Parliament’s Upper House passes the new authority…renamed, amended, delayed, but moving forward.
The overnight debate on the new outdoor recreation authority was messy, at times frustrating, occasionally theatrical and, in the end, exactly what parliamentary compromise often looks like. The Bill has passed the Legislative Council just before 3.30 am on Friday, but not without change, not without controversy and not on the original timetable.
Because amendments were agreed to, the Bill now returns to the Legislative Assembly for ratification. This will not happen until the Parliament returns for its winter break in late July, meaning that the new authority will not commence until the beginning of August at the earliest, about a month later than planned. But in the context of a reform process that has been discussed in various forms for more than a decade, a month is neither here nor there.
The other big news is that the new authority will be named “Fishing, Hunting & Outdoor Victoria” instead of “Outdoor Recreation Victoria”.
Politics in Western democracies is often spoken about as a contest of ideas, and electoral politics largely is. Parties put forward competing visions and voters choose between them.
But parliamentary politics is something different. Parliament is where those competing visions collide and are forced into compromise. Ideas are tested against competing interests, drafting nuances and the practical question of whether enough people can agree to move forward. That process is rarely elegant, and typically, nobody gets everything they want. That is not necessarily failure; in fact, it could be argued that it is the point.
SSAA Victoria does not necessarily agree with every amendment that emerged; equally, nobody else got everything they wanted either.
For more than ten years, Victoria’s hunting sector has advocated for stronger institutional recognition, clearer representation, and a structure that recognises game hunting as an important social and economic activity rather than an uneasy fit in either the environment or agriculture portfolios. We are not there quite yet, but we are markedly closer than we were on Thursday morning.
The most visible change made by the Parliament overnight was the new authority’s name. We had already become accustomed to Outdoor Recreation Victoria (ORV). We were comfortable that it struck a good balance – broad enough to bring people together while still recognising the distinct place of hunting and fishing within the broader outdoor recreation landscape.
That stated, there are always other options that can fit the bill. Something like Game & Fish Victoria (or, for those who enjoyed the colour, the now infamous “Blast and Cast”) would have had a certain charm. There could also have been valuable signalling in placing the resource (fish, game and the sustainable use of wild populations) rather than the participants on the rhetorical pedestal. Stewardship of the resource sits at the centre of modern hunting and fishing.
Equally, there are good arguments the other way. Names centred on recreation can better acknowledge the broader community of users and make clear that these activities sit within a larger outdoor ecosystem.
Reasonable people can land in different places. Ultimately, while names matter, they are less important than what the authority actually does. Or, to borrow from Shakespeare, ORV by another name still smells as sweet.
We didn’t just turn up for the symbolism, one thing this process reminded us of is that whilst announcements, launches and symbolism do matter, so does being in the room when legislation gets into committee, amendments start moving at speed, and our elected members need practical answers in real time.
SSAA Victoria clearly stated to MPs our preference that the Bill be passed unamended and that ORV would commence operation on July 1. Once it became clear this was not going to happen, our focus shifted from preferences to outcomes – putting forward practical improvements where possible rather than treating compromise as failure.
That meant engaging constructively across Parliament and being available when drafting amendments and questions on operational clauses needed to be worked through.
Over the course of the debate, we worked productively with Government, Opposition and Crossbench members to provide practical subject-matter expertise and to test ideas against operational reality. This is the kind of work that happens “behind the scenes” that delivers.
In particular, we want to acknowledge the work of Jeff Bourman MP and Melina Bath MP.
Melina consulted early and genuinely with a broad range of stakeholders, and she consistently advocated to ensure that practical fishing and hunting experience remained valued within the structure and supported sensible changes around participation and representation, including improvements that better recognise volunteer experience and practical pathways for sector involvement.
Jeff brought to bear his personal experience as a hunter and shooter, worked deeply through the practical drafting and clarification questions, and engaged seriously with the operational consequences of amendments, governance arrangements, and the small details that can be critically important.
