving mental and physical health and encouraging greater appreciation for our environment. A lot of the discussion has been about the conflict between outdoor recreation and the environment. I am standing here saying, no, I think they complement each other, because we need to protect our environment and preserve our environment so that people can get outdoors safely and enjoy the great outdoors.

Outdoor recreation plays a central role in the lives of Victorians, whether it is fishing, boating, camping, trail bike riding or horseriding. Victoria offers some of the best natural environments in the country and, dare I say, the world. This reform is about making it easier for Victorians to get out and enjoy the great outdoors while ensuring activities are conducted safely, sustainably and responsibly. Our focus is on ensuring our compliance and regulatory efforts are targeted where they matter most.

This bill builds on the strong work already delivered by the Victorian Fisheries Authority and the Game Management Authority. We are consolidating the Victorian Fisheries Authority and the Game Management Authority into a new statutory authority, Outdoor Recreation Victoria. Outdoor Recreation Victoria will retain the full regulatory responsibilities currently exercised by both agencies to continue oversight of recreational fishing, commercial fisheries, aquaculture and game hunting. This reform is about strengthening that system and not diminishing it. By bringing these functions together, we will improve co-ordination, align priorities and create a single modern authority.

We know that access to public land is critical to participation in the outdoors. Outdoor Recreation Victoria will work across government with land managers, stakeholders, commercial fisheries and communities to identify and address barriers to access and support more Victorians to enjoy the opportunities available on public land and waterways. This work will be supported by the establishment of a Land Access Panel, providing clear, practical advice to government and creating a stronger pathway for community input into decision-making.

Outdoor recreation is a major contributor to regional Victoria, supporting jobs, driving tourism and helping communities grow and transition. That is why I was surprised by one contribution in this chamber earlier today by a member of the Liberals that was opposed to many aspects of the bill. Listening to their contribution, it was very disappointing because I felt that this was a bipartisan issue when it came to outdoor recreation. But it is clear it is not so bipartisan in nature.

Recreational fishing and boating alone contribute billions to the Victorian economy and support tens of thousands of jobs, with game hunting and nature-based tourism also delivering significant economic value. This reform is about taking a whole-of-government approach to safe, sustainable and responsible outdoor recreation. It is not about any one activity or any one group; it is about the millions of Victorians who value time in the outdoors and ensuring that our systems support safe, sustainable and accessible participation now and long into the future. These are practical, responsible reforms that build on our government’s record, supporting participation and making it easier for Victorians to get out into the outdoors – that is the goal.

Before I conclude, I do want to acknowledge the previous minister, Minister Dimopoulos, and his team, for the development of this bill. You would appreciate that, eight weeks into the role, I have come in and I have carriage of the bill in this chamber, and I am enthusiastic about the committee-of-the-whole stage that I understand this bill will be entering into. I think it is an important bill. It did come out of the Silver review, but it is clear that the previous minister had ambition for it to go a lot further, not just in terms of consolidating the authorities – that is the initial role, and that is what we are doing today, but obviously in the future there will be opportunities to add on other activities and other outdoor recreational opportunities to promote.

Georgie Purcell: On a point of order, Acting President, I have listened to a number of members say this and tolerated it, but I actually pointed out in my second-reading speech – and now the minister has done it – that I just think it is really important to make it clear this is not a recommendation from Silver. I think it is misrepresenting the crossbench.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I do not think that is a point of order.

Georgie Purcell: Statements in the chamber are meant to be factual, and I just ask that he does not elaborate on the Silver recommendation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Continue, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: As I was saying, and as the previous minister stated in his second-reading speech, this is an opportunity to combine and consolidate the entities. It is about a vision and strengthening outdoor recreation through this consolidation. They will have strong regulatory responsibilities but also expanded functions and a critical role in promoting broader participation, which we feel is very important because we know how positive these activities can be for people’s physical and mental wellbeing. In that nature, I commend the bill to the house, and I look forward to the committee-of-the-whole stage.

Council divided on amendment:

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:28): I move:

That, pursuant to standing order 14.12(b), the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 be referred to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee for inquiry, consideration and report by 1 August 2026.

I think people probably expected this bill inquiry referral from me, but this bill is actually a really good example of a bill that should go off for inquiry. We have heard consistently throughout the debate that consultation on this was cooked by the government. I know it was not the existing minister; he inherited this diabolical mess. When I say there was no consultation, I do not mean that it was just the environmental and wildlife organisations and representatives who were not consulted at all; this also includes many from the fishing industry, particularly the commercial fishing industry, who have made their position quite well known to many of us, including me. I said earlier you know it is pretty bad when shooters and fishers are talking to the Animal Justice Party about what they do not like in a government bill that is clearly a gift to the gun lobby. I think given that it is clear this bill is going to be amended, it is going to have to go back to the lower house – the government, again, cooked this one; not realising it had a 1 July start date, they put it on the very last day before we adjourned. The lower house will be going home soon. We are going to amend this. We could actually use this period, while we wait to return it to the lower house, to actually hold a bill inquiry to look into it, because there are so many things about this that are just so unclear. I mean, anyone who has been in question time has heard me ask the minister questions about this bill every single question time since he became the minister, since this policy was announced, and those questions have not been able to be answered.

We are also hearing more and more that many believe that this bill does not represent what it is framed to be. I called a point of order about this before. I just want to make it really clear: this is not a Silver review recommendation. I am hearing many from the government say that. I think something we need to make clear as well is that this is Silver with the government adding a bit of mayo to that. They are adding mayo and blaming it on Silver. Silver never recommended promotion. We actually all support a big regulator. We think a big regulator would be a good thing, but that is not what this is. We would not be having this debate right now if we were improving regulation and compliance in this state. Outdoor recreation is more than blokes with guns and fishing rods. We have heard from so many people who love getting out in our outdoors that are frustrated to see the government continue to back these people in when it actually deters people from going in the outdoors for many reasons. Many do not want to be around firearms. When it comes to the duck-shooting season, even if you want to be on our wetlands, it is illegal to be on our wetlands. They are locked out by the laws, the so-called public safety laws that the Game Management Authority recently confirmed, despite constantly saying it was not so, are set up to penalise duck rescuers.

I think this bill needs to be inquired into and investigated more, because we have had some recent damning allegations about the Game Management Authority. As I said in my second-reading speech, the government could have previously said that Minister Pulford cleaned up the GMA post Pegasus. Well, that is not the case. We have a recording from a Game Management Authority officer at a Field and Game meeting in Bendigo, coincidentally, this year telling shooters how to flout laws, telling them that they will turn a blind eye when they break the law, confirming they will be targeting rescuers and bragging about all the cases they are testing in the court so that they can set precedents to make it harder for us to do our volunteer work. This is incredibly concerning, and this bill gives those very same people – because the government has confirmed all jobs will be kept – even greater powers. It puts people’s welfare and rights at risk, and the government is actually just not taking that seriously. When we have an authority admitting that they are using laws to target one group of people, we should all collectively be concerned.

I hate this bill. I am not asking for it to be struck out; I am asking for it to be inquired into. I think it will be pretty galling if the government says no to that, given we have this period where it cannot come into effect as they promised the stakeholders anyway. They are going to be very disappointed. They never let down the gun lobby, so I am looking forward to their response to that.

We have also heard, after Victorian Fisheries Authority officers were cut, through FOI that noncompliance has gone up. We cannot be giving these people promotional powers when noncompliance has gone up.

We have also taken amendments to the government that the minister’s office admitted to me and, I believe, others really should go in the bill. We have picked up mistakes. I have not gone for the nuclear option with this. I found gaps and errors in the bill that should be in there that are not reflective of both industries. This is our opportunity to get it right. It is not passing tonight anyway, and I call on everyone to do the right thing and send this off to inquiry.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:33): First of all, I just want to clarify one thing. When Ms Purcell said shooters and fishers were talking to her, she did not mean me.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Jeff BOURMAN: Anyway, there is a picture painted here that it is like Fallujah in 2004 – that you go out into the outdoors and there are bullets whizzing everywhere. It is just rubbish. Also, I have got to say that no-one really minded when George Bucchorn was running it and trying to target the hunters. It was all good then. I see this as a desperate attempt just to put off a bill that needs to get done today. Like it or lump it, the majority of the place –

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Jeff Bourman: Well, you are entitled to your opinion. We will see how it goes. But the bottom line is more people will vote for it than against it. That is democracy – you win some; you lose some. We just need to test it in the house, and if it passes, it passes.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:34): The Liberals and Nationals will not support but oppose this referral to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. It is an interesting thing: when we vehemently oppose something, as we are allowed to in this place, we do everything in our power to take it away, as we have seen with the Animal Justice Party today. The arguments used for sending something to a committee can be completely ignored when at other times we have sought to do so, and I think Mr Davis sought to send something to a committee only recently that was quashed. So it is clearly on ideological lines, and there is that element and that is the Animal Justice Party’s wont.

What I will say is that I did go nuclear on this bill and I did analyse it clause by clause, and there were quite a number of things wanting. I did send 150 emails out to people, a wide variety of people, and the commercial fishing sector were very helpful and expansive in their response. They did a nuclear line-by-line analysis of the bill, and the amendments that the Liberals and Nationals are putting on the table today are representative of those concerns that the commercial fishing industry had, and the best outcome is that these amendments have addressed their concerns. So to use them to send it off to a committee – in actual fact that is fairly disingenuous from the start, because if the Animal Justice Party had its way, it would cancel us eating anything other than lentils, rice and beans. It would cancel –

Georgie Purcell: On a point of order, President, I just do not see how this is relevant to a procedural debate. It is an attack on me personally. It has got no relevance to a bill inquiry.

The PRESIDENT: If members could stick to the referral motion, that would be appreciated.

Melina BATH: The commercial fishing sector wants to flourish and wants to continue to supply high-quality locally caught, low-carbon-miles fresh fish to our plates and to our tables. They now feel adequately represented and that their concerns have been addressed in amendments. I want to make sure that we still look into this bill. As a result, it is not a useful guide to send it away anywhere.

The other point that is interesting is that the mover of this procedural debate spoke about men and guns. I think it speaks to the point that the speaker is not aware that there are women who hunt. There are women who shoot clay targets. There are women who use guns in farming, in pest control and particularly in hunting. Indeed I know that the Nationals’ preferred candidate to replace Tim Bull is a hunter. She is a deer hunter, and she is indeed on the committee for deer hunting in Victoria. So to use a reference about men and hunting is only a small element of the debate.

Georgie Purcell: On a point of order, President, I think the member is misrepresenting me. I was actually talking about sexist abuse, which was specifically from men, and I really do not appreciate that being weaponised considering how distressing it is. We have just had a long debate about misogyny towards women in politics. I really ask that we can focus on the procedural debate.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think that is a point of order. I just advise members that the procedural debate is a debate around why people believe there should be a referral or not to a committee, so could people keep to that.

Melina BATH: I refute the comment. We are nearing the end of a very busy four-year period. All of our committees are highly busy still with inquiries. We do not need another inquiry, and so I will be opposing this referral.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:39): I would like to rise to support Ms Purcell’s motion to refer this off to a bill review. We are the house of review in this place. The committee process is there to look at legislation, particularly legislation that is contentious, to make sure that legislation is fit for purpose. I have listened to a lot of contributions in this debate around some of the evidence that was presented in the lead-up to this bill. When you look at some of the evidence around, in 2017 the government commissioned the Pegasus Economics report. That independent review found the Game Management Authority had not operated appropriately. The bill does nothing to address compliance within the GMA, and there is an opportunity here to make this bill stronger. We also want to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose when it comes to breaches of hunting laws, because breaches of hunting laws in Victoria are widespread. It is something that has been raised in this chamber on many occasions, not just in relation to this bill.

Essentially, the fundamental question here is that if the government is genuine about protecting and valuing wildlife and our ability as a community and Victorians to enjoy outdoor recreation, then the headline reform around this being a bureaucratic merger should be reviewed. It should be fit for purpose to ensure that it is reflecting biodiversity, protecting habitats, expanding recreational access and supporting communities. I think it is worthy to have a review of this. As a member of the upper house in this chamber and as part of the house of review, it is fundamental to our democratic process to allow these options.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Environment, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (16:41): The government will not be supporting this procedural motion. We view this as a delaying tactic, having another inquiry. The Economy and Infrastructure Committee is doing some important work. I know there are a number of inquiries that fall into my other portfolios, and I look forward to those reports, especially at this part of the year. To ask them to do an inquiry into the creation of Outdoor Recreation Victoria I do not believe is needed, especially considering it is for the most part, with some minor revisions of scope, a large and administrative entity consolidation. I know, with the entities that are being consolidated, that some in this chamber have serious concerns about those entities. I think they have made that quite loud and clear, but there will be an opportunity to ask questions in the committee-of-the-whole stage, where we can debate and tease those out. I think the democratic will is that we should proceed today with this reform, a reform that I think gives us an opportunity to get something positive and make sure that we continue to have safe, sustainable and accessible outdoor activities available to all Victorians. We will be opposing this procedural motion.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:42): I rise to oppose this procedural motion. I find it totally disingenuous that the chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee should propose another inquiry for that committee, when she herself moved that we could not proceed with the inquiry into transmission line infrastructure, which is one of the most egregious things happening across rural and regional Victoria. So many people are affected by it. The environment is particularly affected. Agricultural land is particularly affected. Farmers are particularly affected. Whole housing communities are affected. Airports are affected. A major inquiry needed to be conducted –

Georgie Purcell: On a point of order, President, committee deliberations are supposed to be confidential to those committees, and they are being discussed in the house right now.

The PRESIDENT: That is a fair point of order. I will caution people not to go into committee deliberations, unless of course they have been recorded. Also it might have been recorded in a particular report.

Bev McARTHUR: We were not able to continue with an inquiry into transmission lines because the committee was fully booked and there was no time. There was no time, we were all told, for the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to continue with any other inquiry, except what was on the books already. So to suddenly say the Economy and Infrastructure Committee has the capacity to undertake another inquiry, I find extraordinary. It clearly did not have the time to deliberate on a very important inquiry, and now you are proposing that this inquiry should take place. There is no need for this inquiry to take place. You can sit here for hours in committee questioning the minister about every aspect that you find egregious about this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to that committee process, and I am sure the minister will be available for the rest of the night and day, if necessary, to answer all the questions in relation to this particular piece of legislation. This is clearly just a delaying tactic, nothing else, and I think it should be called out for that. To say that you want it deferred to a committee for inquiry is not the way to conduct this whole procedure.

I think Ms Bath is totally right, we should proceed with debating the legislation in committee, and maybe you can provide better outcomes during the committee stages. You might well even be able to amend it further. The minister is a very agreeable chap; I am sure he will be very accommodating. I know Ms Bath has worked very productively with the minister to make sure that this piece of legislation is worthy of passing through this chamber, and I absolutely do not think it needs a committee of inquiry just to delay the whole process, especially when there was no time to conduct an inquiry into a very important aspect of what is happening in this state which involves the future of how we develop rural Victoria especially. So I, along with Ms Bath and the coalition, will oppose this procedural motion to refer this bill to a committee for inquiry, and I look forward to the debate in committee.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (16:47): I rise to speak in support of Ms Purcell’s referral of this bill to a committee for inquiry. I reject what Mrs McArthur and Ms Bath have been saying about this being a delaying tactic. There are clearly problems with this bill. It is cooked. In its conception it has sidelined a number of important stakeholder voices, and in its form it continues to sideline important stakeholder voices. We have been contacted by a number of organisations that would have liked to have been further consulted and included in the creation of this bill and have not to date, to my knowledge, despite having reached out to the minister, been included in that process. So I think on those grounds alone time to delay and examine whether this bill is fit for purpose would be advisable.

The other aspect that I think really needs to be examined is what the bill constructs in terms of its ongoing engagement. We have grave concerns about the form and the mechanism by which the Land Access Panel is going to function. We have got concerns about the lack of transparency, the lack of reporting and who is going to be on that committee. Again, I think that that is an area on which the government should have consulted far more widely. It should have produced and brought a bill to this chamber that is more fit for purpose, and an inquiry process would give us the opportunity to examine how that is going to function and actually fix it. The minister and the government have seemed, to me, to be a closed wall in terms of fixing that body and making it more fit for purpose. But I think that through an inquiry process we could hear from those stakeholders that feel that they have been excluded from the production of the bill that has been brought to the chamber, and indeed we could take into account the views of the hundreds of Victorians – thousands, I am sure, across the offices that are represented in this chamber – who have been contacting us saying that they deeply oppose this bill and feel that already their rights to nature are not respected and that this bill is going to make those matters far worse. So I think there are important voices that have been kept out of this debate so far, and a bill inquiry would provide the opportunity for the government to reflect and see whether they have got the balance right.

The other aspect of this bill that is deeply concerning is the definition of outdoor recreation – or is that what we are calling it? Suddenly it is not going to be called that anymore. The limited interests that are represented in the government’s definition of outdoor recreation are very worrying. As I said in the second-reading debate, there are huge numbers of Victorians who enjoy activities in nature that are not part of the legislative definition of outdoor recreation that this government is proposing. Those voices deserve to be heard and included, and they deserve a structure ongoing in which their rights to land are going to be respected.

Before my time elapses I also want to highlight of course that First Nations should have been consulted more deeply on this bill. It is shocking in a post-treaty Victoria that we keep seeing legislation brought before this Parliament that has not had adequate consultation with First Nations voices. What are you doing? It is all talk. It is shameful. For that reason alone – and there are so many reasons – we should send this to an inquiry so that those voices can be heard and incorporated into the government’s thinking. It is extremely frustrating to be standing up day after day dealing with this same issue of First Nations voices not having been sought in the formulation of legislation.

There are, I am sure, problems with this bill. We have received a number of amendments. I know what it is like to try and pull amendments together at the last minute, but we have received a number of substantial amendments that I did not have a chance to review until they were tabled literally minutes before we commenced the votes on this bill. So we are going to have to do some work. I am not sure that we have got this bill right, just given the late hustle that is happening to try and amend it on the fly so that this desperate government can try and get a piece of legislation through and have one sitting week that does not go entirely off the rails. I do not think that is a good enough reason for us to be waiving and rubberstamping legislation through this chamber. We will be supporting the inquiry referral.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:52): I will just add some further remarks to my colleague Katherine Copsey’s in support of this procedural motion to refer the matter to a bill inquiry. I will just also refute some of the comments that have been made by some of the other parties here in the chamber – firstly from the Nationals Party regarding this being an ideological matter for it to be referred off for bill inquiry. It is getting a little bit twisted. There are ideas here for sure about why this should be referred off, one being that this is a cooked bill – that has been made well and truly clear from many different speakers of different parties throughout the second-reading debate – but also the fact is that it is a rushed bill. In fact it has been so rushed that for some of the amendments that the Nationals member was referring to just earlier we had to filibuster the debate this afternoon because they were not yet ready and we have not actually scrutinised them. So I think it is a bit disingenuous for some of the arguments to be made as to this being an ideological play. In fact, really, if anything, the political theatre existing in this moment is from the major parties, who are trying to rush this thing through without the proper scrutiny that it requires, given what it is going to mean for so many users and people who are trying to access our public spaces and our protected places here in this state.

The other matter is the accusation of this being a delay tactic that has been levelled against members of the crossbench. Again, this, to my understanding anyway, cannot pass the Parliament in the way that it is intended before we go on our winter sitting break, so I think it is disingenuous to say that this is a delay tactic. In fact we are going to be on winter break anyway. Let us use the resources available to us in the time available to us to scrutinise these matters properly so that we can properly deliberate on the far-reaching implications of what has been put before us. Further to the comments that my colleagues have already made, I support this going for a bill inquiry, and I think that is an entirely prudent use of our resources and time.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:54): I too just want to lend my support to this proposal to send this bill to an inquiry. As we have heard, I think one of the key things that is problematic with this is that there are critical voices that have a genuine interest in this, and they are not peripheral to the impacts of this bill. They are people who are going to be directly impacted by it. Their livelihoods are going to be directly impacted by it. People who deeply care about these spaces and what effect this bill will have have not been included in the creation of this bill. I think an inquiry will not only give those voices an opportunity to have input and a say but will also help us dig into who has had input into this bill. Who are the voices who have been listened to? Why have they been the only ones that have been listened to? What are the motivations that have driven this bill? Who are the real vested interests here? Who has got the ear of the government? I think there are quite a few of us who have strong suspicions about who that might be, but an inquiry would help to shed some light on that. I think it is really important, if nothing else, for the public to be able to see that, to have the opportunity to ask the questions and to have the opportunity to really, really scrutinise this bill and who has been able to have input to it, who has been able to drive crucial legislation that is going to have long-lasting impacts for not just this narrow group of users who are seeking to benefit from it but for all Victorians for a long time to come. It is also for nature and our wildlife, which, I think we have made abundantly clear, this government just does not care about. They do not prioritise it; it is an inconvenience. But we feel that an inquiry would be really beneficial to dig into those issues and shed some light for the public so they can see properly what the government has done with this bill, and it will hopefully also lead to some practical suggestions.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:56): I will just briefly take up some of the comments made in this procedural debate. It is pretty disappointing to hear some comments about private committee meetings and my reasoning as chair for a number of things. I suggest those who would like to know more about that to look at the hearing attendance records of a number of MPs from the very party opposing that to see the very difficult position that I am in trying to run a committee and ensure that we can undertake our important work, which passes through the houses of Parliament first, as is the procedure.

I made some comments about how I chose not to go nuclear on this bill. I think they were taken out of context. I meant that there were a number of amendments I could have made to this bill just because I could. It amends the Wildlife Act 1975. I could have made a number of amendments to ban duck shooting, kangaroo shooting or wombat shooting, which is allowed in Victoria. I chose not to do that. I went through the bill and found things that could be improved – accepting the bill was going to happen and accepting I could not stop it – to put safeguards in that should be there and that are reflected in some industries but not in others. We will get through that in the committee stage. It is another reason why, given that it is not passing tonight, as many have said, calling taking it to an inquiry a delay tactic is what is actually disingenuous. Calling me disingenuous for wanting to improve this bill when I am already going to oppose it, I think, is actually really unfair. Saying that I am disingenuous by talking about the seafood industry – again, that was me trying to cooperate and to collaborate. I actually had a number of representatives email me after my contribution and thank me for representing them, because they still feel left out.

This should be examined. We have the break period to do it, and I call on everyone to do the right thing, given it cannot take effect until after we come back from the break anyway.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (17:07)

Jeff BOURMAN: First of all I just want to say I am withdrawing all of my amendments. The Nationals will deal with the government and take whichever ones they are going to use, so at this stage I am clear of amendments, but I do have some questions. If I can, with everyone’s leave, I will just do them all for clause 1.

Minister, on page 3, under ‘Definitions’, ‘outdoor recreation’, I understand that (a) hunting and (b) fishing are the primary focus. Am I correct that the use of the word ‘includes’ means that the definition is not limited to the eight activities listed?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Mr Bourman, for a really good question, especially after listening to the debate earlier today. I can confirm that the word ‘includes’ means that the definition of outdoor recreation is not limited to the eight listed activities. Therefore, it is non-exhaustive.

