HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (BAN ON HUNTING PROTECTED ANIMALS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:06): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a simple bill which will end, if passed, the ability of the environment minister to declare open seasons for the hunting of our wildlife. Members would be aware that in March this year the Minister for Environment and Conservation announced the dates of what the minister described as a 'heavily restricted duck and quail hunting season for 2009'. In the minister's statement announcing the declaration of an open season, the minister said:

Recent water fowl surveys have shown that there are sufficient numbers of duck and quail across southern and eastern Australia to support limited hunting seasons in South Australia this year, but heavy restrictions have been placed on the length of the season and the number and species of ducks and quail able to be taken to ensure that populations of the birds are not adversely affected. The duck hunting season will be open from 28 March to 31 May, with a bag limit of four ducks per day.

Interestingly, in the media just the other day, we had representatives of the environment department saying that very few ducks were, in fact, shot because very few ducks were, in fact, here in South Australia. Whilst that is a good thing for the ducks, it does go to the heart of the lack of quality information that led to the decision to declare this open season. My bill, quite simply, abolishes that part of the National Parks and Wildlife Act that enables the declaration of an open season. Let us look first at the basis of the decision to allow a duck shooting season this year. On 17 March, a press release stated:

'The decision to permit the season was based on a consultation process which considered evidence of the distribution and abundance of water fowl in various habitats,' Mr Weatherill said.

'Based on the recommendations of that consultation process, the government decided that restricted duck and quail hunting seasons this year were sustainable. However, we will continue to monitor the situation across South Australia and, should circumstances change, we will revert to a closed season in 2010.'

I would like to explore what the minister describes as his decision based on the consultation process, and let us look at some of the consultation that was undertaken. Perhaps the worst of the consultation was with conservation groups, which were not consulted until after a decision effectively had been made.

The submission from the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia provided four reasons why it believed that a duck shooting season should not be declared this year. The first was that there are dry conditions continuing in southern South Australia, and no-one could doubt that that is the situation we are facing. The second reason it said we should not have an open season is that there has been insufficient improvement in wetland condition. The Nature Conservation Society actually pointed the Department for Environment and Heritage back to the department's own comments in the previous year where, in its discussion paper for the 2008 duck and quail hunting proposals, the department said:

Water supplies are severely stressed, and several years of above average rainfall are required to recharge substrates and restore conditions.

It would be clear to everyone that between 2008 and 2009 we have not had several years of above average rainfall. We have not had one year of above average rainfall, so the quality of our wetlands has not improved.

The third reason the Nature Conservation Society gave was that South Australian water bird numbers have not increased enough. The most recent survey in 2008 showed a 2.6 per cent increase from 2007, but that is still 53.6 per cent less than 2003 numbers. Fourthly, the NCS points to the fact that national water bird numbers have increased but they are still well below the long-term average. They point to the national water bird survey which shows that the statistics were skewed by large numbers of water birds in two locations—the Paroo wetlands in far north-western New South Wales, and Lake Galilee in Queensland. So, the summary from the NCS was:

An increase in national water bird numbers cannot justify hunting in South Australia when numbers in South Australia are still low. The South Australian government is responsible for protecting wildlife in South Australia and the fact that there are reasonable numbers of these birds elsewhere is not justification to allow a hunting season which threatens the long-term sustainability of water bird populations. Allowing hunting in South Australia may be allowing our natural capital to be eroded beyond its long-term regenerative capacity.

Members might be thinking, 'Well, that is what you might expect from a non-government conservation group', but let us look at what the government's own hand-picked advisory committee recommended in relation to a duck hunting season this year. I refer to the statutory body, the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Council, which considered the question of an open season at its meeting in February this year. I have been provided with a copy of the draft minutes for that meeting which conclude with the following:

The National Parks and Wildlife Council considered the data collection and analysis and decision-making process undertaken by the department in developing recommendations for a duck and quail hunting season in 2009 and advised that it would not support the recommended season as presented to the meeting and advised the department that it would support an application for funding from the Wildlife Conservation Fund in relation to quail.

