You are here

NSW cabinet national parks trade-off with shooters party for lottery privatisation delayed


government source at biodiversity site

Sustained protest delays nasty political act

Sustained protests from Australians who are horrified at the cold-blooded policies pushed by the NSW Cabinet seem to have had an effect for the moment. It is believed that public reaction to this bill has put the wind up members in marginal seats. The proposal has the obvious 'pay-off' for a cash-strapped spendthrift government of pushing through another unpopular privatisation - this time of a state lottery.

"A decision was deferred until further talks could be held with the Shooters. The Opposition, the Greens and environmental groups oppose the bill and the Government had been accused of supporting it because it relied on the Shooters Party for critical support [to sell off a state lottery] in the upper house."Source:The Sydney Morning Herald

Shooters Party & NSW Labor - Rees Government

The Shooters Party had introduced a private member's bill to "allow recreational hunters to shoot native animals and birds and to allow for private game reserves to be set up for professional safari hunters."Source:The Sydney Morning Herald

NSW Liberal Nationals declare strong opposition to notion of sporting shooting in National Parks

The NSW Liberal Nationals portray themselves as strongly opposed to the shooting of Australian native species in National Parks, and the establishment of private shooting reserves. SourceThey say they will introduce amendments to the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill to ban it, according to Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Catherine Cusack MLC, and the Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay.

"The NSW Liberal / Nationals' move comes following a backdoor attempt - with the apparent support of the NSW Labor Government - to introduce unprecedented shooting of Australian native animals, including in National Parks, as well as private game reserves,” said Ms Cusack.

“We will oppose this and introduce other amendments aimed at genuinely managing the real environmental and other threats posed by feral animals - not Australian native species.

"The shooting of Australian native species in our National Parks or exotic species in private 'game parks' are offensive concepts. If this legislation is brought on the NSW Liberal / Nationals are armed and ready to move legislative amendments to make sure it doesn't happen.”

Illegal release of animals for hunting purposes & feral pig and deer problem

One of these amendments includes changing the Game Act to increase the penalty by four times as much for anyone caught illegally releasing animals for the purpose of hunting. The fine will now be $22,000 for persons caught illegally releasing animals.

“The feral pig problem in NSW is due to the deliberate release of piglets and juveniles for the purposes of hunting,” said Ms Cusack.

“We are also seeing deer being released in many National Parks - they are spreading weeds and are an incredible threat to agriculture as well as the environment.

“I challenge the NSW Labor Government to support our tougher penalties.”

Mr Gay said NSW National Parks and their neighbours needed a comprehensive and strong approach to managing the threat of feral animals - especially as the State comes out of drought and feral animal numbers go up.

“Strongly regulated professional shooting is part of that - unprecedented and unrelated new rights for people like wealthy overseas hunting tourists should not be," Mr Gay said.

"We need comprehensive and strong management of feral species including professional conservation shooting - we don't need for NSW to inadvertently become the Safari State of the Southern Hemisphere.”

Details of Other legislative amendments to be moved by the NSW Liberal / Nationals

Other legislative amendments to be moved by the NSW Liberal / Nationals will:

* Put strong regulatory limits and controls on the use of professional, limited shooting for the appropriate management of feral animals;

* Give Forestry and DECC officers stronger powers to oversee feral animal shooting - rather than the proposal to make it an offence for them to approach hunters;

* Give the Minister for Environment the regulatory power to classify in which National Parks feral animal shooting should take place - rather than the proposed 'one size fits all' approach that makes all National Parks - be they urban or rural - public hunting lands;

* Continue to allow farmers to appropriate manage feral animals on their properties - rather than requiring the proposal that they be forced to pay for licences;

* Ban trap shooting with live birds

Mr Gay said the NSW Liberal / Nationals would fight strongly for these and other amendments because of the need to protect Australian native animals and manage feral animals.

“That's in the best interests of both the environment and rural communities that border National Parks,” he said.

Ms Cusack urgently called on NSW Labor to do the right thing and support the Coalition’s amendments.

AttachmentSize
Image icon headshot.jpg31.57 KB
Image icon headshot-little.jpg3.41 KB

Comments

Thank you so much Sheila for that article - very hopeful. One comment I have is on the following statement:-

“We will oppose this and introduce other amendments aimed at genuinely managing the real environmental and other threats posed by feral animals - not Australian native species.

