National firearms agreement

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I will have to say from the outset that the Greens will not be able to support the motion moved by Mr Bourman today regarding sporting shooters and hunters, the so-called contribution made to the economy and the environment by those activities and the role of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia. I would like to address separately each of the points that Mr Bourman has raised in his motion. The first part of the three-part motion that Mr Bourman moved today asks that this house:

acknowledges the legitimate recreational pursuits of sporting shooters and hunters …

I note that Mr Bourman has used the term 'sporting shooters and hunters', but that every other speaker, including himself really, referred to recreational hunting in this context today and did not mention much about, for example, target shooting. It has not been mentioned in the motion, so I will not mention it either. I will concentrate on the recreational hunting side.

I turn now to the word 'legitimate'. People would understand that the word legitimate has two main definitions. The first is of course that an activity is legal or lawful. Sadly in Victoria the activity of recreational duck shooting, for example, is legal and lawful under the Wildlife Act 1975 and wildlife regulations. Of course the Victorian and Australian Greens are opposed to recreational hunting on public land and have called for a very long time for a ban on recreational shooting of our native waterbirds. It is something that I have pursued the whole time I have been in Parliament and indeed before I entered the Parliament. While it is lawful, I would make the comment that under the other definition of legitimate, which is the definition that something is widely accepted by the community, I would say that duck shooting, for example, is not legitimate, because the majority of Victorians — between 80 and 90 per cent — have been shown time and again to be opposed to duck shooting. It is not legitimate in that sense. It is not legitimate in the sense that is not accepted by the community. I take issue with that first definition of legitimate whilst acknowledging that duck shooting is legal under the Wildlife Act.

In order for a lawful activity to have any legitimacy in the community it must in fact be enforced. I would like to take the opportunity now to elaborate on my experiences of the opening of the duck shooting season last weekend, which I mentioned briefly this morning in my members statement. I was not able to say too much in the 90 seconds that we each have for members statements every week, but I did say that what I witnessed at First Marsh just outside of Kerang was one of the worst things I have ever seen, and I have been going to the wetlands for the opening of duck shooting season for many years.

What I saw there was nothing short of an absolute massacre of birds that went on for hours over the morning. A great number of shooters had gathered at that wetland, and it was just a barrage of shotguns firing into every bird that was flying in the sky from 20 or 25 minutes before the official start of duck shooting season, which is at sunrise. Of course that was in the dark, which is illegal, and of course nobody is able to identify what birds they are shooting at when it is dark. But even when it became light, shooting continued relentlessly from 7.30 to around 10.00 a.m., and even after that we saw thousands of birds killed. There was little or no action taken against those shooters. I think I saw one action taken by police and authorised officers to apprehend a shooter who they were able to identify as having started shooting early, but that was the only thing I saw during that whole morning.

However, there was a lot of activity from authorised officers and police to apprehend any duck rescuers who came within 25 metres of the edge of the water or into the water, and a lot of those were apprehended and issued with infringement notices. That side of the enforcement was carried out, but there is the offence regarding hunting, taking or destroying protected wildlife under section 43(1) of the act that says:

A person must not hunt, take or destroy other protected wildlife.

It carries a penalty of 50 penalty units or six months imprisonment. We know that on Monday morning the Coalition Against Duck Shooting brought to Melbourne more than 800 birds that they had recovered from the marshes on that opening weekend. Some of these I did mention in my members statement this morning. There were 68 freckled ducks and 21 blue-billed ducks, which are threatened species; 24 blue-winged shovelers, which were specifically outlawed from being taken this year as they are a vulnerable and protected species; 34 Eurasian coots, which are not ducks, do not look anything like ducks and are also a protected species; 25 grebes, which are also a protected species and do not look anything like a duck. They were recovered from the wetland, brought to Melbourne and displayed outside the Premier's office. Along with that were 320 teal ducks, 214 pink-eared ducks, 56 wood ducks, 33 hardhead ducks, four mountain ducks, seven black ducks, one chestnut teal, two swallows and one seagull. That is a total of 810 birds that were recovered and that had been left for dead by the hunters on the marshes.

