Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:47): I rise today to speak on the Wildlife Rescue Victoria Bill 2020. Like everyone else in this house, I love wildlife, I love all animals and I love livestock—they were also seriously affected in fires. But just about every week in this place someone from either the government or now the crossbench insists on establishing a new taxpayer-funded level of bureaucracy, committee or—my favourite—quango. For those who do not know, that is a quasi-autonomous non-government organisation. It is an animal of significant—not merit, but it is—

A member: It’s a breeder.

Mrs McARTHUR: It is a breeder; it gets legs very easily, that quango. In fact it has probably been happening every week for the last 170 years in this chamber. But do all these committees and quangos—and now we have even got round tables; that is a new form of animal—achieve an outcome? That is the question. We need outcomes in this area, not just committees and bureaucracies and new feel-good round tables.

Here we are in this state over $170 billion in debt, but we are going to create another bureaucracy—more government programs, more public servants and more unaccountable bureaucrats telling Victorians how to live their lives. This legislation is one of the worst examples of it, with the proposal to establish a new Wildlife Rescue Victoria committee to educate, train, accredit and impose policies and conditions upon Victorians who want to save wildlife. It is unthinkable that anybody would believe that in order to save wildlife legally you must first be given accreditation to do so by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), with conditions imposed upon you by seven state government-appointed committee members. It beggars belief.

Under section 18 of this legislation you can be fined up to $10 000 for saving wildlife without approved accreditation from the state government. This is ludicrous. Country people should be free to humanely save any wildlife under any circumstances without having some bureaucrat give them permission first. This is the nanny state on steroids.

Now, many of us in country Victoria do a lot for wildlife. I know on many farms wildlife corridors are planted all the time. On our particular farm we plant hundreds of thousands of trees specifically for wildlife corridors. Let me tell you, wildlife corridors are far better on farms than on roadsides because that leads to roadkill and then you have got another situation where somebody wants to go and save the joey out of the kangaroo that has been run over—let alone the impact that wire rope barriers have on wildlife.

Besides, if this is about saving more wildlife in response to emergencies, as I am sure it is nobly intended, it is illogical. If there was a bushfire in my electorate tomorrow, would you not want all Victorians to have the ability to save any wildlife in that emergency without the threat of a $10 000 fine? Or are nearby constituents expected to undergo a lengthy application process to acquire a DELWP-approved accreditation first while the bush is burning around them? Restricting the number of people who can save wildlife will save fewer wildlife, not more. Worse still, you cannot even teach someone how to save wildlife unless you have been given the green light by the government, let alone doing so during an emergency.

In his second-reading speech my fellow member for Western Victoria Region Mr Meddick contended that this bill is vital because too many animal lives were lost in the past bushfire season as a consequence of rescuers being precluded from entering the fire-affected areas. This legislation will not fix that issue. This legislation will reduce the number of people who are able and willing to perform wildlife rescue. If you want animals to be saved, it should be made easier to do so lawfully, not by creating new obstacles and disincentives in the way of those who desire to do so. Many of us save wildlife regularly. We have had baby owls fall out of trees. We look after them until wildlife rescue can take them. We do it every day in country Victoria. But, gosh, from now on if this happened, we would have to be registered or we would be fined $10 000.

Mr Meddick spoke of those who sacrifice family work, downtime and personal comfort, safety and income to rescue, care for, rehabilitate and release our precious wildlife. I do not disagree with commendation of these Victorians. They are fabulous people. However, it leaves out another large class of Victorians who actively save our wildlife who may not be hobby or professional rescuers. We do it because we care. We see a need at the time; we act quickly. We have not got time to go and get accreditation to save the koala or the joey on the side of the road or the owl that falls out of the tree. Local rural Victorians are often the first ones in times of emergency to save wildlife where possible. Perhaps it is their dependence on animal food and fibre production for their livelihood that makes the member so desperate to exclude them from the ability to legally do so. If Victoria’s wildlife rescue is broken, as Mr Meddick claims, it should be made easier—not more difficult by handing out fines to those who participate in it without the government’s approval. I commend our reasoned amendment to the chamber, but I cannot support Mr Meddick’s bill.