What about the so-called threat that one native animal species poses to grasslands and endangered lizards? I speak, of course, of the grossly maligned kangaroo, which deserves as much protection as all the other native animals. To blame it for overgrazing when we have five times more sheep that eat four times as much grass and far more damaging to the environment than kangaroos ever were, is ludicrous.

People still continue to believe the lies being fed to them that kangaroos are in plague populations, which is utter rubbish. Go to http://www.stopkangarookilling.org and see what I mean.

"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

It is vital to bring zoological science into mainstream discussion on Australia's habitats. I refer readers to:

'THE IMPORTANCE OF REFUGE HABITAT IN THE LOCAL CONSERVATION OF STRIPE-FACED DUNNARTS SMINTHOPSIS MACROURA ON ARID RANGELANDS, by
ANKE FRANK AND TODD SODERQUIST.

Abstract:
"ANTHROPOGENIC change to Australian habitats accelerated rapidly during the late 1800s as sheep grazing spread across the continent. In particular, intensive grazing in arid and semi-arid regions is believed to have vastly altered vegetation communities, triggered extensive soil erosion, and reduced shelter available to small mammals, thus increasing their vulnerability to predation (Morton 1990). It is not surprising, then, that since European settlement 32 species (42%) of mammals inhabiting the arid zone of Australia have become extinct (Landsberg et al. 1997), and many others have suffered major range reductions or are currently considered widespread but rare. This faunal collapse was due to multiple factors (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989; Morton 1990), but the most consistent predictor of marsupial decline is geographic overlap with domestic sheep (Fisher et al. 2003).

While overgrazing is a serious broadscale problem, the destruction of naturally occurring pockets of highquality habitat probably played a critical role in the extirpation of species that relied on refugia for survival during droughts (Morton 1990). Domestic grazing continues on approximately two-thirds of Australia, while less than 5% is dedicated to nature conservation (Ehmann and Cogger 1985).

SOURCE: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AM05075.pdf

You can't have it both ways.

I agree with the fact that overgrazing caused by traditional domestic grazing animals (sheep and cattle) is a far greater environmental issue than over grazing by native species but are you ready to support the harvest of eastern grey kangaroos to supplement or ideally replace our traditional red meat production - you don't sound like you are despite the fact that this would be a much more environmentally sound meat producing alternative.

Imagine the environmental benefits of allowing landowners to profit from leaving country to revegetate and produce native species instead of clearing for cloven hooved stock or ploughing.

The Eastern Grey Kangaroo is one of the world's most abundant vertebrate grazing mammals and is at a current population approximately 12 times it's 'natural' population before white settlement.

Perhaps you are more inclined to promote 100% vegetarianism to overcome the problem - an idealist approach to say the least.
The problems are real and so too are the solutions required to overcome them.

Australia really needs to come of age and recognise the environmental benefits of hunting, just as every other continent has.

Jeff Borg finds it convenient to generalise by criticising those opposed to kangaroo poaching and meat production as advocating vegetarianism. It is simplistic to try to herd critics into the one yard and label them as idealistic, but it doesn't help find an optimal workable solution to Australia's livestock industry.

An optimal workable solution is one that enables Australian graziers to make a viable sustainable living, while respecting Australia's unique wildlife and respecting the integrity of the land.

A sensible approach is to look at what Australia has already got and is good at, then modify that to being sustainable and more profitable. Australia is already good at beef production for instance and there is a ready local and international market. If one looks at New South Wales, over 75% of the original natural vegetation has been cleared. So rather than destroying the remaining 25%, it would make more sense to better utilise the 75% in a more sustainable way. It makes sense to look at agricultural advances that respect the land and focus on profitable niche markets like organic beef. Check the following examples. I am sure there are others.

1. Natural Sequence Farming

2. Best practice husbandry in beef cattle

3. Organic Industry Five-Year Plan 2006-2011 OBE Beef Pty Ltd

4. Organic Systems

5. Export Potential for Organic Lamb

Overgrazing is not the answer. Continuing grazing business as usual unprofitably is not the answer.

As for kangaroo poaching?

Let's start with the facts. What is your source of information claiming that kangaroo numbers are twelvefold their pre-colonial population? Where are these massive populations? If they exist, what are the root causes? What impacts is shooting having on the habitat and breeding patterns of each species of kangaroo and macropod?

