Thursday, 20 February 2025

Business of the house

Parliamentary privilege

Right of reply: Jacob Haddad

The PRESIDENT (09:35): Under standing order 21.03 I present a right of reply from Jacob Haddad, managing director of Victorian Pest Animal Control, relating to comments made by Ms Purcell during questions without notice on 12 November 2024. During my consideration of the application for the right of reply, I notified Ms Purcell in writing and further consulted with her on the submission. I remind the house that the standing orders require me to not consider or judge the truth of statements made in the Council or the submission. In accordance with standing orders, the right of reply is ordered to be published and incorporated in Hansard.

Reply as follows:

I write to formally address and refute the allegations made by Ms. Georgie Purcell, Animal Justice Party Member of Parliament for Northern Victoria on the 12th of November 2024, regarding the conduct of Victorian Pest Animal Control (VPAC) and its contractual relationship with the Nillumbik Shire Council. The allegations presented in Parliament are entirely baseless and lack any factual substantiation. It is disheartening that these claims were publicly aired without any attempt to verify their accuracy.

The specific allegations made, and our responses, are as follows:

1. Allegation: Shooting on a property illegally

Response: This allegation is categorically false. VPAC operates strictly within the bounds of the law. At the time in question, we had explicit permission to conduct activities on the property in question. Documentation confirming this permission is available and can be provided upon request.

2. Allegation: Shooting while not under contract from the council

Response: This claim is also false. Our contract with the Nillumbik Shire Council was active and valid at the time of the incident. VPAC has always ensured that all contractual and procedural obligations are strictly adhered to. We can provide evidence of the contract’s validity and compliance.

3. Allegation: Shooting a kangaroo from 100 meters

Response: This is entirely inaccurate. The kangaroo in question was euthanised from a distance of approximately 30 centimetres with a single shot to the head. This method aligns with industry best practices and was carried out to minimise the animal’s suffering.

4. Allegation: Shooting a kangaroo in self-defence

Response: This allegation misrepresents the circumstances. The kangaroo was discovered in a gravely ill state, exhibiting symptoms consistent with phalaris poisoning. In consultation with the Nillumbik Shire Council, a decision was made to euthanize the animal to alleviate its suffering. This decision was consistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, specifically Section 9(1)(c), which permits the destruction of an animal to relieve it from suffering.

It is deeply troubling that these false allegations were presented in Parliament without any prior engagement with VPAC or the Nillumbik Shire Council to verify their accuracy. This approach has caused unwarranted harm to the reputation of our business, which prides itself on ethical practices, compliance with legal standards, and a commitment to animal welfare.

We respectfully request that these inaccuracies be addressed and corrected in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, we are prepared to provide any necessary documentation or clarification to substantiate the facts outlined in this letter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if further information is required.