Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Production of documents

Wildlife protection

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:25): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Wildlife Act 1975 established the rules around how people interact with wildlife in Victoria but has not been reviewed since becoming law 50 years ago;

(b) in May 2020, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announced the independent review of Victoria’s Wildlife Act 1975 (the review), which would consist of an independent expert advisory panel led by chairperson Jane Brockington, Dr Jack Pascoe and Dr John Hellstrom;

(c) the panel spent much of the following year working through more than 1,000 submissions to the review and consulted with 18 key stakeholders, and heard related concerns regarding the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, which identifies processes that threaten the health and survival of Victoria’s biodiversity;

(d) the panel delivered their final report to the minister in December 2021;

(e) the government still has not tabled the panel’s report or responded to their recommendations;

(2) 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:

(a) the review of the Wildlife Act 1975 expert advisory panel report; and

(b) the government response to the expert review of the Wildlife Act 1975.

I stand to speak on motion 852 in my name. Victoria has two main pieces of legislation that cover protection of our native wildlife, the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Wildlife Act has not been reviewed since it was introduced 50 years ago. It is clearly out of date and not working to protect our precious native wildlife in Victoria. Back in 2018, people in this chamber might remember, hundreds of wedge-tailed eagles were poisoned on a farm in East Gippsland. The farm worker was prosecuted, but their boss, who instructed them to kill the birds, was not. Clearly, our laws were not sufficient to deal with this horrific situation. Hundreds of protected birds, which are incredibly culturally important to First Nations Victorians as well as to our biodiversity in Victoria, were killed with little repercussion.

In response the government announced a review of the Wildlife Act. An independent expert advisory panel was appointed, led by chairperson Jane Brockington and including Dr Jack Pascoe and Dr John Hellstrom. The panel worked through more than 1000 submissions, consulted with many key stakeholders and also looked at potential insufficiencies in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. They did a huge amount of great work and handed their report to the government in late 2021. Yet Labor put this report in a drawer and never released it and never responded to it. It has now been more than three years. The government keeps telling us, ‘Don’t worry. It’s coming.’ But it has been more than three years, and that delay has real impacts on our threatened species.

Now we are seeing the real-world impacts of our broken laws. Over the past few years developers have ripped up around 60 hectares of critically endangered grassland earmarked for the Western Grasslands Reserve. That is critical habitat Labor was meant to purchase outright by 2020 through the Melbourne strategic assessment program to create special grassland reserve. Labor’s inaction here means that developers either do not think that they will be caught or are happy to cop a few hundred thousand dollars in council fines to make millions off land down the track. This is the devastating result – what happens because the government refused to act on improving our biodiversity and nature protection laws.

There is no reason why the government cannot release the report into the Wildlife Act; in fact it is the very least they should do to give the community transparency. They have buried this report, as I said, for three years, and it is far too long. That is why we are moving this motion today to force the release of this expert panel’s report, so the public can see how we need to improve our nature protection laws to make sure that something like the western grasslands destruction or the killing of wedge-tailed eagles does not happen again.

So what are our nature protection laws in Victoria, and why aren’t they working? The Wildlife Act 1975 regulates direct interactions between individuals and wildlife, whether that is culling of overabundant species – for example, kangaroos by farmers – hunting or licences for carers keeping native wildlife to limit the illegal wildlife trade, but they are clearly not working to protect our native species. Some examples of this include hundreds of thousands of native species being killed with culling permits in Victoria. Permits are pretty much unregulated, unlimited and rarely monitored or followed up. Some threatened species, like dingoes, do not even need permits to be killed in areas subject to unprotection orders. Native ducks, including some threatened species, are still killed through duck hunting with little repercussion for those who do the wrong thing. Feral deer are still classified as protected wildlife in Victoria, even though they are running riot across the state and destroying so much of our environment. They also present a huge risk to people, whether it is on the roads or just in people’s backyards. Keeping deer as a protected species also creates confusion with other acts meant to regulate feral animals and pests, like the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. It makes no sense whatsoever. Penalties for killing native wildlife are often too low, not enforced or cannot be applied to the right people, such as in the case of the killing of the wedge-tailed eagles.

There is nothing in the act that protects threatened habitat despite the fact that habitat destruction is the key driver of species becoming threatened, endangered and extinct in Australia. The Wildlife Regulations 2013 include an offence to damage, disturb or destroy wildlife habitat except where the person is authorised under any other act, meaning miners, developers and others just need a permit and they are able to destroy threatened species habitat. This has got to change.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998, or FFG act, is meant to protect all native flora and fauna in the state. Mechanisms include listing threatened species, communities and threats to native species; establishment of a statewide biodiversity management strategy; requiring public authorities to take the act into account in their operations; and requiring permits for certain activities which may affect native plants and animals. However, one loophole is that the act itself does not require a permit to take protected flora from private land. Following criticism back in 2019 that the act was not working, Labor initiated a review. We acknowledge that they legislated some decent reforms in 2020; however, many of these are not being used. For example, there is something under the act called a critical habitat determination, which could force landowners into land management agreements for particularly important pieces of threatened species habitat. However, Labor has never actually used it. The laws are clearly not working to protect threatened species. Just one example of how our laws are broken is the destruction just two weeks ago of part of the Western Grassland Reserve. Labor’s broken laws and disinterest in protecting nature have empowered developers to rip up critically engaged grassland in Melbourne’s west. Volcanic plains grasslands are some of the rarest habitat in Victoria. Ninety-nine per cent has been destroyed since colonisation. The remaining 1 per cent provides habitat for endangered species like the striped legless lizard, the growling grass frog and the recently rediscovered grassland earless dragon.

In 2010 Labor made a deal with the federal government to protect what is left of this land under the Melbourne strategic assessment program. Labor was meant to buy 15,000 hectares under that deal by 2020. They managed just 10 per cent of that. After Labor missed that deadline, some developers paid $11 million for a piece of grassland in Truganina in 2021 and immediately began ripping up 19 hectares. The City of Melton pursued the developer and contractor through the courts, fining them just $170,000 and $210,000 respectively. Clearly that is just seen as the cost of doing business and will be a very small fine compared to the profit they will make on this land, because late last year developers began ripping up another 40 hectares down the road in Mount Cottrell. Our planning law, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, does not prioritise biodiversity. That act is by and large designed for developers and relies on council discretion for investigating breaches. Penalties for destroying critically endangered habitat are a slap on the wrist compared to the millions in profits that developers can make by destroying the grassland. Labor should have bought this land by 2020 and has since failed to apply any other protections, like critical habitat determinations, to stop these grasslands from being destroyed. They need to make an example of the developers, ensure they pay to rehabilitate the land and are not allowed to develop it, then purchase the remaining 75 per cent of the reserve that they promised to buy but never did.