I am informed that the group of duck rescuers there were not able to recover all the ducks, and they have gone out there again in subsequent days to bring more in.

This happens every single season. Every single season protected birds are illegally shot and virtually no-one is ever charged under section 43 of the act. So in terms of the legality and legitimacy of this activity, it is not enforced to the benefit of our protected species. Even for the so-called game species, which are only game species for three months of the year and are otherwise protected birds, hundreds of those are left by shooters on the wetlands all over Victoria every single year, and that is also an offence under the act that is not prosecuted or very rarely prosecuted. So while duck shooting, for example, may be legal under the act, the illegal activity of shooters is never prosecuted.

So I was standing there with members of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting watching as Game Management Authority officers stood by and watched as native waterbirds were shot down before them. People started shooting before the proper time — the start of the season in the dark — and nothing happened. I also have to say that in the lead-up to the opening weekend Animals Australia and the Coalition Against Duck Shooting had called for the marshes to be closed to shooting due to numerous surveys having identified freckled and blue-billed ducks being present at the wetlands. However, Minister Pulford did not use her powers and neither did Minister D'Ambrosio to close that wetland, and so what we saw was the inevitable — a large number of protected species killed. There is really no government department that protects the interests of our waterbirds, including the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

So in terms of legitimate activity we do not agree that it is a legitimate activity at all and we do not agree that the laws are being enforced under the act to protect waterbirds, even if one does accept that it is legal under the act; of course the Greens would like to see that changed and a permanent ban brought in on duck shooting in Victoria. Victoria is really the only state that not only allows but promotes duck shooting season every year, and the Game Management Authority has a complete conflict of interest in apparently being the promoter of hunting and also the regulator of hunting and of course being populated by a number of hunters. It is a complete conflict of interest.

The fact that the Minister for Agriculture stood here before and outlined the amount of money that is being put into the Game Management Authority and put into supporting hunting would fill most Victorians with horror because most Victorians do not want to see duck shooting on our wetlands for three months of the year and do not want to see hunting in our state parks and national parks and on our public land at all. In fact it keeps a lot of other people in the community away from these areas when they know people are roaming around with shotguns and other firearms.

The second part of the motion says that this house:

recognises the contribution made to the economy and environment by recreational and sporting shooters in Victoria …

We do not recognise that at all, and I have covered the issue of the environment and the destruction of our protected native waterbirds and other birds that are shot every single season. Of course if they are protected birds or birds that cannot be shot, they are by definition left on the water by shooters because they do not want to be caught if there is any type of enforcement activity going on, which there rarely is.

In terms of the economic contribution, I know Ms Pulford quoted selectively from the report entitled Estimating the Economic Impact of Hunting in Victoria in 2013 that was prepared for the then Department of Environment and Primary Industries. She took some figures and facts out of that. It is quite a long report, full of repeating facts and figures but coming to no great conclusion except to say:

The total expenditure for hunting game animals was estimated to be $282 million —

in Victoria. It is a very small number actually when you think about the fact that this is economic activity. It is not a cost-benefit analysis. The problem with these economic activity reports is that if the economic activity was not spent on hunting it would be spent on something else. But even considering that, if I could pick out some of the important parts of that report, it says that:

Forty per cent of expenditure —

for hunting —

occurred in metropolitan local government areas …

and was not spent in the regional areas at all. It continues:

A large proportion of economic activity occurs in the Melbourne region.

Among the regions the largest impacts were in Gippsland, which the minister did say. She also mentioned the Mansfield local government area, but she did not mention that hunting accounts for 2.5 per cent of the economy there. She then skimmed over Murrindindi and Gannawarra, where, according to this report, hunting:

… makes up 1.2 per cent and 1.6 per cent of their economies respectively.