We also welcomed the overnight clarifications around the scope of the Land Access Panel. Access is one of the three legs that underpin game hunting (somewhere to hunt, something to hunt and something to hunt with). Amendments and clarifications helped reinforce that the Panel will exist to identify barriers, improve access pathways, and provide advice, not to create a parallel land management authority or to displace existing statutory responsibilities.
Not every contribution to the debate was valuable and well considered. Parliamentary debate and scrutiny are important, and no sector should expect legislation to pass without challenge. But challenge works best when it is informed by the subject matter and directed toward improving the final product. Unfortunately, the contributions of the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Nick McGowan, to this debate, both inside and outside of Parliament, were transparently more focused on prosecuting a personal political narrative than on engaging with the practical operation of the authority, the sectors affected, or the detail of the Bill itself. McGowan amplified the cynical misinformation campaign waged by the animal rights lobby against this new authority. Despite his rhetoric, however, when the time came to (literally) stand up and be counted, McGowan did not cross the floor; instead, he voted against the positions he so loudly espoused. Talk is cheap.
A criticism repeated throughout the debate was the suggestion that there is some irreconcilable conflict in having an authority that both regulates and promotes hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation. That argument might seem reasonable at face value until you stop and think about how government actually works. Modern public institutions routinely manage multiple objectives. Economic development agencies promote industries while administering standards and grants. Tourism bodies promote visitation while supporting management frameworks. WorkSafe promotes workplace safety while enforcing compliance. Road authorities encourage mobility while regulating road use. The existence of more than one function does not automatically create a conflict. The question is whether there are appropriate governance structures, accountability mechanisms, separation of functions and Ministerial oversight.
Strong regulation helps build confidence that activities are conducted safely, sustainably, and in line with community expectations. That is particularly true for hunting. The long-term social licence for hunting depends on demonstrating that hunting is lawful, safe, and ethical, and that it contributes positively to conservation, participation, and regional communities.
The regulator vs promoter complaint is not really about governance at all. It is simply a different, and not entirely logical, angle to take in prosecuting the core belief of some that hunting should not be legal at all, let alone promoted. The fact is that hunting is accepted as a lawful activity supported by Parliament, the real question is not whether government should engage with it, but how to do so responsibly, transparently and effectively. Reasonable people can disagree on where those settings should sit, but the claim that promotion and governance are inherently incompatible does not withstand much scrutiny.
There is also a practical point of confusion (or misdirection) that arose during the debate. This new authority is not replacing Victoria’s broader environmental, public land or conservation frameworks. It does not become the final decision-maker for land management. It does not cease to operate within existing Victorian law. Those safeguards remain.
One of the stranger themes throughout the debate was the suggestion that people with experience in fishing, hunting or outdoor recreation should somehow be treated as inherently conflicted. That proposition never made much sense. Good governance is not achieved by excluding knowledgeable people; it is achieved by identifying, disclosing and managing conflicts appropriately. There is a world of difference between having experience in a sector and having an unmanaged conflict of interest. The Bill, as it stands at the end of the debate, is in a considerably better position on that question than it was when it began. People with relevant backgrounds and volunteer experience should not be shut out before the process even starts. The amendments and clarifications recognise that experience is an asset for governing well, not a disqualification for exclusion.
Processes like this only happen because people do the hard work. Thanks are due to Minister Enver Erdogan and Minister Dimopoulos, along with their ministerial and departmental staff, as well as Melina Bath MP and Jeff Bourman MP, who all engaged openly, thoughtfully, and with sincerity in giving this new authority the best possible foundations.
Ultimately, the success of this new authority will not be measured by logos, names or launch events. It will be measured by whether it acts as a strong regulator that also improves access, strengthens participation, supports sustainable use and delivers practical outcomes for Victorians who fish, hunt and enjoy the outdoors.
This is an important progression for game hunting and outdoor recreation in Victoria – not because every amendment was perfect, not because every speech was persuasive and not because everyone suddenly agreed. Because Parliament did what Parliament exists to do – take competing ideas, competing interests and competing priorities and produce something that enough people could support to move forward.