According to The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DECC) before colonial exploitation "there were 21 species of macropod in NSW - now there are only 15. The smallest species, and those with special habitat requirements and restricted ranges, have suffered the most - both from predators and from the destruction of their habitats. A number of species of kangaroo and wallaby are listed as threatened in NSW." SOURCE

Let's not unquestioningly rely on generalisations, myths and innuendo, and shooting the messengers. Let's get the unbiased facts and then sensibly discuss viable pragmatic options that can work.

The current co-ordinating body responsible for managing kangaroo populations in New South Wales is the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel within DECC. Discussion about the future of kangaroo shooting and meat trade should start with and include reference to this panel. The panel's role includes "licensing all facets of commercial kangaroo harvesting and non-commercial kangaroo culling", providing "advice on important matters relating to the NSW Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2007-11."

Member organisations of the panel include:
NSW Farmers Association
Rural Lands Protection Board State Council
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Pastoralists' Association of West Darling
Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia Inc
Australian Game Meat Producers Association
Australian Veterinary Association (NSW Division)
RSPCA
Dubbo Field Naturalists and Conservation Society Inc
Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia Inc
NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change
NSW Kangaroo Harversters' Association
Place held (an Aboriginal community organisation)

I would like to add to what you have said, Tigerquoll, that it is to no pastoralist's advantage to overproduce. All farmers would be better off producing less, not more, from a business point of view. The way our economy works against primary producers is by encouraging overproduction so that prices are always low for the secondary industries - the wholesalers who purchase beef and grain at the lowest prices they can get. These secondary industries resell to retailers and both make a very hansome profit at the expense of the public - who pay enormous prices and the primary industries, who get peanuts at the farm gate.

Vegetarians rightly often cite the problem of overgrazing and destruction of hinterland in Australia via hoofed animals and overstocking is a constant problem which carries more suffering for animals and farmers as well as putting farmers in a poor bargaining position.

With the internet there is a chance to change so many bad practices because the internet gives primary producers the chance to organise from the bottom-up. If we can slowly get big business out of the picture, then individual producers have some hope of coordinating to downsize production, cut out middlemen sharks, contract to small transporters instead of feeding the multinational transport businesses, and organise to retail in the cities to small business rather than the few big supermarket outlets, which screw us all.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Sheila, I am not sure of your arguments.

1. Overproduction?
Like any industry, livestock production output must achieve a minimum volume to be economically viable. In any production process, fixed costs occur irrespective of volume, then variable costs occur as volume is increased. Volume output must be able to generate a total sales value at market rates to cover both fixed and variable costs as well as sufficient profit to make the enterprise worth the investment. Let's say 500 head of cattle is the minimum to pay for fixed and variable costs and return a profit for the farmer. Any less would not be viable. How could producing less then make the farmer better off from a business point of view?

Perhaps your issue is the poor margin the farmer makes per head compared with the ultimate retail kilo price paid for by the consumers? Retail oligopoly and market dominance is a serious problem undermining Australian retail (not just for meat).

Additionally, the convenience of consumers shopping for meat at the local butcher must be paid for. It costs money to get a steer transported, slaughtered, packaged and shipped to retail butchers and supermarkets. Each service provider along the way isn't in the game for charity. So how does one set up a meat trade system where the producer is viable and healthy and the consumers get what they want at a reasonable price? A few steps are to stop cheap imports, legislate against market dominance and bloody well enforce it, national investment into quality produce, best practice livestock and training, develop niche industries and markets such as organic beef, and customer focused strategies.

2. Overgrazing - yes this is Australia's colonial legacy - did you check my links?

Organic Industry Research and Development Plan 2006-2011 [August 2006]
..by the Australian Government's Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation:

Meat

"Australia has the potential to be an international force in organic meat production. Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, the majority of which is dedicated to extensive grazing operations. Furthermore, the fact that Australia is Foot and Mouth Disease and BSE free creates a further competitive advantage. The value of organic meat and the producers involved in meat production (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) justify meats inclusion as a priority sector.