That is a very, very tiny amount, and that is economic impact. It is not a cost-benefit analysis; it is economic impact that could be spent on other things.

A further report entitled Out for a Duck that was released by the RSPCA found differently.

It found that 87 per cent of Victorians support a ban on duck hunting and that claims that duck hunting or any other recreational hunting contributes significantly to the economy of Victoria are false. These claims assume that without hunting any related expenditure would be lost to Victoria. On the contrary, if duck hunters were prevented from hunting ducks, they would go fishing or camping or do some other activity and there would be no impact on expenditure in Victoria from a duck hunting ban.

It also found that revenue from non-hunting tourism is far more important to Victoria's economy. In fact respondents to this survey would be less likely to holiday in an area where there is duck hunting, which I mentioned before. Most Victorians are willing to pay for improvements to animal welfare and would be willing to pay to end duck hunting. The non-monetary benefits of ending duck hunting and the improvement in the welfare of the non-duck-hunting public are far greater than the non-monetary losses that hunters would incur from a ban. The RSPCA estimates the benefit from the banning of duck hunting to be around $60 million per year.

I go back to the point that was included in the report done for DEPI in 2013 that a significant proportion of economic activity related to hunting actually occurs in Melbourne. This is something that I have observed myself over the years. Whenever I have gone to country centres such as Kerang or Donald or Sale, I have observed very little benefit to the local area. For example, at Kerang last weekend I made it my business to go around the town on the Friday evening when I arrived. There were a lot of hunters at Kerang — several hundred at least — but there was no sign of them. They were not buying takeaway, they were not eating out at the restaurants; they were just not there. That supports the point made in the report done for DEPI in 2013 that a lot of the economic activity actually occurs in Melbourne. People buy their supplies and take them with them to the camping spots and do not spend much money in the regional centres near the wetlands where the shooters congregate.

In fact in 2013 I made the point in the Parliament about being told by many people when I went to Donald that they did not support duck shooting there and they wished that it would go away because it was a hindrance to economic activity in their town. That caused a great furore in the Weekly Times and I had several conversations with the secretary of the Donald Chamber of Commerce. At the end of the day she and I agreed that all I was saying was that not everyone in Donald supports duck shooting, which is true — not everyone does. In fact a survey run in the Bendigo Advertiser last weekend showed the majority of people in that area do not support duck shooting. There was also a report in the Bendigo Advertiser of 15 March that:

A band of residents and business owners from rural towns across Victoria are demanding a ban on duck hunting, a move they say would protect the animals and safeguard tourism to their regions.

Dozens of people with property and businesses backing on to popular hunting sites have joined new group Regional Victorians Opposed to Duck Shooting in the last fortnight.

Their spokesperson said:

… the members had unsuccessfully 'tried independently to get some sense out our [their] MPs, water bodies and the Game Management Authority for years' and hoped their new coalition would strengthen calls to bar waterbird hunting.

The group's case for a moratorium on hunting is an environmental and economic one. They believe bird watching would attract more tourists to rural Victoria than bird hunting and that the presence of shooters deters other visitors during the annual three-month season.

I made the point in my members statement this morning and my question without notice to the minister that under the act and the regulations people without a wildlife permit are not allowed on the water any morning from sunrise until 10.00 a.m. Those 200 wetlands are actually handed over to duck shooters and nobody else is allowed to go into the water or within 25 metres of the water. Duck shooters make up less than half a per cent of the Victorian population but they basically get unfettered or exclusive access to our wetlands for three months of the year. Most Victorians do not realise that and would be appalled.

This group wants to see peaceful, ethical, sustainable income year on year. They also say that:

'We don't see hunters coming into the town, buying cases of wine or buying trinkets in the shops …

That is why they want to see a ban on duck shooting. I am not surprised that this group has been formed because I have seen over many years that the notion that hunting brings some sort of economic bonanza to these areas is a myth.

