Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Production of documents

Duck hunting

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (10:14): I move:

That this house requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all documents relating to Victoria’s native bird hunting arrangements, including but not limited to:

(1) the 2025 season arrangements, including all communication between the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and the Game Management Authority with the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, the Minister for Environment and the Premier;

(2) the commissioning of the report and research by Dr Thomas Prowse to inform setting sustainable game duck harvests, including correspondence between Dr Prowse, the Game Management Authority and relevant departments;

(3) the decision to close off preseason consultation with animal welfare, science and advocacy organisations ahead of the 2025 season;

(4) the specific science that informed the decision to keep the pink-eared duck and hardhead on the game species list for 2025;

(5) any correspondence regarding why the new mandatory training for shooters does not apply to existing licence-holders;

(6) any advice received regarding the potential impact of avian influenza on native waterbird numbers across eastern Australia; and

(7) the Game Management Authority’s abundance estimate helicopter survey for game ducks in Victoria for 2024.

This is a documents motion in relation to the government’s recent decision to have one of the worst duck-shooting seasons that we have seen in recent years, just one year on from ignoring their very own parliamentary inquiry, which they not only established but chaired, which told them to ban duck shooting – and then they ultimately said no. One year on it is unbelievable to see how backwards we have gone when it comes to protecting our native waterbirds, which the committee found desperately need help. One of the things that we could have done, the easiest thing that we could have done, is to ban duck shooting.

This motion calls for a range of documents in relation to the government’s recent decision to have a full duck-shooting season. It has been a long time since we have had a full-length duck-shooting season in Victoria because, guess what, there are no birds. The eastern Australian waterbird survey recently found that we have 50 per cent less birds and that birds are not breeding, yet Jacinta Allan and Steve Dimopoulos have gone out and called a full-length season. But not to worry, they left one bird off the bag limit, so instead of a bag limit of 10, we have a bag limit of nine. Thankfully the minister this year did not ignore his department’s advice like he did last year, and the blue-winged shoveler has been taken off the game list.

We are asking for documents that relate to this decision because it is the first season that we have had under this adaptive harvest model that the government has been talking about for a really long time. They describe it as our friend. They say this model is our friend. I would say it is their friend, because it has not been peer reviewed and it shuts out a range of stakeholders that were previously consulted when it came to making decisions around duck shooting in Victoria. They have made this decision under this incredible adaptive harvest model that apparently will monitor the conditions for decades to come and allow us to make the most sustainable decisions. If this is the decision that they are making when we have 50 per cent less water birds, that we get basically a full-length season, then I would hate to see what it would look like in ordinary times.

We are asking for the helicopter data because we are confused by this decision. The most obvious one is the eastern Australian waterbird survey that I just spoke about, where we are 25 per cent below the long-term average and 50 per cent less than the year before. We also asking for the sustainability model by Dr Thomas Prowse. I would note that there was some information relating to Dr Thomas Prowse’s modelling and a calculator but it has since been taken off the Game Management Authority’s website. It might have been put back on since we raised it. Not to worry, the shooters association left it up, but the regulator did not.

It is incredible to see that the government has based basically their entire decision around this model and yet it has not been peer reviewed. It is also flawed for many reasons, including the fact that it is based on four of the more robust species of waterbirds. It does not acknowledge the illegal shooting of protected species, consistently high wounding rates or the cultural significance of the sites where duck shooting occurs. Basically the terms of reference of the parliamentary inquiry, it does not consider those; they do not matter anymore apparently under our new Premier.

Just on the note of wounding, we are seeking some documents relating to this new training, this amazing training that will only apply to new shooters. Existing shooters were analysed as part of the parliamentary inquiry and it found noncompliance in wounding – wounding, for those who not familiar with the term, is when a bird is shot but does not die. They can suffer for weeks on end on the wetlands and slowly die of predation, infection or drowning. The parliamentary inquiry found that that can be up to around 40 per cent of birds shot. Now, the government has decided as part of their commonsense reforms, as they call them, that training for wounding will only apply to new licences, despite this happening under the existing fraternity. I mean, I am going to be amazed how that new training is going to address the problem at hand. We are asking for the documents on that.

We are also asking for the documents that relate to the seven species of duck that are permitted to be shot. Particularly we want to know about pink-headed ducks and hardheads, because they are prohibited to be shot in South Australia based on worrying population trends but not here in Victoria, where the government has taken on one of my favourite terms that the shooters love to say to us: ‘If it flies, it dies.’ We are also asking for the documents relating to preseason consultation. That is because, and I have spoken about this before, previously many different parts of the community – experts, scientists, environmentalists, animal welfare groups – were invited to consult with the government on the duck-shooting season, but not this year. They were shut out under this incredible adaptive harvest model because it is clear the government wants to be in an echo chamber now that they have made this decision and they want to ignore the science.