While predominantly focused on beef and lamb, there is a fair range of organic meats produced in Australia such as veal, goat, poultry and pork. The organic meat industry is set to expand rapidly. In particular, there is growing demand in the food service sector and high-end eating establishments are featuring organic beef and lamb on their menus. Expansion is also likely in poultry and pork although organic is more problematic in intensive animal industries because of greater vulnerability to disease. The supply of organic meat fluctuates more than its conventional counterpart as a result of the availability of organic feed. Much of Australia’s organic meat is sold through organic meat cooperatives to processors but matching supply and demand is a key constraint.

Hi Tigerquoll,

Yes, part of my issue is the poor margin the farmer makes per head compared with the ultimate retail kilo price paid for by the consumers. Retail oligopoly and market dominance is indeed a serious problem undermining Australian retail (not just for meat).

Most costs, e.g. land-costs, taxes, water costs, feed costs, fertiliser costs, and taxes, are exorbitant and have grown beyond the control of many primary producers and have also raised the cost of manufacturing and land for housing, interest rates, fees for services and things like schools, etc (which impact back on farmers).

The market, to which we are all now bound, is manipulated by the big players - corporate transport, corporate retail, corporate agriculture, corporate banks etc. We are bound to this market, now international, by the need to pay taxes and fulfill commercial standards. It is now very difficult for a farmer to take control and sell locally, thus avoiding the costs to him of the profit margins required by transport, middlemen and retailers.

Where once you could run cattle or grow crops to feed a family, with a little over for some basic schooling, you now have to make a far greater profit. But the costs of that profit are huge (petroleum, machinery, fertiliser, veterinary, supplementary feed, even grain feed, various licenses, plus water - which people used not to pay for if they had it on the property), rates (which increase as the city encroaches -, loans on land and plant etc.). Most farmers have to take out loans with interest rates increased partly by the competition for money caused by faster higher returns in speculative industries, such as property development.

To keep up with these payments farmers try to practise economies of scale, pushing their properties and their animals and soils past their viable limit. Which means that when drought or flood or pestilence or a drop in market prices for their 'primary product' happens, they get more and more behind.

In fact we have seen, until recently, a continuous trend in lower prices for food - at least when purchased in first world currencies. Any increases have tended to be marshalled by the secondary and retail industries, because those industries are corporatised (organised internationally with huge capital bases) and able to move around the world or interstate cherry-picking prices.

The farmer has no such power. Big agribusiness has that power, but big agribusiness is the same business as supermarkets, major press and transport ... all one big system of affiliations.

So this means that, no matter what the farmer does, his prices will fall. On occasions there will be a good year, but due to debt and a tiny margin for profit, the farmer who is not part of big agribusiness, eventually loses; his soil is destroyed; he has to sell his water to pay costs, then cannot operate without water; or he has to sell his farm.

During this process the animals, subject to a variety of processes to make them grow faster with less or unusual food, to stuff more into paddocks, or fatten them standing in pens, to be slaughtered earlier, to be milked even harder (skeletons collapse in cows only a few years old when they are frequently milked); etc etc.

This can also be described as 'overshoot' of carrying capacity on that farm. Multiplied by many farmers, it becomes overshoot of a region's or a country's carrying capacity, with the indicators in the ruined soils, the disaggregated water, the loss of private farms to agribusiness etc.

The way out of this predicament is for the farmers to sell their product locally and to control production so that they simply charge enough for their product to be able to run herds or grow crops in a sustainable manner. The production needs to be much more modest. The indicators of production within carrying capacity are: land remains in good condition; water is not disaggregated and sold off and lost; loans are unnecessary; animals and crops grow naturally; cruelty is reduced.

In fact the prices of the products may well remain less than they are in the global system because you have removed so many layers of profit that are added to the cost to the consumer and deducted from the price to the farmer.

Our farmers are currently in a position where they have to produce more and faster, with a very small staff, just to stay in one place. The same can be said for most people on this planet; running to pay a bunch of profiteers who call this situation efficient.

And what causes this situation? Population growth engineered to drive inflation of all resources and services. And then those resources and services are privatised, and the privateers charge 'rents' on them, just the way the nobles charged the peasants in feudal times.

Naturally I agree with your solution, Tigerquoll, to "stop cheap imports, legislate against market dominance and bloody well enforce it, national investment into quality produce, best practice livestock and training, develop niche industries and markets such as organic beef, and customer focused strategies". I have, however, related the essential issue of carrying capacity at the farm gate to carrying capacity in regions, countries and the world.