Jeff BOURMAN: I suggest as we go through the night we will go into glorious detail about what they may or may not be. On page 4, (d), under ‘public land’, can you just clarify that ‘State Wildlife Reserve’ includes the 200 state game reserves that are classified as such by the Governor in Council?

Enver ERDOGAN: The definition of public land captures all types of public land on which outdoor recreation may occur, and I can confirm that includes state game reserves. Whether a particular outdoor recreation activity is permitted depends on the land type and any specific rules or regulations governing it.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, the 2016 audit of Victoria’s state game reserves found that 69 per cent had no management plan, 90 per cent had no infrastructure – although, credit to this government, at least the signage has dramatically improved – and 48 per cent have suffered from encroachment by neighbouring landholders in the form of livestock grazing, cropping, firewood collection and, unfortunately, rubbish dumping. Did the government consider handing management responsibility of these reserves to the new Outdoor Recreation Victoria, where there could be a more appropriate management focus?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, this bill does not extend any public land management functions to Outdoor Recreation Victoria, and this was not considered in the development of the bill.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, that audit was conducted to set a benchmark. It is a little out of scope for this debate, considering what you just said, but will the minister direct ORV, with his environment hat on, to conduct a repeat audit now that 10 years have elapsed?

Enver ERDOGAN: Right at this moment there is no intention to repeat an audit. Nonetheless I will say that public land management responsibility for the state government game reserves sits with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) or with Parks Victoria, and they would be primarily responsible for any audit of state game reserves. I am not aware of their plans to conduct an audit right now, but I am happy to follow up.

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not aware if they are doing it right now, but I can follow up on that one.

Jeff BOURMAN: Moving on to division 2, ‘Objects’, page 7, the objects of outdoor recreation, the commercial game harvesting sector in Victoria is still in its infancy but plays an important role in the sustainable management of our wild deer and mitigating their negative impact. Was consideration given to helping support this important sector through ORV given that the logic of it is so clear and that commercial fisheries are included?

Enver ERDOGAN: Outdoor Recreation Victoria will work to continue to promote and support sustainability and responsibility in game hunting, which may include commercial game hunting. The organisation will work with recreational and commercial game hunters to support positive outcomes through increased harvest of deer and the corresponding indigenous biodiversity and economic benefits. This may include avoiding cost benefits to farmers from the increased harvest of deer on private adjacent land. So the specific role that Outdoor Recreation Victoria will play regarding commercial game hunting will depend on the needs of the sector.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, we are going to move on to appointment of directors, which is clause 21(3):

(3)   The Minister must not appoint a person to the Board if the Minister is satisfied that the person –

(a) has a conflict of interest specified in section 25(1); or

(b) is in a position or role that is not specified in section 25(1) that conflicts with the role of a director of the Board.

Anyway, I get the intent and the need to be wary of conflicts of interest, real, perceived or apprehended. The issue I see is that this clause could be read that really good and qualified people cannot apply to the board or the new authority. We do not want volunteers resigning from their positions on the chance they might get appointed to the board. Would it be correct to read this as meaning that persons who would be in positions stated in the clause could and should still apply to the board provided that they resolve the conflict – that is, resign from the board of the hunting association or whatever it might be – only if they are offered a position before they are appointed? And if that is not the case, what is the government’s way of dealing with this issue going to be?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just seek some clarification on that. I think I know the answer, but I will just get clarification from the box.

Mr Bourman, that is a really good question. People will be able to apply, but prior to appointment they would need to resign and resolve those conflicts. They can still apply, but prior to appointment. So they are allowed to apply, just to clarify for you.

Jeff BOURMAN: That is really good. That will mean there are all sorts of people that can at least have a go at it. Moving on to conflicts of interest at clause 25(1)(c), ‘a senior or executive officer of a representative body’. This is to do with conflicts of interest. While this clause sits amongst the other clauses that all relate to commercial fisheries, it is not explicit that it applies only to commercial fisheries. Does this clause apply to all representative bodies or just commercial fisheries?

Enver ERDOGAN: The intention here is that this clause applies to Fisheries Advisory Council or Commercial Fisheries Licensing Panel members, holders of a commercial fishery or aquaculture licence or senior executive officers of representative bodies. That is who it is intended to apply to.

Jeff BOURMAN: The problem I see, Minister, is that in the not-too-distant past we have had a farcical situation where eminently qualified people were overlooked for positions on the GMA board because of their close association with hunting organisations but an employee of the RSPCA was appointed. Does the representative body here include animal rights activist groups like the RSPCA, Animals Australia or splinter groups? From my personal point of view, I look at it like this: would you put an anti-vaxxer on the board of VicHealth?

Enver ERDOGAN: Although I see the angle that Mr Bourman is coming from, I think the representative body included here does not include groups like the RSPCA or Animals Australia.

Jeff BOURMAN: Just getting to the Land Access Panel thing here, Minister – it has to do with the advice that the Land Access panel is going to give. Will the Land Access Panel be empowered to consider and provide advice to the minister on matters of its own volition, or will it need to be directed by the minister only?

Enver ERDOGAN: The Land Access Panel’s advice will focus on ensuring positive outcomes for access for outdoor recreation, so the specific scope of the panel’s advice is determined by the legislation and its terms of reference, as provided in the bill. So if it is broadly to provide a positive outcome for access for outdoor recreation, I see no reason why it could not initiate advice itself.

Jeff BOURMAN: Minister, for the moment, I am onto my last one: appointment of panel members. The Land Access Panel must consist of no fewer than six but no more than 12 members. In the second-reading speech, it said:

As Minister for Outdoor Recreation, I will appoint members to this Panel to represent a range of interests relating to outdoor recreation, including Traditional Owners, public land and waterway managers, ORV and external stakeholders.

It is good that there will be a range of interests represented. The missing piece that this is aimed at addressing is access for recreational hunters and fishers. Sure, ‘external stakeholders’ is a good catch-all, but will the minister commit that this does definitely include representatives of recreational hunters and recreational fishers?

Enver ERDOGAN: The Land Access Panel is about improving access and removing barriers to participation in outdoor recreation, and fishers and hunters are important stakeholders as part of this bill, as are other bodies and other groups as well, such as our mountain bikers, hikers and other users, so I am making sure that representation drives the best outcome. I guess the reason why we have not prescribed who is going to be on this panel is to allow flexibility. As we know, people’s outdoor recreation interests may change, and therefore this gives the flexibility for the minister of the day to appoint a panel that is appropriate for the time. But of course, at this time, hunting and fishing are core interest groups in the outdoor recreation space, and I will be considering that. But I do not want to predetermine who is going to be on the panel and be too instructive here, because obviously it is subject to the passage of the bill, and I am always wary of that as well – predetermining an outcome.

Jeff BOURMAN: That was going to be my last one, but I want to kind of flesh this out a little bit, because there are some specifications in here. I have no problems with traditional owners, public land and waterway managers and so on, but they get a special guernsey. Given that this was originally Outdoor Recreation Victoria and it is now going to become fishing, hunting, whatever – I have forgotten what the name is because it is a new name – I would at least like a commitment that the government has – not particular people and not particular organisations but a representative from recreational hunters and recreational fishers, as there will be definitely specified people from other organisations or interests.

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm, obviously subject to process – and I think it is clear to say, especially with the new proposed name, fishing, hunting and outdoor Victoria – that representatives or people with a strong knowledge of these sectors would be represented on that body.

Melina BATH: I will ask on clause 1 – if we need to drill down a little bit further, I am happy to do that work – in terms of the government functions, what will the functions be beyond fishing, boating and hunting? I am going to call it ORV at the moment before I move my amendments. Part of the philosophy we have heard is in relation to expanding outdoor recreation. What government functions will it have?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Bath – a really good question. We have said from the outset that the goal is to promote growth and participation in outdoor recreation. The initial focus will be on fishing, hunting, boating, four-wheel driving and camping on public land before expanding to support other outdoor recreation activities. Some of those decisions about how that support is rolled out are, I guess, for the executive leadership of the new organisation when it is set up. The introduction of activities that are outside the scope of the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) and GMA operations will need to be introduced in a phased and considered manner. I cannot today, to be honest, say this is the way they are going to do it, because when they set up the organisation they are going to have an executive team, a CEO and a new board. Once the organisation is set up and can be consolidated, I think the next step, the next iteration – it is going to be phased – will be to see how they can work to promote those activities. We want them to promote more outdoor activities. There are many outdoor activities that we know and have talked about. As I said, the list is non-exhaustive, but I do not want to give examples. Many of you have already given examples that I feel this organisation can play an important role in. I think the key, to be frank, in probably the first year of the organisation will be consolidation, because we are merging two entities together. Like I said, it is non-exhaustive, but they can do that work once that executive leadership team is set up.

Melina BATH: With other activities such as bushwalking, such as rock climbing, such as prospecting, such as mountain bike riding, such as horseriding and such as the other things that we have heard about as well, peacefully sitting on a piece of grass or whatever – and I fully appreciate that first tranche is to set this up – has the government done any work around that next round, or is it at the moment focusing on merging and establishing?

Enver ERDOGAN: The focus has been on setting up this consolidated entity at the moment. That is where a lot of the focus has been. I think you raised really good activities, and some of those, looking to the future, will have roles of varying degrees in this new entity. Some of them, to be honest, are quite self-sufficient, like bushwalking or, as someone gave an example of, birdwatching. They might not need as much assistance. But some of them will, and they will need promotion and embedded knowledge. That could be knowledge crossed over from this new entity that could be shared to other industries and other outdoor activities. But at the moment the real focus is on this consolidation, because we know this is quite a significant change for both organisations as they merge. You are creating a new entity with a new culture in place. I think that will be the key, getting that right.

Melina BATH: In relation to some amendments that I will be moving in due course, some of the feedback that I heard was in relation to concerns around clause 3, which talks about certain aspects. They felt concerned that they were not among those certain aspects – for example, non-motorised recreation, motorised recreational cycling, trail bike riding, prospecting and fossicking. I have mentioned horse riding and equestrian activities. I just need to understand that you did not purposely leave them off because you were excluding them but were, as you said, doing a merger. What was the decision to have these listed in clause 3 rather than a more extensive list? Could you describe why that decision was made?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Bath for raising all the other outdoor recreational activities that are quite popular in their own unique way. The goal was initially just to have a small sample, an example to put with the legislation, but it was always clear that it was to be non-exhaustive. We want the list to be open to additions and in the longer term to be able to support other outdoor activities, some of which you have listed and some of which I will be accepting amendments for, which are quite sensible additions. But regardless, whether they are on that list or not, I do not think that is necessarily the future direction of the entity. After the consolidation happens, the goal should be looking at what can be phased in in a considered manner, but they will be decisions for a future leadership of that entity.

Melina BATH: Mr Bourman raised a very important issue, and I know the government has hung its hat on it in many ways, which is the Land Access Panel. The minister will know that we have got some amendments to do with the name and some slight alterations to the structure, but I am interested to understand, and it is a broad question: how will that Land Access Panel work? What will be the major achievements? How will you know that it is working, from the vision that you have as the minister?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the Land Access Panel has been a matter that has drawn a lot of attention. I noticed that in the debate. But I think the goal will be that this entity, the committee of the Land Access Panel, will consider advice on barriers to restrictions to access public land and waterways for the purpose of outdoor recreation and recommend opportunities and practical actions to improve public access. The reason why it is important that we do have strong representatives from the bodies that are actually involved in outdoor recreation and people that understand the outdoor recreation sector is that they can advise on barriers and restrictions to the minister of the day. I think it is not a decision-making body. It is a body that could write to the minister of the day – or to ministers, I might say, because land management crosses over across different agencies – to provide advice and recommend opportunities and practical actions to improve public access. I might give just one example, if that assists, Ms Bath. It might consider matters such as whether road closures impede public access rights or access rights granted through Crown water frontage licence conditions and whether those rights are being enforced. They might pick up an issue because they are on the ground. These are people that really understand what is happening outdoors. They can give that feedback to the minister. I think that is an important function to reflect the sector’s lens better and accommodate the views and complexities of public land and waterway managers and other stakeholders that can give those views across government, not just to the relevant minister.

Melina BATH: I appreciate those comments, and I am interested just to drop down another layer. You mentioned that they should very much have land experience and real-time experience and knowledge of the outdoors. One of the questions I asked in the bill briefing, and I am not verballing myself but recalling from memory, was: is there anything in this legislation as it is written that would stop the members of that Land Access Panel being, for example, bureaucrats or members of a department or other bodies rather than being, potentially, stakeholders and, as you just said, people with that practical knowledge?

Enver ERDOGAN: The way it is drafted at the moment, there is actually – I know you have described them as bureaucrats, but I think there is a potential role for land managers to sit on that panel. You might have a representative from, say, Parks Victoria, which is a good example with a lot of crossover with the outdoor recreation sector, sit on that panel. We are not restricting the make-up of the panel, to give the minister of the day the flexibility, because obviously at different times we may have different challenges. It might be appropriate to have a different public body represented as well as the sector on that access panel.

Melina BATH: I guess that is where the amendments that the Liberals and Nationals are putting forward look to make sure that there is a responsibility of the government, of the minister, to ensure that the majority of those people are not necessarily – whilst there are some fabulous bureaucrats that exist in this state, it could be 12 members of Parks Victoria. That is what the bill allows, I think, as it is now. So it is actually about expanding that to provide a very great breadth of opportunity to really capture the knowledge, skills and assessments of those different members.

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just seek some clarification on that.

Ms Bath, I thank you for sharing your concern in the chamber about that possibility. Of course that would be for the minister of the day, but that would be quite, I think, a poor decision by the minister, because the whole purpose of the access panel is to get a broader array of views. But I have accepted some of your amendments, just to clarify, so that we can make it clear that there will be strong sector representation as part of that panel. But I think the whole purpose of this panel is to get the lens of the sector and land managers too, and feed that back to the minister.

Melina BATH: In relation to the land management, will the access panel have land management powers? It is just an advisory body – is that correct? And I guess the other step in relation to that, if I could just park the land access: will ORV as an entity have land management powers?

Enver ERDOGAN: ORV will not have land management powers.

Melina BATH: I take it that the advisory panel is an advisory panel. Can you tell me how appointments are made? How would the panel members be selected? It is by the minister, but how is that process done?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the goal will be to have appointments. It would be at the discretion of the minister. You would obviously want to have a range of views on that board – or advisory committee, let us call it, as it is an advisory committee – to understand the complexity of public land and waterways but also have a sector lens. But it will be entirely up to the minister of the day as to who is on that panel and what process they want to undertake, as is the case for many advisory committees. You may want to have a public expression of interest process, or you might have a targeted consultation process with representatives from bodies. I guess that level of detail is yet to be worked through, but I can say it would be my expectation initially to have at least expressions of interest and then go from there on who wants to be part of this committee.

Melina BATH: That is the interesting thing about this. If it is a workable panel, Minister, can you explain tenure and how long would someone be on that panel for? What would happen if there was a casual vacancy? I guess the way I look at it is that there could be a short tenure. The Land Access Panel could at some stage under the minister’s direction have a feature or terms of reference around this particular part of Outdoor Rec Vic, but then it could move as it evolves. Is that something that you see happening?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think specific membership will be determined based on the expertise the panel is expected to need during the appointment process. Initially, because a lot of the focus is on the consolidated entity of fishing and game, to be frank, you would need representation from them. But in terms of the second part of your question, I might seek some guidance.

In terms of more detailed terms of reference for the Land Access Panel, the bill is silent deliberately to provide Outdoor Recreation Victoria the opportunity to determine its terms of reference. But I think, broadly speaking, the goal is that it has a sector lens and also a broader public land manager lens so it knows what can work to make sure that access to land and waterways for the purpose of outdoor recreation is supported and that restrictions are removed. But in terms of the more specific details about tenure and membership, that is a matter for Outdoor Recreation Victoria.

Melina BATH: I guess that leads on to my next part. Will ORV be responsible for the administration of the selection panel members? If not, who will be? Is it ORV, or would it be the minister’s office, for example?

Enver ERDOGAN: As it would be providing advice to the minister, it would be the minister’s office that would be responsible.

Melina BATH: The important part about this is the actual information that is sought by the Land Access Panel. Will the minister insist to land managers that recommendations of the panel are enacted by land managers if the information comes back? How will that process look, please?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the view is that they could provide advice, but it would be up to the land managers or the minister whether they decide to accept that advice or act on that advice. They would be limited to just providing advice and not able to, I guess, force the change.

Melina BATH: For example, what accountabilities will there be for land managers who do not implement recommendations? Because you have gone to this work and you have selected Land Access Panel members who we will say are the best in the business for the job. They go and they do their research, and then you have got land managers. That could be Parks Victoria, it could be DEECA, or it could be a catchment management authority. What is the outcome of that, do you think?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I think that currently already happens. There are not supposed to be any punitive consequences for organisations that do not take the advice of the Land Access Panel. Currently, as you know – and I think during question time you explored it – the Auditor-General and organisations always make recommendations to agencies, and it is really up to agencies or the government, whoever is responsible, to adopt those changes. This is a bit different because a lot of the advice would be obviously confidential, especially when you are giving advice to ministers and they would be covered by executive privilege. But I guess it would be on those agencies or responsible land managers what advice they undertake or if they decide to act on it. But there are many instances where agencies or bodies will not act on recommendations from external stakeholders.

Melina BATH: In relation to the Land Access Panel – they have had the discussions, they have made recommendations, the minister has considered them, the minister has acted on them and either something good has happened or not – at what level does the public get to see some of this? It might be about whether the gate remains open? How will this be displayed and conveyed in a practical sense to the Victorian public?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, the decision would be made by government – whether they decide to release that information.

Melina BATH: I would like to move on to costs now, and I am interested, first of all, in how ORV will be funded. You have got this new function, you have got the merger and you have got the funding of two separate authorities being merged. How will that be managed? And if it is now expanding in due course to encourage outdoor recreation, which we endorse, how will that funding occur for the new functions?

Enver ERDOGAN: The initial funding will just be the consolidation of existing funding that goes to the GMA and the VFA. But you do raise a good question about the longer term and other activities or if there were opportunities to broaden the scope. We do know that one of the benefits of this consolidation is that it can drive efficiency savings – shared accommodation, for example, and avoiding unnecessary duplication of IT investment. But initially, because the functions are limited to the VFA and GMA, we will just be consolidating the existing revenue with all the staff transferring over. But I think longer term, it will depend on the ambition of the government of the day. They would be funding questions for future treasurers and ministers.

Melina BATH: It is a conundrum that the minister has to solve, but you are also then taking two boards, two CEOs and two chairs and merging them. The process of choosing that will be the minister’s, but when could the public expect that this new entity would be stood up if all things were flowing equally?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, you are asking the difficult questions. I am always loath to give timelines on this work, but I can say that Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions is working towards this already behind the scenes. The goal would be of course this year, in the second half of this year, before this year ends and really sooner rather than later. I have kind of limited it to the second half of this year. Well, we are already in the second half, almost. After July, but realistically maybe September or October is a more realistic timeframe, or August. The goal is to get it day one, I am told, so as soon as the legislation passes and passes the other house. So the end of July would be the goal.

Melina BATH: How will ORV operate with new functions if there is no new funding until the next budget? The next budget is May. You have got setting it up, and you have got merging it. You have got all of those things, but then you are also looking to expand and ensure that there is greater promotion et cetera of outdoor recreation. If there is no new funding until May, how will the operations occur as is the theory and wont of this legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I probably answered some of that in my answer to your earlier question. Initially it is consolidation of the existing entities, so therefore there is no need for a new budget. But without holding the government of the next term to – once the ORV entity is set up, I am sure they will draw their ambitions of where they see, outside the existing remit, what else they could support. I am sure, like a lot of entities, they will put a bid in for this expanded scope to a future government, of where they believe they could expand to. But we may find, like with any merger, that consolidation is not so straightforward. They might still be embedded and working towards that amalgamated authority even a year later, because it does take time to set up an organisation in terms of embedding that work. But of course if they were to expand the outdoor recreation activities a lot more, then they would have to ask for further budget funds and investment, noting that there might be some savings from removal of duplication. But for a bigger ask, it depends on their ambition.

Melina BATH: Do you feel that the creation of ORV will generate budget savings for the government? If so, in what sort of magnitude? It has been in the Silver review. They have talked about savings. What do you see happening there?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, we know that consolidation can drive efficiency savings. I gave an example of shared accommodation and unnecessary or duplicate IT investments that may be saved. But as a quantum, at least in the short term, I am not expecting it to be that large, because obviously we are just amalgamating and we are restoring their budgets. I think what it does do is unlock further opportunities, because there is overlap between the two industries and shared learnings, but in particular that will be a matter for the new entity to decide, how it wants to structure itself going forward and the executive leadership there.

Melina BATH: So we are coming together, and then you are going to seek to expand into a larger role. Will ORV be required to raise additional funds from external sources?

Enver ERDOGAN: No. There are no plans to do that.

Melina BATH: Will boating licences or boating registration fees go up as a result of this merger? Then I will do the same: will fishing licences and fees go up as a result of this merger? Will hunting licences go up under ORV as a result of this merger?

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, to those three questions: no. I think the goal is to, as I said, consolidate the functions and to support an increase in participation, but there is no increase to licence fees due to this merger.

Melina BATH: You will appreciate in a cost-of-living crisis where every cent counts – and we are certainly encouraging people to enjoy boating, enjoy recreational fishing and enjoy hunting – it is important that the government does not say, ‘Well, we’re going to rebrand things, and then we’ll whack Victorians with a new bill or an increased costing as a result of this merger.’ My question is: will the Recreational Fishing Licence Trust (RFLT) be used to pay for functions or activities outside of recreational fishing?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm there will be no change to the current arrangements for the Better Boating Fund or RFLT associated with the bill. Therefore there is no change, and they will only be used for the purposes that they are used for at the moment.

Melina BATH: You have anticipated my next question, but I just want to get it on the record for better boating fun for all those fabulous people who enjoy boating in Victoria: will the Better Boating Fund be used to pay for functions outside of boating infrastructure? Can you confirm that?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Melina BATH: I am going to go on to the department now. In terms of the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions, what role will DJSIR have in Outdoor Rec Victoria once it is established?

Enver ERDOGAN: DJSIR will have the same role it currently has with the VFA and GMA, so the same relationship with the new entity – the same oversight role.

Melina BATH: Will DJSIR have any ongoing role in policy or regulation or compliance in Outdoor Rec Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the role it will play is similar to the role it plays now. We are not envisaging a change of relationship. It is just that it is a new authority, which is a consolidation of the two existing authorities, so the same relationship.

