Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012

About this Item
Speakers	Brown The Hon Robert; Gay The Hon Duncan; Whan The Hon Steve; Buckingham The Hon Jeremy; Borsak The Hon Robert; Faehrmann The Hon Cate; Shoebridge Mr David; Foley The Hon Luke; Kaye Dr John; Ajaka The Hon John; Chair (The Hon Jennifer Gardiner)
Business	Bill, Division, In Committee, Motion, Report Adopted

GAME AND FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Page: 13151

In Committee

[Business resumed.]

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [8.35 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party does not support this amendment to delete the delegation clause. I have spent most of my life in the corporate world so I understand efficiency and good governance when I see it. In my view, the Game Council is probably one of the most efficient public authorities in New South Wales. It does its work very efficiently and this legislation is designed to increase that efficiency. The Shooters and Fishers Party does not support the amendment.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [8.35 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. In his dissertation on this amendment Mr David Shoebridge implied that all the powers could be delegated. The legislation says quite clearly that the Game Council can delegate any—not all—of its powers. The Game Council can make a choice of how many powers it delegates: It might be one or two powers, and it could be varied. The Game Council retains the power of delegation. There is no chance that the Game Council will give all its powers, except that of delegation, to its chief executive officer. That will not happen. The Greens are scaremongering.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [8.36 p.m.]: I will not editorialise like Mr David Shoebridge in relation to the Game Council. However, the Opposition believes if the Game Council can delegate any of its functions it is going a step too far. I noted from the second reading speech that the Legislation Review Committee expressed concerns about the level of delegation in this legislation. I suspect it was referring mainly to the delegation to the Minister. In this case, there is very broad delegation potential that has not been justified.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [8.37 p.m.]: I raised this issue in my contribution to the second reading debate. The tenuous argument that always causes me concern is that this delegation of powers is about the efficient operation of the Games Council. The Hon. Robert Brown, and certainly the Minister, have not allayed my concerns. If this legislation is passed it will be completely open to the Game Council to delegate all its functions, apart from that power of delegation, to the chief executive officer. The Games Council is a statutory authority that receives taxpayer funding. It has a multimillion dollar budget and it may well decide to delegate elements of that budget to its chief executive officer. I would have grave concerns if that were to happen as it would give the chief executive officer incredible power. The Game Council issues licences and performs a number of other functions but this delegation would pose a potential corruption risk. It is not about good governance, it is about creating a little fiefdom for a Game Council tsar in Orange who is too lazy to go to western New South Wales. He wants to trot out to Mount Canobolas to shoot pigs.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [8.38 p.m.]: This measure is all about efficiency. During my period as Chairman of the Game Council of New South Wales I was aware of very real practical problems resulting from the way in which the original law was written. Those problems are long overdue for review, and need fixing. This is all about delegating some powers and, as the Minister for Roads and Ports said, perhaps taking some powers back from time to time as required. At the moment, the Game Council physically has to meet and approve every single licence it issues to every single person who applies for a licence in this State. That simply is not workable. That was one of the reasons why, even going back to my time as chairman, we asked the former Labor Government to consider an amendment of legislation along the lines proposed in this bill. The Game Council holds its powers very closely to itself, and I am sure would delegate only those powers that it absolutely needed to delegate from time to time.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [8.39 p.m.]: The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. We have just heard from a former chair of the Game Council that the Game Council is seeking to delegate the function of issuing licences to one man. That is the efficiency that the Shooters and Fishers Party is talking about. The power to say who gets a licence, or who does not get a licence, will be delegated to one person. That is not about good governance; it is about vesting an enormous power in one man.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: If you want to get down to the detail, I will talk about the detail.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: You just did.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: No, I did not.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [8.40 p.m.]: Under the Act as it stands now, the Game Council may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer of the Game Council the exercise of the function of issuing identification cards to inspectors. If that were the problem that the Hon. Robert Borsak—

The Hon. Robert Borsak: No, I was talking about licensing hunters.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I know you were. If that were the problem the Hon. Robert Borsak was speaking about, he could have sought to amend that provision to include licences as a way of addressing the problem. But what he has done is go back to his original desire of 2002, I understand, to enable the Chief Executive Officer of the Game Council to be delegated any function of the Game Council. We do not know the intention of this provision. I do not think it is about licences. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham talked about this as being a fiefdom; and it is. We know the political nature of the Game Council; every chief executive officer and chair have been very close. I indicated that with "crossed fingers" for the benefit Hansard, for the Shooters and Fishers Party.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Committee has before it a particular amendment. The rules dictate that in Committee the member must speak to the amendment before the Committee. Making a political, second reading speech is outside the commonly understood practice of discussion in the Committee stage. The member is now engaging in political diatribe, and I request that she be drawn back to the amendment.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: I listened carefully to what was said by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. Her comments were directly relevant to the amendment. She was directly addressing the circumstances of the amendment. I cannot see how it could be argued as a point of order that the member was making a political point.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: The reason that members are speaking to the amendment is the political nature of the Game Council; this clause in the bill gives a lot of authority to one person, who traditionally has been a political figure in the Shooters and Fishers Party.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [8.43 p.m.]: That comment made by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann is simply not true. I do not know how the member can know whether the Chief Executive Officer of the Game Council is involved in politics at all—unless she has information that I do not have. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Boyle is not even a member of the Shooters and Fishers Party. The member draws a long bow by trying to paint him as a political operative. He is a very good chief executive officer, and he really knows his job. I think the member is misleading the House. Where did you actually get that information from?

The Hon. Robert Borsak: Like the rest, she just made it up.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [8.44 p.m.]: We should be very clear about this. Mr Boyle engages repeatedly in the political dialogue that goes on in this State about the expansion of hunting. He regularly comments, for example, on the political debate about having 12-year-old kids unsupervised out in State forests stabbing pigs to death. He regularly commentates, in fact has attended political meetings—

The Hon. Robert Borsak: Where?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: —that my party has organised in western Sydney. He attended and addressed the meeting. He engages in political debate. He attends the meetings in order to engage in political debate. And he engages regularly in political debate across the State. He is a political figure, and he is going to be basically a tsar, in charge of some $5 million budget, standing in the shoes—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You communists killed the tsar, David.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Tsars actually predated the communists, for the benefit of the Government Whip.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You communists hate them.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Boyle will be in charge of about $2.5 million of direct grants made every year by this Government. In their lean years they will get $2.5 million, but no doubt in coming years, after the Government has sacked another 15,000 public servants, they will have yet more millions of dollars to lavish on the Game Council, and give it to just one person to engage in his ongoing political advancement here in New South Wales. It is not by accident that the two current Shooters and Fishers Party members of Parliament find their way into this Chamber after sitting as chairs of the Game Council. It is a deeply political organisation and, unlike the Nature Conservation Council, is not a statutory body. The Nature Conservation Council is a non-government organisation and does not rely upon block grant funding, as does the Game Council; and the Nature Conservation Council does not have statutory powers, as does the Game Council. This amendment is about good governance; it is about not giving one person $5 million and the powers of a statutory body.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 2 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 18

Ms Barham
Ms Cotsis
Mr Donnelly
Ms Faehrmann
Mr Foley
Dr Kaye
Mr Moselmane

Mr Primrose
Mr Roozendaal
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Mr Buckingham
Ms Voltz

Noes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher

Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr Harwin
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox

Mrs Mitchell
Reverend Nile
Mr Pearce

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Dr Phelps

Pair

Ms Fazio

Mrs Pavey

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 2 [C2012-104A] negatived.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [8.54 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet C2012-101A:

