NSW Labor back controversial plan to expand access for hunters
The Conservation Hunting Bill was first tabled by NSW Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers MLC MLC Rod Borsak earlier this year.
Proponents say the Bill will incorporate hunters into nature conservation and pest control by opening up state-owned land to hunters.
It would also pave the way for bounty killings of feral animals, and seeks to establish a new hunting minister and authority, and allow hunters access to suppressors.
Regional NSW Minister Tara Moriarty said Labor would back the proposal, but admitted it had 'some issues' that would be addressed through amendments.
'In 2023, 24 hunters removed over 17,500 pest animals from public land,' Ms Moriarty said.
'Recreational hunting is, of course, not a cure-all for pest management, but it is a practical way to extend the reach of government funded programs.'
Ms Moriarty acknowledged there were 'strong and differing views' about recreational hunting, but that the Bill was a 'sensible middle ground'.
Under the Bill, some Crown land would automatically be designated for hunting, though Ms Moriarty said it would not create an automatic entitlement to hunting there.
Ms Moriarty said the Bill was not a return of the Game Council – shuttered in 2013 – and that key rights and regulations would remain within the government.
Environment Minister Penny Sharpe said local land services and other land managers were currently 'spending millions' to deal with feral species.
'This is incredibly important. We need to protect diversity. We need to protect conservation areas, communities and neighbouring primary production,' she said.
In 2023-24, the National Park Service removed more than 55,000 animals through aerial shooting, mustering, ground shooting and trapping, Ms Sharpe said.
Some 24,000 hunters are licensed in NSW, and the Bill proposes giving them access to a new conservation hunting licence.
With oversight from a new conservation hunting authority, it also seeks to open up hunting in private and declared public lands, excluding national park.
The Bill was not opposed by the Opposition – again, with amendments.
Nationals MLC Sarah Mitchell described the Bill as a 'reforming of the former Game Council under another name'.
She noted it would ensure regulatory compliance 'which was one of the major issues with the Game Council'.
'It will be maintained within the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, which is something that we think is very important,' she said.
The Bill does not specifically mention bounty killings and instead paves the way for their introduction following an administrative process.
Ms Mitchell said the issues of bounties was an important one, but that the government had been 'reluctant' to introduce them.
Also describing the Bill as a return of the Game Council, Greens MLC Sue Higginson said it was a 'Labor zombie'.
'A reminder of morally deficient political mistakes of more than 20 years ago,' Ms Higginson.
'What we are seeing is the reconstitution of the former Game Council of NSW, a statutory body abolished in disgrace in 2013 following a devastating independent review.'
Ms Higginson described the Bill as a 'political tradeoff' and a 'transactional arrangement' designed to shore up support.
The Greens have argued using hunters for controlling invasive species has no 'scientific backing' and that the Bill would set the state backward.
Animal Justice Party MLC Emma Hurst told the Council 'recreational hunting is not about conservation' and that she had received threats over her views.
She said she had received messages including 'Can someone kill you?' and 'This c**t needs a bullet'.
'This Bill is a betrayal of animals, of public trust and of the values the NSW government was elected to uphold,' Ms Hurst said.
Labor, the Liberals and the Greens opposed provisions surrounding the use of silencers, as well as the designation of a Minister for Hunting and Fishing.
The bill has stirred controversy since Premier Chris Minns first floated the idea of introducing bounty killings for feral animals.
The Invasive Species Council called on the NSW government to not support the Bill on Wednesday morning.
Chief executive Jack Gough said the Bill would in effect bring back the 'disgraced' former NSW Game Council, which was dissolved in 2013.
'Recreational hunting is not conservation,' he said.
'It rarely delivers environmental benefits, and in many cases actively obstructs professional control programs.
'You don't reduce invasive species by doing a bit of weekend pig shooting.
'You need coordinated, expert-led programs like aerial shooting, baiting and trapping – the kind of methods the Shooters Party oppose.'
Mr Gough said the Bill would increase the influence of hunters over the management of state forests and Crown land.