Melina BATH: In relation to DJSIR, my understanding at the moment is it already has an outdoor recreation division within it. So what will the correlation be between the outdoor recreation division in DJSIR and ORV? What will happen there, because in many ways it sounds like there is a duplication? So I want to understand: will there continue to be ORV, but that division in DJSIR, what will happen to that entity?

Enver ERDOGAN: My understanding is that that area of DJSIR provide support to the minister, and they will continue to provide support. There is not specifically a duplication, so they will continue working as they do, but obviously there will be a new authority in place.

Melina BATH: I feel like this is PAEC. I remember in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee you actually said very clearly, ‘I look forward to having discussions about ORV in the bill’. In relation to that outdoor recreational division in DJSIR that assists the minister, can you provide a quantum or number of how many staff are working in there, and do you see any staff not needing to be there as a result of ORV’s existence?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I feel like you are getting out of scope, because it is a better question for the department secretary, but I can confirm I think it is a modest team at the moment of 10 people, and they will be continuing in that role – 10 FTE.

Melina BATH: You started to mention this before, so if you could just provide a little bit more context, ORV is not about creating savings, but it is about driving efficiencies. I know you just said that. But what are some of these efficiencies that the minister sees could occur as a result of the combining of GMA and the Victorian Fisheries Authority? What are some efficiencies?

Enver ERDOGAN: Driving efficiencies will obviously be something for the organisation once it is set up. I think the obvious ones are just the sharing of accommodation, the duplication of IT and systems and even the training that they provide; I am sure they can amalgamate those. They are the obvious ones for me. Other efficiencies would need to be for the organisation to make going forward once it is set up and in the longer term, when they look at what they want to focus their energies on. I think the short-term savings that are clear are potential IT and accommodation savings and avoiding unnecessary duplication where there is duplication, but I am not expecting a lot of savings in the short term, because they are just going to be carrying on their functions and business as usual, to an extent, in the short term.

Melina BATH: You did mention 10 EFT. What is the staff structure in relation to that? How many executive directors and how many directors are there? It might be bands you can talk to me in. Are there five executive directors and five directors?

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel this is out of scope. I think we are getting into DJSIR’s internal structure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, if you can confine your questions to the bill, thank you.

Melina BATH: I appreciate that, but I appreciate that it is about efficiencies, and I am concerned, as stakeholders have commented to me in relation to the creation of Outdoor Recreation Victoria, that in still having a division you are not actually removing duplication. So that was driving that in relation to the bill. Sorry, Minister, did you want to comment on that?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Melina BATH: Commercial fishers feel – and they have written to me, and I have had multiple conversations with different members of the commercial fishing industry – that they were left out of the creation of the bill and that they have been left out of the name of it, and they are quite aggrieved by that. It therefore forecasts that it was not in the vision of the government. I want us to go through and drill down into the bill per se. I think it is early on in the bill in relation to the Fisheries Act 1995 and the importance of our commercial fishing that the functions within the Fisheries Act are not changed. I would like you to drill down into that. I can ask a lot of questions, but might it just be possible for you to walk us through the commercial fishing industry not being in the title? As I said the other day, you became the minister in mid-April, so this is not your bill that you created. I know that you have been kind to the previous minister – I will just leave my comments – but the commercial fishing sector feel like they have been forgotten.

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you for leaving it open for me to comment. I can say that clearly was not the goal. I think, as a government, we strongly support our commercial fisheries, and there is a lot of great work, as you are familiar with, from rock lobster fishers in Portland and abalone divers at Mallacoota to aquaculture operators in the Mallee and the High Country. Our government supports all of them and many others in Corner Inlet and Port Phillip Bay. The industry contributes to communities right across Victoria. I think the bill was focused on strengthening outdoor recreation, but it does not in any way remove or diminish the existing support for commercial fisheries and aquaculture, which will continue through established frameworks. I thank you for the discussion on this issue, and obviously the government will agree to some amendments – just to clarify that, if there was any misunderstanding there. I think our government and the Victorian Fisheries Authority work in partnership with industry to ensure they remain viable and sustainable, so therefore hopefully my answer can acquit some of your questions.

Melina BATH: Will this legislation impact anything in terms of the commercial fishing industry? Will it impact any of the current licences? Will it impact any quotas? Will it impact any of that finer detail? What will be the line of sight and the line of communication for the commercial fishing industry? When I say that, I mean both sea harvest and also aquaculture. That is really important in growing barramundi, and growing our own barramundi is a really important factor. How will that industry have a good line of sight under this new entity?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, okay, you gave an example of aquaculture. It is already embedded within the legislative framework, so this ensures that aquaculture, for example, will continue to receive dedicated focus alongside strong environmental sustainability outcomes for the future. You will notice that clause 10 of the bill links to the objectives of the Fisheries Act, which include promoting sustainable commercial fisheries and viable aquaculture industries alongside quality recreational fishing opportunities. So because clause 10 links it to the objectives of the Fisheries Act, I feel that will continue as normal. I am not expecting a dramatic change in that relationship. I can understand that maybe the naming of the organisation or some of the wording may have caused some confusion or concern, but we are happy to clarify that today.

Melina BATH: Can the minister confirm that the bill contains no requirement to quarantine fees or levies so that they are reinvested back into the sector from which they are collected and the funds may legally be redirected to hunting and recreational fishing? As I asked about in the beginning, each sector has its fees collected, and the word ‘hypothecation’ is an interesting one. But clearly the commercial sector invests a lot and they do a lot of amazing work. My point is: will their fees and levies remain in the same structure that exists now? Notwithstanding that there may be a change well into the future, it is not the decision of government at the moment within this bill to change those?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, Ms Bath, I can confirm that there are no plans to change the existing arrangements in relation to those matters.

Melina BATH: Noting it would be fair to say – without putting words into your mouth, Minister – that there should have been a greater consultation with the commercial fishing sector, what is the government going to do now to make sure that that commercial fishing sector is more included in your discussions, decisions and stakeholder engagement?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I think this consultation question is a really important one. I am expecting every person that stands to ask questions in the committee of the whole to probably ask me about it. But I want to put on record that this process did not go through a broad public consultation process as our view was that it did not impose any burden or cost on the public and it is largely administrative entity consolidation and a minor revision of scope. As minister, of course it is in my expectations, but irrespective of that, the new entity would be expected to have that positive engagement with all stakeholders, in particular the important commercial fisheries sector. It will be up to the new entity to do that work, to engage their stakeholder. As minister, I will be making the expectation clear to the new authority once it is set up. But the initial point of view – and it is difficult again for me to hypothecate in terms of the drafting of legislation because it was before my time as minister – was that there was not a public consultation per se because it does not impose any new burdens or costs on the public and it is a largely administrative entity consolidation.

Melina BATH: I fully appreciate public consultation is one thing and is important, and industry consultation is finite with the peak bodies and the stakeholder groups. I would like to hear that the government is going to be quite mindful and present within that structure a focus on communication or better communication with those people that provide clear, fresh and good nutrition for us, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I am obviously eight weeks into the role, but I am committed to seeing that happen. That will be one of my expectations once we have the new entity – for them to do that engagement piece with the commercial fisheries and of course make that engagement so that they understand that they are valued, if there have been some that do not feel that way. But I know the VFA is proud to have a strong relationship with all its stakeholders. Travis Dowling, the CEO, has a strong relationship across not just recreational but also commercial fisheries and he is someone that is well known. It is my expectation that he and the new entity and members of the new entity do that work. And as minister, my door will always be open.

Melina BATH: Can the minister confirm the restructure will not weaken existing rights or weaken existing management plans?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I can confirm that it will not weaken any rights, as Ms Bath has put it.

Melina BATH: Minister, how will both the commercial sector and the aquaculture sector, which is also commercial but has got a different name in this bill and function, be considered in decision-making and have input into matters that impact them? And it also goes to some of my amendments that look at the board and the directorship of the board.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, the VFA currently provides for the management, development and use of Victorian fisheries resources in an efficient, productive and environmentally sustainable manner. I am expecting the new entity to continue that as per normal. And as a government we have supported aquaculture through the $1 million provided to promote the aquaculture industry and seek greater investment. We have seen the growth of the mussel industry as well, I guess, as a direct result of some of our investments and work with them, with mussel production exceeding 2000 tonnes for the first time in history in 2025. So I feel that we already have a strong relationship. I know some may have not felt that, and I do acknowledge that commercial fishing was not explicitly represented in the name of the authority initially, but we are correcting that. But I think going forward, I am expecting them to continue that same relationship that they have had in the past with the VFA, with the new entity.

Melina BATH: This relates to now Better Boating, and we have been in communication with some of the members of that sector. The minister said that Better Boating funds will remain quarantined for boating-related purposes and will not be redirected to the broader outdoor recreation activities. Nodding. And you can say this in the next one: if the government says Better Boating arrangements are unchanged, why is that protection not expressly stated in the bill? How does the bill influence that?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, those arrangements are under the Marine Safety Act 2010, and so that is not changed by this bill. So those arrangements about the Better Boating Fund are in the Marine Safety Act.

Melina BATH: Outdoor Recreation Victoria will be required to report separately. Will it need to report separately on boating infrastructure and funding expenditure and outcomes? This might be somewhat my ignorance: is the reporting on boating infrastructure funding, expenditure and outcomes in the Marine Safety Act, or the marine act, or will it be reported in this new entity?

Enver ERDOGAN: The funding arrangements for the Better Boating Fund will go unchanged. So the way they are reported now, they will continue to be reported in the same way.

Melina BATH: Naturally there is access into the great outdoors, access via jetties and marinas and parking, and maintenance is a really significant focus for regional Victorians, but not only regional Victorians – I have to put my metropolitan hat on as well. What safeguards are there in the bill to ensure that boating funds continue to support ramps, jetties, marinas, parking, maintenance and the like? Or the reverse – is there anything in this bill that changes or impacts those safeguards?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: Can the minister confirm that commercial boating operators, marinas, boatyards, vessel operators, mooring services and Crown lease holders will be consulted with before making decisions affecting boat access or infrastructure? Clearly not putting up a new post, but I mean fairly major infrastructure. Will they be consulted before these decisions are made, and what will that communication look like?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I am expecting that to continue the way that the VFA does that work and the way the government does that with stakeholders all the time. We are expecting that to go unchanged in terms of the existing relationship they have with the authority. With the new authority they should have the same relationship.

Melina BATH: I would not be a self-respecting member of Parliament without lobbying for the Newhaven Jetty, which is very, very important. Apparently at the moment the Newhaven Jetty is going out to tender. The tender should be back by July or the end of this month. There is concern around the cultural heritage management plans. First of all, cultural heritage management plans are very important, and we need to protect our traditional owner cultural heritage and other cultural heritage. The concern is, first of all, whether it is warranted, because the renovations are actually going to occur above deck on existing structures – that structure is about 80 years old. Secondly, the concern is that when the tender document goes in, the successful tender will be responsible for administering the cultural heritage management plan but that cost impost may well be unknown. In the context of this bill and the communications that you are having, how will there be clarity so that these sorts of functions – jetties and the like – and upgrades are not stymied? How will you ensure that these flow and go while making sure that safeguards are there? I ask this in relation to this particular jetty.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Bath for her interest in this matter. I did see you made a bit of public commentary on this issue, and I can understand that as a local member. I think the cultural management plan at Newhaven is really a matter for the Minister for Planning. She is responsible for these management plans. But I do understand your concern. There is a potential for delay, and there can be delays for a number of reasons. But the decision around cultural management plans is a matter for the Minister for Planning, and I believe it is out of the scope of this bill.

Melina BATH: I have one more question on this. The Warneet jetties are really important too. They are in Western Port Bay. They were managed and the cultural heritage was managed by Parks Victoria, so it is now a different land management system. The jetties are managed by Parks, but we have to go and outsource this to the planning minister. You can see now from a very simple conversation where the layers of, I will say, bureaucracy are occurring. Would one of the functions potentially around the Land Access Panel be about looking at clearing ways where there is overt stymying of these sorts of great infrastructure projects? Is that something that could be considered by the Land Access Panel through this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I see no reason why the Land Access Panel could not comment on ways to increase access and participation or make recommendations to government and ministers, understanding that the Land Access Panel would be making recommendations not only to the outdoor recreation minister but to other ministers to assist in increasing access or limiting barriers to access. So I think it is well within the rights of the Land Access Panel to comment on matters such as these also.

Melina BATH: Moving on, there has been a lot said around the authorised officers and compliance officers and the important role that they do in protecting sustainability and biodiversity. There has been a cut, as you are aware – not under your watch, Minister, but there was a cut of, I think, 44 per cent of the staff. Certainly some of those staff have gone on to other things; others lamented and were quite concerned that there had been this reduction. Will any compliance staff be universally used across both the fishing and game-hunting areas? Could you unpack that? That has already happened – or has it happened? What do you see happening, and how does that work when you have got fishing compliance officers, authorised officers, and now they may be working in game management? Could you walk the house through how that will look and what your concerns are and how you will overcome them?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think some of these matters are for the management of ORV or the new entity once it is created, about how they want to structure their organisation, because the goal here is about improving coordination, strengthening outcomes and making it easier for people to enjoy the outdoors. The goal here is not about any sort of cuts. The approach here is about making sure there is regulatory consolidation that can provide benefits. But how that will happen – like I said, I am not a member of the executive of the new organisation. I am the minister. We are going to staff organisation, but I am sure the new CEO and new entity will have a plan of how they merge and share their expertise. I think it is a great opportunity, with those kinds of shared expertise that the authorising officers in the two different entities could bring.

Melina BATH: Part of that is around costs. Will there be costs, and what will that look like? Are there any policy decisions and focuses that you have as minister in relation to upskilling authorised officers from one sector into the other, and what time lag do you think there will be? Clearly, when there has been a cut, people want to be assured that there is adequate coverage. Indeed, some of my amendments talk about making sure that there is consideration given to the roles and functions of authorised officers in doing this compliance and education work.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Ms Bath, it is important to understand that at the beginning, all existing employees will transfer to the new regulator in the same positions, on the same terms and conditions. There is no change to their employment conditions. Of course in the long term the executive leadership team of this new entity might want to look at their structure, look at the skill sets they believe are forward looking, where they see the best skill set. But I think that is a decision really for that executive leadership team of this new entity. As the minister, as you know, I very rarely would get involved in day-to-day operations. I have always avoided that, because that is for the executive. As minister, it is more to set the policy framework and the legislation, and that is what we are doing today.

Melina BATH: How many authorised officers will ORV have on commencement, and will their deployment be reported publicly?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, all the staff will transfer across, I think. Yes.

Melina BATH: An unidentified number of them will all transfer across. I take it that you are not going to be forthcoming in the number, or could you take that on notice? Will their deployment be reported publicly? How will people understand where they are? Is that something that you can take on notice and get back to me about or is it something that you are not keen to have a conversation about?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take that on notice. I think, Ms Bath, we are really getting into more the organisational detail, and some of those questions will be for the future leadership. I think all the existing staff are transferred across. Once the entity is set up, they will look at what they see as the future more broadly in terms of the structure they want to operate under, but initially it is just consolidation – the two entities, all the staff and all the functions to be transferred.

Melina BATH: Minister, let us move to the GMA. The current GMA contains specific advisory functions around game management, pest control and declaring public land open or closed to game hunting and seasons and bag limits. That is part of the role of the GMA. The bill appears to deal with advice in a broader and more generic way. What assurance can you give that the bill will retain this specific game management advisory capability – that intel that it draws now? Because clearly it is really important for hunters to have confidence and for Victorians to have confidence in relation to the functions of the GMA coming over.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I have almost the same answer as to your previous question: all the staff and skills and expertise are being transferred across, so we are not expecting a loss of any of that. It is my expectation that they continue to do that important work, which is so important to the public.

Melina BATH: I have been contacted by prospectors and fossickers. They have been around since – well, since I do not know – the Ballarat goldfields came into being, and they have written and said that they are quite frustrated that they were not included in the bill. Considering that in previous bills we have seen the formation of new national parks and the closure of their access to the Wombat now-national park, can you, Minister, explain how you are going to assure – because if I ask why they were not included, you will say, ‘Well, it’s just the merging of those two bodies’ – people like the prospectors and fossickers that they are not an afterthought now and that they are still a focal part of government embodying the importance of outdoor recreation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think just going back to the earlier principles, we want people to be outdoors and enjoying outdoor recreational opportunities. That is why there is a promotion function. That is probably the biggest change to the entity. We want them to promote all outdoor recreation. But how that work is undertaken is for the new entity to consider, because their initial focus will be on the consolidation.

Melina BATH: Just a couple more on the prospectors and miners: again, the long-term vision for this entity is around expanding and the creation of more opportunities. But will the minister guarantee that prospectors and miners will be consulted in terms of land access and state forest and proposed changes to parks? How will Outdoor Rec Victoria prioritise the communication with stakeholders such as prospectors and fossickers?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Ms Bath, we are getting into a lot of detail about the future. Initially consolidation, and how that communication to the broader outdoor recreation community is undertaken is for the future leadership of Outdoor Recreation Victoria and their board to consider how they do their promotion activities.

Melina BATH: Minister, on page 17, on the appointment of directors, you have a very important issue, which the Liberals and Nationals endorse: knowledge of First Peoples culture, community leadership and perspective. That is about the directors, and we will talk more about the directors. I have amendments in terms of the directors there. I want to understand, in addition to that line and that particular part of the bill, that the government is including, inclusive and encouraging First Nations people to ensure that they have equal access and equal rights to fish, hunt and be part of the directorship of this new entity, that there is nothing curtailing them. Indeed will the minister assure the house that First Nations people are very integral in outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing et cetera?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I can confirm that. Once the entity is set up, that entity will definitely be seeking early engagement with Gellung Warl on the operations of outdoor recreation. It is something that I will be expressly listing in my statement of expectations.

Melina BATH: In addition to that entity, we have a lot of land corporations, we have traditional owner groups and we have reconciliation action plans. So I put it to you in that context: are you only going to speak to that entity? We have Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation in my region, and just to name a few, there is Dja Dja Wurrung. You are not limiting your conversation to that – could you confirm that?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I can confirm that.

Melina BATH: Minister, there are people in the debate here who would say that our Aboriginal Victorians, our traditional owners, are very concerned about this bill and are concerned about hunting and are concerned around a range of things in relation to this new legislation. Minister, I have an elder of the Dja Dja Wurrung; his name is Uncle Rodney Carter, and he is highly respected. Uncle Rodney is a hunter, and he is a great clay target shooter as well, I know. In our duck inquiry back a little while ago, which was tabled in 2023, in our hearings, in relation to the opportunity to hunt, he said:

I think – with the brilliant respect that the state has afforded First Nations people – that my descendants and I will enjoy hunting for all time. If the inquiry and the government can somewhat see it in their mind to afford other Victorians the opportunity – and visitors to our homelands – to be able to enjoy something similar, I think truly it can be managed.

…

I think more broadly to the importance of being a hunter – a hunter as such holding a very significant place within society, within a family, as a provider of sustenance to people.

And I have nearly finished here, Minister:

We also describe in the submission the importance for us as First Nations people – but extending that to us as humans –

he was being very humanistic about this, which was really so dignified and much appreciated –

of the need for us actually to be in landscape, to be at place, to be connected …

I thank Mr Carter for that commentary. I am just confirming that you do not see anything in this bill that will limit, that will sideline or that will remove First Nations people from being fully engaged in Outdoor Rec Vic, from hunting, from fishing or from outdoor recreation, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: No. In line with the government’s commitment to treaty, the new entity will seek early engagement with the Gellung Warl but continue engagement with traditional owners. The VFA, for example, as you will be familiar with, has already engaged with Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to seek funding opportunities to expand their partnership in Sydney rock oyster aquaculture in Gippsland. The VFA has also partnered with the First People of the Millewa-Mallee Aboriginal Corporation and the Barapa Barapa committee on wetland restoration through the stocking of indigenous fish species. So no is the short answer, but I am saying there is already good work happening, and obviously we want to see that grow.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:31 pm.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you please identify the conservation, national parks, wildlife protection and animal welfare organisations that were formally consulted during development of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel I kind of answered that in an earlier question from Ms Bath, but I think it is an important question so I will reiterate that the bill has not gone through a public consultation process as, in the government’s view, it did not and does not impose any burden or cost on the public. It is largely an administrative entity consolidation, with some minor revision of scope. Therefore none of the conservation groups, for example, that you listed have been consulted, because there has been no public consultation.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you accept that this legislation will affect the interests of those groups and the cohorts that they represent, don’t you?

Enver ERDOGAN: I accept that the existing entities that have been consolidated affect those interests. Therefore the new entity will also.

Katherine COPSEY: I am speaking generally about people’s use of land and their access to land and, for all of us, the lands that the decision-making body, which this bill brings in, will affect and the interests that are going to be affected by its operation.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, I think we need to clarify that this is not a decision-making body. It is an advisory committee that can give advice. Ms Bath was pressing me on whether there would be consequences if government departments or ministers did not accept that advice, and there will be none. There is no punitive penalty. It is just an advisory committee. The minister of the day, ministers or departments can decide to accept that advice or they can decide to not even respond if that is what they think is an appropriate response. Therefore it does not affect anyone’s rights. It is more about providing advice around access and for people that enjoy outdoor recreation.

Katherine COPSEY: I have got a quibble. The new authority is going to be operating based on directions provided, and the advice of the Land Access Panel is going to affect the rights, as you just said, of people to access land. It could affect, for example, the extent of the shooting season, which is going to affect people’s ability to be on wetlands in public lands in Victoria. It seems a bit disingenuous to say that that is not an interest that is going to be affected.

Enver ERDOGAN: I just want to reiterate that it is not a decision-making body. Of course that advice does have the potential to influence decision-makers, but in itself it will not be making decisions. Like all decision-makers, the land managers in particular, they will need to balance out the existing biodiversity, conservation and other environmental values that they place on land. That already happens, to be honest, at the moment, but this just provides a more streamlined panel to give that advice to the minister or to government departments as needed.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, the second-reading speech on this bill specifically records support from recreational fishing and shooting organisations. Why does it not identify any conservation or wildlife organisation that supported the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can address that. I understand that through the consolidation of the VFA and GMA, they had some targeted engagement with their stakeholders, but the government did not undertake any sort of public consultation. They would have been the existing direct stakeholders of the VFA and GMA that would have been informed about the government’s decision to consolidate these entities post Silver review. Therefore there was no broad public consultation. It was only because of the VFA and GMA, that they engaged with the existing stakeholders to let them know that this is happening.

Katherine COPSEY: A number of key stakeholders have said that they have sought to provide feedback through your office on this bill, but the requests to your office were not accepted with what I would say is a platitude that this bill is machinery of government and therefore stakeholder consultation was not required. Do you dispute that account?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is difficult for me to, obviously, comment on. I would say that the bill itself was drafted by the previous minister’s office, and I can only comment on my office. But since taking the bill, the bill had already been introduced in Parliament, and it was my goal to not have a public consultation upon getting the portfolio because it is largely an administrative entity consolidation.