[18] Section 20 Declaration of public lands available for hunting game

This amendment simply seeks to honour the Premier's commitment that access by hunters to our national park estate will be under strict supervision.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [8.55 p.m.]: The Opposition's proposal is unnecessary because the supervision and regulation of hunting activities is already undertaken by the Game Council in accordance with the Act. The legislation also provides that the Minister may, pursuant to section 20 (6), require persons who hunt game animals to comply with various requirements, which may include additional regulation if required. Also, before making any such declaration, the Minister is already required under section 20 (4) (c) of the Act to have regard to any plan of management or other policy document relating to the use or management of the land. Not that we need any more safeguards, but the Act also provides that any declaration can be made to further the objects of the Act, which include the effective management of introduced species and game animals. For all those reasons, the Government rejects the amendment.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [8.56 p.m.]: I realise that the Opposition does not have much confidence in the current Minister for the Environment. However, I point out that the use of this tool in respect of State forests has been exemplary. Surely if the Minister administering State forests can do the job properly in consultation with the Game Council then a competent Minister responsible for the national parks could do the same thing.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [8.57 p.m.]: If what is being proposed is meant to mirror the absolute lack of public accountability and scrutiny that applies to the declarations made by the Minister for Primary Industries in regard to State forests, that is seriously concerning. At the moment a notice is published on page 44 of some State newspaper that the Minister intends to make a declaration that a State forest is to be open for hunting. There is no invitation for submissions or public comment. The Minister has privileged access to and submissions from the Game Council.

After hearing effectively only from the Game Council, and perhaps one or two statutory authorities, the Minister has progressively opened up two million hectares of State forest to hunting. Not one proposed declaration has been rejected after the public notice has been published. The State forests process is a sham. It is clear now that the Shooters and Fishers Party wants that same sham process to be applied to the opening of national parks to hunting. The representations made by the Shooters and Fishers Party add strength to the argument put by the Opposition about having at least some basic integrity in the process used by the Minister for the Environment in considering the opening of national parks to hunting.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [8.58 p.m.]: As usual, Mr David Shoebridge is wrong. The Game Council works with the Minister in advertising the declarations. Unlike the honourable member, I cannot predict on what page of the Government Gazette it will appear. Numerous submissions are lodged and they are considered. There is then consultation and discussion with people who have properties surrounding the various forests. This process has been developed over many years. It is not a sham process; it is a genuine process of trying to work through the consultative process to implement government policy in a fair and even-handed manner.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [8.59 p.m.]: This is a big issue for people in New South Wales. I think this is a reasonable amendment because proposed subparagraph (a) of section 20 (4) (4A) states, "will be effectively supervised". The key problem with the Game Council and amateur hunters in New South Wales is that there is no supervision—no-one is regulating and supervising their activities. In Mullion Range State Conservation Area it is a free-for-all; they could do whatever they want. Members have not been out there, but if they talk to the trail riders and the members of the pony club that used to use Mullion Creek and now cannot—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: There's a pony club?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That's right; there is a pony club. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps probably used to be in a pony club, but he would not be able to be in one in Mullion Creek anymore because it is unsafe. Their insurers will not insure them for that activity because there is no supervision and it will be a free-for-all in the national parks.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2012-101A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 1 [C2012-101A] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [9.01 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 3 on sheet C2012-104A:

This amendment makes it clear that the Minister is able to add to the list of parks, reserves and conservation areas in schedule 3A only where hunting cannot take place. It prevents the Minister deleting parks, reserves and conservation areas protected from recreational hunting without returning to Parliament to amend the Act. Currently national parks that are excluded are listed in schedule 3A. We have a list—which the Premier was given in the middle of the night by the Shooters and Fishers Party and waved around at a press conference the next day—with 79 national parks, nature reserves and State conservation areas. This provision allows any of it to change at any time.

The public has no idea what parks, nature reserves and State conservation areas will be open to recreational hunting because this clause means it can change. Therefore, this amendment makes it clear that it is only the Minister who can add to the list of parks and not take any away. Clearly, there will be sufficient parks open to hunting as it is, and that it has to come back to Parliament. I think that is an absolutely fair enough amendment given that the public is concerned about this issue and wants to know for sure which national parks they can no longer go for a bushwalk in on the weekend.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.03 p.m.]: We cannot support The Greens amendment.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.03 p.m.]: The Government opposes The Greens amendment because the removal of this provision would impact on the Minister's capacity to exercise sound judgement in making informed decisions for feral animal control and to act in an efficient, timely and responsive manner. The capacity to make amendments by regulation, as proposed by amending an Act, is considered more efficient in this instance.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.04 p.m.]: This amendment will allow the Minister to add additional parks that are protected from shooting and hunting. It will prevent—the Government has not addressed this—the Minister from rubbing out national parks and nature reserves that are protected in schedule 3A. This is what is called a Henry VIII clause: it is delegating the power to the Minister to change the Act by delegated powers. I can see that the Hon. Robert Brown does not quite understand the clause.

The Hon. Robert Brown: I didn't then; I do now.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: A Henry VIII clause is delegating to a member of the Executive the power, effectively, to change the legislation of the Parliament. The purpose of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann's amendment is to allow the Minister to add additional national parks and the Minister can add additional nature reserves that are protected in addition to those in schedule 3A, but the Minister cannot, by regulations, rub out the national parks and the nature reserves. Why does the Government want to give the Minister for the Environment the power to remove national parks—such as the Blue Mountains National Park or the Brisbane Water National Park—from protection under schedule 3A? Why does the Government want to let the Minister for the Environment allow hunting in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What about Lane Cove River Park?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Can the Minister explain why this Government wants to give the Minister for the Environment the power to rub out the protection for Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, Blue Mountains National Park and Lane Cove National Park in the centre of Sydney? I hear the Government Whip whooping with mirth in the corner. If the Government does not want shooting in Lane Cove National Park it should not give the Minister for the Environment the power to allow it and the Government should agree to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [9.06 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann because we have our own amendment that will be dealt with in due course.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.06 p.m.]: Mr David Shoebridge indicated that this would give the Minister the power to remove from protection parks near the central business district, and he named several of them. Those parks that he named are in the Act and the Minister cannot change that. This bloke is a lawyer and he tries to tell us he is as smart as all hell, but he does not understand the bill he is commenting on.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.07 p.m.]: I will put it in two-syllable words for the Minister. Go to page 6 of the bill and this is what section 20A (2) says:

It cannot be any clearer. That is where the protection for Lane Cove National Park is found, that is where the protection for Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park is found and that is where the protection for the Blue Mountains National Park is found. For the benefit of the Minister, who obviously has not read the bill, section 20A (2) (b) provides that:

The regulations can omit the names included in schedule 3A. The Minister is dead wrong—he is embarrassingly wrong. He does not even understand the way the legislation operates. He does not even understand that by not agreeing to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann he is giving the Minister for the Environment the capacity to allow shooting in Lane Cove National Park in the centre of city.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.08 p.m.]: I am fascinated because, as Mr David Shoebridge said, section 20A (2) (b) states:

It is very straightforward. Yet we hear these howls of derision saying Mr David Shoebridge is wrong. Can somebody please point to the part in the bill that says where he is wrong? It is very clear that schedule 3A means that Lane Cove National Park, Booderee National Park or Sydney Harbour National Park could be removed by the Minister exercising her power and bringing in a regulation under section 20A (2) (b). I would like to hear from anybody who groaned earlier exactly where in the bill or any other piece of legislation—the Act itself—there is restraint on the Minister from doing so. Where is that?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.09 p.m.]: The answer is: under section 20A, restrictions on declaration of national park estate land.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.09 p.m.]: No, it is not. That is simply incorrect. Under section 20A it says:

…

(b) by omitting or amending any name specified in Schedule 3A.