That is because there is very little information at all in relation to quail. The crux of its recommendation to the department is it did not support the department's recommendation to have an open season. This is the premier statutory advisory body on all matters to do with national parks and wildlife. The government ignored its recommendations.

One response to the duck shooting season has been condemnation on the ground of animal cruelty from groups such as the RSPCA. Last year, when the government decided not to declare an open season on ducks, the RSPCA put out a media statement saying the following:

The South Australian branch of the RSPCA is extremely happy to hear that the barbaric sport of duck shooting has been banned for this season. While the government says the cancellation is due to the drought and low duck numbers, the RSPCA believes duck shooting should be banned because of the severe injuries it inflicts on ducks.

The release goes on with the RSPCA's spokesperson, Aimee McKay, saying:

The fact that one in four are injured and not instantly killed from an animal welfare standpoint is completely unacceptable. From beak injuries, where ducks then die of starvation days later, to wing injuries where they're unable to fly away from predator, to the bird simply bleeding to death, they all lead to a horrible death for the bird. The RSPCA of South Australia acknowledges that while the temporary ban—

remember that this was last year—

is a positive step, a total ban needs to be brought in. In the ACT it has never been legal. It was banned in Western Australia in 1990.

So, that is 19 years ago. It continues:

In New South Wales it was banned in 1995 and Queensland banned duck shooting in 2006.

The RSPCA goes on to say:

South Australia is really lagging behind when it comes to duck shooting. The sheer cruelty of the so-called sport alone should see it banned, but we also have the added strain on duck numbers due to drought. It really makes no sense for this inhumane practice to still be legal.

People might say that you would expect that from the RSPCA, and one might doubt that those figures of one in four injured are credible figures. We need look no further than the Department for Environment's own documents to show that not only is that figure on the mark but it is probably conservative. I have a memo, which was prepared for the then minister for environment and natural resources in February 1996 by the director of natural resources, one Allan Holmes, who is now the CEO of the entire department. The memo relates to duck shooting and to the certainty of birds being injured as well as killed. The memo says:

The Duck Defence Coalition, through Mr Geoff Russell, wish to draw your attention to their modelling of duck shooting, which indicates duck wounding rates of one bird wounded for every bird bagged. To put this in some context, if 100,000 birds are bagged in one season from a population of one to 10 million, the Duck Defence Coalition's modelling would suggest another 100,000 ducks are wounded. This example provides 'ball park' figures for duck hunting in South Australia. Mr Russell refers to collaborative Canadian research based on field studies of five to eight ducks crippled for every 10 bagged.

A broad range of variables in the field will affect wounding rates. Hunting techniques, experience and shooting kills are important variables. Whilst hunters dispute the Duck Defence Coalition's modelling, significant wounding does occur, whether it is one bird wounded for every three bagged or one wounded for every one bagged is not the central issue, except that it provides a visible issue for debate.

The memo then goes on, with the only sentence in bold print:

Mr Russell's figures are a reasonable estimation. The issue, however, is one of animal welfare not of wildlife conservation.

The rationale for my bill is both. I think we need to look at animal welfare in addition to simply looking at our fellow species as numbers we can exploit until they drop to unsustainable levels.

The bill I have presented is quite simple, and I have said that it ends the practice of declaring open seasons. However, I should outline what my bill does not do: it does not affect the permit system for the destruction of native animals; it does not interfere with the management under permit of wildlife for ecological purposes (that remains in the National Parks and Wildlife Act as it is); and it does not affect the rights of Aboriginal people to engage in traditional hunting (those rights also are enshrined in the National Parks and Wildlife Act).

However, my bill does abolish the declaration of open seasons where those seasons are declared simply for recreation or for fun. The season that has just finished this last weekend I think should be the last duck shooting season in South Australia. We know that it is an activity that has only marginal support in the community. The numbers of people engaged in duck shooting have dropped consistently for many years and it is inevitable that one day one parliament will have the courage to say that this inhumane activity has had its day. I want this season just closed to be our last and, if members support my bill, then we have every chance of South Australia entering the 21st century, catching up with Western Australia—we are only 19 years behind—and showing to the world that there is still some humanity left in South Australians and that we do not support blood sports such as duck hunting. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT