Hansard debates

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:10): As is the custom with short-form documents motions, the Nationals and the Liberals will not be opposing the request for government to provide responses in relation to their documentation and their evidence around the select committee inquiry into recreational bird hunting and also the 2024 season, which was ultimately the call of the Minister for Outdoor Recreation.

I am just putting on the record that from the outset of this inquiry we had Minister Blandthorn stand up and actually say in her opening lines that she wanted to see the complete demise and end of native bird hunting. They were her opening lines. We also saw in that inquiry that it had a 5–4 split, if we can coalesce people into their positions. We had three from Labor; the Animal Justice Party member, who we have heard from and who has moved this motion; and the Greens. That is five. Then on the other side we had a Nationals member – me; two Liberals; and Mr Bourman. I would say that those of the four were not always comfortable with that split – for me, hanging out with Mr Bourman – but in this case we had a lot of agreement in relation to the science.

We wanted to understand and see the science in relation to this, and we did. We heard from scientists. We heard from professors Klaassen and Kingsford, who have been conducting a 40-year study, the eastern Australian waterbird survey. In that study they shared some of their very sensible comments. Also the government put forward a model, and that model, in conjunction with Klaassen and Kingsford, is the interim harvest model, which leads on to the harvest model. This is about a safe and sustainable model for duck hunting in Victoria. When I put to Professor Klaassen how robust this model was that he had worked on, he said:

Regarding robustness, I think it is robust. I think we did a good job there.

…

We proposed this model, and it was accepted. So for the 2022 hunting season and this year’s hunting season the model was used to advise, ultimately, the minister to make a decision …

There is a model there that the scientists, over 40 years, have compiled to advise the Labor government. If they are not independent, who is? The ecologists have come up with this model and have said it is robust and the government should be listening to it.

Of course from that model the Game Management Authority then takes on the advice. It includes a raft of elements of data: bird species, quantity, populations, water in the landscape – and it goes on. From that the GMA makes a recommendation to government. Over the past few years we have seen the GMA make recommendations to government, which are ultimately watered down by the minister. This year the GMA – in 2024 – made it a nine-bag limit per day and a full-length season. Indeed if you go back to the transcript and listen to those ecologists, they say the need to have that approximately full 12-week season actually leads to better outcomes not only for the safety and security of hunters and protesters but also for animal welfare, for ducks.

The minister reduced that nine-bag limit and full season down to a six-bag limit and an eight-week season. I am really interested to see what was behind that. With all the evidence and the scientists’ model going through to the GMA, lo and behold, the minister made a captain’s call on this. I think it is really important that we actually do see the evidence. I am interested for exactly the opposite reason to the member from the Animal Justice Party. She started off with a whole lot of inflammatory commentary around hunters crushing the earth when they go out to hunt. I am sorry, do protestors hover above the earth? I mean, it is just a silly, silly statement. I am looking forward to seeing this evidence, because it will corroborate the science around duck hunting continuing.