I invite the member to read section 20A and point out where it is not true.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.10 p.m.]: The only statutory protection that lies outside schedule 3A for any parcel of public land is if it is declared land under the Wilderness Act—and Lane Cove and Sydney Harbour national parks and most of the Blue Mountains National Park are not declared under the Wilderness Act—or if it is a World Heritage property under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Lane Cove and Ku-ring-gai Chase national parks and much of the Blue Mountains National Park are not protected. All of those parks are open to being rubbed out of schedule 3A by a regulation being made by the environment Minister to allow hunting in Lane Cove National Park, in the centre of Sydney, to allow hunting in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, bordering the Premier's electorate—to allow hunting in any of the national parks and conservation areas found in schedule 3A. If the Minister wants to stand by his garbled submission that what was being put forward by The Greens is legally wrong, I would love to hear it. It was a load of rot and nonsense being put forward by the Minister, who does not understand his own Act.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.11 p.m.]: The Greens will say anything. The fact that the Government specifically worked with the Shooters and Fishers Party to put exclusions into this bill is an indication that it is not going to be removing them. We put them into the Act by way of negotiation.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.11 p.m.]: This is the same kind of promise we got from the Premier that he will not be allowing hunting in national parks. Their word is not worth the statute that it is written on.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.12 p.m.]: I am going to get up early tomorrow morning because I cannot wait to read Hansard. We have gone from a legislated protection to a promise. What a change. One minute we have legislative protections in proposed section 20A—"There is protection there. What are you talking about? Shoebridge is wrong, Faehrmann is wrong, Kaye is wrong—we are all wrong."

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are wrong.

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, actually they are not wrong. What is really going on is, "You're wrong because we have made a promise." This legislation gives no protection whatsoever for the Royal National Park, Sydney Harbour National Park or any of the other parks and recreation areas mentioned in schedule 3A. I think the Minister should say he was wrong and admit that there is no protection for those parks. He will not do it because he is gutless—he is gutless and wrong.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 3 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Ms Barham
Ms Faehrmann
Mr Shoebridge
Tellers,
Mr Buckingham
Dr Kaye

Noes, 31

Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Ms Ficarra
Mr Foley

Mr Gay
Mr Green
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Mr Moselmane
Reverend Nile
Mr Primrose

Mr Roozendaal
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Westwood
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Dr Phelps
Ms Voltz

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 3 [C2012-104A] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [9.21 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 5 on sheet C2012-102B:

(4) Any land that is reserved, dedicated or declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or any land vested in the Minister administering that Act for the purposes of Part 11 of that Act, cannot be the subject of a declaration under section 20 unless the responsible Minister for that land is satisfied that:

(5) Before a declaration referred to in subsection (4) is made:

This amendment adds sensible criteria that must be considered before the Minister can declare a park available for recreational hunting. The criteria are designed to protect public safety and to ensure that hunting is for genuine feral animal control purposes to protect biodiversity and as part of a pest eradication program. Criteria (a) and (b) would require that a case be made that the game animals need to be controlled and that hunting will benefit any pest eradication control program being undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. These criteria would accord with the Government's assertions that this bill is about feral animal control to assist biodiversity conservation, rather than simply opening up opportunities for sport or recreational hunting.

Criteria (c) to (f) require that the Minister be satisfied on matters of public safety, for example, that proper notice will be given of when hunting takes place. Also to protect public safety, that impacts on other users of the parks be minimised and that there be limits on the time periods when other users of parks are shut out of the parks. This amendment already would be in the bill if this were a genuine attempt by the Fishers and Shooters Party to address feral animal eradication in national parks. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.23 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party does not support this amendment. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann obviously moved this amendment from a place of ignorance in relation to her understanding of current practices in State forests. None of the amendments are necessary and will only overly complicate what is now an extremely efficient, effective and safe program.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.24 p.m.]: The Government also rejects this amendment. It prescribes greater unnecessary detail in relation to the declaration of national park estate lands. It is only proscriptive and these provisions are implicit in the Game Council's operating plans for State forests and Crown lands. The requirement to undertake public consultation for 30 days before declaring national park estate land also will increase inefficiencies.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [9.24 p.m.]: This amendment strikes the Opposition as sensible, given what occurs currently in national parks when professionals engage in feral animal control. I have spoken in detail with National Parks and Wildlife Service field officers who have taken me through the arrangements that are put in place when they are engaged in a feral cull. The measures include closing of the park, public notices and a range of other measures to ensure public safety. The Opposition supports the amendment which it regards as a sensible step.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [9.25 p.m.]: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann's amendment is a sensible step and it is reasonable for these provisions to be inserted in the bill. I am surprised that the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Government do not recognise that at the least this amendment will reassure the community that some of the worst aspects of the bill might yet be ameliorated. For example, the provisions that require that the closure of any part of the land for hunting activities does not exceed two weeks in any one year, that any risk to the safety of the members of the public using the land or in the vicinity of the land will be minimised, that measures are in place to ensure that members of the public are given proper notice of any proposed hunting on that land or of any closures related to hunting on that land are reasonable measures. The Government has again demonstrated its belligerence in this matter, as with the previous amendment, by failing to understand that this amendment is reasonable and practical to build community confidence in this flawed legislation.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So if we passed this you would support the bill?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: If this amendment were agreed to we would not support the bill, but it would make a bad bill better. It is unfortunate that the Government does not seem to understand that.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.26 p.m.]: The Hon. Robert Brown can clarify the matter if I have it wrong, but I think he said that these amendments are unnecessary because these matters are already catered for in the way in which the—

The Hon. Robert Brown: That is not what I said. You are paraphrasing what I said.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am incorrectly paraphrasing what the Hon. Robert Brown said. As I understood it, the member made reference to what happened with regard to shooting in State forests.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Hunting in State forests.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Recreational hunting in State forests.

The Hon. Robert Brown: It is called conservation hunting.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I find it hard to call it conservation hunting because I hate dealing in oxymorons. The issue was that this set of considerations did not recognise the current practice that regulates that form of shooting.

The Hon. Robert Brown: You have not got the sense of what I said. I am happy to repeat it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask the member to say it again because I did not quite follow it.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.28 p.m.]: What I said was that anybody who puts forward such an amendment obviously has no understanding of how safely and effectively it runs in our State forests now. It has been running in State forests for six years. That is what I said.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.28 p.m.]: If that is the case I do not understand the member's objection to, for example, 4 (c) which states that any risk to the safety of members of the public using the land or in the vicinity of the land will be minimised. If the member believes that this kind of activity is so safe surely he would have no objection to paragraph 4 (c).

The Hon. Robert Brown: No.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Robert Brown said that he has no objection to it.

The Hon. Robert Brown: No, that is not correct. Your assumption is wrong.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 5 [C2012-102B] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 5 [C2012-102B] negatived.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [9.29 p.m.] by leave: I move Opposition amendment Nos 2 and 4 on sheet C2012-101A in globo:

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [18], proposed section 20A. Insert after line 26:

(4) Only the national park estate land specified in schedule 3B can be the subject of a declaration under section 20. However any such land cannot be the subject of a declaration to the extent that it is national park estate land of the kind referred to in subsection (1) (b) or (c).