Debate on the Bill will resume later this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Why police couldn't stop the Harbour Bridge protest
Sam Hawley: It was a protest the New South Wales government and police tried to stop but couldn't. In the end, more than 100,000 protesters were permitted to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, demanding an end to the war in Gaza. But should we be concerned that organisers had to fight for the right to hold the rally in the first place? Today, Associate Professor in Law at the University of South Australia, Sarah Moulds, on why it's becoming harder to protest. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: It was the protest that brought Sydney to a standstill. Thousands marching across the Harbour Bridge. Despite the rain that come from all over the city and beyond. Protester: The starving children of Gaza cannot wait another day. End the violence. Protester: There's too many deaths of young children, too much starvation. Protester: It's a sign of the turning tide of the of the opinion in this country. And it's a sign that people aren't going to put up with it anymore. Sam Hawley: Sarah, when a pro-Palestinian group first proposed this march across the Harbour Bridge in Sydney about a week before it was to take place, the government and police were not happy, were they? Sarah Moulds: No, they were looking for a way to stop the protest or to see whether the protest could happen in a different place. Sam Hawley: Yeah. So the New South Wales Police Acting Deputy Commissioner, Peter McKenna, he was saying that he was concerned about public safety and the disruption to motorists. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: We understand there is some angst at the moment about what's happening overseas. We understand and are sympathetic to that. But the New South Wales Police decision around this has to be first and foremost about public and police safety. We will not be facilitating that protest. Sam Hawley: Chris Minns, the New South Wales Premier, he opposed the protest, saying he could not allow Sydney to descend into chaos. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: To close down the Harbour Bridge, which has happened maybe two or three times in a decade, is a logistical and communications Everest. It's incredibly difficult to do. And I understand that some people say, look, it's easy to shut down the bridge. It's not easy. Sam Hawley: Were they reasonable arguments at that time? Sarah Moulds: I think they were reasonable arguments. But one of the things that's important to hold in mind is this concept that we have a common law right to communicate about political matters in Australia that comes from our constitution. And the concept of the right of peaceful assembly is something we've signed up to at the international level. So while I think the arguments around safety, inconvenience and disruption are really powerful, particularly with something of this scale in this place, on the other side of the ledger, if you like, are these important principles that Australians also consider to be fundamental in our democracy? Sam Hawley: All right. Well, around this time, the protesters were predicting that around 50,000 people would turn up. So that's about a week before it actually happened. And the matter then went before the New South Wales Supreme Court and Judge Belinda Rigg, who would make the ultimate decision about whether or not this protest could happen on the Harbour Bridge. And she did that on Saturday morning. What did she say? Sarah Moulds: In the reasons that were shared from the justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, it's clear that that common law concept of peaceful assembly was an important consideration. So was the principle that just because something might be inconvenient or disruptive might not be enough to say it should be prohibited under the law. And also there was information to suggest that people were going to do this anyway. And so that was something that needed to be considered alongside the safety information that the police were putting before the court. Sam Hawley: And Justice Rigg, she noted that the march at this location on the Harbour Bridge was motivated by the belief that the horror and urgency of the situation in Gaza demands an urgent and extraordinary response from the people of the world. She also noted that it is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others. Sarah Moulds: That's right. That was clear from the ruling that that concept of inconvenience and disruption is inherently connected to the idea of protest and communicating on a matter of political importance to the people of Australia. Sam Hawley: All right. So the judgment meant, of course, that the protest could go ahead and that the protesters would have immunity from being charged with what offences? Sarah Moulds: Yes. So the immunity is quite limited. So the ruling meant that somebody was not going to be charged with an offence relating to unlawful assembly, of obstructing a person, vehicle or public place. But it was conditional on the fact that the protesters stayed within the boundaries of the assembly that was described in this form one that was before the court. So the protest organisers had to put all that information together, share that with the police and the court. And if the communities involved stayed within the scope of that plan, they would be immune from those minor offences that I just described. However, it would not extend to somebody being prosecuted or charged with a violent offence. And the police retain powers to make orders with respect to individuals and ask them to do things or ask them to change what they're doing. And a failure to comply with those kind of orders made by police could also potentially result in liability. So important immunity, but also limited. Sam Hawley: Well, Sarah, as we said before, initially, the protest organisers thought that it attracted around 50,000 people. In the end, more than 100,000 people showed up despite the terrible weather. It was pouring with rain. That's huge, isn't it? Just put that into perspective. Have we seen such a large protest like this before? Sarah Moulds: I'm sure we have back in history, but in recent years, particularly in the years since these legal processes for handling process have been involved in this way. This is a very, very significant number of people. And I think that speaks to the significance of the issue that people were protesting about on the bridge, as well as the challenge faced by police and other authorities in facilitating this type of event to happen safely. So, yeah, throughout history, we've had really big protests before in Australia. But definitely in recent years, the numbers of this one are really significant. Sam Hawley: The acting assistant commissioner, Adam Johnson, he described the situation on the bridge as intense and one of the most perilous he's ever been involved in. Acting Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson, NSW Police: I can honestly say in my 35 years of policing, that was a perilous situation. I've never seen a more perilous situation. I was honestly worried that we were going to have a a major incident with a potential loss of life. Sam Hawley: But it was peaceful, wasn't it? Sarah Moulds: I think one thing to keep in mind on the legal side of it is that the reason we have this process of being able to put forward an application detailing a public assembly and then have the opportunity for the police to respond and ultimately the courts is to try and make sure that this can happen safely, that we get the right balance between freedom of speech and association and our right to communicate on political matters and safety. And so I think that it is really important to continue to encourage organisers of community events and public assemblies to put that information in the application and give the authorities time to respond. It was clear from the ruling in this case that this was important to get right. If there was a prohibition, there was a risk that people would protest anyway and then you would lose that opportunity to create safety or have control over what might happen in and around the protest. With the oversight of the court, you can do this in a safe way. And it appears that it did have a safe result in this particular case, which is pretty extraordinary. Not many places around the world could have a protest of 90,000 people and result in safety for everybody. So that's something pretty significant as well. Sam Hawley: So, Sarah, we know protesting is a democratic right, but as you've mentioned, it has become harder to protest in Australia. There are more barriers now than ever before, right? Sarah Moulds: Yeah, that's correct. So we've made a commitment at the international level to protect everybody's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. But what we don't have is anything clear in our constitution or in any other piece of legislation saying we have a right to protest in Australia. Instead, we have this implied constitutional freedom to communicate on political matters in our representative democracy. But what you definitely can have and what we see in a number of states in Australia are laws that prohibit any disruptive action on the streets, any disruptive action on the roads or around businesses or workplaces. So in South Australia, for example, we've got offences for obstructing public place. In Queensland and New South Wales, they've got offences for attaching yourself to roads or major thoroughfares. In Tasmania, we had laws around logging areas, prohibiting people from protesting there. One of the things that's obvious is that these laws are different in different places, and it's quite complex and confusing for people to know what they are. And that's why we see people having to get legal advice and barristers to help them work this out. So if we were able to get together and streamline these processes across Australia so it was clear about how important it is to value peaceful assembly, but also how important it is to put people on notice about what things are going to look like so we can do this safely. I think that would be great. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, police have said they can't allow a protest like this to happen again. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: So this operation, from our point of view, was a success in that no one was hurt. No people were hurt. No police were hurt. But gee whiz, I wouldn't like to try and do this every Sunday at that short notice. There's a reason we need time to plan these things out. And I think going forward into the future, that has to be taken into consideration. Sam Hawley: And the Premier, Chris Minns, says the government will look at whether that Supreme Court judgment actually sets a precedent. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: I have to examine all of this. I'm not ruling anything out. And I think most reasonable people would expect that, yes, you do have from time to time massive demonstrations, even if it's on the bridge. But knocking it out every week is just it's not something that we can consider forever. Sarah Moulds: Well, I think that at the moment, the summary offences process that was followed in this case, it gives discretion for police commissioners to make decisions, and it gives discretion for the courts to make decisions. If the New South Wales Parliament attempted to pass a different law about protest, they've done this in other areas or use different powers, then ultimately it might go to the High Court to see whether the Parliament has unduly infringed that constitutional freedom. So I think there are tweaks that the Parliament could make to the process of applying for authorisation for protests. But they'd have to be careful because there's a tipping point where the High Court would say you are now prohibiting that implied freedom of political communication. And that's such an important concept of a representative democracy that we can communicate about things that we feel passionately about as voters and citizens in the country. Sam Hawley: The point, of course, of a protest, Sarah, is to bring about change. Do you think this will do that in any way, given the magnitude of it? Sarah Moulds: Well, I think Australia's ability to influence what's happening on the ground in the Middle East is limited. However, we have a powerful voice in international forums and in forums with our allies. And so I think that action like this empowers and emboldens our political leaders to do things like look to international forums, international law, humanitarian law, and say Australian people support those concepts of dignity and human rights and that they can then go and express that position on the world stage. So I think the protesters would feel that they've done something historic in organising this event, sent a message across the world about what the people of Australia think, supported the elected representatives who are articulating their perspective on the world stage. And I think we should also be proud of our police and authorities, as I said, that have been able to organise a protest like this is probably an excellent sign of a healthy democracy that we can facilitate this kind of democratic expression in this way. Sam Hawley: Sarah Moulds is an associate professor in law at the University of South Australia. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia's most dangerous home-grown conspiracy theory