In summary, all of these examples I have mentioned show how our nature protection laws are broken in Victoria. Either they are not strong enough or the government are not even using the small number of tools they do have under the law, because we are losing threatened habitat at an alarming rate. We have over 2000 threatened species and ecosystems listed in Victoria, and our recent state of the environment report shows that all the indicators in terms of biodiversity in Victoria are going backwards. This is not good enough. The least the government can do is release this review – done by experts – into our nature protection laws and their recommendations for how to fix them. The Labor minister has had these recommendations sitting in their drawer for more than three years. It is time to release them and fix our nature laws in Victoria.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:34): I rise to speak to the motion moved by Dr Mansfield, which seeks to ensure that the findings of the independent review of the Wildlife Act 1975 are made available to the public and the government responds to the recommendations contained therein. This is an important step in ensuring that our legislative framework continues to evolve to meet the needs of our wildlife, environment and communities. The Wildlife Act 1975 has provided a foundation for wildlife protection in Victoria for nearly 50 years. However, as our understanding of conservation, biodiversity and animal welfare has progressed, so too must our laws.

The Victorian government has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental protection, and this review presents an opportunity to build on the important work already underway. Announced in May 2020, this was a proactive step in modernising the approach to wildlife conservation. I take a moment to acknowledge the work of the expert panel led by Jane Brockington, Dr Jack Pascoe and Dr John Hellstrom, who conducted really extensive consultation with the stakeholders, receiving over 1000 public submissions and consulting key experts across the fields to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the issues at hand. It is worth noting that the government remains committed to ensuring and carefully considering the panel’s final report and ensuring that any reforms align with our broader biodiversity strategy. By bringing forward this motion – I again thank Dr Mansfield for that – it gives me an opportunity to speak to and reaffirm the importance of transparency and informed decision-making as we move towards our next step in wildlife protection.

It is also worth taking a moment to reflect on the Allan Labor government and the historic investments made in environmental protection and biodiversity. In 2014 – which I know was some time ago, but the investment was so staggering that it is worth repeating here – a $609 million investment was made to dedicate ourselves to safeguarding Victorian biodiversity. It really was an unprecedented commitment to conservation and ecological restoration. There were initiatives contained within that, including Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037. Within that it reaffirmed the government’s commitment to a really strong ambition to have a thriving natural environment that is valued and actively cared for by the community. Programs such as the Nature Fund and BushBank have been instrumental in mobilising resources for high-impact conservation efforts and projects. By working in partnerships with traditional owners, environment groups and private investors, we continue to expand protected habitats, restore ecosystems and improve biodiversity resilience across the state. Additionally, closer to us here is the Port Phillip Bay Fund, which has supported vital marine conservation efforts, investing $17.1 million in 215 projects aimed at preserving the precious marine biodiversity. Projects like ReefWatch’s underwater weeding trial have removed some invasive kelp species, demonstrating the government’s commitment to maintaining the health of our coastal areas. I know that there are a few speakers that will follow here that represent our coastal environments – as I do, only for a little bit.

To complement these efforts, it is worth taking some time to honour the fact that the government has introduced new policies to promote sustainable land management and ecological resilience. Investments in regenerative farming practices and native vegetation restoration ensure that our landscape remains productive while also supporting biodiversity. These initiatives help mitigate the impact of climate change while enhancing the long-term sustainability of our agriculture and of course our natural systems. Victoria’s native species face increased threats from habitat loss, invasive species and climate change. The government has taken steps to address these challenges, including the dedicated conservation programs for endangered species, such as the brush-tailed rock-wallaby and the spotted tree frog. There are efforts of course to control invasive species, and I would like to particularly highlight those in culturally significant areas, such as the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape. There are collaborations between government agencies, traditional owners and conservation groups which have led to important progress in restoring these really unique and world-recognised ecosystems.

The current fire system is something I am reflecting on. What that has highlighted is the importance of rapid response during emergencies for animal welfare. Rapid responses to emergencies during bushfire season would not have been possible without, in recent years, the success of the Victorian Landcare program, which has invested over $100 million to support environmental volunteers and conservation efforts, highlighting the importance of community-driven conservation. By working alongside these local groups, the government ensures conservation efforts are both effective and inclusive. I am particularly keen to highlight that the work that we can and should do moving forward in protecting and enhancing our biodiversity and conservation efforts must include a true partnership with not only traditional owners but also environmental organisations and local communities. Conservation is a shared responsibility. The collective efforts of government, non-government organisations and individuals are key to ensuring that wildlife and ecosystems thrive for generations to come. I think this government certainly has placed significant emphasis on traditional owner led conservation efforts and the invaluable role that they play, with Indigenous knowledge, for ongoing land and wildlife management, supporting traditional owners in managing country, not only strengthening conservation outcomes but advancing self-determination.

The government has also made a significant advancement in animal welfare, and I know that there are other speakers from our side that would want to speak to our efforts against animal cruelty in the state. One thing that I was excited to learn about – and I remember conversations happening in this place about it – was the establishment of a new wildlife hospital. A commitment was made of $4.7 million towards the establishment of this wildlife hospital, which will provide critical care for injured and endangered animals, expanding the support available for wildlife carers and veterinary professionals and ensuring that Victoria remains at the forefront of compassionate and science-based animal welfare.

I will finish my remarks by thanking all of those involved in the Wildlife Act review process for their dedication and expertise – and all of those involved in our conservation efforts. I did speak to this in my constituency question earlier today, having recently attended the Celebrating Women in Conservation Breakfast put on by Trust for Nature and Bush Heritage only last Friday, when I had the good fortune to be around so many of our women warriors for conservation. Standing there, meeting them and knowing very directly from them about their ambition for the thriving biodiversity here in our state, not just now but many generations into the future, was certainly very uplifting and something that I took a lot from.

To all the women in conservation, all the women in biodiversity management, all the women who help keep our community so strong, can I take a moment to shout you out before International Women’s Day. Thank you for all your efforts. I know that anything that we can do as a government to support gender equality in all aspects of government, including making sure that we have got gender-responsive systems in our environment department and amongst the various projects and programs that we are working on in environment, biodiversity and conservation management, is a good thing. To all of them, with a particular shout-out to Corinne and the team – Ash and others – from Trust for Nature, thank you so much for all that you do for country here in Victoria. Thanks for forging some really important partnerships – longstanding, deeply trusted partnerships – with organisations right across our state and also with individuals, landholders and folks that care for the future of Victoria. To you I say thank you.

I look forward to hearing other contributions being made that continue to highlight our efforts in protecting and preserving Victoria’s unique biodiversity. Again, I take a moment to thank Dr Mansfield for bringing this matter to our chamber, and I look forward to hearing other contributions from further speakers on this motion this afternoon.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:44): I am pleased to rise today to be the first speaker for the Liberals and Nationals on Dr Mansfield’s motion 852. As is the normal protocol in this house, we certainly will not be opposing the request of the Greens to table the review of the Wildlife Act 1975, the expert panel report and the government’s response to that report. It is really refreshing and pleasing to see that the Greens are actually talking about the environment for a change in this place rather than other international events and foreign affairs. I am very pleased. In this case, we are actually on a unity ticket today. We may come from separate directions, the Nationals and the Liberals meeting the Greens, but we do have the same focus. We actually want our threatened species to survive and to thrive. We want our public land and private land to be well managed. And we want to ensure that there are healthy ecosystems right across this vast state.