Schedule 3B National park estate land that may be declared as public hunting land

(Section 20A (4))

National Parks

Central NSW

Hunter/Mid North Coast

New England Tablelands

Northern Rivers

Outback NSW

South Coast and Highlands

Nature Reserves

Central NSW

Outback NSW

State Conservation Areas

Central NSW

Hunter/Mid North Coast

Barrington Tops

New England Tablelands

Outback NSW

These amendments will make it clear in the Act that access to national parks, State conservation areas and nature reserves by recreational shooters could only ever be limited to a maximum of the 79 places named in the Premier's press release of 30 May. The bill currently is structured to list 48 of the 799 parks and reserves in New South Wales and it states that hunting can never occur in those 48 parks and reserves. It was suggested in some of the earlier contributions that perhaps even those parks and reserves could be whittled down through a regulation-making capacity. The bill is silent on the best part of 700 parks and reserves that the Premier said would never be accessed, yet it will allow the Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage to add to it over time. The Opposition seeks to hold the Government to the statement that was made by the Premier and Deputy Premier on 30 May—namely, that access by recreational shooters will only be in those 79 parks and reserves. That is exactly what these amendments seek to do.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [9.32 p.m.]: The Greens cannot support these amendments. The Premier's announcement obviously is the premise of this bill. These amendments propose to lock in those 79 national parks for recreational hunting. That is just over 40 per cent of all national parks in New South Wales, even though it is 79 of the roughly 700 national parks, nature reserves and State conservation areas.

The Hon. Robert Brown: It is 800.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: A significant number of national parks are contained in this list. It is really the cream of the crop. Many of the fantastic national parks across New South Wales are included in this list. Parks such as the Macquarie Marshes, internationally-listed wetlands, will now have recreational hunters. The Greens cannot support the inclusion in the list of 79 national parks.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is 78, Cate.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Is it only 78? If that is so, that is fine. The Greens do not support the bill because The Greens do not support recreational hunting in national parks. This list basically is the list that the Premier bandied about and The Greens do not support it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.33 p.m.]: The Government will not support these amendments because The Greens do not support them. The Government already has put those protections in under proposed schedule 3A.

The Hon. Luke Foley: The Coalition is back together. Change the electoral Act.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [9.33 p.m.]: The same Coalition that changed the electoral Act and stopped the campaigning. The Opposition has a number of problems with what the Hon. Cate Faehrmann just said. Tonight we voted on the second reading of this bill which, despite the opposition of Labor and The Greens, passed this Chamber. Despite the protestations by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, it is clear that there will be legislation that will allow hunting in the national parks that were listed by the Premier. Labor is trying to move amendments to limit forever the number of national parks in which hunting can occur. The Greens are saying to all those conservationists that they are happy to leave the legislation as it is which will enable the Government to expand the numbers beyond the 78 national parks already listed.

The Greens are being softer on the Government than Labor is on this issue. Labor wants to put in place a tough no-dispute measure, a finite list, to limit it to the bars announced by the Government. The Greens want to support a position that would allow the expansion of the number of national parks in New South Wales in which hunting can occur. That is the fundamental difference. I find it quite amazing that The Greens right here, right now are about to vote to permit hunting in more than the 78 national parks that are listed.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.36 p.m.]: Just as feral pigs go from State forests to national parks, the hunters' war will go from State forests to national parks. It is inevitable. The Hon. Steve Whan was a former Minister in the Government that set up and funded the Game Council—a government that funded the pro-hunting, pro-shooting lobby.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: My point of order is, firstly, that Mr Shoebridge is reflecting on the Hon. Steve Whan. Secondly, and more importantly, his remarks are in no way dealing with the Opposition's amendments.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The member will address the amendments before the Committee.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Let us be very clear: I am not suggesting that the Opposition is coming at this from a failed position of principle. The Opposition has a method by which it wants to hold the Government to account to those 78 or 79 national park estate and State conservation areas in which hunting can occur. But the way in which the Opposition wants to go about that effectively is admitting the legitimacy of having a list of 78 areas of national park estate and State conservation areas in which hunting can occur. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann will move an amendment that will set out explicitly all those national parks and State conservation areas in which hunting cannot occur. Rather than effectively accepting the argument put forward by the Premier, the Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage and the Shooters and Fishers Party that hunting is legitimate in 78 or 79 national parks and conservation areas which, on one view, is the effect of including schedule 3B, a fair and preferable way of doing it would be to say that all those other national parks and State conservation areas are prohibited. That is what is proposed in the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann.

The Hon. Luke Foley: That is the effect of our amendments.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I am not suggesting that this is coming from the Opposition for some sort of malign purpose.

The Hon. Steve Whan: But you are.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: No, I am not. The Opposition is going about this effectively by legitimising hunting in those 79 areas.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.39 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party cannot support the amendment, although I can understand why the Opposition has moved it.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the Hon. Robert Brown.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: It is a collective consciousness within this side of the Committee. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal is in the Chamber. He is probably one of the only members currently in this Parliament who is germane to the understanding we thought we had with the Labor Party. Labor used the same sort of technique when it was negotiating with us during the last Parliament: in fact, it was a bit stingier. In either case, the Shooters and Fishers Party cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [9.39 p.m.]: There are a couple of key points to make. Labor, as the previous Government, rejected the proposals. We voted tonight and we have a strong record of opposing shooting in national parks. Our second reading vote goes to that point. It is completely illogical to say that this amendment in some way legitimises shooting when Labor's position is on the record. In effect the two amendments that The Greens are proposing and that we proposed are attempting to do exactly the same thing. We think that putting a finite list in place is more restrictive than the approach The Greens have advocated so far. We drafted our amendment well before we even saw this very last minute amendment moved by The Greens.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 4 [C2012-101A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 4 [C2012-101A] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [9.41 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2012-109A:

No. 1 Page 6, Schedule 1 [18]. Insert after line 26:

20B Review by NPWS of hunting on declared national park estate land

(1) Within 3 years of any national park estate land being declared under section 20 as public hunting land, the NPWS is to review and report to the responsible Minister for that public hunting land on:

NPWS

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

responsible Minister

This amendment will enable a review to be undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service within three years of any national park estate land being declared public hunting land. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is to review and report to the responsible Minister about the effectiveness of hunting in controlling and eradicating pest animals on that land. One would think it would be something that the Governor would support, considering that every member who spoke during the second reading stage expressed concerns about feral animals and thought that this bill would have such a great impact on feral animals in national parks. Let us see what the result is after three years. After each national park is declared the Shooters and Fishers Party members can go in there and do their stuff, and we will see what the result is after three years. If they are so confident about this bill and its impacts on feral animals in this State they can then bring it back for review in three years time. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.43 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party opposes the amendment. If the National Parks and Wildlife Service has not been able during the last approximately nine years of budget estimates to provide that type of information to the Parliament it is highly unlikely that it will be able to do that now. This amendment is just a bit of window-dressing. It is not necessary.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.44 p.m.]: The Government rejects this amendment. The amendment is not required because a conservation audit and compliance committee already performs an audit role that was established under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and prepares a report at least every two years. On top of that, the Game Council also provides comprehensive annual reports on its activities. In other words, it is already happening.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-109A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-109A] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.44 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet C2012-104A:

This amendment will change the wording of proposed subsection 21 (4), which states:

The amendment would replace the discretionary power to refuse a licence with a mandatory refusal of licence. It would replace the word "may" with "must". It would require the Game Council to refuse a hunting licence to someone who has been found guilty of an indictable offence under the Firearms Act. Members should keep in mind that these powers could be entirely delegated to the chief executive officer because of the previously agreed provision relating to section 13A, so why would we be allowing the Game Council to permit someone who has been found guilty of an indictable offence under the Firearms Act to be hunting in national parks with high-powered hunting rifles and to be discharging firearms in national parks and State conservation areas?