So Jeffery Epstein probably wasn't a Mossad spy. But online conspiracies like this pop up closer to home too. Could Israeli intelligence have been involved in Australia's most traumatic mass shooting? There are people who think so. In this bonus episode of If You're Listening, Matt is joined by Conspiracy Nation author Cam Wilson, who breaks down the pervasive PA96 conspiracy about the Port Arthur massacre. Cam Wilson and Ariel Bogle's book Conspiracy Nation is out now. Follow If You're Listening on the ABC Listen app. Check out our series on YouTube:
The Australian
3 hours ago
- The Australian
Fortescue's $92m Queensland hydrogen exit leaves $1bn pipeline stranded
Andrew Forrest sprinkled a little magic dust over the captivated Queensland Media Club audience in early 2022 when he described the promise of green hydrogen energy as better than any spell conjured-up in the pages of a Harry Potter book. Australia's richest businessman was then touting his plans for the world's largest electrolyser manufacturing plant and a green hydrogen production facility in Gladstone that was to neighbour the Palaszczuk government-led proposed $12.5bn Central Queensland Hydrogen Project (CQ-H2), which it hoped would become a global exporter of the energy. But three years later, both projects have been abandoned and the Queensland government is about to complete a $1bn water pipeline to Gladstone to service the CQ-H2 project. The pipeline, to be completed next year, now has no customer. It can also be revealed the Crisafulli LNP government has engaged lawyers to advise on 'remedies' for Mr Forrest's company, Fortescue, to repay what taxpayers spent in luring his project to the state. Sources have told The Australian that the incentive agreement struck between Fortescue and the former Labor government was estimated to be worth $92.5m. The state government spent more than $60m, according to the sources, on land and supporting infrastructure for the Fortescue project ahead of it being axed last month. Gladstone mayor Matt Burnett, who unsuccessfully contested the federal seat of Flynn for federal Labor in 2022, told The Australian on Monday there were serious questions on how infrastructure, particularly the $1bn Fitzroy-to-Gladstone water pipeline, and built for the proposed green hydrogen industry will now be used. Mr Burnett said the pipeline only went to the industrial precinct where the green hydrogen projects were to be located. 'The pipeline was to provide water to future energy and industry projects in Gladstone, and CQ-H2 was the main customer,'' he said. 'The pipeline doesn't connect to the dam, it's not for residential use. So now there is no major user for the water. 'How do they now intend to pay for the pipeline? That's a problem for this new government.'' Mr Forrest axed the hydrogen projects with an announcement last month it was pulling out of Gladstone. The manufacturing plant was built and had begun producing electrolysers but the green hydrogen facility was still a patch of dirt. Even before Fortescue closed its operations, the Liberal National Party government, which defeated Labor at the October state election, had effectively killed off the CQ-H2 project by refusing a funding request of $1.6bn in January. CQ-H2 was initially touted as being able to produce up to 200 tonnes of liquefied hydrogen a day by 2028, and four times that by 2031. State-owned power company Stanwell Corporation led the consortium and after its funding request was refused, it withdrew from the project. Two of the major Japanese consortium partners also quit CQ-H2, citing rising costs in the face of the unproven commercial viability of the energy. It was reported earlier this year that the 2019 initial $12.5bn estimated cost of the project's construction had blown out to $14.75bn by 2022, and there were further expected blowouts amid the worldwide hike in input costs. A Fortescue spokesman did not comment on details of the purported taxpayer-funded deal struck with the former Labor government to convince the company to locate its project in Gladstone. 'We are in discussions with the Queensland government and will return funds where required under the grant agreement,'' the spokesman said. It is understood the deal included up to $20m in payroll tax rebates over eight years. But a further $72.5m was offered to support the development of the land and enabling infrastructure – including power, wastewater and transport infrastructure – for the manufacturing facility and green hydrogen plant. It is understood the government is considering reimbursing the $4.5m paid by Fortescue for the state-owned land in which its facility was built. The government would not discuss the details of its plans. 'The Queensland government is working to recover taxpayer funds provided to support the project,'' said a spokesman for the Department of State Development. 'There is an active and ongoing effort already underway, and the department is working through terms to enable this outcome.' Already, the federal government has announced it will seek repayment of taxpayer assistance provided to Fortescue's projects in Gladstone under its Modern Manufacturing Initiative. Last month, a spokeswoman for Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres flagged that the government believed it would be appropriate for Fortescue – a company worth almost $60bn – to refund the taxpayer assistance provided to it under the federal Modern Manufacturing Initiative. 'If Fortescue does not proceed … it would be reasonable for the government to seek reimbursement for where the grant agreement hasn't been fulfilled.' Read related topics: Andrew Forrest Politics Business leader Warwick Smith has warned Anthony Albanese to hasten slowly with any reforms agreed upon at the upcoming economic roundtable, amid warring unions and corporate groups. Politics The owners of some of Australia's biggest transport companies say Labor should drop its unrealised capital gains tax plan, with some considering liquidating part of their self-managed super funds.