We know that the government has some 8 million hectares of public land, and around 4 million of those hectares are under national parks. We support national parks. In fact, we lament the fact that this government has left national parks as a second-class entity. I can only see that it will continue to be that way when we have such interesting wastes of money, like the Commonwealth Games at $600 million; free fishing rods – what a great idea they were or were not as we love fishing but I do not know that people had to be given a rod; New Year’s Eve Foo Fighter events; and a pet census. Now, I think – and maybe the Greens will come with me on this idea – that some of that money that was directed out there could have been redirected into protecting conservation areas, protecting vulnerable species and ensuring that the 11 per cent of the field officers that are out there under the department, working in the forests, working on our public land and our grasslands, are actually able to do their job. They could have some friends come out of Melbourne, come out of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action – 60 per cent of the department of environment actually sits in metropolitan Melbourne. My contention would be that we could take some of those people – maybe they might like a holiday – who are passionate about the environment and get them out in the environment looking after public land and looking after our wildlife and threatened species.

There was a beautiful lady I had the privilege of knowing, and her name was Rita Bentley. She passed away in 2020 and we could not go to her funeral because we were all in lockdown. She was an OAM and a former president of the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. She rang me in the early morning in early 2020 and said we needed to revive the slogan, ‘Fuel reduction saves lives’. I was sitting in Bairnsdale Airport at the time, and I had actually just finished speaking with wildlife officers who were going out to Mallacoota to euthanise animals.

In the 2019–2020 fire, there were approximately – I think there have been some estimates – 3 billion fauna, wildlife animals, killed because of that inferno, incinerated. I would be very interested to know whether or not part of that wildlife review spoke to mitigation and protection of wildlife in relation to reducing the risk of out-of-control bushfires. We will always have bushfires, we always have in this country had bushfires, lightning strikes et cetera, but this government has taken a wilful blade to the idea of active management. There would have been nothing more devastating, I would think, for those wildlife managers than going out to Mallacoota at that time to have to euthanise burnt animals. I put that on record.

The other thing that I would like to put on record is that we had the opportunity to meet and listen to Dr Jack Pascoe from the Conservation Ecology Centre when there was, I think in the former Parliament, the inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria. That was a Greens-inspired investigation through the Environment and Planning Committee. We had him there, and we listened intently. He spoke about upside-down forests, where there is so much fuel load on the bottom of the ground that it forms a ladder that goes up to the canopy, and when that gets lit, in certain situations, there is an intensity. But Dr Jack Pascoe spoke about cool Indigenous burns, and he said:

I think low-intensity fire does nourish the soil, and I have heard many old elders talk about the right colour charcoal being a blanket for country throughout the winter.

Thank you, Dr Jack Pascoe, for your very interesting and wise comments.

The Wildlife Act certainly looks at protecting native wildlife, regulatory framework, the creation and management of wildlife reserves and sanctuaries, the permits required to handle protected wildlife, penalties for illegal activities and the legislative basis for the conservation programs. We certainly do not have any problem with that. What we do want to see is a refresher, and the production of these documents would be able to help.

The other thing that I often find so frustrating is that the government will come out and say, ‘We’re doing this.’ We heard the government speaker just there: ‘We’re saving the environment.’ Well, there is a little thing called the State of the Forests report. The State of the Forests report is supposed to come out every five years. The last one came out in 2018. The next due date was 2023. We are now two years overdue, so it has been seven years between when the last report from the state government came out and now. What is that doing? First of all, we actually cannot assess the progress towards sustainable forest management, and forest management means the ecosystem, which includes flora and fauna, and so therein lies the trickery of this. We actually cannot see what the government is doing. It is keeping its own report card, if it is doing anything, very close to its chest.

The report tracks health and conditions of forest systems, it monitors threatened species, it evaluates effectiveness of conservation measures and it provides essential data for evidence-based policy development. Wouldn’t that be good? Wouldn’t that actually be helpful to all of us in here – government, Greens, Nationals and Liberals – so that we actually could have an understanding about what the report card is for our forest systems and their ecohabitats? In fact the 2018 report found fragmentation of native forest cover was rated ‘poor’, with poor habitat available for forest-dependent indicator species. The number of forest-dependent species at risk from isolation was just unknown – they just did not know about it; they had not looked at it – and others were the same. It is almost impossible for the population, the Victorian people, to have an understanding about what is going on in our forests and our broader ecosystems – grasslands, coastal areas and the like. So I call on the government to get its act together and actually produce this report. I think the report card is going to be very shoddy and therefore the government is just kicking the tin down the road on this issue.

The other thing – we do know this, and we could list them all off – is the vulnerable species. In the past when I have spoken about the timber industry, it is always gobsmacking when it is all going in a terrible way, but there has never been a species that actually has gone to extinction due to the timber industry. No-one has ever documented that or proved that. Funnily enough, one of our very tender and special species the Leadbeater’s possum quite often occurs in flourishing numbers in regrowth post timber harvesting. But I will leave that comment for today.

My issue with this government is that we do not know what it is doing to support threatened species. We do not know what it is doing to evaluate and monitor and do the science behind the surveys and outcomes. They are not looking at landscape-wide protection of species. If they are, they are not sharing it with us – where, when and how. They are actually failing to prepare these threatened species action plans. So all is well because we are all kept in ignorance, and I think that is totally unfair.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:55): I support this motion as I am always happy to see data come out. Governments should be actually putting out a lot of stuff rather than requiring FOIs or motions, but here we are. What I am going to do is correct some misconceptions, mainly about deer. Deer are a bit of a vexed subject for some. First of all, they are called feral. At the risk of being pedantic, they cannot be feral because they were released as a game animal. To be feral they have to have escaped from domestication or from being used as a beast of burden or a farmed animal. To get to the guts of the matter, we are told we should make them a pest. They are not actually a protected species; I must say that. They are not protected in any way, shape or form. They are game animals, and as a game animal they are able to be hunted in a number of ways where if they were pests you could not. That sounds a bit contradictory, but you cannot hunt pests in a national park, whereas you can hunt some game animals in some parts of some national parks. You cannot hunt with dogs in national parks at all. You cannot have dogs in national parks, let alone hunt with them.