If people have been found guilty of an indictable offence under the Firearms Act they could have been trading illegally in firearms, or have had three or more unregistered firearms in their premises, or they could have been illegally shortening the barrel of long-arms. Why would we allow someone who has been found guilty of a firearms offence to hunt in national parks? Why are we providing a discretion to allow that to happen? I really would like to know what the argument is for allowing a discretion to be vested in the chief executive officer or the Game Council to give someone such as that a hunting licence. It is not actually much of an ask. If they have been found guilty of an indictable offence in the past 10 years under the Firearms Act there is no way on earth they should be allowed to be out in our national parks firing away, cheek by jowl with other users of national parks.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.48 p.m.]: If a licensed firearm owner is indicted for an offence under the Firearms Act they lose their firearms licence—end of story.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.49 p.m.]: The Government also rejects this amendment. It is interesting to hear The Greens prosecuting the case for zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing in regard to this bill.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Another law and order auction.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Exactly. Here we have The Greens conducting a law and order auction.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.49 p.m.]: Can the Minister explain the circumstances in which the Government thinks it would be permissible to allow the Game Council to use its discretion to allow someone to hunt in a national park when that person has been found guilty of an offence under the Firearms Act? Can the Government cite just one instance of someone who has been found guilty of an indictable offence and who should be allowed to run around in Morton National Park to hunt with a firearm?

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 4 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 18

Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Ms Cotsis
Mr Donnelly
Ms Faehrmann
Mr Foley
Dr Kaye

Mr Moselmane
Mr Primrose
Mr Roozendaal
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Mr Shoebridge
Ms Voltz

Noes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gay

Mr Green
Mr Harwin
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell

Reverend Nile
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Dr Phelps

Pair

Ms Fazio

Mr Gallacher

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 4 [C2012-104A] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.56 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6 on sheet C2012-104A in globo:

No. 5 Page 6, schedule 1 [19]. Insert after line 33:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

No. 6 Page 7, schedule 1 [20]. Insert after line 6:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

These amendments effectively go to the same issue. Proposed new section 21 (5) in amendment No. 5 would provide that when the Game Council is considering the granting of a game licence it must refuse the application if the person has been found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The common sense is reasonably clear. The legislation allows people to be on hundreds of thousands of hectares of public land, well away from supervision by rangers or Game Council officers for 90 per cent of the time. Persons who have previously been found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be prohibited from being allowed in our national parks with a gun to shoot animals, because they will have privileged access to animals and native fauna in those national parks. There is no way we should be granting a hunting licence to anyone who has been found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and allowing them to hunt in our national parks.

Amendment No. 6 would add an additional provision for the suspension or cancellation of a hunting licence if the licence holder is found guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The amendment is pretty simple, and we are looking for the Government's support on it. The amendment will ensure not only that native fauna is protected but also that people who have previously been found to have knowingly and wantonly been cruel to animals in breach of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act are prohibited from killing feral animals in national parks.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.59 p.m.]: The Government rejects The Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6. In relation to amendment No. 5, section 21 (3) (a) of the Act already provides that the Game Council must refuse a game hunting licence if a person has been found guilty of an offence in New South Wales or elsewhere in the previous 10 years involving cruelty or harm to animals. On this basis The Greens amendment No. 5 is simply unnecessary. In relation to amendment No. 6, section 29 (4) (b) of the Act already provides that the Game Council may suspend or cancel a game hunting licence if the holder is found guilty of an offence in New South Wales or elsewhere involving harm to animals. On this basis The Greens amendment No. 6 is simply unnecessary.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The Committee continued to sit.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.00 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with the Government on these amendments in that the existing Act, in division 4, section 21 (3), already states that the Game Council must—and it does say must—refuse to grant a game hunting licence to a person found guilty of an offence in New South Wales or elsewhere involving cruelty or harm to animals. The section also refers to personal violence, damage to property or unlawful entry to land, and a number of other matters. It would seem that the existing legislation, from my reading of it, already covers this point.

Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendments Nos 5 and 6 [C2012-104A] negatived.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.01 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 3 on sheet C2012-101A:

No. 3 Page 7. Insert after line 6:

[20] Section 33 Appointment of inspectors

Insert after section 33 (3):

(4) Despite any other provision of this Act, an inspector appointed by the Game Council under this section is not authorised to exercise any of the functions of an inspector on national park estate land.

[21] Section 33A

Insert after section 33:

33A Park rangers may exercise functions of inspectors

(1) In this section:

park ranger means a person who is appointed as an authorised officer under section 156B of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a park ranger may exercise the functions of an inspector under this Part and under section 57 and for that purpose is taken to be an inspector.

This is an important proposal that would extend to park rangers the functions of inspectors. It would enable park rangers to undertake the supervision and inspection of people who are hunting in national parks in the same way as Game Council inspectors are able to do so at the moment in State forests. The Opposition believes this is important and goes to the commitment the Premier made to the Shires Association recently and to other public forums saying that hunting in national parks would be strictly supervised. He said words along the lines that it would be run in the same way as a hazard reduction burn in a national park, where the same sort of notifications of exclusions were put in place. To do that we have to give the park rangers the power to undertake that work and supervise activities within the parks. This amendment will provide that power.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.02 p.m.]: The Government rejects Opposition amendment No. 3. Rangers can already be appointed by the Game Council as inspectors under the Act. Game Council inspectors are highly trained. Their expertise should be utilised for all lands declared for hunting.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.02 p.m.]: The Greens support the Opposition's amendment No. 3. Park rangers have expressed their concerns to The Greens as well. At the moment park rangers undertake a wide range of essential activity in parks, including feral animal eradication. Inspectors and rangers are the experts when it comes to national park management and feral animal eradication programs in parks. Park rangers are the people who keep the public safe. Park rangers are trusted by users of national parks and people who walk in national parks. I note the Hon. John Ajaka said that at the moment park rangers may be appointed. As I understand it, this amendment will ensure that park rangers may exercise the functions of inspectors.

When we have recreational hunting in national parks—which, unfortunately, it looks like we will by the end of the year—it is critical that park rangers are in control of that hunting and not Game Council inspectors or recreational hunters. Even though the Shooters and Fishers Party does not like it, national parks are still under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. They are still under the control of park rangers and Game Council-licensed recreational hunters going on to that land should be under the control and direction of park rangers. The Greens support the Opposition's amendment No. 3.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 3 [2012-101A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 3 [C2012-101A] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.06 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 7 on sheet C2012-104A:

Proposed section 55A, which would be deleted by this amendment, creates an offence of interfering with authorised hunting on declared public hunting land and provides a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, or $5,500. This section is obviously intended to target peaceful protesters who may wish to show their displeasure at amateur hunting on public land. They may wish to show their displeasure at the Government supporting legislation that opens up national parks and exposes the communities that rely on and recreate in those national parks to the danger of amateur hunting. National parks are and always should be public land. They should be used by bushwalkers, picnickers and hikers. Those uses are not and never will be compatible with amateur hunters with high-powered rifles. It is a sign of the concern held by the Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party about community anger in relation to the opening up of national parks that buried away in this legislation is the capacity to criminalise protests.