Katherine COPSEY: But you have shared with the chamber that some organisations were consulted in a limited fashion by the GMA itself.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think they were engaged because the VFA and GMA are being consolidated into this new entity, so they had to inform the organisations that directly deal with them on this basis. I think they were obviously informed of the government’s intention, but more broadly the focus has been on the consolidation of the two entities.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, were the Victorian National Parks Association, the Wilderness Society, Wildlife Victoria, BirdLife Victoria, the RSPCA, Animals Australia or the Invasive Species Council given a draft of this bill before it was introduced?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, why were organisations representing hunting and fishing interests apparently better informed about this proposed structure than organisations responsible for protecting parks and wildlife?

Enver ERDOGAN: Like in my answer to your two previous questions, because they were directly affected by the VFA and GMA consolidation. I understand VFA and GMA informed their direct stakeholders to seek their views, but the government had decided to consolidate these entities.

Katherine COPSEY: This bill goes beyond what you are describing in consolidating these two entities. It does that, and it also sets up a new advisory panel. Is it seriously your contention that this bill will not affect the interests of the other people outside the named outdoor recreation stakeholders that you have chosen to engage with? Is it seriously your contention that no-one else will be affected by this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, that is not my contention, because those stakeholders, some of which you have named, are already affected by the GMA and VFA. Therefore they are affected in a similar way to how the existing entities affect them. I say that they will not be greatly affected in a much different way than what they are already, so it is mainly the status quo, just a consolidation.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you have not answered my question in relation to the establishment of the Land Access Panel and its effect on people’s access to land in Victoria.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, the Land Access Panel is an advisory panel. It is not a decision-maker. It will provide advice, and it will be up to the minister to either accept or reject that advice. It does not even provide a requirement to respond to that advice. It is not a decision-maker, and therefore, like many groups that provide advice to ministers and government, it will be no different. It will not be a decision-maker.

Katherine COPSEY: Please, then, Minister, enlighten me as to what the purpose of the Land Access Panel is.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the purpose is that the make-up of the panel will be important to alert the minister of the day or other agencies and land managers of some of the challenges with access to outdoor recreation. I think there was an example I provided earlier about the potential for roads that are not necessarily appropriate or where people have put up fences where they should not have, so genuine issues with access to land. It is to highlight them to the government of the day. But again, they are not a decision-maker, and the decision will be left to government or the relevant land manager to make, balancing all the other considerations.

Katherine COPSEY: So, Minister, just to reiterate, you are aware that the GMA has undertaken limited consultation with bodies that it commonly deals with – namely, shooting interests – but you have deliberately not engaged with the wider group of conservation, recreation, wildlife protection or animal protection bodies because you view them as being unaffected by this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: We view that this bill does not impose any additional burden or cost on the public broadly and is largely administrative, and therefore there has been no public consultation by the previous minister’s office in the development of the bill or since the introduction on 2 April.

Katherine COPSEY: It is fairly astounding. Minister, do you believe or does your government believe that traditional owners have a deep and unique relationship with country?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. That is why we support treaty.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, why is that deep and unique relationship with country not reflected in the principles of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, you would understand that engagement of traditional owners is not limited to a single provision in legislation. I would say it is a whole-of-government effort, and the expectations of the new entity Outdoor Recreation Victoria to engage with First Peoples and traditional owners in a cultural, respectful and inclusive way that supports treaty and self-determination were highlighted in the second-reading speech. It is an expectation that the new entity does that work, and earlier I gave good examples of how the VFA already does that engagement, for example, and that engagement obviously is carried on to the new entity. But there was not broader public consultation because it is mainly a consolidation of the existing entities at this point.

Katherine COPSEY: So just to confirm, no consultation was undertaken with traditional owner groups during the drafting of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, was the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations contacted or engaged at all before the bill was introduced?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm no, in relation to the bill. I can answer that there has been targeted consultation from the department about establishing the board of the new organisation, but not on the bill.

Katherine COPSEY: By that you mean the board of this new authority we are presuming will –

Enver ERDOGAN: If it passes, that is right, but not the legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, it is my understanding that the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations wrote to you on 11 June 2026 seeking to share their feedback and engage with you on this bill. Have you responded to their letter?

Enver ERDOGAN: I do get a large volume of correspondence. I will just check with the team.

Being from 11 June, I understand that we have received and we are considering that letter. You can understand that was only a few days ago, but of course I will be responding.

Katherine COPSEY: So you are bringing the bill through the house but not accommodating any of the feedback that has been given to you by the Federation of Traditional Owner Corporations, and you have not responded to their letter.

Enver ERDOGAN: We will be making clear in my ministerial expectations that the new entity will engage with traditional owners and First Peoples. That will be my expectation if this legislation passes today, and that letter will be informing that ministerial expectation development, if this legislation is to pass.

Katherine COPSEY: So trust you – great. Minister, why are traditional owners not involved in decision-making processes for their country? Or, sorry, using your framing, why are traditional owners not involved in advisory processes for their country or considered a relevant group under the bill’s principle of equity?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, it is the intention to have a representative on the Land Access Panel, but that is not enshrined in legislation. It will be a decision for the minister of the day. But it is my intention.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, does the government recognise that traditional owner communities have an ongoing role in the management of Victoria’s natural resources?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: So why is this not made explicit in the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, they are not excluded, but because the bill is largely an administrative consolidation of the existing entities, they are not in the drafting but they are not excluded from it. There is obviously going to be an expectation that the new entity will do that engagement work.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, was the First Peoples’ Assembly given an opportunity to comment on the bill before it reached the Council?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, clause 8 of this bill requires what is called ORV in the bill to work with land, waterway and coastal managers and public sector bodies. Why are traditional owner corporations not expressly included in this section?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, there is no basis for exclusion, and it is my expectation that they are consulted.

Katherine COPSEY: So how will that expectation be made clear to this new body? If it is not enshrined in the legislation, what undertaking are you prepared to give in order to make sure that that body is aware of your ongoing intention that they be consulted under clause 8?

Enver ERDOGAN: In line with the government’s commitment to treaty, we will expect that there will be early engagement with the Gellung Warl in relation to the new entity, and I will be putting those expectations in writing via a minister’s expectations letter.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I will start with one that probably will not be a surprise to you. I did seek a response to this in the briefing, and it just was not adequate. As you would be aware, an independent inquiry into the Game Management Authority found that the GMA ‘slides into, advocacy and promotional rules that conflict with its responsibilities’. As a regulator, how does the government reconcile legislating the conflict of interest the same government under a different Premier attempted to stamp out?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Purcell for her question, a really good question all about good governance and structures in organisations. Of course when you consolidate entities and where there are both promotion and regulation functions, there is always a risk of conflict, just as there is when there is commercial benefit or otherwise. I think we see that there are very good examples across government where entities can do this work. WorkSafe Victoria is a good example: they provide safety at work, but they also regulate and prosecute wrongdoing. The VFA already have these powers. It is my expectation that they will have workstreams where they separate the regulatory and promotional work. Obviously it is a matter for the organisation to have those structures in place, but it will be made crystal clear when the organisation is up and running that they can separate these duties. I think the VFA is a good example, one of the entities that is being consolidated here, that that work can be done.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you mentioned the VFA as a good model for this. Since the government cut almost 50 per cent of fisheries officers, noncompliance has gone up significantly. Meanwhile the VFA was in here yesterday undertaking promotional activities. Can you please explain in more detail how they are good at this when noncompliance is up and money is being spent on promotion?

Enver ERDOGAN: I reject the premise of the question. But I think, like I said, WorkSafe is another example. WorkSafe does a good job – a difficult job, I might add – of promoting workplace safety and then also regulating the workplaces that do the wrong thing. So I think it can be done. There are many other examples. The VFA was one that I pointed to, and the VFA do that work. They do a great job of promoting fishing – and we know record numbers are fishing – and they also regulate fishing. So it can be done. It is about having the appropriate workstreams and internal structures in place. Many organisations can do it successfully, and I am confident that the new entity, Outdoor Recreation Victoria, will be able to do that.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you rejected the premise of my question. I have an FOI from the VFA that indicates noncompliance has nearly tripled since the recent restructure took effect. Currently almost 30 per cent of inspections conducted by the remaining fisheries officers identify breaches of fisheries regulations. I would have been happy to share this with you – of course you did not engage with me on this bill – so I put that question to you again.

Enver ERDOGAN: And I will answer it again – that is, that these structures can be put in place to make sure there are different workstreams so that the regulatory side of the business or the business unit, so to speak, is separate from the regulatory arm. These are quite common in a lot of corporations that do a lot of work, as well as in public entities, so there is no reason why this new entity cannot embed that into their practices.

Georgie PURCELL: I am not meaning to be tedious; I just feel the question was not answered. The VFA was used as a model, a gold standard, of how promotion and regulation are done right together. But how can you say that when noncompliance has gone down at the VFA and money is being spent on promotion instead?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is what you are alleging, Ms Purcell, but I think in the end, for compliance, there are a number of reasons why people’s behaviour could change. But ultimately they are an agency that is able to do both promotion and regulation together, and they do that broadly well.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, we hashed out the Pegasus report a little bit in question time, and I would hope that you have read that report since then, because it was clear that perhaps that context and history was not known, just like it was not for many members in this place because they were not here at the time. Of course that found that hunting noncompliance was commonplace and widespread and that GMA officers were turning a blind eye to breaches of hunting laws while penalising rescuers. Up until recently the GMA probably could have said they stamped that out, alongside the government, but of course in March this year a GMA officer was recorded speaking at a field and game meeting telling breachers how to flout hunting laws and how to take children on the wetlands around firearms, which is of course incredibly unsafe and not recommended, and stating that they specifically use laws to target rescuers, despite the fact that the government and the GMA have consistently denied that claim. Have you asked the GMA about this? Have you launched an investigation? Did you speak to them about these allegations?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm my office of course asked the authority about incidents such as this. Nonetheless I think, and you reference the Pegasus report, this is a report that is quite dated now. It was a different time, when there were much fewer authorised officers in the workforce. Since that time the GMA has grown substantially, and I do not think it is fair to point to one action of one officer and tarnish a whole organisation. I think overwhelmingly since the Pegasus report the GMA’s education and testing and regulatory reform, such as mandating the collection of all harvested birds, is a lot better than it was in 2017. That is a long time ago – almost a decade ago to now – and it has grown substantially. ORV is actually another opportunity – this consolidation – where the best practices from both entities will be able to be combined, and they can learn off each other.

Georgie PURCELL: It makes me incredibly fearful because I am not sure there are any good practices in the GMA to learn from. But my question was not if you speak to the GMA about these instances. Did you speak to the GMA about this instance, not from the date of the Pegasus report but from March this year?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that my office has spoken to the GMA about this incident.

Georgie PURCELL: Did you?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: They are very serious allegations. Why is that the case?

Enver ERDOGAN: Because my office, being my representative, had spoken to them.

Georgie PURCELL: Did they launch an investigation? Is the GMA having an investigation? Is there any action being undertaken in light of this recording?

Enver ERDOGAN: I need to be very careful about getting into individual incidents. There are a whole range of privacy and employment laws in place, so I do not think it is appropriate to comment on an individual incident of what may or may not have occurred. I have already said it in the chamber before – I watched the recording, and I think I expressed my view in this chamber before – but I am not going to be in this place commenting about individual employees of an organisation. I think that is for the organisation to do. I have confirmed with you that my representative, as my office, have spoken to the GMA about this issue, but I do not think it is right or really in the scope to go into individual incidents.

Georgie PURCELL: To be clear, Minister, I am not talking about individual employees. In fact it would not be my request that this person loses her job because of a cultural issue, which is exactly why I have not spoken about the individual, even though I know who it is. I am asking if there has been any discussion about the culture at the GMA, because this recording, while it is from one individual employee, when you stack it up against the behaviour of the broader compliance team, along with this recording – is there going to be an investigation into the culture of the GMA, which the government has already had to have an investigation into before, before you give them even more powers and discretion under this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill’s focus is on consolidating the GMA and VFA into a new entity. The structure and the culture of that new entity – it will be upon the new executive leadership there and the board to set those expectations. I think there is an opportunity with this new entity to consolidate and always look for continual improvement across the board, but that will be up to the new executive leadership.

Georgie PURCELL: I will go back to those questions in a moment, but since you brought up the board, why has the government not, despite putting a range of roles for board expertise, included knowledge or experience in animal welfare? It is existing criteria on the GMA board. There have previously been vets on the GMA board. I was informed that it is potentially something that could be explored in committee, so my question is: why, and will the government guarantee a member of the board with knowledge or experience in animal welfare to avoid circumstances just like this one?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I think the goal with the new board and its composition is to be looking at a skills-based board because it is a governance board, not an experts-based board. We are going to have a skills matrix, and an example for a lot of regulators is having someone with a legal background because a lot of the work will be enforcement. We are not looking for subject matter experts but at more of a governance board.

Georgie PURCELL: You have said you are not looking for subject matter experts, but the bill has subject matter experts in it. It has outdoor recreation, it has aquaculture; it just does not have animal welfare. Why, and will you commit to changing that? That is something you can commit to right now.

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated earlier, there will be a skills-based board with sector experience, but we are not ruling anyone out. So if there are people that are good that will add to the board, then of course we will consider them, but we are not going to be making any commitments about who else should be on the board.

Georgie PURCELL: You have made commitments on other expertise areas. This is not just a legal and governance board. You have legislated the other areas of expertise. Why are not you putting in animal welfare?

Enver ERDOGAN: We have included sectors that are directly relevant to the skills mix, but ultimately we will not be making any other commitments about the board’s composition.

Georgie PURCELL: Animal welfare and veterinary expertise is absolutely a sector. It is an existing skill on the GMA board. It was an important change following Pegasus. I just want to be abundantly clear that despite this new body being responsible for breaches of hunting laws, which is an animal welfare issue, and doing things to reduce wounding, which is a massive problem in duck shooting, you will be refusing to guarantee an animal welfare expert on the board and will have only people that have an interest in the recreations and the industries that it will cover.

Enver ERDOGAN: We will not be making any commitments in relation to the board.

Georgie PURCELL: Well, Minister, I do find that incredibly disappointing, because despite my proactive engagement with your office – I was told this was something that could be spoken to in committee and perhaps the government could commit to, but that is obviously not the case. If you are refusing to guarantee animal welfare on the board, who will be taking on the GMA’s current animal welfare work, such as wounding reduction?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is expected with the consolidation that all that work carries over and that expertise carries over to the new entity. Therefore, if the GMA is undertaking that work now, the new agency should be continuing that work.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you are saying you are carrying over the expertise, but you are literally refusing to guarantee that expertise. Who will be undertaking the wounding reduction work at ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we are getting into specifics about the organisation. I think it will be a matter for the organisation, once it is established, to make sure that it carries on that work.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, just before, in the previous line of questioning, you did undertake that there would be First Nations representation on the board.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. There will be a First Nations representative on the board. I think it is essential for the board, but it is not my intention to make any other commitments.

Katherine COPSEY: Are you just making up on the spot who you feel should be guaranteed access on the board? Because it sounds like you have changed your mind from what you have been discussing with Ms Purcell in the last – I do not know – 48 hours.

Enver ERDOGAN: In terms of the board, there will be a First Nations representative on the board, but it is not my intention to add any others.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to go back to my questions before in relation to some of the allegations about the GMA that were recent. It was incredibly concerning to hear someone who is responsible for regulation and compliance admit that they are using laws that are apparently for the public to target one individual group of people. Does the government concede that the duck shooting public safety laws during the season at wetlands are used on rescuers only?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: Has any other person ever been charged under these public safety laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: Let me just go to the box and ask.

I do not have that information at hand. Nonetheless, I believe it is outside the scope of the bill.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, it is absolutely not outside the scope of the bill. These are laws that the GMA use and that ORV compliance officers will be using. I am just trying to gather some more information, because in that recording he admits that for anyone else who is not a duck rescuer, they will simply ask them to leave, while duck rescuers receive enormous fines and sometimes a court appearance for these laws that are not being applied to other people. I just want to make that abundantly clear. But I will move on from that.

I do have some questions. I tried to get this information from your office; I did not get it. Going back to the compliance summaries for the last duck seasons, we have heard the GMA recently say that 92 per cent of compliance efforts are on duck rescuers when the claim is put to them that they are focusing on duck rescuers. But if I look at their compliance statistics, they include game and firearm licences checked and hunter bags checked. Together there are over 3000 apparent compliance actions and then 600 wetland and waterway patrols. But if we go further down this table, there is banning notices issued, which are four; infringement notices issued, which is 31; briefs or investigations to be conducted, which is 12; in-field game licence suspension notice issues is 17; and official warnings is five. Can you please provide a breakdown of the individuals that these were for in the sense of: were they compliance actions towards duck rescuers or duck shooters?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, this is more of a PAEC question about the performance of an entity. I think the focus here is on the consolidation of the entities. So no, I cannot provide that.

Georgie PURCELL: Are you able to take it on notice and supply it to my office? You have the ability as the minister to ask the GMA for it. I am asking for that breakdown of data for banning notices, infringement notices to be issued, briefs or investigations to be conducted, in-field game licence suspension notices issued and official warnings every year from 2024 onwards, which was the season from when the government did not ban duck shooting, and whether or not those compliance actions were applied to duck rescuers or duck shooters, because those are the meaningful compliance efforts.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Purcell, and I understand her passion in relation to this matter. I will take that one on notice and see what level of information they have. I am not sure if they categorise by shooter and protester, but whatever information there is in relation to the fines issued, I think let us try. My office can seek a breakdown from the GMA, and I am happy to forward that to you.

Georgie PURCELL: If the GMA do tell you that they cannot categorise it by rescuer or shooter, I am more than happy to receive what those specific compliance actions were, because it will be very easy to tell on that data. I am just confirming that is something you will commit to getting to me on notice.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. I am committing to seeking that information from GMA and forwarding that to you. I am not sure what will be included in that information, but I will seek it. I have got it all in Hansard what you have asked for, so I will ask for that.

Georgie PURCELL: I am not meaning to be pedantic. This is very meaningful to my community. I am not asking for a commitment that you will seek to do it. You are the minister. Will you commit to getting it?

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you take me through the logic that has informed the list of outdoor recreation activities? Why, for example, does the bill expressly list hunting and four-wheel driving but omits picnicking, birdwatching, wildlife observation, photography, swimming and quiet enjoyment of nature?

Enver ERDOGAN: In the initial consolidation of the entities there was a focus on, I guess, those parts of outdoor recreation that were a direct overlap or directly already governed by the two entities, so to speak, or regulated by the two entities. That was the focus. But the list, I need to make very clear, is not an exhaustive list. It is envisaged that following the consolidation the new outdoor rec entity will look at other opportunities to promote or engage other parts of outdoor recreation. That is why it is not an exhaustive list. It is just some that are closest to the existing two organisations, two authorities, that are being merged or consolidated. But it is not an exhaustive list. It is intended to be more inclusive and that all parts of outdoor recreation can be included.

Katherine COPSEY: So how did four-wheel driving make it on there?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand it is considered a similar stakeholder to the existing stakeholders that are, I guess, overseen by the VFA and GMA.

Katherine COPSEY: Can you explain to me how the GMA currently regulates four-wheel driving?

Enver ERDOGAN: They do not have direct regulation over four-wheel driving, but a lot of people that are involved in the four-wheel driving fraternity do have an overlap with the VFA and GMA community.

Katherine COPSEY: So once again, this is a special interest group that you have decided to include in this legislation at the expense of other groups.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take that as a comment.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Minister, but I do not want you to take it as a comment. I want you to justify how you have come to choose particular users that are not associated with the core functions of the regulators that you are consolidating and consulted with and included access advisory arrangements for those groups of people.

Enver ERDOGAN: I have been advised in the drafting, and I again point to my previous answer. With a lot of the four-wheel driving community and camping community there is a quite significant overlap with the community that is regulated by the GMA and VFA. There is a direct link in terms of the same communities of interest, and we do find with people that are involved in fishing that many of them do also camp, for example. There is a significant overlap. But the list is not exhaustive, so it is not about any special interest group; it is a starting point for the new entity, because it is a merger and a consolidation. There is a minor revision of scope, but the long-term goal is to see other activities that are outside the scope of the VFA and GMA be introduced and phased in in a considered manner.

Katherine COPSEY: As someone who really enjoys camping, I can tell you those two circles do not overlap completely. Your assertion that people who enjoy camping are going to have the same interests as people who want to lock up wetlands and public land for shooting is nonsense. And you can take that as a comment.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, just going back to the recent allegations on the GMA, we saw that this agency was posting images of individual people with their court outcomes and the towns they live in, with their faces slightly blurred, but they were identifiable. The comments turned into death threats and harassment and were not moderated until the GMA received a media inquiry. What will you do to ensure that this culture of doxxing rescuers and volunteers does not live into ORV, particularly when this was posted on a government Facebook page?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think many government agencies and even members of Parliament have a responsibility to monitor our social media pages and make sure that anything that is inappropriate – especially anything threatening, racist, sexually violent et cetera – is just completely not on. Every agency, irrespective of whichever government agency, and even members of Parliament have a responsibility to monitor our social media and make sure there are processes in place so that kind behaviour is not tolerated, whether that be reporting to the appropriate agency, depending on how serious the allegation or the comments are, or whether just in terms of monitoring, blocking and hiding those individuals from, for example, Facebook. We would expect every agency to have that, because we know that we live in a digital age, and a lot of it is online. That behaviour is unacceptable. All agencies should be monitoring their social media pages to make sure that the comments are appropriate.

Georgie PURCELL: The problem is not moderating comments; the problem is the posting by the agency themselves in the first place. As you would have heard me speak about, they have never posted a photo of any shooter, hunter or spotlighter in their history. I went back and looked, but even in the last few months alone they have posted three images of duck rescuers, who are volunteers, again, that are identifiable with images of them and the towns that they live in. My question was not around moderating posts that should not go up in the first place. My question was: what will you do to ensure this completely inappropriate behaviour does not live on in ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: Without getting into specifics of that individual incident, because from what I am informed – I have asked about it – the person’s details were revealed via a court process, and we know the independence of our judiciary.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think we are getting a little outside the scope of the bill.