I have had it put to me that farmers need the ability, if they are pests, to be able to do more. That is wrong. Farmers now, subject to animal welfare concerns and the usual calibre restrictions, can do anything they want to a deer on their property – except possibly hog deer, but that is a separate story. That is, they can spotlight them, they can use thermals, they can do anything they need to get them off their property. So making them a pest then introduces another problem for the farmers. As with anything that is declared a pest, the farmer is responsible for controlling it, whether it is rabbits, blackberries, whatever. At the moment the farmer can control the deer himself if he wants, or he can get someone in to do it or whatever. Outside of there, if it is declared a pest, he or she is responsible for reducing the action and can get themselves into legal trouble. Obviously if you have a blackberry infestation on your farm and you do not deal with it, you can end up getting whatever the regulatory push is to deal with it, whereas as it is at the moment, they do not have to, they are not required to. They obviously will, but as a farmer they can do it, they might do it. They might like the deer; it might be up to them. If they are a pest, they must do it or else they will face repercussions.

Right now we have people paying to hunt deer. As part of that paying to hunt deer, we also have regulation. We have people having to have a game licence; we have people giving money to the government. God knows they could do with more at the moment, but I do not support any increases, just for anyone that is wondering. But if it is a pest, there are no controls, there are no licences, there is no barrier – when I say barrier to entry, you have to go and pay for a game licence, but it means you have to be serious about it. If you make it a pest, everyone can do it, and that means anyone can just be out there having a go and start having a shot. But as it as is at the moment you are getting serious people doing serious work getting a serious amount of deer out of the environment, and I think we just need to take a really good look at the whole desire to create a pest thing. It is counterproductive. It will not help. It will make it worse. Leave them as game animals as part of the review. We can look into that or not look into that. That is up to the government; that is why we want these documents. But education about deer, of all things, is critical because we could make it far worse, not better.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:59): Long have we called for reform to the Wildlife Act 1975 and long have our wildlife died at the hands of insufficient protections in this state. Finally, in 2020, following a mass poisoning of 406 wedge-tailed eagles which resulted in a fine of $6 per bird, the Victorian Labor government announced that they would review and modernise our state’s broken wildlife laws. Five years later they have failed to deliver these laws. Not only that, but as part of this reform they created an expert advisory committee to give them advice on how the Wildlife Act could be improved as part of this work. It cost taxpayers $3 million to do this work. They handed down their findings in 2021, four years ago and five years since the promise. Four years and three ministers have gone by since then. The report is gathering dust on someone’s desk out there, and they refuse to release it. It has not seen the light of day. This documents motion seeks to change that. The government’s actions when it comes to this commitment show its ongoing disdain for Australia’s wildlife, which is so severe that they will not even turn their minds to our broken wildlife laws – the ones that they acknowledged are broken and the ones that they promised to fix.

It was a year ago to the day of this debate when I raised this topic in this place, as I have multiple times, and I was told by the Minister for Environment that the Allan government was just taking the time to get this right, that it just needed time to get this right. But you would really think the beginning of this process, of apparently trying to get our wildlife laws right, would involve releasing the report and responding to it. The government’s inaction and delay have even been criticised by some of the very experts they put on this panel and tasked with advising them on this vital piece of work. One of them is Jack Pascoe, an Aboriginal man with ecological research and conservation management expertise. He said in an interview:

There’s no such thing as an iron clad commitment in politics but there was a commitment to reform this legislation that was drawn up in 1975 …

That is how long it has been since these laws were reviewed. But I guess we probably should not be surprised by this, because it certainly would not be the first time that this government, the Allan Labor government, has ignored expert advice that has come through the wildlife space. I am sure this chamber is absolutely sick of me talking about duck shooting – it is not even the first time that I have done it today – but what I am actually sick of is the government treating Australia’s native wildlife as nothing more than disposable targets.

There have only been a limited number of offences prosecuted under the Wildlife Act in the past decade. I really wish this was because crimes against wildlife are rare, but rescuers and wildlife carers that I speak to and my office speaks to almost every single day know all too well that this lack of prosecution is not a reflection of the extreme amount of cruelty and crime against our wildlife that they witness daily. I stand here in this chamber every sitting week and raise horrific cases of cruelty to our native animals: kangaroos being shot through the skull with bows and arrows, deliberate road strikes, koala deaths from plantation harvesting, stonker trout deaths and mass habitat destruction, not to mention the permitted slaughter of wildlife through the kangaroo harvest management plan and the authority-to-control-wildlife scheme. We all know why the government does not want to release this report. It is because it is absolutely impossible to reform our wildlife laws in this state in a way that does not conflict with the current policy to destroy every native animal that we have here. The low numbers of prosecutions could be due to the insufficient enforcement mechanisms or the lack of powers for authorised officers to enter and search, barriers to charging perpetrators under the act or even a reluctance by the Allan government to take crimes against wildlife seriously. That said, it is unequivocally a result of this poorly drafted, archaic legislation they know will be a nightmare to fix.

Still to this day not one thing has been done about 84 kangaroos killed and mowed down by a vehicle in Horsham in June last year, nor has anyone been held to account for the penguin in St Kilda that was brutally bashed by three men in 2023, despite there being CCTV footage of it. And we all know that the Game Management Authority would rather prosecute wildlife rescue volunteers than cruelty breaches by shooters themselves. I know this because I have experienced it myself. They have absolutely no issue whatsoever with arresting, fining and banning rescuers, but they throw their hands up in the air when it comes to prosecuting shooters for killing protected species and for wounding birds and not retrieving them. Even when we give them the footage, give them the licence plate or know the name of the shooter, the GMA suddenly cannot do anything about it. Our wildlife laws are completely in conflict with what is going on in this state. In the rare event that a prosecution is made, the penalties are wholly disproportionate to the crime and do not act as adequate deterrents. As I mentioned earlier in this speech, a review of the act was promised after a mass poisoning of wedge-tailed eagles occurred in 2020, equating to $6 per bird. That is the price placed on wildlife under the penalties in this current legislation.

Our kangaroos are treated as pests in this state, despite being a national emblem. They are slaughtered and exported en masse for their skins or in many cases simply killed for the shooter’s pleasure, as we see regularly. Almost every single day in my electorate there is illegal shooting of kangaroos.

Our native waterbirds are of course protected until the duck-shooting season rolls around each year. It is extra long this year, as the Allan Labor government wilfully ignores all evidence of the need for a ban. We live in a state where a duck is protected in November out of recognition for its declining population, but not in March – not in a few weeks time. That duck, which is protected right now, will not be protected under our wildlife laws – they will become free game.

Under the Wildlife Act, individuals are able to kill just about any native animal in this state. They do not even need to show a gun licence to be granted the permission to do that. The Wildlife Act permits this scheme whereby there are no reporting requirements whatsoever.

We know only that the Labor government permitted almost 120,000 native animals to be killed in 2023 – that is the only detail that we have of this. Neither we nor the government themselves actually know how many were killed, because there is no system where the permit holder has to report back on what or how many animals they actually killed under their permit.