Much has been written about this, of course, better than I have done here, but, for the sake of discussion, it is worth sketching bits out here.

I am familiar with Natural Sequence Farming, permaculture and a number of other theories, plus quite a few experimental or theoretical papers from CSIRO or other researchers. I had a quick look at two of your other links but do not have the time to devote to these specific links. Let me know if there is something in them that I obviously do not realise. Perhaps, in that case, rather than just give links - if they are really new ideas - you might copy and paste some of their statements etc onto a post here?

Hope this helps. Please ask questions etc.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Tigerquoll,

I forgot to say that I particularly agreed with your statements about the need not to expand clearing into natural vegetation, but to make better use of what we have. You probably also said to repair that land.
If you didn't say it, I will. And I would advocate Natural Sequence Farming... and then there is a problem because so many laws make it illegal to treat weeds as friends in the first stage of repair. And then, the demand for ridiculous profits caused by so many charges on the farmer (and everyone else) makes it very hard for people to reduce the demand on the land and repair it. Peter Andrews (who developed the process called Natural Sequence Farming) more or less ran a closed system, which is probably what caused his problems with the banks. But he did Australia a huge favour by running that experimental system. And we all need to realise (although I doubt that many people will) that the closer we make our economic system to a closed natural system (necessarily local) the more sustainable it will be.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Does the NSW government seriously want Australia to become like the US where guns are the norm and killing for fun is completely acceptable? Intimidation is not a reason to legalize brutality. Protect all Australians - Reject the Bill.

I don't think most of you tossers understand the plague of feral animals. Hunters do respect native animals, it's the unlicenced shooters that cause the dramas and shoot anything that moves. where do you think all of your cereals come from? straight out of a box? If the feral animals aren't hunted then alot of your staples will be destroyed and farmers will be forced off farms. Looking after the environment is one thing, but being an extremist is a joke.

Animals want to breed and survive, as we all do. The problem of feral animals is due to careless of humans who abandon, desert, release deliberately and allow to escape from enclosures. Leaving shooters to the job of managing feral animals and killing for sport will not solve the problem. Being human, they will ensure that their pasttime is extended by making sure the supply continues and the problem is not "solved". Giving recreational hunters access to the parks under the guise of pest control could exacerbate a problem the policy is meant to solve. There is evidence from all around the world and it is clear that recreational hunters rarely, if ever, contribute usefully to control programs because it is a conflict of interests. As for native animals, our record of conservation is abysmal, and at least native birds and animals should be safe from gunmen in what bush is left in our country. There should be special theme parks with simulated hunting, but nothing is killed.

Let me get this strait, you say the people shooting feral animals will "ensure that their past time is extended by making sure the supply continues"

But on the issue of shooting native animals "As for native animals, our record of conservation is abysmal, and at least native birds and animals should be safe from gunmen in what bush is left in our country."You imply it will lead to extinction.

These two assumptions are contradictory. "Shooting introduced animals ensures they will continue survive, while shooting native animals leads to extinction."

As the bill is not about shooting native animals it is irrelevant, but the shooting of introduced animals will reduce their population therefore help native animals. There is no control method which has so far been found to eliminate feral animals, they all reduce the numbers as shooting will. The only difference is that this bill allows trained and licenced voulonteers to do it instead of the taxpayers paying for it.

I think that part of the problem is the idea of making a sport out of feral animal control. Even 'scientific' control, under government departments, seems to be subject to the corruption of satisfying other targets - such as freeing up land for more development to profit from induced human population growth.

The government needs to clean up its act but encouraging the shooting of animals for sport in areas where we are supposed to be protecting them is really bad.

As for shooting leading to extinction in native animals - we know that the ferals are 'ferals' because they out-compete the natives. The native animals generally have a low reproductive rate or can only survive in habitats that are being reduced, whereas the ferals owe much of their success to the ability to survive in many or most habitats. Think of cats, rats, dogs, pigs, humans - they are very widespread. Not so the red kangaroo, the wombat, the quoll, the cassowary etc etc.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Given there is a "plague of feral animals", so produce any independent zoological report that shows an effective control programme for a given feral species without adverse impacts on native species.

Our cereals could increasingly come from China and the US if Australian farmers and graziers don't start engaging in sustainable practices - just like they have been teaching at TAFE Agricultural colleges for some years.