We are seeking these documents because the government has just made one of the most reckless decisions that they have ever made when it comes to the safety of our native waterbirds, and we will never, ever let them forget that or forgive them for that. I commend this motion to the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:10): I also rise to speak on motion 854 put forward to us today by Ms Purcell, and in doing so I acknowledge her sincere passion and advocacy on this matter. Indeed as a fellow member of the select committee which Ms Purcell mentioned, with a few other members I see in the chamber today as well, it was a very interesting opportunity to dive in and engage in a considerable amount of detail on this issue. Whilst my views are well ventilated and well known, I have also been clear throughout that, as with all committee inquiries, that it is the role then of government as the executive to make its determination in response to those recommendations. We are therefore in the position today where we have had the recent announcement about the next three years of native bird hunting in Victoria, with the motion before us today from Ms Purcell seeking a number of documents in relation to that decision and to some broader topics surrounding it. I note, as is standard practice in this house, that the government will not be opposing today’s motion by Ms Purcell.

I will just briefly share a few comments on some of the topics, particularly on what was actually canvassed in that inquiry. Firstly, on the question of sustainability, one of the stand-outs for me from that inquiry was that it is plainly evident that shooting birds out of the sky is going to have an impact on reducing those numbers. But what we did see was that by far the predominant factors that lead to variances in bird numbers were actually climate change and land use policies. They remain the most threatening things for our native bird populations, as indeed with other native species in this country as well.

I do note that for the first three years the seasonal harvest quota will be set at 10 per cent, which is at the lower end of the adaptive harvest model range. One of the things coming into the inquiry was we were not operating under the adaptive harvest model. We were operating under the interim harvest model. It will be witnessed through the evidence this year and from next year and the year after how the adaptive harvest model works.

Particularly, though, I do want to touch on the question of wounding – a very, very important topic, and one that we are obviously all very anxious to avoid and reduce. Ms Purcell in her contribution mentioned that the wounding rate is up to 40 per cent. One of the difficulties in getting that data is that the evidence showed it was anywhere up to 40 per cent or as little as 6 per cent, but of course any wounding rate is still far too high. We were given very clear assurances by proponents of native bird hunting that wounding rates will be able to come down and that the adaptive harvest model will be a key part of delivering that. Really now for this year and for the following two years as well it is seeing the proof of that and seeing the efforts of those hunters to follow through on their commitments and show some demonstrable improvement in wounding rates.

I note in terms of licensing as well that from this year all new licence-holders will be required to go through the wounding training that Ms Purcell referred to, and from next year any existing holder who is renewing a licence will also be required to go through that training. That training of course will also be an important part of doing everything that can be done – that if we are to continue this activity, which many Victorians have told us they wish to continue doing, that we do it in the most sustainable and most humane way possible. Ultimately of course the outcomes of the wounding rates will be the determinant for where we land on that.

I have mentioned previously in this chamber many of the groups that are engaged with this issue, as it comes up each year. I note the incredible work that many agencies, including Wildlife Victoria, do in responding to wounded birds up on the wetlands: the work that they do, the volunteer hours that they put in going in to protect as many birds as they can and to prevent painful situations and the painful drawn-out deaths of those birds. There are many groups that do considerable work. As I said, the government has a clear plan to reduce wounding and to improve the sustainability of native bird hunting in Victoria, and we will see in the next three years that model implemented.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:25): I rise today on behalf of the Nationals and the Liberals to not oppose this short-form documents motion, as is the practice in the house. In fact I am quite interested to see some of the eventualities of these documents being produced but probably for the exact opposite reason to the Animal Justice Party.

Ms Purcell raised the select committee inquiry into native bird hunting, and I was one of those members. There were two Liberals, Mr Bourman, the Greens, Ms Purcell and I think three Labor members. We all listened to evidence with our own kaleidoscope of ears on, because in the evidence I heard from independent scientists Klaassen and Kingsford one of them stated that native duck hunting does not make a dent in bird populations. They are part of the philosophy, the work behind (1) the interim adaptive model that we do not have yet and (2) the interim harvest model that Victorian government does operate during the duck season in Victoria. I heard that very clearly in the evidence, and you can make a judgement as to why recommendations come forward. Clearly some people hear different things to others, but the science says that it does not make a dent in the population. They went on to discuss the very important work that the adaptive harvest model can do and the fact that the search for and the science behind those aerial surveys that have been conducted for decades informs the Game Management Authority (GMA), who then present recommendations to the state government, the Minister for Outdoor Recreation. There is science behind this – it is not a pie in the sky. Therefore I will be interested to see some of the information coming forward.