I turn now to the final point in Mr Bourman's motion, which is that this house:

(3)   notes that changes currently being proposed to the national firearms agreement would place unfair conditions on law-abiding firearm owners who have already proven to abide by stringent regulations that limit the use of firearms in shooting sports, recreational hunting and pest control.

Mr Bourman is asking us to note that the changes currently being proposed would place unfair conditions on law-abiding firearm owners. That is his main point. First of all, I take issue with the idea that it places unfair conditions on firearm owners. If you look at the front page of the refreshed national firearms agreement, you will see that under paragraph 4 it says the new agreement:

… will ensure that the agreement remains true to its fundamental aspects, being: the requirement for a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm, the appropriate categorisation of firearms, the registration of firearms, firearms licensing (including fit and proper person requirements ), the requirement for a permit to acquire each firearm, the safe and secure storage of firearms, the recording of firearms sales, and suitable firearms transaction practices.

I think they are all very reasonable requirements to be put on firearms holders and not unfair. If we go back to the original agreement of 1996, we see it paved the way for Australia to have world-leading gun control measures. I was listening to Mr Bourman talk about the relatively low level of gun-related crime in Australia. The reason we have a relatively low level of gun-related crime in Australia is because of the national firearms agreement.

There are quite a few changes in this new agreement. While the Greens support in principle the national firearms agreement, we do believe that it is not strong enough in the categorisation or the banning of semiautomatic weapons, particularly semiautomatic handguns, which we believe should be completely banned. But it does move ahead in terms of a nationwide registration of firearms. I saw that Mr Bourman was opposed to the registration of firearms. I am amazed that anyone could be opposed to the registration of firearms. It seems to me to be basic that firearms should be registered because that is how the police actually trace them — by having them registered.

The agreement also includes something that the Greens have called for before, which is that in terms of grounds for refusal of licences under specific reasons it includes where an applicant or a licence-holder has been the subject of an apprehended violence order, a domestic violence order, a restraining order or convicted of assault with a weapon or aggravated assault.

It puts in place minimum numbers of shooting events that someone must participate in to be eligible for a handgun licence for target shooting or pistol shooting. I will have to look at that a bit more closely, because in Victoria these were watered down back in 2013 and it is a little bit more complicated than it appears in the NFA in terms of the categorisation of guns et cetera.

Ms Pulford talked a little bit about the lever action shotgun. I am disappointed that the more than five-round lever action shotgun has been put into category D; I think that should have been banned altogether, but at least it is in the most restricted category. I would have thought that the five-round and under lever action shotgun should have been put in a higher category than category B.

There is a lot I could say about this particular motion. I think I have made some fairly apposite points as to why we cannot support Mr Bourman's motion. I also add that recent reports by Gun Control Australia under freedom of information have revealed that a record number of firearms — 6500-odd — have been stolen over the two-year period from 2014 to 2015 and that the state of Victoria has the largest number of firearms stolen.

Previous reports by the Australian Institute of Criminology have pointed to the fact that most of these firearms are stolen in rural and regional areas from homes and rural dwellings, including farms. The new NFA does make some inroads into clamping down on unsafe storage of firearms as well, because even though sporting shooters or shooting advocates say that the real problem is illegal firearms, in fact it is stolen firearms which become illegal firearms. The police have been reporting for several years now that they are finding firearms in vehicles on a routine basis, and this is of concern. So in fact we do need the national firearms agreement and we do need more stringent gun control laws in Australia.

Having said that, we will not be supporting the amendment put forward by Ms Pulford. That is not to say that we do not support the national firearms agreement in principle, even though as I have already outlined we would like to see more strict provisions in it. It is more that it does not really change the motion from our point of view — the fullness of the motion — and we often get motions in the house where you will agree with some parts and not agree with other parts. The other issue is that we do not in principle support general business motions brought forward by non-government members being amended by the government and, particularly in this case, about half an hour before we walked in here. That left me with little time to actually discuss that with my colleagues, so we will not be supporting the amendment either.