The current Wildlife Act is set up perfectly for this unbridled killing and cruelty, with old licensing and permit schemes having no accountability, transparency or reporting requirements. This state is a deadly place for our wildlife. Our native animals are more likely to be deliberately killed than protected, and it is absolutely shameful.

It is important to acknowledge that the Wildlife Act also neglects to recognise the interests of traditional owners and First Peoples, who have unique connections with wildlife and the land. Instead, a white coloniser’s view is legislated into the handling and protection of wildlife in Victoria. Any reform to this act must ensure that this relationship is respected and reflected in the legislation. This topic was actually considered by the expert advisory committee, which makes it all the more valuable of a report for us to receive.

What is perhaps most shocking about the Wildlife Act is that it does not account for one of the largest threats to all species: the destruction of habitat. Ecologists and animal advocates have been asking for decades for wildlife and habitat preservation to be a consideration in planning and development laws. Instead, the Wildlife Act is more focused on the killing and displacement of wildlife seen as a nuisance than it is on their protection.

It is clear that our wildlife laws are completely broken. They are not fit for purpose. It has been an incredibly long time since they were reviewed and updated, and the government made the commitment to us and to the people of Victoria that they would do exactly that. They need to keep their promise, and that starts with releasing this report that will tell all of us what they have known for a long time and what they have been told to do about our broken wildlife laws four years ago.

I really want to thank my colleagues in the Greens for bringing this important documents motion today. It is of great value to me, my party and my office as well, and I commend it to the house.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:09): I rise to speak on Dr Mansfield’s motion. I am pleased to do so, and I am pleased to support it. I am a total fan of transparency and accountability, as you would know. It does seem extraordinary that the panel delivered its final report to the minister in December 2021, but we have not heard anything more about it. The government have not responded to it – nothing. Dr Mansfield quite rightly asks for the review of Wildlife Life Act 1975 expert advisory panel report to be given to us, along with the government’s response to the expert review of the Wildlife Act 1975. Cannot be too hard, you people over there. Can you not –

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, sorry, Mr Bourman – you are in the wrong place. But respond to the report or table it – what are you trying to hide, team Labor? I mean, seriously, get your act together and give us the report, give us your response. 2021 – that is how many years ago? I can barely add it up; it is so long ago. You have got the report and you cannot –

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: I can do numbers, don’t you worry about that. But you cannot get a report tabled, you cannot give us a response, and you are clearly hiding something so get your act together and do what Dr Mansfield is asking and get with it. Anyway, get with the program; get with the reservation. Actually I have got a bit of a clue here. I reckon the real reason why the minister refuses to release the independent review is because it will expose the environmental hypocrisy of this government. They bow down to green ideologies and environmental sycophants, but they are determined to cover up any attempts to reveal how environmentally destructive their new green energy projects actually are. Now let us go to how you are absolutely wrecking the environment.

Members interjecting.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr McIntosh is making a contribution not from his seat.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Thank you. The point of order is upheld. We ask for Mrs McArthur to be heard, thank you.

Bev McARTHUR: Mr McIntosh, just stay in your box over there. I want to go to this whole green ideology stuff. For example, the proposed Navarre Green Power Hub, a wind farm and battery storage project in central Victoria, would have a devastating and catastrophic environmental impact, destroying more than 18,000 hectares. According to the project’s own report it would affect flora and fauna in the Kara Kara National Park, Mount Bolingum Flora and Fauna Reserve, the Morrl Morrl Nature Conservation Reserve –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Just listen, Mr McIntosh – and in close proximity to Stuart Mill and the Big Tottington nature reserve and the Little Tottington State Forest, no less. Now, furthermore, the destructive transmission towers set to be built in western and northern Victoria will devastate vast areas of flora and fauna, with significant damage, especially to the Pyrete Range and the Long Forest Biolink. You talk about biodiversity in the environment – just get with the program and look at what you are doing to the environment. This area has a diverse range of landscapes covering two bioregions – Central Victorian uplands and Victorian volcanic plains – and five endangered vulnerable ecological vegetation classes. The area encompasses the Lerderderg State Park, the Pyrete Range, Merrimu Reservoir and Long Forest Nature Conservation Reserve.

Now, clearly there is danger being done to the environment. I am sure that is why they do not want to release any reports, because we will be able to expose exactly what this government is doing with their green energy ideology. This biolink, and I have been out there, provides crucial wildlife corridors connecting fragmented national habitats and allowing animals to move freely across a landscape to access food, shelter, breeding partners and new areas to live. This area hosts over 400 indigenous plants and over 17 species that are considered rare or threatened. You are going to wipe them out, team. However, the area will suffer a catastrophic loss of biodiversity if Labor’s bulldozers clear the way for their massive transmission towers. All of these are internationally recognised key biodiversity areas between which species, particularly birds, travel.

I will just give you a bit of a lesson here. The following rare and endangered birds face turbine strike and devastating habitat loss: the swift parrot, the barking owl, the bush stone-curlew, the black falcon – all critically endangered according to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 listings. You are going to wipe them out. The speckled warbler and the hooded robin are considered endangered. The powerful owl, the brown treecreeper, the diamond firetail and the painted honeyeater are listed as vulnerable. Migratory birds are threatened too and other animals endangered – tree goannas, vulnerable pink-tailed worm lizards, golden sun moths, eastern bent-wing bats and squirrel gliders. Vast swathes of their habitats face destruction. Populations face extinction too. Never mind the animals, what about the people?

Plant life too faces destruction, including many endangered orchids. The wipe-out of native vegetation is extraordinary: 135 hectares, no less. This includes 23 hectares of grey box and native south-east Australian grasslands, 5 hectares of white box, yellow box, Blakely’s red gum grassy woodland, and the list continues.

Closer to home there is a proposal for a battery farm at Little River on very good farming land, acres of it, right next door to a national park – or a park; I do not know whether it is a national park or whatever. Anyway, the neighbouring farmer generously looks after this whole bushland area, this area of fabulous native vegetation, but with a battery right next door to it, goodness me, what is going to happen when the fire starts? You cannot put these batteries out. So this whole fabulous native forest area, which is being maintained generously by the farmer, Mr Pettit, will be gone for all and sundry.

Ms Bath referred to the incineration of animals that happens in a bushfire.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Mr McIntosh, about the animals that get incinerated in a bushfire: you have done away with cold burning thanks to some ideologues who think you cannot do any cold burning – ‘We don’t light fires’ or whatever. But let me tell you, if you have an intense bushfire, you will destroy millions of native animals. Do not worry about how they are going to get lost crossing the road. What are we doing, Ms Purcell?

Georgie Purcell interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: The roadkill inquiry – the poor old kangaroos do not know how to look right, left and right again as they cross the road. They are getting wiped out in the bushfires because you lot do not want to do cold burning – I mean, seriously.

Also, at every opportunity you are locking up the forests and throwing away the keys. You have just sacked a whole lot of parks officers who were looking after your forests.

Members interjecting.