Georgie PURCELL: This is not outside the scope of the bill because the abilities and the powers that these officers have are part of the subordinate legislation that is being amended under this. Being released from a court process is one thing, designing a graphic and actively posting it is another. That is a choice, Minister. Do you have a different response to my question? I am not complaining about court processes or documents being released. I am talking about a government agency proactively posting about individual people, and it was them who revealed the towns that they live in. It was their decision to put that out there. They did not have to take it from the court process. Will you ensure this does not happen at ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I think this individual incident and a social media post are outside the scope of the bill. The bill is about consolidation of entities. It is not here to litigate every single social media post by an entity.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I find that response really disappointing. It is not one individual post. I said there have been multiple. Again, the powers that these officers have exist in the laws that are being debated right now. I will not keep going on about it, but to not unequivocally condemn that behaviour from a government agency is pretty disappointing. I know those individuals. Their safety is at risk, and they feel fearful. The government should be concerned about that. Regardless, I will move on to another rescuer. There is an individual rescuer who after the GMA took her to court appealed her charges and was successful, with the magistrate noting that the GMA had a very specific fixation on ensuring that she was taken through a legal process and ruling in her favour. The GMA owes this individual $30,000. This was years ago. They still have not paid it. Will the GMA pay back this money to this rescuer before it is abolished as an agency?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, I believe this is outside the scope. You are talking about a court decision and its enforcement. I think they are a matter for the courts.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, it is definitely not outside the scope of the bill. This legislation right here in front of us abolishes an agency that owes an individual person money. My question is: will the GMA pay that money back? I am happy for you to take it on notice. I would like to note again I did try to communicate with your office on my questions so this could be prepared.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, at a high level, all the liabilities of the existing entities are being consolidated across to the new entity. If there are liabilities of the GMA or VFA, it is my expectation those liabilities are carried over.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, this might be another one that you need to take on notice, if you can commit to that. My question is: how much money did the GMA spend since the decision to continue duck shooting in Victoria on taking compliance efforts through the courts to ensure the strongest possible penalties were laid on individual people?

Enver ERDOGAN: Just to clarify, Ms Purcell, are you wanting to know how much the GMA spent on litigation in relation to these matters? I do not have that information at hand, and I am not – one moment.

Ms Purcell, there are annual reports, and the annual reports contain what entities spend their resources on. I would point you to those existing reporting frameworks.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am very familiar with the GMA annual report. I would not be asking you this question if it was something that was in there. I am just asking if it can be taken on notice. Again, I am really concerned about the behaviour of the GMA. Here, right now in 2026, the government themselves admitted the regulator needed to improve when they did not ban duck shooting. We have got these new allegations that have come to light. I think at the very least, as a minister, you could commit to finding this out before we move into a new agency with the same people. I said I am happy for you to take it on notice.

Enver ERDOGAN: I am happy to take it on notice, noting, though, I do believe this is very operational. They do have reports, and I still feel like it is a question for PAEC. Nonetheless I hope to take that on notice. Going forward of course this entity will not be existing. Yes, all of the staff will transfer across, but there will be a consolidation happening where they will be merging with the VFA into this new outdoor recreation entity.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, we have seen a concerning trend since 2024 where the GMA is not only using public safety laws but actually using laws that are designed to penalise shooters to target rescuers instead. Some examples of this have been when a rescuer is licensed and therefore cannot be charged under public safety laws and they have decided to charge them for carrying a net on the wetland to capture wounded birds, and the charge is hunting with a prohibited weapon. Of course this is a bit of a stretch when they are literally retrieving birds that have illegally been left to die by shooters, which is also an offence, and yet the rescuer is targeted. Are you going to ensure that the misuse of laws like this is not going to be carried over into ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is the expectation that all agencies carry out their duties within the bounds of the law and the regulations that are set in place for them, and of course that is my expectation of the new entity.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, my question was: will you ensure it? There are a number of rescuers who have been charged with this offence while trying to retrieve wounded birds. As I said, the charge is hunting with a prohibited weapon. Because they are not hunting with a gun and instead they are trying to save a wounded bird, will you commit to telling ORV not to misuse these laws that are actually designed for shooters?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, you are asking me to interfere in enforcement activities of an agency, and that is not my intention. I am not going to interfere in individual cases.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am not asking you to interfere in individual cases. There are many, many rescuers. I am not asking you to interfere in the existing cases. I am asking you to ensure that this does not happen. It has been happening every year, year on year, since 2024.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I just want to draw the chamber’s attention to standing order 15.06, ‘Rules of debate in Committee of the whole’. I do think the minister at the table has tried to really assist in answering questions. But I would just draw the chamber’s attention to paragraph (1) of 15.06 that says:

Debate on clause 1 of a bill will be limited to the purposes of the bill …

But then:

Debate will be strictly relevant to any other clause, schedule, preamble …

et cetera. I just think not only some of the questions that are being asked have been asked and answered, but the line of questioning is sort of straying outside the purposes of the bill, and I would ask Ms Purcell to come back to that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks. Ms Terpstra. We did have an agreement at the beginning that all questions could be asked on clause 1. By agreement that sort of overrules the standing order. But I do remind Ms Purcell that questions should pertain to the bill and not stray outside the scope. It is only fair on the minister. He is briefed on this bill, not on everything else.

Georgie PURCELL: Could I speak on that for one moment. I am genuinely not trying to be difficult here, but I am speaking to the enforcement powers of the GMA under the Wildlife Act 1975, which is very specifically part of this legislation. The Wildlife Act is being amended under this legislation, and I think I have a right to ask this question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not talking about your current line of questioning, but there has been some questioning that has been a little bit outside the scope. It is only fair on the minister to keep it to the bill, but your current line is fine.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, just in answering – I think you have asked and I have answered it – I am not going to go into individual incidents. If people have complaints about the performance of any agency, including the GMA or VFA or any other agency, there are appropriate complaint mechanisms. There is the ombudsman, there is IBAC that governs agencies about their behaviour. So if you believe an agency is not acting within its remit, I would recommend you make those complaints through the appropriate agencies. As minister, I will not be interfering in individual cases. You are giving me a very specific instance where you believe that the law was not followed. If that is the case, I would say refer to the appropriate agency. There are oversight bodies that do this work.

Georgie PURCELL: Deputy President, I feel that the line of questioning is feeling tedious and strange because the minister is not actually listening to what I am asking. I am not asking you to interfere on individual cases; I have said that twice now. I am asking in the future with ORV if you will ensure that the officers are not misusing laws that are designed to penalise shooters on rescuers instead, so they get higher charges. That is not individual cases going through the courts. That is a commitment to the future under this new agency that we keep being told will be bolstering compliance and regulation.

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel this has been asked and answered, Deputy President.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, could you please speak in more detail? I touched on this before about what will be done in relation to wounding under ORV, which was a clear commitment and direction with the GMA and their wounding reduction action plan.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, you are asking really detailed operational questions that will be for the new leadership of this entity. But what I will say is that strong animal welfare protections will continue to exist through existing laws, regulatory functions and especially plans relating to sustainable and humane practices and evidence-based principle at the highest level. But the actual operations day to day, how that will be conducted will be up to the executive leadership team, when that entity is created, to formulate. Like any executive leadership team, they run the organisation. Obviously it is my expectation that they do that as efficiently and effectively as possible, but I am not going to be dictating to them how to do their job.

Georgie PURCELL: That is a bit of a surprise to me. I will go back to something I did not think I would have to ask: will there still be wounding reduction work being done under this new body?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I understand, they will continue to do enforcement under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It relates to game hunting under delegation from DEECA.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am not asking about enforcement. I am asking about wounding reduction. Wounding is not an animal cruelty offence unless the bird is left. Wounding reduction was a commitment the government made when they did not ban duck shooting. There was a clear commitment to addressing it. I am asking if that work will continue.

Enver ERDOGAN: It is an operational matter. Of course it was a government commitment at the time, and there were extra resources provided to the entity which will be consolidated now. It is my expectation that that work continues.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, why is there no function to develop operational plans to conserve wildlife habitat, which was a function previously also of the GMA?

Enver ERDOGAN: The new entity will have the ability to develop operational plans as it feels they are needed, including in relation to wildlife.

Georgie PURCELL: But why was it not chosen as a function to be legislated? I understand they have the ability to, but why was it not legislated?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, as it was a consolidation, I guess it remained relatively the same as the existing practice.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just want to go back to the animal welfare actions you touched on before. What will they be? I keep being told that they will have that function and that ability and that it is an operational manager. We went through this earlier, and I am aware of being tedious, which some people are accusing me of, but this is a really important part of an agency that oversees the hunting of animals. There have been very clear operational matters defined. Can you tell us what some of the animal welfare work will be?

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill provides for Outdoor Recreation Victoria to develop operational plans and procedures regarding a range of matters, including sustainable hunting of game animals, sustainable fishing and aquaculture, humane treatment of animals that are hunted or used in hunting and fishing or in connection with fishing and strategies to minimise negative impact of game hunting on non-game wildlife, including protected and threatened species. The bill provides them the ability to develop these operational plans and procedures, but I will leave that work to the agency itself once it is set up.

Georgie PURCELL: I am not going to continue on it, but it is still really not clear when other areas are really clear. I just want to go into some of the recommendations that were accepted by the government during the parliamentary inquiry into duck shooting. Could you please confirm that proficiency testing is now undertaken by duck shooters in Victoria and how this works?

Enver ERDOGAN: The answer is no. It is not in place.

Georgie PURCELL: Why?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that the GMA has undertaken a trial. Obviously there needed to be a trial first before rollout, and I understand the trial has now concluded.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, it is past the date at which the government committed to having this in place for duck shooters. Are you confirming that only a trial has been undertaken?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, why hasn’t this been prioritised when, again, this was what the government hung their hat on as a solution to not banning duck shooting?

Enver ERDOGAN: I cannot talk about the past, but what I will say is that with the new entity created, I am sure it is something that they will consider. A trial has taken place, but again, this is for the new entity to consider how it could potentially implement that.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you tell us when proficiency testing will be in place for duck shooters given that the government commitment is overdue? Of course they were previous decisions, but you are now the minister responsible for that.

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, I feel like we are getting outside the scope of the bill, asking me about government responses to parliamentary inquiries or committees. I feel this bill is about setting up the new agency. I guess proficiency testing is a matter for the new agency to consider, but from a government perspective, a trial has taken place outside this legislation in response to that inquiry.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, this is within the scope of the legislation, as I have continued to say. This bill sets out the enforcement responsibilities of the new agency, which was previously the GMA. I am asking about existing obligations or commitments of the GMA, which will become ORV. My next question is also in relation to the government response to the inquiry, and that is: the Victorian government committed, from 2025, that they will require hunters to participate in an Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness education program. This of course came about when we heard about the desecration of sacred sites during the duck-shooting season. Is that something that is in place?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will seek some guidance from the Deputy President. I feel the inquiry is outside the scope of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Clerk advises that if it does affect the enforcement powers, then it is inside the scope, but if it does not, it is outside.

Enver ERDOGAN: Could you just repeat the question, please?

Georgie PURCELL: To be clear, I am talking about the enforcement responsibilities under the Wildlife Act and other legislation of these authorised officers previously in the GMA, which will now be ORV, and what I am asking is if the government has honoured its commitment to ensuring that hunters are taking Aboriginal cultural heritage training.

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes, Ms Purcell. There is an online education module about cultural heritage.

Georgie PURCELL: I have some questions about the establishment of Outdoor Recreation Victoria. It is 18 June. This agency was meant to take effect from 1 July. That will not be happening now, and it is clear that tonight its name is going to be changed. Has the work already begun on establishing Outdoor Recreation Victoria as an agency under that name?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the DJSIR has started the planning for the consolidation of the two entities, yes.

Georgie PURCELL: What does this involve? Have they got branding, uniforms, a building? Has any money been spent on anything specifically under this name?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand there are no uniforms et cetera, but I will need to take that on notice to see if there are any other expenses that have been incurred. No uniforms have been printed or anything like that.

Georgie PURCELL: I did not just ask about uniforms; I asked about branding. Is an office building potentially being prepared to have ORV on it? This agency is meant to start in 13, 14 days. I am asking: has any taxpayer money been spent on anything that will now have to be changed with the agency’s new name?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am sure money has been spent in planning for the consolidation. Whether that is in relation to the name or otherwise, of course money would have been spent to do that planning. For example, at a different level, for a website or other branding, money would have been spent, as you would with any new entity. From my understanding – but I will need to take it on notice – there is no new money and nothing substantial.

Georgie PURCELL: My question is: if the name of the agency is changed in an amendment tonight, will anything that was already in train or existing need to be changed?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: I am just confirming: is that an absolute guarantee there will not be taxpayer money spent on anything to do with the name change at all?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm no additional money will be spent as a consequence of the potential name change today.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to make it clear I did listen to the responses before on consultation, so I am aware that it is been hashed out a little bit, but I do have some more. I know there was no open consultation on this bill, but there certainly was private consultation, or closed-door consultation, or else the gun lobby would not have been in here for a press conference or a media event on the day it was first read. Could you tell us why, from what it appears, there was not even informal consultation held with wildlife or environmental groups?

Enver ERDOGAN: I believe this was asked by and answered for Ms Copsey in relation to this issue. There was no public consultation as it does not impose any burden or cost on the public as a large administrative entity consolidation with minor revision of scope.

Georgie PURCELL: Before I get accused of being tedious, I actually noted there was no public consultation in my question. I am asking about the very clear, informal consultation that went on, and I really reject the claim that there is no burden or cost on the public when wildlife volunteers spend a significant amount of money on doing their volunteer work. All I am asking is why they were not even informally consulted, as was very clearly the case for shooting organisations.

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered that – because the government contends that it does not impose any burden or cost on the public and is largely administrative. The only consultation was the VFA and GMA consulting or doing specific engagement with their direct stakeholders. But from the government’s perspective, there was no public consultation because in the government’s view this is a consolidation of two entities.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you – sorry, I might be confused – clarify what you mean about no burden or cost to the public?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is the government’s view that it does not impose any new burden or cost on the public and it is largely an administrative entity consolidation with a minor revision of scope. That is what the government says.

Georgie PURCELL: I am really not trying to be difficult. I am asking what you mean by no burden or cost to the public.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, if you are able to give her any more clarification.

Enver ERDOGAN: What I am saying is, at the initial starting point this is just the amalgamation – the consolidation – of the VFA and GMA. It is carrying over the staff, carrying over the budgets of the two entities, so therefore it does not impose any new burdens or costs. So whatever exists in terms of the costs, that is being carried over. There are no additional burdens except for minor revision of scope, so we acknowledge there is some difference, but we do not believe it is large, and it was not large enough to have a public consultation process on.

Georgie PURCELL: If this is the case, then why was there some clear form of at least informal consultation – because the organisations that knew about this legislation would surely also fall under this reasoning?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that the VFA and GMA informed the directly affected parties from this consolidation and this government decision, because it was a government decision. And that is why those people were informed directly.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you please explain who these directly affected parties are?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the key industry stakeholders that the VFA and GMA informed included VRFish, SSAA – the Victorian sporting shooters association – and Field and Game. But these were undertaken by the VFA and GMA directly informing them of the government’s decision, so I would not call it a consultation. It is more informing them that the agencies that regulate them are about to change.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the Pegasus report stated that the GMA was too cosy and comfortable with hunting organisations, and this was one of the behaviours that the government attempted to stamp out. How is even informally notifying them of this change not having the same effect as that when the GMA very much should consider animal welfare organisations, especially those undertaking duck rescue, the same level of stakeholder, especially since they have such a large focus on them. I would note that they are also the same stakeholders that they speak to. You have given a list of stakeholders that are consulting on game regulations and duck shooting seasons, but the animal welfare organisations have been left off. So my question is: how is this not another example of being too close and comfortable with hunting organisations? I mean, Field and Game is literally the gun lobby.

Enver ERDOGAN: As I have stated, this was a government decision, and as the former minister has put into her second-reading speech, on the back of the Silver review into consolidation of regulators the regulators have chosen to inform some of their stakeholders. I would not call it consultation, as a government decision was already made to go down this path of consolidating regulators. They informed some of their stakeholders along that journey, but I would not describe it as consultation.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, have you met with sporting and hunting associations in the preparation of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I had an introductory meeting, yes.

Katherine COPSEY: Really, this bill did not come up in conversation in your introductory meeting?

Enver ERDOGAN: It was not a focus at all. The focus was on them introducing themselves and the gamut of their activities. The bill was not the focus. It was an introductory meeting.

Katherine COPSEY: That was not my question, Minister. I asked if it was mentioned. Did it come up in conversation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I have answered. It was not a focus. Of course I knew that this bill was before the house, but that was not the focus. The focus was about them introducing themselves. I have never had previous contact with them as a minister, so they were introducing what they do – the ranges they have, one in the west and one in the south-east. It was, to be frank, a very limited discussion.

Georgie PURCELL: Just picking up that line of questioning: I know a number of wildlife groups contacted you about this bill. Did you meet with any of those, even in an introductory meeting?

Enver ERDOGAN: I met with Wildlife Victoria, as I informed Mr McGowan today. I have met with a lot of stakeholders since getting the portfolio. It is a large portfolio. I would need to check my diary. Obviously off the cuff I cannot recall every single meeting. They will be disclosed in due course, but I do not believe I did.

Georgie PURCELL: Will ORV continue to view just a select few groups as stakeholders, as the GMA and VFA currently do?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the VFA and GMA initially will be focused on consolidation, so of course they will carry over some of the same stakeholders initially. That is the goal at the beginning. But I think noting what we are doing – there is a slight revision of scope – in the long term they will have to engage with and work with other stakeholders also.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to go back to our board position discussion. I just want to confirm with the minister that, according to him and the bill, ORV and its board could contain no person with any expertise in conservation, ecology, threatened species or protected area management. I know that they could have someone, but they also could not. You will not guarantee it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, they could, but I am not guaranteeing that they will.

Georgie PURCELL: I know you said that they could, but are you also just guaranteeing that that could not be the case as well?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, could you please explain some more reasoning behind why some board positions with expertise are legislated in this bill and why other really important ones are being left as an agency decision?

Enver ERDOGAN: I would not say it is an agency decision; I would say it is a ministerial decision. It is set up to be more of a governance board than an expert-based board. But as minister, I have said I would like to see a First Nations representative on this board, and that was a commitment I made. Ms Copsey made sure she recorded that for Hansard. But you are right, it is leaving a strong element of discretion to the minister of the day as to who they want to see on the board.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do understand that. I know the minister could commit to this position, and you have refused to do so. I am asking why some really important skill sets are being legislated and why other important ones that are on the existing boards are being left up to the agency to decide.

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand you are pointing out that the sector experience across outdoor recreation is currently provided by the bill in clause 21. So I understand, yes, sector experience, but the intention is to move away from that more broadly in the make-up of the board from subject matter expertise to a skills-based board. We want more skills-based people in terms of experts in governance than people that are subject matter experts. That is the direction we want to move in. There will be some sector experience initially, but the goal really is to move towards a governance board.

Georgie PURCELL: Why won’t you commit to putting an animal welfare representative on this board?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, this was asked and answered earlier.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I would not be asking it again if I felt it had been answered. There has not been a reasoning why, when it is on the existing board. Okay, I will rephrase my question: is animal welfare not important to ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is very important, and that is why a lot of the functions and obligations on the entities will pass on – for example, enforcing the prevention of cruelty to animals as it relates to game hunting under the delegation of DEECA. That will continue on to the new entity with other strong animal welfare protections in place, and functions will continue. The new entity will have the ability to develop operational plans around these matters and animal welfare, so therefore, yes, it is very important.

Georgie PURCELL: If it is so important, then why won’t you guarantee the role on the board?

Enver ERDOGAN: Because the board is moving towards a governance and skill-based board.

Georgie PURCELL: This is not a governance and legal expertise board only. As I have mentioned, some of the skills and knowledge are very clearly legislated. It has got aquaculture, it has got outdoor recreation, and it has got a range of things; it just does not have animal welfare. I am just asking why that is not as important as the other ones that are literally going in the legislation.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the skill composition of the board will be very important, but it is important to also provide flexibility for the minister of the day to appoint a board which aligns with their priorities.

Georgie PURCELL: So is that a confirmation that animal welfare is not a priority, as I asked?

Enver ERDOGAN: That was asked and answered. I said it is a priority, but the board make-up will be a matter for the minister to consider.

Georgie PURCELL: Goodness. Clause 25 of this bill disqualifies certain commercial fishing and aquaculture interests from board membership. Can the minister confirm that no equivalent disqualification applies to a person with a commercial interest in expanding recreational vehicle access to public land as well?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, broadly, for anyone with commercial interests there should be consideration that the conflict is much greater than for those with broader interests, because they are commercial interests by their very nature. There are other clauses in place that will prevent people with commercial interests being on the board.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, my question was: will you confirm that there will be no equivalent disqualification applied to a person with a commercial interest in expanding recreational vehicle access to public land?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, anyone with a commercial interest in the way you are describing will not necessarily be precluded from appointment, but they would obviously need to disclose that and manage those conflicts. Obviously if those conflicts cannot be managed appropriately, then they would not be able to be appointed.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you also confirm that there is no disqualification for a board member who holds a commercial kangaroo harvesting or game bird farming licence?

Enver ERDOGAN: The same applies. It would not be a disqualification, but they would need to disclose it, and if it could not be managed, they would not be appointed.

Georgie PURCELL: But why have you picked disqualification for some and disclosure for others?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, it is to maintain existing arrangements to do with commercial fisheries.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, existing arrangements with commercial fisheries – I am just trying to understand, because these licence types, kangaroo licences and game bird licences, will be issued by the same body. I am just not understanding why you would not apply the same rules as the commercial fishing industry. It is very inconsistent. Can you explain why?

Enver ERDOGAN: They are carrying over the existing arrangements of commercial fishing. For all others that have a potential conflict, they should be disclosing them. If it is not appropriate, they will not be appointed to the board. But I think the commercial fisheries one already exists, so we are just carrying it over. Like I said, it is a consolidation of the entities.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, but considering the risk of regulatory capture that has already been discussed, did the government not view it as important to expand conflicts of interest for the new body whilst it was consolidating them?

Enver ERDOGAN: I guess the default is a consolidation in place. Of course all this was considered, and that is why there is a move towards a governance board.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, say, I am a commercial kangaroo shooter, and I disclose that for a position on the ORV board. What would make that inappropriate? Can you define ‘inappropriate’? I am not totally sure what would be considered a conflict of interest when it is not legislated. What about that would ORV consider inappropriate?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical. They need to disclose their commercial interests. Of course it will be a case-by-case assessment, as it is with so many conflicts in so many entities. Whether that be in political parties or in private business, people declare conflicts all the time. That will be a decision based on the individual circumstances.

Georgie PURCELL: But, Minister, why is commercial fishing any different to commercial kangaroo shooting or commercial game bird farming?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think I have already answered this. This is a consolidation, so we are carrying that over, with minimal changes to existing arrangements.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, if it is just a consolidation of the two acts, then why did the government not transfer the restrictions on post-board service that were contained in the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016?

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel I have almost answered this. The board wants to move towards more of a governance board and skills base, and it is also to give the minister the flexibility.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I understand that, but why was that not carried over when we are consistently being told that this is a consolidation and, when it comes to commercial game fishing, that was carried over from the VFA act? I am asking why one thing was carried over from the VFA act and another thing was not.

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered. We are moving towards a governance board. Obviously some stuff was carried over, and there needs to be flexibility for the minister to be able to appoint people based on their skills.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you confirm that a board member can immediately leave the ORV board and start up a commercial fishing industry?