The other point that the motion relates to is the report and research by Dr Thomas Prowse. It has got a long name, but in the end it is a Prowse report that they often refer to. Again, this gentleman is an independent researcher. He is not a hunting advocate. His credibility lies in his neutrality. He is not providing hunting advocacy in any space, rather the science behind the research. His work is peer reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals, so it undergoes rigorous academic scrutiny – something that we do not always see in the environment space. His report does not promote hunting expansion, it assesses the sustainability based on data. We just want the truth, and therefore those modellings can come forward. He recommends conservative harvest limits and calls on the ongoing research. Again, he is not pushing hunting.

The next part of the motion looks at mandatory hunter training. I think in this area Ms Purcell is really looking to say we need to fix the behaviour of hunters. The training around this relates to new mandatory training for shooters; it does not apply to existing licence-holders. The whole idea of this is to roll it out over a number of years in order to make it workable. But training is not about improving hunter outcomes. It is not about fixing hunter behaviour. It is about providing that context. If we look at the GMA’s assessment of hunter compliance, and that is what we are very focused on – it is always important to do law-abiding hunting for sustainable harvests – there was 98 per cent compliance by hunters last year. There were over 1500 checks on licensed bags and 27 infringements, and some of those were by non-hunters, so I am happy to see more data on that. But the important thing, according to a very esteemed person who spoke to us – his name is Brian Hiller, professor of wildlife ecology at Bemidji State University, Minnesota – is:

Habitat is key. If you have habitat, you have birds.

Certainly this year there is an abundance of birds for sustainable harvest.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (10:30): The Greens will support this motion this morning, and that is because when it comes to protecting Victoria’s wildlife, unfortunately this Labor government never fails to disappoint. It is bad enough that despite the overwhelming evidence that we all heard and read during the inquiry into duck-shooting and despite the clear recommendation of that inquiry to permanently ban slaughter by shooting in Victoria, the Premier made a captain’s call against her own colleagues on that inquiry, refused to accept the recommendation and caved in once again to the shooting lobby.

But what we see in preparation for the opening of this duck-shooting season in 2025 could be even worse. I have already asked the Minister for Outdoor Recreation, in relation to avian flu, what biosecurity advice has been received from the federal government in relation to cancelling or reducing the 2025 duck-shooting season, and having asked that fairly recently, I am yet to receive an answer to that question. The fact that this duck-shooting season is going ahead in a period of long drought defies logic. In a year when the state government is literally sending drought relief funding to farmers in western Victoria, where many of the waterbird wetlands are, this season looks to be the most devastating in recent memory, with the largest bag limit since 2018 and a season length increased by more than 45 per cent, adding pressure to already declining bird numbers.

The Victorian Greens call on the government to meet its obligations under the Ramsar convention by banning shooting in all Ramsar wetland sites and preferably to cancel the 2025 duck-shooting season altogether. But the public also deserves to know the reasoning behind Labor’s perplexing decision to green-light another season of slaughter of our native waterbirds, so I commend Ms Purcell for bringing this motion today.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:32): I am not opposing this, of course. We have got nothing to hide. I find it funny that we have got people here telling us how bad shooters – hunters, whatever you want to call them – are, but they are quite happy to break the law themselves. Clearly the whole thing is about ‘One rule for thee and one rule for me.’ Anyone with half a brain will work out why there is a rollout: you cannot do it in a short period of time. I do not get this, except for politics.

Talking about the inquiry, to say there was overwhelming evidence against the season – someone must have been asleep. I was there for the entire time; it was only the chair and I at every single presentation. I heard junk scientists and some clown from the Australia Institute that just made stuff up, and then someone turned up in disguise on Zoom. These people are presenting ‘overwhelming evidence’? The actual scientists presented real evidence. The actual scientists said habitat destruction is a real problem, and I will say it until I am blue in the face – hunting has an infinitesimal effect.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:33): I rise to make a contribution on this documents motion in Ms Purcell’s name. To commence with, I want to acknowledge Ms Purcell’s tireless advocacy and work in the space, not only for ducks but also for other animals. I listened to Mr Galea’s contribution, and of course my views on this subject are –

The PRESIDENT: I apologise. The time for this debate has expired.

Motion agreed to.