Bev McARTHUR: You have sacked them. Meanwhile you have got a massive number sitting here in Spring Street or somewhere, probably at home in their pyjamas, who are meant to be involved in looking after the parks. You have done away with the people out in the field who actually do something about noxious weeds and vermin, but you are not decreasing the numbers in head office. You are absolutely hopeless. You have sacked the field staff. You are also sacking all the fisheries officers. They actually do a fantastic job at making sure there is not illegal fishing and catching –

Richard Welch: On a point of order, Acting President, the interjections are almost constant. There is absolutely no gap in between them whatsoever. Can we just have some silence so Mrs McArthur can deliver her speech?

Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, Acting President, given that Mr Welch has just taken up the last few seconds of Mrs McArthur’s time, I move, by leave:

That Mrs McArthur’s time be extended by 5 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

Bev McARTHUR: I thank the house. What a privilege, team. I can just wax lyrical about –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Order! Unless you want another 5 minutes, I would suggest there is silence.

Bev McARTHUR: I thank my colleagues. It is very generous. I am sure they are absolutely riveted by my exposure of the fact that there is green hypocrisy left, right and centre in this place.

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: It is over there, because you are locking up the forests and throwing away the keys. There are noxious weeds and vermin out of control. Some people here want to introduce dingoes into the show. Let me tell you what happens when you introduce dingoes into the farming areas. Have you ever seen a lamb slaughtered by a dingo? It is catastrophic. We cannot be having dingoes introduced into areas. Ms Purcell, we do not need any dingoes anywhere. Who talked about the kangaroos? Ms Purcell as well. The kangaroos are a serious problem. They are out of control. I did do an adjournment last night. I do not know where you all were; you should have been listening.

Tom McIntosh: What about nuclear?

Bev McARTHUR: Well, then we will not need all those transmission towers, Mr McIntosh.

Tom McIntosh: Do you want a nuclear reactor?

Bev McARTHUR: If we have nuclear energy, you will not need all those transmission towers wrecking the bio –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Have you been out to the biolink where you are going to cut a swathe through this fabulous area? Forty-five farmers gave up their land for a biolink so you could put a transmission tower through it. That is not looking after the environment. That is not about biodiversity. You are just wrecking a biolink.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: You are meant to be looking after the environment. Do what Dr Mansfield is asking: give her the reports. Give us all the reports so we can find out exactly what the two reports were about. But we also want to know what your response is. Since 2021 you have not been able to respond to this. You are just sitting on it. There is obviously something to hide here. What are you hiding? It must be something very secretive that you have got locked away in your bottom drawer that you do not want to tell us.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: This is about the environment, Mr McIntosh. This is about wrecking the environment –

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, these are just unruly interjections from the other side.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I uphold that point of order.

Bev McARTHUR: It is a great pleasure to be speaking on this motion, because we do need these documents and we do need your response. 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 – heavens. It is five, four years you have had to produce this report.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: I cannot add up, Mr Batchelor. Who is sitting on it? What are you doing if you cannot produce a report in this time? We all know how you are absolutely inept at looking after the environment. We know that, and you are going to wreck it further. You do not allow the custodians of the environment, who want to care about it, to do anything useful. You would lock it up even further if you had half a chance. We have got a problem up there in all your parks and state forests. We have got vermin totally out of control. You wanted to shoot all the brumbies because you said that would solve the problem. That was just an ideological frolic as well. It was a cruel, absolutely shocking effort at trying to solve the environment.

But my time is nearly running out. Congratulations, Dr Mansfield, for bringing this motion forward. Just do as we ask, produce the documents, and for goodness sake, give us your answer, government.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:25): The Libertarian Party normally always supports documents motions on principle, but this particular one I am very enthusiastically supporting because there are many things, which I will point out shortly if the government will allow me to talk, that have been brought to my attention that are causing all sorts of problems across the state caused by the very Wildlife Act 1975 that has been reviewed. As has been pointed out, the report was done back in 2021, and for some weird reason the government has been sitting on it. We can only speculate as to why, and I have got a few ideas that I will outline in a moment.

Let us look at some of the consequences of the current insane laws that we have around wildlife. One of the things that I have brought up here and have engaged on with people is around herpetology, the keeping of reptiles. There are many enthusiastic herpetologists throughout the state, and at the moment some of them are getting knocks on their door early in the morning and being inspected by the department for apparently breaching ancient regulations that are no longer suitable. It is to do with dimensions and sizes of boxes – whether or not they are a certain height or width and this sort of thing. Apparently they are hopelessly out of date, have not been reviewed and definitely need reviewing. It is just nuts that they will spend more effort on enforcement and fining people than they will on updating the regulations. It just seems crazy to me.

The second issue, which is even more insane, as I brought up in this place and in the media, is around Sunset Sanctuary. Roy Pails has spent his own money and purchased land that was basically denuded by mining; there was just nothing there. He has fenced it all off from ferals, shot all the ferals on the property, put feral-proof fencing in, revegetated it and brought in native wildlife – many of the animals are close to extinction – and is managing it, and the department comes in and says, ‘Well, you’re not counting these animals, because it is a nearly wild environment,’ and it does not suit all the regulations that they have got, because it is not really a zoo and it is not really putting them in cages and stuff. Basically he was given the option of either figuring out a way to count these wild animals, which is pretty hard on a great big property when it is virtually wild there; killing them all, which would comply with regulations; tearing down the fencing, which is just killing them slowly by exposing them to cats and foxes and other predators; or putting them in cages. These are the options. We are still waiting on a response from the department on this, and I would really like them to come up with a solution, but I cannot believe that any of those solutions are better than what he is doing now. This just seems like crazy, crazy regulations that we have here, and the government needs to do something to fix this.

But let us speculate a little bit on why this has been held for so long. Now, I know that Ms Purcell has had her own reasons why, and the Greens have been speculating over their own reasons. My team went to a presentation recently – a few members of my team – and it was talking about wildlife conservation and endangered species and this sort of thing. One of the things that they brought up is brolgas – and also peregrine falcons, but mostly brolgas – and one of the things that is causing a massive, potentially extinction-level threat in Victoria to brolgas is wind turbines. I know others have brought up this in Parliament before, but it would be very concerning if this report that was looking into threats to wildlife concluded that some of the threats are not only people breaking the law, as Ms Purcell has pointed out, but also government actions themselves. One can sort of understand why the government might not want to release that.

I fully support Dr Mansfield’s motion here to release this report, because as has been pointed out, $3 million of taxpayers money was spent on it. I assume that these esteemed people working on it did a good job, but let us have a look and read it and find out, because it seems very odd and very suspicious that something like this would be kept under wraps for such a long time. Many of us here have an interest in looking at this. I think Ms Purcell and I might not agree what the solution is, but we may agree that the regulations are vastly out of date and need updating. I think we can agree at least on that. So let us have a look at this and see what these experts actually thought were threats to wildlife in Victoria, because we do not know. On that, I conclude, but the Libertarian Party will be supporting Dr Mansfield’s motion.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:31): I also rise to add my voice to what has been a fairly wideranging debate today on motion 852. I will acknowledge Dr Mansfield at the outset for raising this important subject today of wildlife regulations, indeed with reference to the review that has been undertaken, and note that in accordance with other such motions of this type the government will not be opposing the motion today.