Enver ERDOGAN: There is nothing in the bill that prohibits that.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you explain why this was not considered important when it was part of the VFA act? Section 33 restricted former board members from engaging in conflicts of interest for two years after leaving the board.

Enver ERDOGAN: It was discontinued as part of the new skills-based focus of the board.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do not understand why a skills-based focus on the board is a reason for this. Considering there are specific skills legislated, such as aquaculture and other similar industries, how this is going to avoid conflicts of interest? You have literally written these skill sets in.

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to say that board appointments must comply with the Victorian government remuneration and appointment guidelines in place already. So there are other structures in place about what the board members should and should not do, but that has not been carried over.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am even more confused by that answer. Can you explain what someone leaving the future ORV board should and should not do?

Enver ERDOGAN: There is nothing in the bill expressly preventing someone.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, is the government concerned about the prospect of former board members getting involved in the industry with knowledge of the regulatory framework?

Enver ERDOGAN: You would know, Ms Purcell, the wild catch industry is a lot smaller than it was in the past. But no, it is not a major concern.

Georgie PURCELL: So to clarify, an individual with experience in commercial fishing can be appointed to the board of ORV and then immediately return to the industry with an in-depth understanding of enforcement functions?

Enver ERDOGAN: There is no prohibition, but if there is any wrongdoing, like anyone that is on a public board, a public agency, there is referral to the appropriate oversight bodies.

Georgie PURCELL: Okay. Minister, I note that the current CEOs of the GMA and VFA will not be transferred over to ORV. Can the government confirm whether Graeme Ford or Travis Dowling will have roles in the new body?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. It is the intention to transfer the whole team, including the executive leadership team, across to the entities, so they should both have a role.

Georgie PURCELL: So both will be going to the organisation, but a CEO will be appointed from there?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. Once the board is composed, they will be able to appoint a full-time CEO in consultation with the minister.

Georgie PURCELL: Has the minister chosen an interim CEO?

Enver ERDOGAN: There have been no appointments in relation to the new agency at this stage.

Georgie PURCELL: Sorry, Minister. I just want to confirm that that was the correct answer.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. No appointments in terms of a CEO have been made.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just want to talk about the annual report which you mentioned before. What details will be included in the ORV annual report?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, the statutory obligations in line with the Financial Management Act 1994.

Georgie PURCELL: Could you confirm if any will be included? Would you like me to go through these topics individually or all together?

Enver ERDOGAN: All together.

Georgie PURCELL: Licence breakdown, those granted and types; licence refusal, enforcement actions, reasons for enforcement actions; inspection activity and enforcement coverage; workforce data; number of authorised officers and roles; deployment advice to government.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think ORV’s annual report should include an overview of its operations, including summaries of regulatory activities, publishing information on licensing. Compliance and enforcement needs to be carefully considered to protect privacy, confidentiality and natural justice principles. It is also important to be careful not to disclose intelligence to potential offenders, including organised crime. I think breaching these requirements could give rise to legal risk, but in an annual report they should give an overview of their operations at a high level.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can you confirm that ORV’s quarterly and annual reporting obligations contain no requirement to report on the environmental or conservation outcomes of its access facilitation activities?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, all reporting will be in line with the Financial Management Act.

Georgie PURCELL: So, Minister, that is a no – that there will be no requirement to report on the environmental or conservation outcomes?

Enver ERDOGAN: The focus will be on the Financial Management Act and complying with that.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am just asking if it is a yes or a no if ORV will report on environmental or conservation outcomes when this is a bill that impacts conservation and the environment.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it has been asked and answered. There will be reporting in line with the Financial Management Act.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you could just say no. Minister, will ORV report on the proportion of compliance expenditure by outdoor recreational activities, specifically duck shooting and hunting animals, and if not, why not?

Enver ERDOGAN: It will be reporting in line with the Financial Management Act.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the GMA currently puts in their annual report compliance activities after every season. I just looked at them before to ask you a question. Are you telling me that you will not guarantee even that will go in ORV’s annual report?

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered – I said they should provide an overview of their operation, including summaries of their regulatory activity. They already provide that in their annual report, so I have already answered that before.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the government have agreed to expand the annual reporting requirements, it seems, through an opposition amendment. Why did they not view it important to also report on conservation outcomes?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am always open to more reporting and more disclosure. I think the goal is to have a summary of regulatory activities, and that is what they will be doing.

Georgie PURCELL: My question is not about an explanation of what will be in the annual report. I am asking, when it is clear that alongside the opposition you will be expanding annual reporting requirements, why you, the minister, did not view it important to also report on conservation outcomes.

Enver ERDOGAN: In relation to our proposed bill, it carries over the existing reporting from the agencies in consolidation. In relation to the amendment moved by Ms Bath, I would direct those questions to her.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Purcell, you can ask questions.

Georgie PURCELL: I have got a long time to go with the minister, so thank you, Deputy President. Minister, the bill contains significant penalties, for assaulting, obstructing and hindering, of 120 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment. This was not previously found in the Game Management Authority Act 2014, although it was in the VFA act, and it is found in both the fisheries and wildlife acts. Why has the government considered it necessary to include in this bill, especially noting that other things have not been carried over from the acts in this consolidation, as we have spoken about extensively?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think this provision was included to ensure appropriate offence provisions to address threatening or similar behaviour towards ORV authorised officers. And you are right, it was included in the VFA act, and therefore it is important that it be carried over, as we know, due to the potential interface with serious and organised crime. I think it is important that these powers be transferred across. Albeit it was only from the VFA, because of the consolidated entity, the powers will cross over to the whole of the agency.

Georgie PURCELL: But are those officers not already protected through enforcing the Fisheries Act?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, as I answered previously, it is a carryover of the powers that existed under the VFA act, so we felt it was important to transfer them across.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I understand this, but as I mentioned, this is already part of the Fisheries Act. Why was this decision to carry it over made when we have had previous discussions about why it was not necessary to carry over other important measures from the two acts? I am just asking why this one was.

Enver ERDOGAN: We take the safety of our staff very seriously, and I think it is appropriate to have tough penalties and deterrents in place to protect our staff.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, ‘hindering’ is very broad, and we hear of hindering being used by GMA officers all the time. In fact in the case that I was referring to earlier that was posted on the GMA Facebook page, one of the duck rescuers was charged with a hindering offence because he was on a canoe singing a sea shanty. I mean, it would be pretty concerning if someone now got sent to prison for that. Can you explain in more detail what hindering an officer would look like, because it is a very serious increase and a pretty broad thing?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, this has been obviously transferred across from the VFA act, but in terms of the penalties, that is up to the courts to decide what they believe is appropriate.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I understand it has been carried over from the VFA act; I was the one who said that first. My question is: what will constitute hindering? Hindering was an important offence, particularly for the fisheries officers while they regulated a commercial industry where there was the possibility of organised crime. Now this same offence will apply to the GMA officers that we have really serious concerns about and that have accused rescuers of hindering when they have even stood anywhere near them. Can you please define what hindering is – this is a really important one for me – before these same officers are given these powers and protections?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, you would be probably more familiar than I would with the case law in relation to this, and a lot of these interpretations of these terms are open for the courts. So I think I would point you to the case law.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am asking for your interpretation of the bill as the minister responsible for it, and there is no case law for this when it comes to duck shooting, because it has never applied to authorised officers before. So I am asking: can you please tell us what hindering is? If I stood near an officer, could that be hindering?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not going to speculate. Common law hindrance is in the act, and obviously there are cases about hindrance by the courts. We will make the laws, and the courts can interpret the laws.

Georgie PURCELL: Again, I want to talk about a few different examples of when authorised officers have accused duck rescuers of hindering. It has included, as I said, singing a sea shanty on a canoe, standing too close to a duck shooter, talking to someone on the phone near a duck shooter and collecting a kayak from the water too close to a duck shooter. I am just really concerned, if that is being considered hindering of a shooter, that that will be the same way that hindering an authorised officer is applied. I understand that you are saying that it will be up to them, there will be discretion and there is case law. Will you at least make a commitment that ORV officers will define, when the agency is formed, what would be considered hindering or harassing an officer on the wetlands? I mean, this is going to make duck rescuers incredibly fearful to go anywhere where enforcement activities are happening.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think you are getting into really operational matters. I think that will be up to the authorised officers to interpret and the enforcement team of the new agency to determine. In terms of the actual decision about what hindrance is, it will be for the courts, and that is based on every individual circumstance.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will ORV authorised officers exercising powers in national parks or other protected areas be required to be trained in the conservation values or threatened species of those parks?

Enver ERDOGAN: Outdoor Recreation Victoria officers will be expected to work collaboratively with other regulators, including the Office of the Conservation Regulator and Parks Victoria, on skills and training requirements on public land and waterways. It is my expectation that they do have the requisite skills to do this work, but there is no obligation.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will authorised officers of ORV now be performing the dual functions of ensuring compliance of hunting and fishing regulations? For example, will current GMA officers be doing fishing compliance and vice versa?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think initially the consolidation is the key so people continue in their existing roles. Of course long term the new leadership and executive team will probably look at the structure and the skill set that they want going forward, but initially people will be doing their existing roles.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, one of the justifications for why this merger will be good, particularly given the culture of the GMA, is that the VFA will be a good regulator for them to learn from. How will this even be possible if they are doing compliance on the same industries and not crossing over with each other?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the initial goal was to see the consolidation so people will work in their existing roles, but I think these are all decisions for the future executive leadership team about the structure they want and how they believe they can get the most out of their teams.

Georgie PURCELL: If this does happen – because it is really unclear – will current fisheries officers be given comprehensive training in hunting regulations and gun safety laws and current GMA officers trained in fishing equivalents when or if they do go into regulations of opposite industries?

Enver ERDOGAN: Initially they are just going to be continuing the existing roles that they perform.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Purcell, we are just going to have a 5-minute comfort break.

Sitting suspended 9:33 pm until 9:38 pm

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will authorised officers be recruited for and trained in the compliance functions of both, moving into the new agency?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, as I stated earlier, initially they will just be transferred over to the existing roles and consolidated. Long term the executive leadership and board of the new agency will consider what training they believe is appropriate.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, in conversations with your office when I asked about the combination of regulation and promotion, I was told that there will be really clear delineation between the two. Can you please explain to me how that is going to work in practice?

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered some of these questions earlier, but I think, as I said, I gave WorkSafe as an example. I think there will be an expectation that there are separate workstreams, the promotion work and the regulatory work. But again, how that is implemented will be for the new executive leadership team.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how exactly will ORV facilitate and support public access to public land for the purposes of outdoor recreation – if possible in, I guess, very literal terms?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that the way they carry out their work will be up to them once the entity is set up. You are asking about operational matters, about how they conduct their business. That will be up to the new leadership team.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just want to talk about the Land Access Panel. How does the government define ‘improvement of access’?

Enver ERDOGAN: Just as a starting point, ORV will not be the responsible land manager. Its role will be to work across government to raise concerns where access has been affected. For example, an improvement to an unmaintained road might be important, or finding and fixing places where people are blocked from accessing public land because of illegal gates or signs. On all these issues, how can the Land Access Panel improve access? It can raise these issues with the relevant minister or relevant agencies, because it is envisaged that there will be people that understand the outdoor recreation sector on this Land Access Panel.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am not sure that that fully answers my question. I just want to go to the government’s media release when they announced ORV. They said:

Outdoor Recreation Victoria will unlock opportunities for more Victorians to access the great outdoors …

But there is consistent evidence to show that activities, particularly duck shooting, actually lock off access to the outdoors by restricting other recreational activities. Can you please tell me how you reconcile this with the intention of opening up access to the outdoors when it shuts off access for everyone else?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal is to increase access for outdoor recreational activity. In the future it is envisaged that it will go beyond just hunting and fishing. It will include four-wheel drivers, mountain bikers and hikers alike. It is about increasing access for everyone; that is the broad overarching goal. But it does not have powers to do that. Its power, so to speak, is to provide advice, and whether agencies or ministers take that advice will be solely up to them.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am not sure that totally answered my question, but I can give more detail if it is helpful. Up to 3.5 million hectares of public land is available for duck shooting for a limited season, of which 285,000 hectares are primary hunting locations near waterways, including 75,000 hectares of state game reserves. The public safety laws that I have spoken about a number of times during this debate restrict anyone from going on these waterways during the duck shooting season before 11 am unless they are a licence holder. I am asking how outdoor recreation’s purpose, which according to the government’s media release is opening up access to the great outdoors, is compatible with the duck shooting season.

Enver ERDOGAN: Outdoor recreation is the goal, including hunting and other activities. It is a goal to get more people engaged and have great access to land as part of outdoor recreational activities, not just hunting. I do not see it as a real issue, in that they can provide advice about where they see unimproved roads, for example, or signs or gates that have blocked access – just raising it and bringing it to the attention of the appropriate bodies for them to act or not act if they choose to do so. I know the point you are trying to make, but I think this is about improving access for people participating in outdoor recreation.

Georgie PURCELL: That is exactly my point that you make. You said ‘not just hunting’, but the reality is only hunting can happen on our waterways for three months of the year before 11 am. What do you say to outdoor recreationalists such as kayakers or canoers who are locked out during the season, who will feel left behind in this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: The initial plan is obviously the consolidation of the two entities, but long term I think there will be a greater opportunity to engage in activities. We do already have a number of places for kayaking and all those other activities across the state.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I would like to ask some questions specifically in relation to the recreational pursuit that I mentioned before: kayaking. There is a well-known kayaking business that undertakes paddles in my electorate that cannot take place during the duck shooting season. It has meant that they have had to actually take their paddle to a state where duck shooting is banned. Will you be engaging with businesses and recreationalists like this within ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a matter that ORV should of course be considering. They should be looking at the potential benefits and potential costs of their decisions and balancing those, which is always a challenge with access to land, to be frank. But that is why this bill knows that for a lot of people that want to enjoy the great outdoors there can be other barriers. I think the bill gives a couple of examples, but more so about the examples I gave where roads are just not up to scratch or whether there are signs or gates that should not be there.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, most of the so-called restrictions on public land are found in legislation or regulation based on the original designation from the recently abolished Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC). Is there any other government institution tasked with contesting the government’s own legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I do not believe there is another body.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will there be any independent oversight ability on decisions relating to public land in light of VEAC being abolished?

Enver ERDOGAN: There are existing oversights. One is obviously oversight agencies, and also the public and ministers responsible for those departments. The oversight mechanisms that exist for the use of public land will continue as normal. For example, I am the Minister for Environment; I am responsible for Crown land. A lot of that is managed by DEECA or land managers. Those responsibilities will continue as normal for those agencies that are responsible for that land. I do not see any difference there.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, my question was specifically in relation to independent agencies. The government recently abolished VEAC. Are there any other independent agencies?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that was asked and answered. I said I do not believe there is. I think I answered that.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the bill specifies two examples of the panel’s function, recommending improvements to access and reporting on proposed or existing restrictions to access. Can the minister confirm the panel has no function to recommend that a restriction be maintained or strengthened for conservation reasons?

Enver ERDOGAN: What I can confirm is that the scope of the Land Access Panel’s functions may be further specified in the terms of reference. The bill does provide for the panel to provide advice to the minister, including by reporting on existing restrictions on access to public land. Given this, I would say there is nothing to stop the panel from advising the restrictions should be maintained due to other land management objectives, including conservation and cultural heritage objectives. Therefore the Land Access Panel may include representation from public land managers, which could provide a platform for public access recommendations that balance recreational access aspirations alongside other values. So they could consider those other values, such as conservation and biodiversity, if they wish to do so.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, why has the government seen fit to enshrine a body in legislation in order to challenge land management designations also found in legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I think you are misconstruing what the panel is. The panel makes recommendations around access to land. It does not have any powers conferred on it like other agencies.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, Outdoor Recreation Victoria will perform functions conferred by other acts, largely the Wildlife Act and Fisheries Act, but also the National Parks Act 1975 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Despite this, the objects in clause 7 contain no reference to environmental protection or biodiversity. Can the minister confirm that when Outdoor Recreation Victoria exercises functions under these other acts it is not required to have regard to any conservation objective whatsoever?

Enver ERDOGAN: Outdoor Recreation Victoria must comply with legislative and regulatory frameworks that apply to its activities and cannot undertake actions that contravene this framework. Therefore the objectives are required to support sustainability and responsibility in game hunting, recreational fishing and boating, and commercial fishing and aquaculture. Additionally, its objective to optimise the social, cultural and economic benefits of outdoor recreation must be exercised in a sustainable manner. Therefore I would say that it must comply with legislative and regulatory frameworks that apply.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the panel’s advice is required to be provided to six land management ministers, including the minister administering the National Parks Act. Can the minister confirm that there is no requirement for any environmental assessment of the panel’s recommendations before they are distributed?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think at the starting point. Again I go back: the government is not bound by the advice of this panel. It is only an advisory panel, and I think it is intended that environmental and cultural heritage considerations will be considered as part of the advice that the land access panel provides to the minister. They should be looking at those issues. But ultimately, whatever advice they come up with, it is still up to the government of the day and the minister whether they seek to implement it or not.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the only requirement to be a member of the panel is for the minister to have confidence that the member has knowledge or experience relevant to the panel’s function. Since the panel’s function is recommending access improvements, can the minister confirm that a panel composed entirely of recreational access industry representatives would satisfy?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, it is not the intention, but it could.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, what is the intention then? We are getting a lot of coulds and maybes and ‘Trust us’. Can you point out really clearly what would be satisfactory for the membership?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the intention is to have a balanced panel that does have, obviously, the sector but also has First Nations that can give fulsome advice on these matters and increasing access to the minister.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you are the minister. What would satisfy you in appointing members?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think with all these panels you want a balance. You want people that understand the nature but also have good experience of the sector, and I have made it clear that I would love to have, obviously, someone First Nations on this panel, but ultimately that is subject to passage of this bill and it is a subject for ORV with its establishment. But I think we need a panel that can consider all these issues, including the environmental issues that have been raised in this debate as well. I think it is important that you understand that, because there are obligations. If the access panel were to make recommendations that just do not comply, no-one would adopt their advice anyway, so I think it is important that they understand the broader obligations of government. We know there are many legislative instruments that cover land usage.

Georgie PURCELL: We have heard a lot, obviously, that that will be a decision for ORV, which came out there a little bit, but this is your panel, so I would love to know more detail. You mentioned environment; you mentioned First Nations. You get to pick these people soon. Who are they?

Enver ERDOGAN: I love these hypothetical questions, but I think we are really straying away –

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Enver ERDOGAN: That is right. I have shared some of what is going through my mind, but I have not made a final decision, to be frank. I was hoping to, obviously, pass the bill first and then consider the best options available, so right now I do not have a set list of people I have in mind for the Land Access Panel. I am sure the department will provide advice. As minister, I want people that understand outdoor recreation, and I also want some from First Nations – I have already said that on record. But I have not got a comprehensive list, so to speak.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, could you tell us what kinds of outdoor recreation interests you would prioritise on the Land Access Panel?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we are getting into hypotheticals here, but if the bill were to pass today, I would be considering people that would be most appropriate for this panel. But I have not made up my mind about who should be on and who should be off.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, when after the agency’s establishment, after this bill goes back to the Assembly, will you need to pick this Land Access Panel?

Enver ERDOGAN: There is no set date.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, do you have any idea when you think you will prioritise that, since it is your panel?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the goal is to pass the legislation and have the entity up and running, and then it would be something I would obviously consider after that point. But I do not have a timeframe.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just have a question on research. Did the GMA influence the government’s decision to open up 130,000 hectares of the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks to deer hunting?

Enver ERDOGAN: I believe that is out of the scope of the bill.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the question is not out of scope, as the GMA commissioned research, which is a function of this body. Again, not meaning to be obstructive, but this is a question I did flag with your office. Did the GMA influence the government’s decision to open up 130,000 hectares of the Errinundra and Snowy River national parks to deer hunting?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I believe this was a decision of government.

Georgie PURCELL: I know it was a decision of government. My question was: did the GMA influence the government’s decision?

Enver ERDOGAN: The GMA works across government and across agencies, but the decision was the government’s decision.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, if the environment and outdoor recreation portfolios are separated in the future, can the minister confirm that this act would only be given to the Minister for Outdoor Recreation and not the Minister for Environment for powers of direction, approval or mandatory consultation in relation to Outdoor Recreation Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is the intention that the agencies within the act for Outdoor Recreation Victoria would report under the general order to the outdoor recreation minister.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I want to move on to kangaroo shooting, as I flagged in my second-reading speech. What is the reasoning behind putting a commercial shooting industry of a native animal under a recreational body?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I think it is the intention to carry over the existing functions to the new entity – just transferring over the consolidation.

Georgie PURCELL: I do understand it is carrying over the existing obligations, but of course promotion and the pursuit of outdoor recreation has been tacked onto this bill. Previously it was for hunting regulation, which would be more appropriate for the commercial kangaroo industry. I guess I will rephrase my question, then: why is it appropriate to put a commercial industry for a native animal under a recreational body?

Enver ERDOGAN: It already exists in the VFA with commercial fishing, this promotion and regulation, and therefore with all the powers transferred to this new consolidated entity we felt it was appropriate.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am sure you can understand the concerns behind this. In Victoria the primary agency for reporting illegal activity or breaches of conditions in wildlife and shooting programs is of course the Game Management Authority. I have raised this before in question time, and I am still yet to receive a response from the government. I am hoping that you can answer this one for me tonight. The GMA’s reporting hotline as it currently stands is only open from 9 am till 5 pm Monday to Friday. However, commercial kangaroo shooting is an industry that exclusively occurs at night-time. How will ORV ensure compliance is effectively monitored and reported outside of business hours, which has not been possible under the GMA?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the operational needs going forward will be a matter for the ORV to determine, so if you are asking about whether there is a possibility of greater communication hours, I think that is an operational matter for them to consider once the organisation is established.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, there have been a lot of responses to my questions saying that things will be a matter for ORV, but you are the minister. Will you ensure that there will be the ability to report noncompliance, no matter what time of day it is, when it comes to shooting of our native animals?

Enver ERDOGAN: What I will say is you will notice that the lead regulator for wildlife in Victoria is the conservation regulator, and the primary regulatory functions under the Wildlife Act relate to game species. They both share the same customer call centre number, which will direct callers to agreed responders on a 24/7 basis. So ORV will continue to manage compliance for kangaroos and kangaroo harvesting, as the GMA has through the authorisation of harvesters and issuance of tags in line with the set quota. But it will be a matter for the ORV to consider future arrangements for the reporting of suspected illegal behaviour across all its compliance functions. So again, the future organisation will need to make a determination about how it operates.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, why have you determined that this will be a matter for ORV when there is an existing problem that has been raised many times, that shooting noncompliance cannot be reported outside of business hours to the GMA? Is this something that you will commit to pursuing and fixing up within ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not going to rule anything in or out about future functions, except to say that the existing roles and operations are going to be consolidated. So they will transfer and cost the same – same role, same job, same function – initially until they come together and consolidate, and then the new leadership team will look at all their operations and can determine what they think is the best approach.