Ferals can already be controlled on agricultural land. If feral control was the genuine aim of the Shooters Party Gamer Bill, why does this Bill deliberately add native animals in National Parks as new 'game animals'?

Smells like a Milat motive for natives. Such a Bill deserves tossing!

No need to go name calling, Just shows your own lack of respect for animals (which includes HUMANS).

Why would they pass such legislation? Because Labor could then rely on the Shooters to pass their evil Planning reforms! However, we have Labor, Fred Nile of the Christian Democrats and the Shooters Party passing each other’s legislation in some cosy deals. At least John Howard did the right thing with his automatic firearms amnesty after the Port Arthur massacre, but now more people are to be empowered with guns!
What is outrageous is that Rev. Fred Nile, as a Christian minister, can support the use of weapons against sentient creatures, and corruption of power? How can his Faith, that supports compassion, a Living God Creator and sustainer of all life, allow him to consider the slaughter of animals for fun as legitimate? Where is his responsibility as a steward of Creation, his respect for God's handiwork, the magnificence of the Earth that was made "good"? (Genesis ch 1). It is humans that have brought havoc and corruption to the planet, due to sin and disobedience, and this wayward politician/Christian is supporting the killings of our beautiful native birds and animals- all in the name of recreation!
The Invasive Species Council agrees that feral animal control is very important, but concludes there is no evidence to support the claims that recreational hunting is an effective or low cost option. Hunters will propagate more animals to kill!
According to the Christian Democrat Party's website: It needs to be remembered that the earth was made for humankind.
With such self-centred anthropocentric attitudes, it seems that the "earth" and its non-human creatures can be traded in for human society's "advancement" at whatever cost!

The Liberal party seems to support most things in the bill but dont know it.

*The bill does not make for Forestry and DECC officers to approach hunters. They as well as police National Parks rangers and Game council officers will enforce rules and check on hunters.

*The Minister has full power in the bill, to declare or not any area they see fit. They also decide on which animals can be hunted.

*Farmers and their families and employees are not affected at all by the bill. They are exempt on their own property.

*Live bird trap shooting has been banned from the 70's. This bill does not change that.

Yes, Chris.
The devil is in the detail, and I didn't have time to analyse it - just posted it, hoping for some comments and maybe that someone else would write an article analysing the Lib policy more closely.

However the NSW Legislative Council has actually closed down for today. Apparently, since the Feral Animals Control Bill didn't get up, the Shooters Party has been voting against the government continually and the government cannot get any policies or business through! This article below in the SMH is where I heard about it. It would be really good if someone in the field out there would tell us some more about this. The mainstream press will have a field day and try to get the Libs in, but they are not much different from the ALP now. We need a coalition of new independents, to open up the parliament to some democracy. The Greens are okay, but Family First and the Shooters Party look to me like well-financed spearheads to get policies in that the usual lobbies cannot get from the two big parties.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/night-of-the-long-bell-rees-faces-new-crisis-20090625-cxg1.html

"Night of the long bell: Rees faces new crisis
Andrew Clennell
June 25, 2009 - 12:18PM
The NSW Parliament has descended into chaos this morning, with the Government pulling the plug on the Legislative Council last night to avoid having its plan to sell off NSW Lotteries put to a vote.
The Rees Government is now facing a full-blown crisis to get any legislation through the Legislative Council.
The opposition claimed this morning that such a move to "collapse" the house had not occurred since the 1920s.
The crisis has risen because the Shooters Party has been voting against the Government all week after cabinet failed to back the Shooters Party's push to hunt in national parks.
With the opposition and Greens opposing the Lotteries privatisation, the Government needed the support of the two Shooters Party MPs.
The decision by Premier Nathan Rees and Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt to oppose the Shooters' legislation was opposed in cabinet by Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, who wants the $500 million proceeds from NSW Lotteries.
Last night, as it became clear to the Government it was losing every vote, the only minister in the upper house, Tony Kelly, walked out of the Legislative Council at 12.36am, leaving government legislation unconsidered. [...]" The rest is here.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

I was really bothered by this private member's bill. I can't imagine animals being shot just for fun and pleasure for recreational hunters. It doesn't sound nice, just the thought of it makes me feel sorry for this innocent animals. What about animal rights?