Broad ranging is probably a subtle way of describing what we have discussed today in this motion. We have heard from Mr Bourman, Ms Purcell in particular and indeed from Mrs McArthur. I am not sure, I certainly learned a lot from your contribution, Mrs McArthur, though perhaps nothing that is actually relevant to what we are talking about here. I will aim to add some comments that touch on both this government’s investment in this space and also of course the importance of having these regulations updated, which I know is an objective of this government. Indeed, Mrs McArthur, I will do my very best to get with the program in my remarks today, noting that we have had fairly strange unity in some places as well. When Mrs McArthur is praising Ms Purcell, it always gives me cause for concern as to what is happening – has the sky fallen from above? She did qualify it by attacking the forthcoming Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s inquiry into wildlife road strikes. I am not sure if she was saying at one point that it does not matter anyway because bushfires do far more damage. I am sure we would all agree, Mrs McArthur, that we do not want bushfires. I do not think you will find any member in this place that does want bushfires, but certainly when you do have those horrific events that do befall our part of the world from time to time, in addition to the incredible and horrific loss of life, property and everything else at the time and the trauma that lives on from those events, it does have a lasting impact on things such as our wildlife numbers. In light of that and in light of the fact that we do not have a magic wand to be able to stop bushfires – I am sure we would all be grabbing it to use it if we did – we should be reducing the impacts of things such as wildlife loss. That is why we have had a few contributions that have touched on various different parts of that already.

There has been some discussion around deer hunting, in particular from Mr Bourman, but without going too far into that space, I obviously note that the government does have a number of programs with regard to deer control. I know in regions like mine in the outskirts of the south-east we do have significant issues with deer populations in places like Beaconsfield and Beaconsfield Upper in particular in my patch, and I know from my regional colleagues it is even more so in other places too. We have Parks Victoria programs that target deer specifically, and we know it is a keen interest of many in the hunting community to be able to hunt deer as well, as Mr Bourman so well put it.

We do have a litany of things that this government has done when it comes to investment in our biodiversity, in our wildlife. In fact since coming to office the government has invested more than $600 million in protecting biodiversity, supporting animal welfare, assisting private land conservation and looking after the natural environment. This is the largest-ever investment in biodiversity by any government. Through the Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 initiative we aim for the state’s biodiversity to be healthy, to be valued and actively cared for by our communities. It seeks not only to enhance the natural environment but also to improve the health and wellbeing of all communities through their connection to nature.

The Nature Fund, as part of that, has contributed $13.5 million for high-impact conservation projects, attracting co-investment from private groups to drive collective action for threatened species and their habitats. Additionally, look at things such as the $77 million BushBank program in collaboration with Cassinia Environmental and incredible organisations like Trust for Nature. I know Ms Terpstra is in the chamber and recently made a statement on a report in relation to the terrific work that Trust for Nature does. I have had some connection with them over various periods of time and can speak about some of their sites that they have in the Pakenham area and some of the incredible work that they do in protecting not just our native environment but, as flows with that, our native fauna as well. It is not just for those organisations, the support is also extended to private landholders. That funding through BushBank has led to around 20,000 hectares of private land in Victoria being touched by that investment. That is a very significant number when we are talking about the sorts of things that we need to be doing in order to keep looking after our native wildlife.

We know that invasive species do pose a significant threat to our state’s flora and fauna and that contributes to their decline, as does, as I referred to in a separate motion this morning, land use patterns and climate change. We have implemented large-scale invasive species management projects to build biodiversity resilience and adapt to those climate change impacts. In addition to the considerable work that we are doing on climate change as a state, we also recognise the fact that the impacts are not some hypothetical thing in the future. They are here, they are happening now, and you only have to look at the severity of horrific weather events to see them play out all too tragically and all too often for us.

Separately to our state, I was quite surprised to hear a few days ago that there is a cyclone on the way towards south-east Queensland. I am sure all members in this place will be sending our very best wishes to the people of south-east Queensland and far-northern New South Wales as they are facing a particularly challenging day tomorrow. We do live in a country that poses many, many threats of natural disasters.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Michael GALEA: Droughts and flooding rain – exactly right, Ms Terpstra – and all manner of disasters in between. With the frequency and severity of those events only escalating further, it is all the more important that we do this work and make these investments, such as the investments that have been made by this government in our wildlife to support our vulnerable species.

There is a significant amount of work that is also done in relation to the Wildlife Emergency Support Network. I know there has been a considerable amount of funding to all manner of wildlife support services. One particular organisation that I have already mentioned today and have mentioned once or twice in this place is Wildlife Victoria, the state’s largest protection agency for our native wildlife. In addition to the things I referenced this morning – their work with regard to the native duck=hunting season – the bread and butter of their work is supporting Victorian communities. Victorians on the road or out and about see an animal, wildlife or a native species in distress, and they provide outstanding support. They have a very impressive contact centre, which I had the privilege of visiting, with a combination of staff and volunteers. To see the professionalism of that centre was very, very impressive indeed.

On my visit I had the opportunity of going out on a rescue. It was a very hot day. It was even hotter than it is today, and there was a possum that had some heat stress and had been stuck under a pipe. I believe it possibly had a head injury as well. It had possibly fallen and had got stuck under this pipe in Prahran. We were able to rescue the possum. I am not the most hands-on with possums, but I was a supportive bystander as the experts did their thing best, and we escorted it off to one of their urgent veterinary clinics. As I understand it, the possum made a full recovery a few days later. It was very good to be part of a good story. Obviously these amazing people, whether paid or volunteers, go out day in, day out looking after and having to deal with very tragic circumstances where there is not always a happy ending. They do sometimes have to put animals down. It is a very, very hard thing. I would probably struggle enormously with that. There are amazing people like that in our community who do this sort of work. I am excited to be doing my bit wherever I can as part of the Allan Labor government’s continuing support of the work of wonderful organisations such as Wildlife Victoria and smaller organisations who operate right across the state as well.

In concluding, we have had a delightful range of contributions today, and I have very much appreciated the chance to listen in on all of them. However, at the heart of it is an important subject, and as I say, the government will not be opposing this motion today.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:40): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Dr Mansfield’s motion with respect to the Wildlife Act 1975, which is seeking a range of materials relating to the review of the Wildlife Act that the government announced in May 2020 – an independent review of the Wildlife Act undertaken and completed by an independent expert advisory panel led by Jane Brockington with Dr Jack Pascoe and Dr John Hellstrom. The panel delivered their final report, as the motion notes, to the minister in December 2021, and the motion seeks production of that report. The government’s response, as is convention, as we have said many times – the government does not oppose motions requesting the production of documents and will consider them in due course.