If the Government does not support The Greens amendment, it will be protecting people with guns from people with placards. It will be protecting arm hunters from conservation protesters with little more than signs and maybe a song of protest. It shows how one-eyed and upside down this Government's view of our public land is that it has laws that protect people wandering in national parks with high-powered weaponry from the dangers of protesters who will be carrying nothing more than placards and goodwill to protect the national park estate.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.08 p.m.]: The Government rejects The Greens amendment No. 7. Basically, the Shooters and Fishers Party proposed section 55A relates to interfering with authorised hunting on declared public hunting land. It creates an offence to interfere with hunting of game animals. The removal of this provision as proposed by The Greens would result in the loss of a significant deterrent and could potentially compromise public safety.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [10.08 p.m.]: The Greens amendment No. 7 is an important amendment. There should be a legitimate right to peaceful protest. It is even more important because, as I said earlier, environmental groups in this State will be prohibited from joining forces in the lead-up to the next election to run a campaign to influence people's vote to get rid of politicians who have given us hunting in national parks. Those laws are brought to us by The Greens and the O'Farrell Government. That makes it even more important so that at least citizens can have a peaceful right of protest against hunting in national parks.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.10 p.m.]: I was not in the House when the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the second reading debate but I have been informed that he suggested that the support that The Greens gave to the election funding bill meant that environment groups could no longer run a joint campaign on this issue. That is simply wrong. The environment groups are already running a joint campaign on this issue. Environment groups such as the Nature Conservation Council and the National Parks Association get donations from individuals to run these campaigns. I said that in my speech in the second reading debate and I say it again. The National Parks Association is running a campaign already on donations given to it by individuals. The Leader of the Opposition is running a scare campaign and is desperately trying to appear to environment groups as the Labor environmental warrior. It is a low blow.

The Hon. Luke Foley: It happens to be the truth.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: It is not the truth; I have just stated the truth. The removal of section 55A by The Greens amendment is important. When I attended the No Hunting in National Parks rally a couple of weeks ago, in attendance was a woman who was 80 years old. She told me that she was so upset at this bill that she was ready to protest, to exercise her democratic right and try, if she could, to defend the national parks. That is what this bill is trying to stop.

This section of the bill is also an attempt to prevent the type of protest that we have seen across the country with the introduction of duck shooting and duck hunting. That is clearly the intention of the bill because the Shooters and Fishers Party knows that the vast majority of people are appalled at duck hunting. It knows that good people will do what they can to save or protect ducks that are shot in the wing or in the body as they fall. The Shooters and Fishers Party knows full well that that happens. That section is designed to prevent protests. When recreational hunting is about to begin in Moreton National Park at Christmas time, what will happen when the people in that community want to protest and say, "No, we do not want you in our national parks"? That will happen whether this section is in the legislation or not.

The Greens amendment is all about recognising people's democratic right to freedom of protest and free expression. The community does not like this bill and will want to tell the Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party that this is an appalling piece of legislation. People will protest, whether this section is in the legislation or not. I know those opposite will not support the amendment, so I look forward to many protests.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.13 p.m.]: Section 55A is probably the most appalling part of the whole bill. I know the Shooters do not get out as much as they want to in order to actually hunt, but part of hunting animals involves sneaking around, crawling around.

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: How do you know?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.13 p.m.]: Because as a kid I saw people fox shooting dozens of times. I shot rabbits in Tasmania in the 1980s. I used to shoot rabbits out the bedroom window, no problem. But the key point here is that hunting involves recreational hunters sneaking around in national parks with their camouflage gear, wiping the glands of deer on themselves. Hunters lurk in the bush waiting for the arrival of some poor feral animal—the animal of their dream—waiting for some deer that they want to mount. That is what hunters do, they lurk around. I give as an example The Walls picnic area in the Mount Canobolas State Conservation area. Who determines interference? A shooter is lurking in the shrubs when a family turns up for a picnic. They turn on the stereo and commence a game of cricket. Is that family interfering with the shooter? Yes, it is. The shooter might have a big prized boar in his sights which he would be able to shoot but for little Johnny chasing the cricket ball in front of him. Little Johnny has interfered. That is a silly example and I hope it would not occur, but are bushwalkers, mountain bikers—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Read section 55 (1) (b): it is the intention, the mens rea. There has to be an intention.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It says "with the intention of interfering"? Who determines that? Who is reporting that?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is determined in the court.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That is right, but it is subjective. The shooter might say to a bushwalker, "You have just ruined my shot; you are scaring off the animals".

The Hon. Robert Borsak: You said that is what you are going to do.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Oh, that is a joke.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You said you were going to do it with the ducks.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: We will, no fear. The first element to the section is stopping people's freedom to dissent. The section is designed to ensure that when a hunter has winged a mallard duck, because he cannot shoot properly, he can stagger out and get the duck without people protesting and stopping him. But it will be a nightmare because when people discover the reality of shooting in their national parks they will interfere. People will ask the hunters, "Do you mind shooting a little bit further away? Could you not shoot while we are having our cricket game?" The shooters invariably will tell them to get knotted, and whose side will the law come down on? It will come down on the side of the shooters. That is what this section is about because that is what the Shooters are about. The Shooters are about diminishing our enjoyment and destroying our freedoms. It is a ridiculous bill. The Greens amendment is a sensible one and should be supported.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Before the member staggered back to his seat, he carefully made the point why this provision is in the bill. In his own contribution he said he wanted to go and interfere with the shooters. That is why the provision is in the legislation—for idiots like him.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.18 p.m.]: It is a legitimate form of protest if, for example, the schedule of feral animals and game animals is included to allow the killing of feral animals or if the Minister for Primary Industries expands the New South Wales Game Bird Management Program—which is basically duck hunting by another name. If people obtain a licence to duck hunt under the Game Bird Management Program, it is a legitimate form of protest for people to go out into the fields and, if they think that ducks and other animals should be saved from hunting, go and scare the animals away from hunters so that they cannot be killed. It is a legitimate form of protest. This contest is regularly seen in rural Victoria where a bunch of concerned citizens—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I draw the attention of members to the long title in the leave of the bill. There is no "duck hunting" in this bill.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! The Committee is considering the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012. There is no point of order.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is a perfectly legitimate protest to scare away animals that otherwise will be hunted and shot by licensed hunters under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act. That perfectly legitimate protest will be criminalised by these proposed amendments to the Act. People should be allowed to enter public lands—State forests and national parks—to scare away prey if they think that is the right protest to take against this expansion of amateur hunting on our public lands.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.20 p.m.]: During my previous contribution the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps called out, "mens rea", regarding new section 55A and the intention of interfering with hunting. New section 55A (4) says that "interfere with includes prevent or hinder". What is the definition of "hinder"? Is bushwalking adjacent to hunting hindering the hunter? Yes, it is. Is carrying out some activity that potentially scares away a feral or game animal hindering hunting? Yes, it is. If I am wrong, what is the definition of "hinder" with respect to hunting? Am I hindering a hunter if I make some noise or conduct some other activity?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: If you intend to interfere with the hunting.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.21 p.m.]: This truly is the Joh Bjelke-Petersen clause.