Georgie PURCELL: I presume the response to this question will be no, but I just want to confirm it. Is there an intention for ORV to open a 24/7 communications centre so Victorians can contact compliance officers or at least make a report during the night, when shooting is exclusively active?

Enver ERDOGAN: What I can say is my expectation is that following the establishment of ORV, they will work with other regulators and determine the operational needs.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, that is a great segue because regional Victorians come to me very, very consistently about this matter. When they move to areas that kangaroo shooting takes place, there is no requirement to inform neighbours when shooting will be taking place next door. The rules and regulations are really unclear or not followed. And importantly, regional Victorians are consistently told to call the police if they have a concern when shooting is happening immediately The most common story is that police do not have any idea of the rules and regulations surrounding wildlife shooting in Victoria. They do not know the difference between authority to control wildlife (ACTW), permits to shoot kangaroos and a commercial shooting licence. What will ORV’s responsibility be in ensuring police are properly trained to recognise and respond to suspected breaches in the commercial kangaroo harvest management plan? You just mentioned that they will be working with other agencies. Will you work with police to give them the training to respond to these incidents when they occur?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think matters for police training should be referred to the Minister for Police.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am not sure that I totally accept that answer because it is police training in relation to when one of your agencies is not available to respond. I did ask a question in question time about this recently, and before I even moved to my supplementary about the police issue, the minister actually said that people should call the police. So there is a really clear misunderstanding here within the government. I guess I just want to know: who can regional Victorians call when they want to report shooting noncompliance at night-time when ORV is established?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think you have answered your own question. I think the use of firearms, if there is an inappropriate use, should be referred to Victoria Police.

Georgie PURCELL: But as I have informed you, police are consistently informing regional Victorians that it is not their responsibility. I can send you many examples. Could you at least take on notice the ability for ORV to work with regional police stations to ensure compliance officers can attend kangaroo shooting? I am sure you can understand, as is often the case, if they do not attend then and there, by the time the GMA is open in the morning there is nothing left to see.

Enver ERDOGAN: ORV should work across agencies, but in relation to Victoria Police training or the role that they play in terms of the regulation of firearms, I think they are matters for police.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just really reject that shooting noncompliance, when it comes to native animals and your own agency not responding, is a matter for police. I am asking: will you work with police, or will you ensure the agency is available to respond?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think I have answered this. The operations of the agency, as it will be initially, will be the same as the existing two agencies, because it is a consolidation bill we are talking about here. Going forward, how they operate will be a matter for them.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the GMA receives 75 per cent of its total funds allocated for operating the kangaroo harvest management plan. In 2024 this was projected to be around $762,000. How is this money currently being spent?

Enver ERDOGAN: Funding provided to GMA under kangaroo harvesting is allocated towards administering the kangaroo harvesting program, including the authorisation of harvesters, the issuance of tags and undertaking compliance functions to ensure quota, animal welfare and public safety under a compliance framework and annual compliance plan.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, will this level of funding and expenditure for the GMA’s role in the kangaroo harvest plan continue under ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, given the GMA’s historical influence on bushfire-related decisions, including opposing calls to suspend the kangaroo harvest plan following the 2024–25 Grampians and the 2025–26 central Victorian and Upper Murray fires, what role will Outdoor Recreation Victoria play in disaster response decision-making?

Enver ERDOGAN: Decisions on the annual kangaroo harvest plan quotas, including separation by harvest zones and species, are made by the secretary of DEECA and based on the best available science, including population surveys and modelling undertaken by the Arthur Rylah Institute.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do understand this, but there is evidence to show that the GMA had influence on the decision to not suspend the kangaroo harvest plan following the fires in those years, when after the Black Summer fires the kangaroo harvest plan was suspended at least while a population count was undertaken. My question is about what role ORV will play, not other agencies that I am aware already play a role.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the decision-making is by the secretary of DEECA. I am sure if the secretary of DEECA seeks advice they will be able to get information from ORV. But really I feel like we are straying from the scope of the legislation.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do not see how we are straying from the scope of the legislation when I am asking about the powers of this very agency the legislation is creating. But nonetheless I will move on from that. The commercial incentive for killing kangaroos continues to drive the rate of culling, with kangaroo harvesting program shooters actively seeking additional opportunities through print and social media advertising, as well as leafleting and doorknocking campaigns. What measures will ORV take to prevent commercial shooters from becoming further emboldened in their efforts to promote and expand commercial kangaroo shooting activities, which is just not appropriate for someone holding a game licence?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, this is similar question, aligned with the question about promotion regulation duties. I think there are a lot of agencies that do this well. WorkSafe is an example. It will be up to the organisation to set up structures and workstreams where regulatory functions or duties are separate from the non-regulatory functions like promotion. That will be up to the organisation to consider that. But I think that would be best practice.

Georgie PURCELL: How can we be certain that the commercial kangaroo industry, which, as I have said, is already promoting its own shooting activities for financial gain, will not be further emboldened to unnecessarily kill kangaroos due to the clear conflict of being regulated by a promotional authority under ORV?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think these questions have been asked and answered. It is all about managing the conflicts or potential conflicts, and I think ORV will have to create a structure and have separate workstreams. Like I said, a good example is WorkSafe. WorkSafe promotes safe workplaces, and when there are breaches, it enforces work safety laws.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do not think these questions have been asked and answered. I asked about conflicts of interest before, specifically in relation to commercial licence holders leaving boards who can immediately commence those activities. I am just asking how this conflict will be avoided when commercial shooters are promoting their activities for financial gain already. It is fine to take it on notice.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important, where there is potential for personal gain and if there is a conflict, to manage them, like you do on existing boards. But I might just leave it there.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, at the commencement of the kangaroo pet food trial Victorians were promised there would be no increase in the number of kangaroos killed under the ATCW programs. How will ORV ensure that the killing of kangaroos does not exceed the precommercialisation levels?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think annual kangaroo quotas, including separation by harvest zones and species, are set by the secretary. In terms of guarantees, I think they are based on the best available science. I will leave that to the DEECA secretary to determine based on the science.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how will ORV ensure that commercial shooters cannot eradicate kangaroos from any given area where they have landholders permission, as there are no safeguards around the minimum size of kangaroos killed and there is no minimum number of a mob that must be left alive? Theoretically entire mobs of kangaroos can be obliterated.

Enver ERDOGAN: You are asking about the eradication of kangaroos, and I feel I have answered. It is a similar line of questioning around the quotas being set. Those quotas are set by the secretary based on the science and population surveys and modelling, so I think these are all considerations for the secretary in setting the quota.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I understand that there are quotas, but there are currently no actions that require shooters to show that they are complying with those quotas. So what I would ask is: do commercial shooters already have to report the number of roos that they intend to kill, or is it similar to ATCWs where they can just say and there are no checks?

Enver ERDOGAN: The kangaroo harvest program is really getting outside the scope of the bill, I might add, but I understand the way it operates is that people have an allocation and they need to tag the kangaroo that has been killed.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how is the kangaroo harvest program outside the scope of the bill when I am talking about the enforcement activities of ORV compliance officers under a range of different acts, such as the Wildlife Act and many other pieces of legislation that are being amended? Can I please continue with my line of questioning without being accused of that when it is very clearly in line with the scope of the bill? Minister, last year the Premier stated that we have to look at nonlethal control mechanisms when referring to kangaroo management in Victoria as part of ORV’s role in overseeing the commercial kangaroo harvest program. What role, if any, will its officers have in supporting landholders to adopt nonlethal solutions?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think ORV’s role will be limited to the specific aspects of the kangaroo harvesting plan, but I think the office of the conservation regulator will be the primary regulator responsible for control mechanisms for kangaroos outside of the kangaroo harvest program framework. The ORV’s role is very limited to just the administration aspects of the kangaroo harvesting program.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, given the lack of proficiency testing for shooting at night and often in poor weather conditions, will ORV officers be required to provide and oversee proficiency testing for harvesters operating under these conditions?

Enver ERDOGAN: ORV will take appropriate steps to ensure that the harvesting of kangaroos under the plan is undertaken ethically and humanely. There is currently no intention to require proficiency testing for harvesters operating at night.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the code of practice states that every reasonable effort should be made to find wounded and orphaned kangaroos, but there is no specification of what constitutes a reasonable effort. How will ORV define a ‘reasonable effort’? And how will they enforce it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I understand there is a national code to provide guidance.

Georgie PURCELL: I am referring to the national code. It does not define what a reasonable effort is. I am asking what ORV would define is a reasonable effort.

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a matter for ORV to consider.

Georgie PURCELL: ORV is certainly going to have a lot to consider. Who are officers required to notify when they encounter an injured or orphaned kangaroo?

Enver ERDOGAN: As you would appreciate, Ms Purcell, there is a help for injured wildlife tool that is administered by DEECA to assist the community to access safety information and contact details for help for sick, injured or orphaned native wildlife they encounter.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, are you saying that authorised officers should use the app for members of the public if they find an injured or orphaned kangaroo when out in the field?

Enver ERDOGAN: No. I think that help for injured wildlife is for the public. The officers will know who to contact in their region, and that is who they should refer the animal to.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, could you please explain who in the region? Do you mean departmental staff, the conservation regulator, wildlife rescue groups, the police? Who in the region are you referring to?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am trying to make the point that who should be notified when an injured kangaroo is encountered depends on the specific location and circumstances.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I do understand that, but it is unclear. If an authorised officer finds an injured or orphaned kangaroo from a commercial shooter, of course they have an obligation to that animal. Could you give me, I guess, an example of a region – I can pick one if you want – of where they would report it to?

Enver ERDOGAN: The existing arrangements are continuing, so there is no change to the existing arrangements in place.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I am asking because nobody will tell us what the existing arrangements are, so I ask the same question again.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, for example, in some instances it would be DEECA that they would refer the animal to.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, it is very difficult to obtain information about where commercial shooters are currently operating or have previously operated, leaving landholders who oppose shooting in a constant state of uncertainty and concern. Will ORV be required to publish planned and real-time shooter activity to warn surrounding residents?

Enver ERDOGAN: The current outputs of DJSIR are focused on publicly outlining program outputs and providing actual harvest data, as against the harvest allocation and location. The information that is currently available will be available going forward.

Georgie PURCELL: I am aware of the current obligations and the annual harvest data. I am asking about real-time reporting for the many regional Victorians who are not informed when shooting is taking place near their homes and properties.

Enver ERDOGAN: There are quarterly reports published on the DJSIR website, and that will continue.

Georgie PURCELL: Great, so they can find out three months later. Minister, will ORV consult with First Nations Victorians when making decisions about wildlife and land management?

Enver ERDOGAN: Asked and answered. Traditional owners within the community, through connection to country, will be recognised as a core tenet of ORV’s statement of expectations. I have made it clear that in my statement of expectations I will be making clear that that is an important tenet of that. There will be an expectation that they engage with the Gellung Warl and traditional owners in line with government commitments to treaty.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, two examples of totemic animals are ducks and kangaroos, which of course will be affected by this agency and ongoing government policy. How is the government reconciling that with a commitment to engage with First Nations Victorians in relation to wildlife?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal here is to transfer the existing operations across; it is not to do a review of the settings per se.

Georgie PURCELL: That did not answer my question, but I will move on from it. Minister, the government recently made a decision to shoot koalas from helicopters. If the government does this again in future, would ORV be the responsible body for the regulation of that?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: I am moving to a few questions about enforcement, and then I will hand over to Ms Copsey for a little bit. Minister, my office has been contacted by former fisheries officers who allege a directive was sent from the VFA board to direct fisheries officers to not work with police in breathalysing those out on the water. We understand this is no longer the case, but can the minister confirm if a directive was indeed sent?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: Just to clarify, was that a no that a directive was never sent or that you do not know?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, I cannot confirm it. The answer is: no, I cannot confirm if it was sent or not sent.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, would you commit to taking that on notice?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, is this a specific incident you are referring to?

Georgie PURCELL: I am not referring to any specific incident, Minister. I am referring to former fisheries officers, who lost their jobs in the cuts and who have been concerned about compliance, alleging a directive was sent by the VFA board to direct fisheries officers to not work with police in breathalysing those out on the water, which was something that they commonly did previously. It is not a specific incident, just whether or not a directive was sent to no longer do that.

Enver ERDOGAN: My focus is on getting this bill passed and seeing the consolidation of the new regulator in place.

Georgie PURCELL: I understand that, Minister. My question was just: if you do not know the answer, could you commit to taking it on notice? Again, this is a regulator of the fishing industry. We are just trying to get some answers on what will be going into this new agency, with the same people within these two organisations being merged together.

Enver ERDOGAN: My answer is: no, I will not be looking into that matter.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, it is incredibly concerning that you would not. I want to go back to just one more kangaroo question. During the first quarter of 2025, only 1 per cent of active commercial kangaroo harvesters were subject to programmed in-field audits. 254 audits were conducted, but these were audits of harvester-returned data, which are self-reported figures submitted via a mobile app, not physical field checks. Will ORV increase in-field audits from just 1 per cent?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I can confirm that is something that ORV could consider.

Georgie PURCELL: Just going back to enforcement, can the minister confirm that ORV authorised officers will work with police to enforce firearm and marine safety laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: In terms of firearm laws, they are the responsibility of Victoria Police, and obviously marine is with Safe Transport Victoria. But like any agency, of course they want to work with interagency operations and partnerships, and the sharing of information is important. I think they already do some of that work and that already exists, those partnerships and relationships, and I am expecting them to carry that on.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how will it be ensured and reported that children aged 12 to 17 have a junior firearm licence and are only ever handling a firearm with a fully trained and licensed adult under direct and immediate supervision?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think questions about firearms are out of scope of the bill. They are obviously, you would understand, matters for the Minister for Police – firearms and licensing.

Georgie PURCELL: Once again, I am struggling to see how this is out of scope when junior firearm licences very much relate to specific activities that ORV will be responsible for regulating, such as duck shooting, which has a junior licence category. I think this question is very squarely in the bill, and the minister has also just confirmed that ORV will be working with police and relevant agencies, as should be the case when these areas cross over. I just do not see how this is outside of the scope of the bill at all.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will just add that the use of the firearm itself is a matter for police.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, so just to be clear, if there is a 12-year-old on the wetlands operating a firearm during the duck-shooting season, are you saying that is a matter for police? GMA conducts licence checks.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, irrespective of age, if someone is misusing firearms, it is a matter for police.

Georgie PURCELL: I am not talking about the misuse of firearms. I am asking how ORV will ensure that they have a licence.

Enver ERDOGAN: In the same manner that the current organisations check licensing.

Georgie PURCELL: We got there in the end. Minister, how will ORV ensure and report that children under 12 are not in contact with firearms at all? I think this question is especially important following those damning allegations from the Field and Game meeting this year where the GMA officer admitted that they would not be paying attention to unlicensed children on the wetlands.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, you would appreciate, as I have stated earlier, and I think we are going around in circles now, that the same arrangements that are in place now would continue. Therefore if someone is not licensed, then obviously they will do their compliance functions and enforcement, and if they are misusing or should not have a firearm, it is obviously a matter for police.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, the same arrangements are in place, and we know at least one compliance officer was saying that they would turn a blind eye to it. I am just asking if there are going to be any further safeguards within ORV to ensure that children who should not be are not in contact with firearms.

Enver ERDOGAN: And I have said that the existing arrangements are transferring over into the consolidated entity.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, you stated before that if individuals have complaints about an agency, they could do things like report it to the Ombudsman. I reported the GMA to the Ombudsman in 2024, and they said there was a substantive complaint but because no-one complained in 2025, even though we did not receive a response till 2026, they closed the investigation. So forgive us for not having much faith. But regardless, will complainants to ORV be informed about the outcome of their complaints if they make one to the agency?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, that is a very operational question on the response. But a lot of government agencies have response mechanisms for feedback and complaints, and obviously I am expecting this new agency to take on board best practice.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I actually only have a few questions left, so I will release you soon. I can see you are not particularly happy with me. I did give sufficient warning that I had a lot of questions. I just have some questions about the promotional activities. When we spoke about the conflict of interest that arose within the GMA during the duck-shooting inquiry and in the Pegasus report, the GMA made it very clear that there is a difference between promotion in the sense that you could promote safe and responsible hunting to an existing cohort of people that do it and then a very different kind of promotion, which is to grow the pool of people participating in the activity. It is clear that the VFA is doing this already. They have got a target for 1 million fishers in Victoria. Will you be trying to grow the pool of shooters, or will you just be promoting safe and responsible activities to the existing cohort?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, these are matters for the organisation to consider, but I think the goal of the new agency, as you know by the title, is to grow participation in outdoor recreation. That means all outdoor recreation, because we believe it is good for people’s physical and mental health.

Georgie PURCELL: So, Minister, just to confirm, you will not rule out ORV promoting duck shooting to grow the pool of duck shooters in Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will not rule it out.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, just going back to Pegasus again, you have said there are checks and balances that can be put in place when doing promotion and regulation. This was a really clear red line that even the GMA pointed out would be problematic during the duck-shooting inquiry. I can pull up the transcript if you wish. How has the government landed in a place of not ruling out promoting growing the pool of duck shooters in our state?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we are coming from a premise that these are legitimate activities and that overall outdoor recreation as a whole, without being specific about any particular outdoor activity, is good for people’s health and wellbeing. I think it is good for people to participate in outdoor recreation. As a result, we are saying there are organisations that do promotion and regulation well together, and there are mechanisms that can do this. They are in place to make sure those conflicts, or potential conflicts, are managed. My expectation is that when there is a new leadership team this executive looks at their workstreams and has the appropriate different channels of workstreams to manage the potential for conflict.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, my final question to you – at least for now – is: do you agree with former commissioner Ken Lay’s view? He wrote:

… no recreational pursuit, however valued, can take precedence over the safety of the whole community.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, you have asked for an opinion there, so that is not within the scope of the bill.

Georgie PURCELL: I will rephrase that. Do you think the establishment of ORV is reflective or in opposition to former commissioner Ken Lay’s view that:

… no recreational pursuit, however valued, can take precedence over the safety of the whole community.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is up to the minister whether he answers or not.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think Ken Lay’s report was clearly directed, in terms of firearms licensing, to the Minister for Police. I am not going to comment on his work. He is obviously a respected former officer, and therefore I do not believe Ken Lay’s views are in the scope of this legislation.

Melina BATH: Minister, when game management licences were being renewed in recent times – duck-hunting licences or deer licences – there were people who approached me and said that they were concerned that it was all going online and in digital terms and they needed to have an email address, and if they did not have that, it was challenging for them to access. My question goes to equity of access. How will this new organisation ensure fair access for all users, including those regionally based or those, we will say, that lack that strong digital access?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I am confirming that the bill does not change the way licences are currently issued. I think ORV will have to accept the new entity will need to work on its engagement plan with people and make sure that there is access. It is a really good question, because I know we see that across government services, about providing access via non-digital means. But obviously a lot of people do prefer digital means these days.

Melina BATH: I have a follow-up on that. What provisions do you see to ensure that? Hunters want to be compliant. Their licence renewal comes in; they need to apply online. Therefore, there can be that tension if they do not have the facilities. Can you provide an example of what could happen if they do not have an online presence? How can they get their licence and still be compliant?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a good question, Ms Bath. I understand there are current arrangements where you can make contact during certain business hours – make a call – or I understand you can also access these services via some libraries. They would remain, obviously, because we are just consolidating at this point. But I think the issue about engagement is an ongoing discussion with the new agency.

Melina BATH: Minister, this goes to some of the discussion in the bill around the principle of an evidence-based approach. This is the philosophy behind sections in this bill. I am going to move some amendments in relation to evidence. I think the bill talks about best practice or the best available evidence. Can you confirm that reliable data will be a driver used to make decisions? How will using best available evidence work in practice with this new organisation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is already the way evidence is used, and the duck season is a good example, with the adaptive harvest model that was developed – a world-leading model. I think those types of models already exist, so they will just be transferred across. I think this organisation will be able to focus its energy where it sees it is needed, but I think the adaptive harvest model is a good example of one where there is a good model in place, and that will continue.

Melina BATH: Is there scope, Minister, for that lived experience as well? Because the adaptive harvest model is Klassen and Kingsford and somebody else whose name escapes me. But they are professors, they are ecologists, and they do very good work. We actually had them when we were doing our inquiry into game bird harvesting, and they gave very good evidence about duck hunting. Is there scope for local knowledge and lived experience to be considered, and if so, how?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I feel as though many of the people in whether it be the VFA or in the GMA space all have lived experience. They all have some involvement one way or another or interest in these matters, just as a lot of the people in the animal welfare space are quite active and have a lived experience or passion on these issues. So I think lived experience – just by the nature of outdoor recreation, people that are drawn to it have their own knowledge and perspectives. I think these are considerations. I think there are models like the adaptive harvest model, but there might be other models that this new organisation can work towards. But initially it is just a transfer across of the existing practices and not changing the existing practices.

Melina BATH: I just want to ask some questions around clause 16, and then when I move my amendment to clause 16 that will just assist, I think. It relates to confirming that the department will not rely solely on desktop. Some of the concern that we have heard in consultation is that when there is evidence taken, it can be from one source, and you are starting to expand on the different forms. But is that the vision that you have for this ORV, that there is a desktop survey of things, or that there is a broader spectrum? That would feed into my amendment coming up.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I think that a lot of those questions are really detailed on how they will be operating going forward. I will be wary about people being too critical of desktop reviews. Sometimes they can give you the quickest response and turnaround time and then further investigation, so there is always a balance. But I think: let the new organisation leadership consider that and balance that. I am sure they will be seeking input.

Melina BATH: Minister, your take on the name – we have had discussions around Outdoor Recreation Victoria and we have had discussions around the information that I have. One of them, Seafood Industry Victoria, I have had, I think in the last six months, contact with 12 times in various forms and discussions and emails. The idea of Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Victoria: is that something that, as this has evolved with your knowledge of this – you have been in the position for 10 weeks, you have said – you think is a better place than where we were some months ago?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not sure if I have said it on record, but I am accepting your amendments, Ms Bath. I think it is a good description of a lot of the existing entities being consolidated. But obviously, going forward, longer term, we want outdoor recreation more broadly to be a big focus. That does not mean that the existing industries, like commercial fishing, will not have a role. They will still continue to have a big role. But I think I have already indicated my support for the name change. I will put that on record.

Melina BATH: This is not to press. It is just to make it easier when we get into the flow and everybody is sitting in here looking at their watches. Minister, I just want to address something that I heard one of the members say in relation to our amendments. As we know, things move and change. On Monday afternoon, I think before the crossbench bill briefing, I provided at that time our tranche of amendments with a rationale behind them, so the crossbench have certainly had access to them, and I provided them to you as well. Then we morphed and refined them until earlier today.