It has obviously been a pretty lively debate, and there have been a lot of things said. One point I just wanted to make was to note when the report was delivered to the government: December 2021. In her lengthy and extended contribution, Mrs McArthur tried to make a point about just how long it has been since the government received this report. She started out thinking it had been five years and then had to go through a process of counting and re-counting to see exactly how many years it has been. The period of time between December 2021 and March 2025 is not five years. December 2022 would be one year, December 2023 would be two years, December 2024 would be three years, and it has been three months on from that. Basically we have got a problem, because Mrs McArthur seems to be a couple of years short in her claim. Somewhat confused, she has not been able to understand the difference between three and five – two years short. I am sorry, Mrs McArthur, if you cannot find those extra two years. Maybe they are somewhere with the extra two votes that you needed to knock off Mr Mulholland from his job as deputy leader in this chamber.

I think that this debate, for all its frivolity –

A member interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: No, it was quicker than that. For all of its frivolity, this debate goes to an important question, which is: has this government got a record of supporting biodiversity? Has this government got a record of supporting our wildlife in our environment? And I think fundamentally you can say that we have. We absolutely have. Protection of the environment, protecting animal welfare, supporting volunteering and supporting Landcare programs is critical for managing the health of our ecosystems and critical for ensuring that we have got clean air, clean water, productive soils and pest controls. There are a range of great organisations, a range of great programs – my colleague Mr Galea went through some of them in a lot of detail – aimed at supporting biodiversity.

I just want to give a shout-out quickly, before I sit down so my colleague can make a brief contribution as well, to the exceptional work that the wildlife groups do at the Yalukit Willam wildlife reserve at the old Elsternwick golf course. Dedicated volunteers work day in and day out to protect local species. Particularly in the last week there was some emergency action that needed to be undertaken to prevent the destruction of a habitat of a threatened frog species in that reserve. The work that volunteers like that in the Elsternwick community and right around this state do to support and protect wildlife, to support and protect biodiversity, should be applauded. I join my colleagues and I join many in the chamber who have congratulated the volunteers across this state on the wonderful work that they do to protect our unique and important wildlife. This is an important task, it is an important topic, and I am sure, should this motion be passed, the government will consider the request for the production of these documents very, very carefully.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:45): I also rise to make a contribution on this motion seeking the production of documents in regard to the Wildlife Act 1975, and there are a number of things being sought. I have had the benefit of listening to the contributions. I must say there is a strong level of cooperation amongst the backbenchers here in order to make sure we all get a chance to have a say on this very important motion, because despite the frivolity that has prevailed in the chamber today, I think we all do care about our natural environment. As the former chair of the Environment and Planning Committee I chaired one of the biggest inquiries that this Parliament has seen, the ecosystem decline inquiry. I can recall the many, many witnesses that gave evidence on a whole range of matters. They were experts in relation to our ecosystems, and that included our biodiversity, our natural environment and our flora and fauna – all manner of things. I learned a terrible lot, as you often do in inquiries. It was a very interesting inquiry.

Some of the things sought in this motion are things that are not new to this Parliament. There are certainly things that were discussed in the context of that inquiry. I also note Ms Purcell’s and of course the Greens’ interest in this area. They are obviously passionate advocates for a whole range of things; reviewing the Wildlife Act and seeking the release of the expert advisory panel report are things that they also have an interest in seeing.

As has been mentioned before, the government will not be opposing this documents motion. That is our position on it. That is the convention that we adopt. It is an area that our government has heavily invested in, despite what may be said. We can always come under fire and criticism from those who think we should be doing more, but we have invested over $13.3 million over three years in the 2024–25 budget to deliver critical animal welfare regulatory services. Some of the things that we have funded include banning puppy farms, making it an offence to sell pets without a valid microchip, removing the need for greyhounds to be muzzled in public, Victoria’s first Animal Welfare Action Plan, giving renters the right to keep a pet, reforming the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure government receives expert evidence, becoming the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds and launching the targeted cat desexing program. There are lots of other things that we have done and that we have funded, and we continue to work on animal welfare reforms.

I am a passionate advocate for animals. You would have heard me speak earlier about my involvement with the RSPCA and I think probably one of the first pet food banks for people in my community. Rather than surrender their pets because they cannot afford to feed them, they can actually have free food. The RSPCA does run desexing clinics that are at low cost to people as well. There is a lot of stuff that is happening in this space. However, I do understand the point: that the Greens and Ms Purcell obviously have an interest in seeing this.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I am not critical of you, Mrs McArthur, for not being able to do math at certain periods of time. I myself confess to having had the same problem at various points in time. I think we all have gone there at some point, but nevertheless I can see what the point of this motion is. As I said, the government does not oppose documents motions. It is something that we are happy to look at.

I will go on. There is lots of stuff that is happening. We did public consultations in 2021–22, which were about the draft animal care and protection bill – there was a 14-week public consultation there. We got a tremendous response to that, with over 1300 submissions and more than 2000 surveys. What we do see in this space whenever we talk about animal welfare reforms is that there is a high level of engagement, whether it be from farming communities, animal activist communities or anyone else, because I think Victorians do care deeply about their pets and about nature and wildlife.

We are fortunate to live in a country like Australia, where we are megadiverse. We have lots of critters running around, whether they be feathered, furred or reptiles. Whatever it is, you name it, we have got it here in Australia. It is one of our strengths. As I said, the government will not be opposing this motion. Nevertheless, we have a strong track record on ensuring animal welfare reforms.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): As the time allocated for debate on this motion has expired, I ask Dr Mansfield to sum up.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:50): I would like to thank all my colleagues for their contributions to this debate. I love nothing more than being able to bring people with diverse views together around a common cause, and we seem to have done that today, so that brings me a lot of pleasure. I have to say that some of the contributions were certainly interesting, but I appreciate the support to get these documents released. I particularly want to acknowledge the advocacy around this issue from my colleague Ms Purcell. I know that she has been calling for the release of this report for some time as well, and she probably has quite similar interests in this report to us in this matter.

I would highlight that, despite the somewhat entertaining debate we have had here today, biodiversity decline is really serious. We are facing mass extinctions across a whole host of species around the world, and that includes in Victoria. It is something we have to take much more seriously than we are, and strengthening our laws when it comes to protecting nature is a critical part of slowing down that biodiversity decline. It is something we need to do urgently, because once these species are gone, they do not come back. We do not get another chance. It is a huge loss to all of us when we see our native species, our native wildlife, our native flora and fauna, being destroyed and potentially lost forever. I once again thank my colleagues for their support on this motion. We look forward to a positive response from the government in releasing this report. Ultimately what we would really like to see is action taken to strengthen our environment laws.

Motion agreed to.