Mr David Shoebridge: Unlike the Henry VIII one.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. I guess we are making some progress, moving from Henry VIII to Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The intent of new section 55A, which this amendment seeks to remove, is to interfere with one's lawful right to exercise one's conscience. This society has made progress only because people have exercised their conscience. This amendment bells the cat on the bill's real intention. It exposes that the bill's real intention is to create a hunting State. New section 55A is the enforcement power to achieve that. This new section goes against everything that is decent in creating a fair and liberal State. This new section takes away the right for people to exercise their conscience with respect to animal rights.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Loosen your tie; it's cutting off blood flow to your brain.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: All night The Greens have copped abuse from the Government Whip. I do not know what he ate for dinner, but it is time for him to pull his head in and stop.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 7 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 18

Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham
Ms Cotsis
Mr Donnelly
Ms Faehrmann
Mr Foley
Mr Moselmane

Mr Primrose
Mr Roozendaal
Mr Searle
Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Shoebridge
Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood
Mr Whan

Tellers
Dr Kaye
Ms Voltz

Noes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay

Mr Green
Mr Harwin
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell

Reverend Nile
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Tellers
Mr Colless
Dr Phelps

Pair

Ms Fazio

Ms Cusack

Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 7 [C2012-104A] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.30 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 6 to 8 on sheet C2012-102B in globo:

No. 6 Page 10, schedule 1 [30], proposed schedule 3, lines 7-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Note.

No. 7 Page 10, schedule 1 [3], proposed schedule 3. Insert after line 22:

Deer (Family cervidae)

No. 8 Page 10, schedule 1 [30], proposed schedule 3, lines 30-32. Omit all words on those lines.

These amendments remove birds and deer from the category of game and allow them to be treated as any other pest or emerging pest on private land. Amendment No. 6 is proposed because we suspect that hunters in New South Wales have illegally released exotic game birds into the environment so that hunting can occur on both private and public lands. The Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012 increases the number of exotic birds that are classified as game birds.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Point of order: There is too much noise in the Chamber and I cannot hear the member's contribution.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members who wish to engage in conversations will do so outside the Chamber.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: Some of these species have been assessed as having a serious to extreme threat of establishing and causing environmental and agricultural harm. If there are feral populations in New South Wales they should be eradicated rather than maintained as a hunting resource. They should be treated as feral animals rather than game animals. It is currently illegal to release game birds but legal to hunt game birds. Why make it legal to hunt species that are not yet established in the wild? Under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 a game animal includes any of the following that is living in the wild: deer, Californian quail, pheasant, partridge, pea fowl and turkey. However, there are no known feral populations of some of these birds. There was concern at the time the Act was passed that listing these birds as game birds would create a strong incentive for their illegal release.

The bill adds the following birds to that list: bobwhite quail, guinea fowl, spotted dove. Unless these birds are well established in the wild, which they are not, they should be removed from the Act because listing them as game birds will only promote the idea that these birds should be established and will hinder efforts to eradicate populations should they become established. Legitimising them as a target for hunters, which is what this bill does, will encourage the notion that they should be in the environment and will encourage releases—although of course this is illegal. Any feral populations of those species assessed as an invasive risk should be eradicated as a pest. This amendment means the Game Council would not be able to get in the way of effective animal control on private land because, make no mistake, this is what the council does: it gets in the way of effective feral animal control.

Amendment No. 7 proposes to move deer to part 2 of schedule 3. This is because they should be regarded as a damaging feral animal just like goats, pigs and foxes. They have been listed as a key threatening process in New South Wales yet are part protected as a resource for hunters for their inclusion in the special category of game animals. The effect of their inclusion in part 1 of schedule 3 of the bill is to restrict control on private properties to the detriment of both conservation and agriculture. I note that when the original game bill was debated the Coalition proposed an amendment to remove the restrictions on deer but it was defeated. The current Act exempts landholders and their household employees but anyone else has to obtain a Game Council licence to kill deer on private land, which also prevents them using the most effective and probably humane method of spotlight shooting. There is a bag limit on hog deer, for God's sake. I note that about half the deer populations known in 2002 had been illegally translocated and recreational hunters are the obvious suspects behind that.

Amendment No. 8 removes the common starling, Indian myna and feral pigeon from the list of animals for which a Game Council licence is required to hunt them on public land. This means they will be treated as any other pest. These pest animals should be treated like any other pest on public land. When you look at the Office of Environment and Heritage website and the list of animals for which it has feral eradication programs, it does not include common starling, Indian myna and feral pigeon. The time to bring those three birds into a feral eradication program is not when we are opening up national parks to recreational hunting. Yes, those birds are a problem but the moment we put them on that list we could have recreational hunters, with no science behind their eradication methods, suddenly going into national parks across New South Wales and shooting at what they think are Indian mynas and feral pigeons in trees. This is a dangerous move that should not be supported. It should be up to the Government, after a lot of research and determination, to include birds like that in the list. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.35 p.m.]: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann was not in the Parliament—and neither was I—when The Greens and their fellow travellers lost these ideological arguments in 2001 and 2002. Both the Labor Government of the day and the then Opposition, which is now in government, recognised that the name of the principal Act is the "Game and Feral Animal Control Act". We cannot support the amendments.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.36 p.m.]: This is a very problematic series of amendments. On the one hand, The Greens are moving an amendment to allow the hunting of deer on private land without a game hunting licence, which would put at risk our valuable deer farming industry. Frankly, that certainly deserves further consideration, to say the least. We reject that amendment. On the other hand, having opened up the deer farms to shooters, they want to reject starlings, Indian mynas and feral pigeons. Who can understand them? We reject the amendments.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.37 p.m.]: For the benefit of the Minister, if the amendment is adopted it will actually be illegal to enter someone's deer farm and shoot their deer. It is illegal now and it will be illegal if the amendment is passed. The Minister need not worry; he will still get his venison from his deer farm because it will still be illegal to sneak into someone else's deer farm and shoot dead their deer without their permission.

Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 6 to 8 [C2012-102B] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendments Nos 6 to 8 [C2012-102B] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.38 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 9 on sheet C2012-102B:

No. 9 Page 12, schedule 1 [30], proposed schedule 3A. Insert after line 13:

Other national park estate land

This amendment is one of the reasons we did not support the Opposition's amendment to specifically include the 79 national parks and open them up for hunting. It adds national parks, reserves, conservation areas and regional parks to the list in schedule 3A. Basically this list is the list of roughly—

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Read it, Cate.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I will not read it. The Premier did not mention in his announcement the other week national parks, nature reserves and State conservation areas. If the Premier says that hunting is only going to take place in those 79 national parks, then at the very least the Government can exclude these other areas. The community will then know they will not be added. As the Hon. Robert Brown or the Hon Robert Borsak said an hour ago, it might take a couple of years to get through the list of 79 national parks. We can be guaranteed that before the next election more areas will be opened up. This excludes all areas other than 79 national parks that the Premier announced from the list provided by the Fishers and Shooters Party in the middle of the night doing their secret and dirty deal of hunting in national parks.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.40 p.m.]: The Greens are not listening; it was not in the middle of the night it was two o'clock in the afternoon. Obviously the Shooters and Fishers Party cannot support this amendment.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.41 p.m.]: The Opposition still believes the position we put earlier was the better way of doing it. The Opposition will not bear grudges over that lack of support for the Opposition amendment and we will vote in favour of this amendment.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 9 [C2012-102B] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment number 9 [C2012-102B] negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.42 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 8 on sheet C2012-104A:

This amendment is to delete those provisions on pages 13 and 14 of the bill. The Greens have a number of concerns about those sections. They are opening up local government land for recreational hunting. Not only is local government land often closed to residential housing, but opportunistic ground-based recreational shooting cannot stand in for any professional pest eradication plans and programs on these lands. The Greens have concerns that this section changes the definition from "game hunter" to "invertebrate pest controller". That means those people will have access to a larger range of weapons than is intended by the bill.