Ms Copsey was talking about expanding the definitions of ‘outdoor recreation’. We have talked about motorised and non-motorised recreation – non-motorised recreation can actually mean birdwatching and butterfly catching as well; it is quite a broad aspect that it encompasses – recreational motorcycling and trail bike riding, and prospecting and fossicking, and I think I have addressed that very strongly, that this is a passionate group with a very traditional pastime that feel they need to be more strongly represented in here, as in in the bill and moving forward in the entity. There is also horse riding. You will be aware, Minister, of people such as the mountain cattlemen and Cass McCormack, who is a female president of the mountain cattlemen. They do care for the High Country. That is their passion, and they bring people along on that journey and also other equestrian activities. The rationale behind this is to be more encompassing and therefore visionary – for your vision as well as many others. Is that a fair statement, Minister?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated earlier, the list was not intended to be exhaustive, but I accept your amendments to make it crystal clear. I can appreciate your concern there, so I welcome those amendments.

Melina BATH: Minister, also in relation to commercial fishing – and I know I had probably an hour on it at the beginning of the committee stage – they need to feel confident that nothing has changed and that the government is supporting this in the legislation. Elements that they have asked to be incorporated in relation to the principles look and speak to the sustainability and viability of commercial fishing and aquaculture and therefore also the facilitation of fair and reasonable access to aquatic resources. In order to have an industry, you have got to be able to have water – naturally, where fish live – but also healthy environments and those healthy fisheries. These things, sustainability and viability, Minister, you would say go hand in hand with commercial fishing and aquaculture?

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Melina BATH: We were just talking about the principles of an evidence-based approach and the importance of using scientific data, regional data – so localised data – safety and compliance, environmental conditions and stakeholder knowledge. I think you have really gone to that in responses to me and others. That on-the-ground evidence – including observations, incident reports, field assessments where appropriate and the like – all just add to a greater picture than how the bill was initially worded, which was the evidence-based approach. It is just fleshing out that evidence. Is this something that should be adopted and is acceptable, Minister?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Melina BATH: In relation to the principles of transparency, the bill talks about members of the public having access to reliable and relevant information in appropriate forms, and this relates to game hunting, and it relates to recreational fishing, commercial fishing and the process by which decisions are made in relation to other areas. I have been on another inquiry, which we do in this place, with other members here in relation to consultation and the importance of getting consultation – I do not know if the word is ‘right’, but improving it, because it is a continuous improvement. Part of the amendment that the Liberals and Nationals are putting forward is about transparency in relation to practical consultation in that process. What would practical consultation look like? And how could the government in this piece of legislation facilitate that practical consultation but then also the transparency around it? What do you see as able to be improved in ORV in terms of the consultation process?

Enver ERDOGAN: Both the VFA and the GMA already do quite extensive consultation, Ms Bath, you would accept, so it is more about the reporting on that work. I think that is where the opportunities for improvement are. I know you have some suggestions there, which I have agreed to support, and so I look forward to their implementation.

Melina BATH: In relation to the board – we have had many discussions tonight about the board and the appointment of directors – one of the things that the commercial fishing industry has spoken about is to have more focus on outdoor recreation, the fishing industry, aquaculture, hunting and recreational fishing, so making sure that an organisation that has come together from VFA and from GMA really has that focus in the board, as well as – I have heard you mention – that governance, that structure, that understanding and that legal entity. Also we spoke earlier about First Peoples culture being included. These things are very important. Do you agree with that? My other question to you is around having board members that actually reside in Victoria wherever possible. If there is going to be a board that deals with public land management, game management et cetera, a Victorian-based board person will actually give that localised and relative information and understanding and experience, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Bath, I think you know I have already agreed to this principle. I think it is important that someone resides in Victoria, and that is why we have put ‘where possible’ in respect of border communities, which is one of the improvements we made to the amendment. I support that statement.

Melina BATH: In relation to conflicts of interest on the board, I have had feedback from local fishing clubs. There are some fantastic local fishing clubs in my patch and I am sure in western Victoria and even up on the lakes and all of that – absolutely. One of the concerns they had is that somebody could be an executive in their local fishing club on a voluntary basis, but they could be excluded because of the way the clause is written. In clause 25 it says ‘a senior or executive officer of a representative body’. By including someone other than on a voluntary basis – where possible, again – that is something that therefore does not preclude those people with great content and great knowledge, not earning an income, not attached to any kind of investment other than growing their own club and supporting their community, Minister. Is that okay?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is a sensible amendment that the government will be supporting.

Melina BATH: In relation to authorised officers and reporting, some of the conversations – and we have had them again – were in relation to the number of authorised officers and that when there is an annual report, the annual report provides some context around the number of authorised officers. Also, the second part to that is around information regarding access to land, including any matter that has reduced access to public land for the purposes of outdoor recreation – meaning withdrawn that access and removed outdoor recreation. I put it in context for this part of our amendment: this is not seeking to be a locked gate just because of a landslide. It does not need to be information about a closure of land that has had a bushfire through it. It is not in relation to those sorts of very practical things where land might have to be closed off, but this is around a government decision to close off land because the government wants to remove outdoor recreation. This is the sort of reporting commentary that needs to be included, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important that as a government we are committed to transparency and reporting that assists the public. I see others would agree. I think if more information could be provided without, obviously, compromising people’s privacy and other confidential matters, we should look to make improvements. I know we discussed this, and we will be supporting that amendment.

Melina BATH: I am nearly through this, Minister. A very important one is the Land Access Panel. I think the definition of ‘land’ includes land with water on it, so it could be a stream, a river – correct me if I am wrong – a lake or a dam, but some of my communications and concerns from stakeholders have been around that aquatic water that exists offshore. Three nautical miles offshore, it is still Victorian land, so to speak, but it has got salt water over it. Having a land and aquatic access panel expands that so the access panel has the opportunity to look at land and saltwater lakes and marine environments.

Enver ERDOGAN: The intention was always to maintain the existing functions of the VFA for commercial fisheries and aquaculture and, as part of that, obviously the panel work. I think this is a sensible clarification, just to know that any of the outdoor recreation affected is covered by this advisory panel.

Melina BATH: Finally, in relation to this, again, in the bill briefing I did have a conversation around who could be on the land and water access panel. Again, stakeholders are really important, as we have discussed, but where possible there should be a majority of stakeholders, notwithstanding that somebody may be from a government department. There needs to be a balance, but having stakeholders is a really vital part of this, and this amendment just helps to stimulate that.

Enver ERDOGAN: Agreed.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister –

Enver ERDOGAN: The shadow minister was doing such a good job.

Bev McARTHUR: I know – fantastic. Well, I am just filling in for a bit and trying to help out here. I will not hold a candle to my shadow minister, that is for sure. But anyway, here goes. Minister, we are very concerned in my electorate about access to rock climbing, as you know. We are a bit inclined to lock the gate and throw away the keys, so I wonder if you can provide a clear update on the current status of the Dyurrite / Mount Arapiles access process, including when the community can expect a final decision on climbing, walking and broader recreational access.

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that Parks Victoria is involved in working on an agreement around access to that. I do not like strict timelines because obviously there is working with traditional owners and obviously the rock-climbing community and others, but I think we will have an answer soon. I am very hopeful, but I cannot give a timeline. I am very, very hopeful. I can give the commitment that as soon as we have an outcome, I am happy to communicate that to you, Mrs McArthur. But I am hearing very soon. Parks Victoria has obviously taken a lead in getting the parties together, and I understand an agreement is very imminent.

Bev McARTHUR: I could ask for a definition of how soon is soon, but I will take your word for it. It is definitely before we come back to the Parliament for the next sitting. Parks Victoria accused the rock climbers – at least the minister accused the rock climbers – of damaging the rock art only to find that Parks Victoria themselves had damaged the rock art. So yes, I will be very careful about relying on how soon is soon with Parks Victoria, Minister. Anyway, why has there been such limited transparency around the Arapiles / Dyurrite process, and will the minister commit to publishing the evidence, consultation outcomes and decision-making criteria being relied upon in this matter?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mrs McArthur, I think it is out of the scope of the bill, but I am very hopeful of an outcome, and I hope I will be able to communicate that outcome shortly.

Bev McARTHUR: I know you are in the new world order of transparency and accountability, Minister. I think providing the evidence would go a long way to relieving the apprehensions and concerns of the public that want to use this fabulous space. It would be very helpful if you could commit to publishing the evidence and the consultation outcomes. It is not too much to ask, I do not think, Minister, do you? And the team up there?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Mrs McArthur, it is outside the scope of the bill, but I will take on board your concerns and interests, and I am hopeful to announce an outcome shortly.

Bev McARTHUR: We have got it on the record that you will take on our concerns, and we will hold you to it, Minister, that the evidence and consultation outcomes will be forthcoming. Given Parks Victoria’s revised 2025–26 budget increased from $187.3 million to $211.7 million while the 2026–27 forecast dropped to $184 million, can the minister explain what the additional 2025–26 funding was used for and whether any of it relates to the Arapiles / Dyurrite access, planning, engagement or traditional owner processes?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, it is up to you.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is out of scope, Mrs McArthur. But I do remember during PAEC asking this question of the department, so if it comes back to me, I will let you know. I think it would have been a good PAEC question, because I was prepared for it, but I was not asked at the time. But it is out of the scope of this bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, I remind you that questions have to relate to the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: I realised how anxious you were to get that question in PAEC, so I am just helping you out. You can have a go now and relieve us all of our anxiety in this matter. Have a go.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, I do remind you that questions need to relate to the bill at hand, please.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you guarantee that any future access arrangements at Arapiles / Dyurrite will be based on clear evidence, genuine consultation with climbers, local businesses, traditional owners and the broader Natimuk community – I must say the Natimuk community, Minister, have been devastated by the locking down of rock climbing – and will not result in blanket closures where targeted management would be sufficient?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, it is out of scope, but it is up to you.

Enver ERDOGAN: Mrs McArthur, I think it is out of scope.

Nick McGOWAN: How much will the ORV agency cost taxpayers? Full budget.

Enver ERDOGAN: It will be the consolidation of the existing GMA budget and the VFA budget as exists. All will be transferred across, so it will be a combination of the two budgets together.

Nick McGOWAN: I had heard your earlier answer this evening. I was just hopeful that you would have a figure so we can clearly share with the Victorian taxpayer what the budget will be.

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand they have $29 million of base funding.

Nick McGOWAN: I did hear that figure in your second-reading speech. But that is the cumulative – that is the two agencies combined?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Nick McGOWAN: And that accounts for moneys already expended?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is their budget for the financial year. Some of it would not have been expended, but it is their budget for the year going forward. They have not spent all the money yet because obviously July will be the start of the financial year.

Nick McGOWAN: It is as clear as mud to me. The money they have from 1 July onwards –

Enver ERDOGAN: They will have $29 million for a year.

Nick McGOWAN: For the next financial year?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Nick McGOWAN: Okay. And of that funding, what proportion of that funding will be allocated specifically for compliance activities?

Enver ERDOGAN: That will be reported in accordance with the Financial Management Act as it is now with all agencies and entities. They will be reporting on their activities in the same way.

Nick McGOWAN: As you would appreciate, Minister, we did not have a lot of opportunity to ask these questions previously because we are now looking at this bill that was apparently urgent, but we are trying to nonetheless understand what proportion of that $29 million will be spent specifically on compliance. I am guessing that those agencies already have an existing figure, given the amalgamation of the two. Let me try the other way: what current proportion is allocated to compliance as it stands with the old bodies?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will need to take that on notice. I do not have that figure.

Nick McGOWAN: Okay. Thank you. I often ask these questions and I have often been in these processes – when you take them on notice, when does it mean we actually get that back? Because I think there has been a practice in this place to never come back to members when they ask these questions. Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister giving you an understanding to come back, is that what you are asking for?

Nick McGOWAN: Some timeline would be useful, because if it is after November this year, that might be less than useful.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, do you think you can give a timeline on how long it will take you to reply to Mr McGowan?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr McGowan, as a courtesy, I will endeavour to get it to you in 14 days. I know you will call me. He is waiting for 14 days; he is putting it into his diary right now.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Enver ERDOGAN: Fourteen.

Georgie PURCELL: Fourteen. Thank you. I was just clarifying that I could have the same response time.

Nick McGOWAN: What will be the wage of the chief executive officer of the new authority?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr McGowan, it will be reported in the usual way. With a lot of the executive salaries across the public service, there is usually a band. I think the goal is to have the band somewhere around the senior executive service 2 level. There are bands, you understand, if they are in the public service.

Nick McGOWAN: Thank you, Minister, for the answer, although you will understand if I am curious that we do not already know what the exact band will be or the range. To your knowledge, has anyone been approached or offered the position already of interim CEO, given it was supposed to commence on 1 July and we are only a matter of weeks away from that?

Enver ERDOGAN: No. Like I said, none of the board appointments were made either, nor the interim CEO nor the permanent CEO. It will be a matter for the board to consider.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I just have some more questions about fishing and the VFA. Wildlife Victoria statistics show that call-outs for entanglement cases have gone up 158 per cent since the government introduced the little anglers program. Are there any plans for ORV’s compliance efforts when it comes to wildlife falling victim to gear? Will they cover that as well?

Enver ERDOGAN: The link between little anglers and those incidents you are talking about – I know the VFA dispute that increase, so they do not accept that. But it is inherent in their role. That education piece is vital. VFA already does some of that work, but I think that it is clear that there is an education piece to come with the growth of fishing and its popularity with the public.

Georgie PURCELL: Boy oh boy, Minister, it certainly is a coincidence that these cases have gone up 158 per cent since the introduction of that program, but regardless, no matter who is responsible, it is recreational fishers. So will there be a plan for wildlife that are injured from fishing programs?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not planning to direct future operations of this new entity to that level. What I will say is they are consolidating, so they are transferring across. Whatever they are doing now they will be continuing – initially that is the plan.

Georgie PURCELL: Many people who provided evidence at the parliamentary inquiry into recreational native bird hunting arrangements said the government could also make an economic return by allowing wetlands to be opened up for the purposes of ecotourism, particularly Ramsar-listed wetlands. Will these opportunities be considered by ORV or only in relation to shooting activities?

Enver ERDOGAN: Future opportunities for ORV to consider will be open to them. There is nothing limiting what the future organisation could consider, but I think outdoor recreation and ecotourism is a big part of our state. We have got beautiful landscapes.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I stated before that in the decision not to ban duck shooting the government conceded that in order for that policy to pass the pub test, which it clearly did not, the regulator would need to improve. Can you please tell me how the regulator has improved in that time?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, you would appreciate that since that report there was the adoption of a science-based, evidence-based adaptive harvest model. There has been an increase in the number of compliance officers, and there is more education available within the online module.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, could you please explain what further education is available to duck shooters in Victoria? You conceded before that the government has not met its commitment to have proficiency testing in place by now. You stated that there was cultural awareness training. What other education modules are available to duck shooters in Victoria, and importantly, are they mandatory? And if they are mandatory, do they apply to the existing cohort or only new shooters?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think there is a mandatory waterfowl identification test. There are many other tests involved as well around safety in deer hunting and hound hunting. There are different modules. Some are not compulsory, you would appreciate, depending on the activity you are undertaking.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, in your list of improvements since the government’s decision not to ban duck shooting you have listed off a requirement to have a licence that existed long before the duck-shooting inquiry and some modules that are not mandatory. Is there anything more substantive you can give me on the regulator’s improvements?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think I have already listed the additional compliance officers. I have already listed that, so I think I might just leave it there.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, how many more compliance officers are there since the government’s decision not to ban duck shooting?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I understand that it has steadily increased since that time. You would appreciate during the Pegasus report it was six, and now it is 23. I understand that there was a jump post the committee report of another four or five, so it is about another 20 per cent or so since the report to get to the current figure of about 23 compliance officers.

Georgie PURCELL: One of the things that the government specifically referenced would need to be improved when it came to compliance and regulation was the widespread act of wounding, which is unavoidable in duck shooting by the very nature of spraying an animal with pellets. Could you please tell me what work has been done in that space?

Enver ERDOGAN: There is Victoria’s Waterfowl Wounding Reduction Action Plan 2025–2029 (VWWRAP) that was implemented following the report.

Georgie PURCELL: I am very aware of the VWWRAP. Could you please tell me if you have evidence of its effectiveness? Has it reduced wounding?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, there has been no evaluation yet of the program.

Georgie PURCELL: When will there be an evaluation, and will ORV be undertaking this task? The reason I ask is because the government has refused to put animal welfare as a skill set on the board, even though it is legislating other positions.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, no decision has been made about when to undertake evaluation, but of course it would be open to the new authority to undertake that work if it chooses to do so.

Georgie PURCELL: So just to get this clear, there is no plan, it is just an option. It is a decision of ORV if they want to continue addressing the biggest animal welfare issue that exists within the duck-shooting fraternity.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, it will be an option for them to undertake that evaluation work.

Georgie PURCELL: You are filling me with confidence right now, Minister. You mentioned before that there are 23 officers now. Are you aware that if there was going to be compliance at every wetland over the duck-shooting season, that would require each officer to visit 869 wetlands each per day?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that, like a lot of regulators, they take a risk-based approach. So where there are public reports and where there is a high incidence, I am sure that is where the resources are best directed to. It is not possible, obviously, to police every spot at all times. In any industry that would not be possible.

Georgie PURCELL: Of course that statistic does not even include private land, where we know 50 per cent of shooting activity now occurs. What will ORV’s plan be to monitor compliance on private land? Will there be a focus on doing that, given that half of the shooting activity happens on it? The reason I ask this is that when I asked the GMA what compliance efforts they made on private land during the 2023 season, the answer was zero.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think their plan is to maintain the current regulatory approach.

Georgie PURCELL: The regulatory approach is zero – fantastic. The GMA estimates that 3 tonnes of lead are put into the Victorian environment every year. The former minister overruled a plan to phase out lead shot in deer shooting, as has already been done for duck shooting. Will ORV review the plan not to phase out this ban on lead shot, noting the devastating environmental impacts?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is an option open to the new entity. It is an option for them to consider. There are no plans for that.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I know you are the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, but you are also the Minister for Environment. I think it would fill us with a little bit of faith if you would at least commit to having the conversation with them. But regardless, the parliamentary inquiry into duck shooting found a significant amount of public funding is put towards compliance, but the sheer geographical size of public land, as I mentioned before, available for hunting made this a near-impossible task for the Game Management Authority. What will ORV do to overcome this challenge?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, as I stated earlier, they will be taking a risk-based approach to the enforcement. It is not possible for every regulator to be everywhere all the time, so they do take an intelligence-led, risk-based approach.

Georgie PURCELL: How would you define the risk-based approach that they take?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will leave that to the experts and professionals at Outdoor Recreation Victoria.

Georgie PURCELL: The reason that I ask is because you spoke about public reports earlier and said that you would be aware of the third-party report form to report protected species present on a wetland during the duck-shooting season. There is a very clear criteria for wetlands to be closed. At Tower Hill game reserve during the duck-shooting season a bird expert reported more than double the threshold for closure for blue-winged shovelers. They did not receive a response to their first report. They followed up three days later. They did not receive a response to that. And then, out of frustration, they reported a protest at the same wetlands and received a response in 2 hours saying compliance efforts would be sent out. Do you have faith in this risk-based approach?

Enver ERDOGAN: I just wanted to get clarification that some of the wetland responsibilities are shared across DEECA and the new authority – currently GMA. Of course I have got confidence in their ability to do their work. These are people that are professionals that work in the field, and they are the experts, so of course I rely on them for information.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to clarify what you said. So you think it is appropriate that a protected species report was left unresponded to but a protest report was actioned in 2 hours?

Enver ERDOGAN: In individual cases the experts are best placed to make those decisions about the urgency of the response, and so I am not going to question that on an individual basis or for an individual case. Like I said, I think these are difficult roles, and I thank them for their work.

Georgie PURCELL: I remind you once again that you are the minister and also the Minister for Environment. I am just wanting to clarify that you think it is not a matter to intervene on when protected species reports are being ignored by your department.

Enver ERDOGAN: Let me just set my expectation that protected species reports are very important, and they should be responded to. But I am not going to talk about individual cases, because obviously I am not across that individual case myself, and it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in individual circumstances. But what I will say is protected species are important, and when reports are made it is important that they are responded to. We need to protect our biodiversity and conserve our precious natural resources as well as protect wildlife.

Georgie PURCELL: I agree that it is important that protected species reports are responded to, which is why I want to talk about another one. Towards the end of the duck-shooting season there were over 20 brolgas at one wetland. You would be aware that brolgas are not just protected, they are endangered.

Enver ERDOGAN: They have got that different neck.

Georgie PURCELL: They do have a different neck.

Enver ERDOGAN: I was looking at the photos.

Georgie PURCELL: Yes, they are very beautiful birds. And yet, despite them being very beautiful and endangered birds, there was a report of these brolgas not once, not twice, but three times, and then the GMA was actually at the wetlands and the individual reported it directly to the officer, who did not action the report. The most concerning part is that the GMA officer should have seen the brolgas and known that was a reason for closure. For Brolgas the threshold is 10. As I said, they are endangered. There are only 600 to 900 of these birds in the state, and what is critically important about closing wetlands that they are on is not just that they are at risk of being shot but that disturbance can impact their breeding activity by the fuel that they use to flee wetlands. Why wasn’t this wetland closed as well?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a very difficult question to answer, because obviously a lot of the decisions about operations and which wetlands stay open and closed are based on the information that the GMA receives. I do not make those decisions, so I am not going to pontificate here on what was the appropriate decision at the time based on the information before the relevant authority. But we do care about protected species and species that do face potential extinction. That is a matter of serious concern to me. But I think these are issues that, as we consolidate our agencies, are for the new leadership team to consider, and I would be happy to continue this discussion if the legislation were to pass today.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I agree they are important decisions. Do you agree that when members of the public do the right thing and follow a process that was previously honoured – and I am not saying it is your fault, and this should not even come to me, but this whole duck-shooting season people have been coming to me because their third-party report forms were not actioned. As I said, you are the minister. It is your department. Will you instruct these third-party report forms to be responded to, again, when ORV takes over this responsibility?

Enver ERDOGAN: In a response to an earlier question I already stated there are opportunities with the new consolidation of these two authorities to look at best practice for taking feedback and responding to complaints or concerns, so I think that is something for the new leadership team of this organisation to look at. But of course my expectation is that people get a response. I can understand with the volume that can always be difficult for agencies – all agencies, all members of Parliament – but I think it is important to respond, especially when there are serious concerns about welfare.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I look forward to quickly actioned compliance under your leadership with ORV then. Someone who provided a submission to the parliamentary inquiry into duck shooting is someone I mentioned earlier who operates a kayak business which is consistently impacted by duck shooting. When shooting is happening, people are unable to kayak, not just out of safety concerns but because it is illegal. How will ORV manage this conflict of intending to open up the great outdoors while simultaneously locking people out?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a really good question, and I could not answer that right now, because it is something that the new organisation, new entity, would need to consider. I can see how there can be situations where different outdoor activities do compete for the same space potentially, but obviously that is a matter for them to consider in due course.