This amendment will make sure that amateur hunters on council land cannot have access to semiautomatic weaponry or pump action repeat shotguns and the like. Council land can be scattered throughout New South Wales. I had understood from earlier statements by the Minister that the Government was going to support these amendments. I had understood from comments made by the Government, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, that the Minister's second reading speech acknowledged that the Government was going to agree to these amendments. I would be interested to hear the Government's support for these amendments. That will go some way to allaying some concerns about this bill.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.44 p.m.]: I have been paraphrased incorrectly. During my second reading speech I did not indicate that I was going to agree with The Greens amendments. I did say that the Government would be moving amendments of its own. The Government amendment is exactly the same as the amendment The Greens have moved. The process of this House means the mover of the bill gets precedence on whose amendment is accepted first and beyond that it is the time of receipt of those amendments. The Greens amendment was received before ours and given The Greens amendment is exactly the same as the Government's amendment, we will support it. It is an important issue. It is one the Government is supportive of but it needs a lot more work and further consultation. The member did quote me correctly on that issue. The Government will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.45 p.m.]: The Greens amendment does accurately mimic the Government's proposed amendment. However, the reasons put forward are erroneous. The reason the Shooters and Fishers Party has agreed that it would not object to the Government removing this section from the bill is that quite obviously the Government could not come to grips with a fairly complex arrangement of changes to the Firearms Act. It is about the definition of rural land in certain sections of the Firearms Act related to the genuine reason for the licence. A firearms licence states you are not allowed to use a firearm for which you are licensed under a particular genuine reason for another genuine reason. It is nothing to do with allowing people to use semiautomatic firearms on council land or anywhere.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.47 p.m.]: The Greens may have a difference of opinion to the Shooters and Fishers Party about the impact of the bill. I am glad to see the Government supporting the amendment. I am glad to see the amendments to the Firearms Act being withdrawn and I commend the amendment to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.47 p.m.]: I indicate that the comments made by the Hon. Robert Brown completely reflect the consultation that took place between the Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.48 p.m.]: I know we win, but it is worth making the point. The debate so far has been completely disingenuous—as usual—from the Government. This opens up vast areas of the State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are supporting you. Sit down.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The reasons why you are supporting us should be put on the record for any similar issues in the future. The schedule would open up vast areas of the State to shooting. It was snuck in there and it is only because the media, and others, have alerted the Government to it that the Government has agreed to the amendment.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not the case.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Of course that is not the case. What this schedule would have done is open up huge areas of public land. It could well have been in and around urban areas. As I said in my second reading speech, it could have been in public or Crown lands or adjacent to the central business district of a city. The Government and the Minister should have recognised that. It would have opened up huge areas of Crown land to dangerous hunting and firearms.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 8 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 8 [C2012-104A] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.50 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 9 on sheet 2012-104A:

This amendment will delete lines 13 and 14 from clause 4. The amendment relates to clause 7 of the regulation, which currently provides a requirement that commercial hunters and hunting guides are licensed. Its removal will mean that the provisions of the Act would allow those hunters to be exempt from licensing. Clearly that is not in the public interest and The Greens commend the amendment to the Committee to ensure that licensing is required for that class of activity.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.51 p.m.]: The Government does not agree with The Greens amendment No. 8 to clause 20 of the Game and Feral Animal Regulation, which states that proposed hunting on declared land will provide greater efficiencies in managing feral pests. It also removes unnecessary duplication because the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities will be made aware of the proposed declaration and the extensive public notice mechanisms in clause 20 (1), for example, newspaper and gazette.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 9 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 9 [C2012-104A] negatived.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.52 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 in globo on sheet C2012-104A:

These amendments together would delete proposed section 144 (3), which requires the Minister to consult with the Game Council before making a pest control order declaring a game animal listed in part 1 of schedule 3 to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 to be a pest. They would limit the capacity of the Minister to do pest control and feral pest control. Before an order can be made consultation with the Game Council will be necessary. The Game Council does not have the expertise to understand what are serious feral pests in New South Wales. That is not its statutory remit, that is not where it has its skills base and that is not what it is designed to do. The statutory government bodies that are empowered with, and have the resources and the knowledge to make pest control orders are the Department of Primary Industries and the State bureaucracy outside of the Game Council. This additional consultation will cause delay and further bureaucracy before a pest control order can be made. There has never been a rationale as to why the Game Council would be allowed to be involved before a pest control order is made. It is for those reasons The Greens move amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 11 will delete proposed section 145 (3), which is proposed to provide that an authority must consult with the Game Council before requesting the Minister make a pest control order declaring a game animal listed in part 1 of schedule 3 to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act. Before any local government authority or Catchment Management Authority can even make application to the Minister to get rid of a feral pest from their lands they have to go through an additional hoop of talking with the Game Council. What is the purpose of that? What interest does the Game Council have in being consulted before a Catchment Management Authority can get rid of feral goats on their land that might be fouling the waters in their catchment?

Why does the Game Council get this privileged access before even an application is made before the Minister? The Game Council then gets another bite of the cherry before the Minister makes the pest control order. This is not at all about facilitating feral pest management control; it is about giving the Game Council inappropriate leverage at all these points probably because it wants to have its amateur hunters hunting in preference to professional controlled hunting being done in areas like the land under the control of the Catchment Management Authority or land under the control of a local council. This is unnecessary bureaucracy, again privileging the Game Council and putting it at the heart of, in an inappropriate way, feral pest management control.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.55 p.m.]: These types of arguments have been presented in the past during debate on the Deer Bill, which became the Deer Act. The Shooters and Fishers Party cannot support these amendments.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [10.55 p.m.]: The Opposition foreshadowed a similar amendment and it will support these amendments. As I said in my contribution to the second reading speech, it is of great concern that we should make any move that takes the decision of what is a feral pest animal away from being primarily about agriculture and the environment and onto its impact on game and availability for game. That would be very negative. I suspect this is mainly about deer, and decisions on feral pests should be made based on their impact on our environment and agriculture. The Game Council should not have an attempt at a veto of this process. When consultation is required a process has to be gone through and when the Cabinet submission comes in if there is not agreement from the different parties, it has to be resolved by somebody at a higher level, which generally takes quite a bit of time. This is quite unnecessary. We should not put agriculture and the environment in New South Wales in jeopardy, or put game needs ahead of them.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [10.57 p.m.]: It is interesting that both The Greens and the Opposition wish to remove transparency. This is about consultation, doing things properly and talking to another sector of the government that may have expertise in this area. There is no degree of compulsion in accepting, but there is compulsion in consulting. The Government opposes both of the amendments.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.57 p.m.]: Honourable members may recall a debate—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not anything you have ever said.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [10.57 p.m.]: The Minister for Roads and Ports may recall a representation I made in this place about the declaration of threatened species as pests. The Greens moved amendments to the bill that there be consultation with the Minister for the Environment before a pest control order was declared on native species. The Greens were told then by the Minister for Roads and Ports that it was not appropriate in terms of biosecurity and that that consultation would slow down the process. Once again the hypocrisy of the Minister is laid bare.

Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 [C2012-104A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 [C2012-104A] negatived.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

Report adopted.

Third reading set down as an order of the day for a future day.

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2012

Legislative Assembly

Legislative Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council