A GREEN DECEPTION IN PROFILE

At times the antics of politicians in Parliament are reminiscent of an episode of the Teletubbies; a combination of incomprehensible dialog and wild gesticulation, interspersed with a lot of prancing about, which yields a message of sorts, that’s vaguely discernible to the average 4 to 7 year-old but few others. And like the Teletubbies, the antics of our Parliamentarians are, at least for the most part, all good clean fun. But there are exceptions.

We have all heard the Greens’ anti-hunting rhetoric, especially in opposition to hunting in NSW National Parks. We expected the Greens and the anti-hunters to play the emotive doom-n-gloom cards freely, and I guess we also accepted that in politics at least, some measure of deceit is par for the course. But should we accept it; should a politician’s zealous opposition to government policy excuse unethical conduct in Parliament?

Take the case of Greens MLC David Shoebridge in the NSW Parliament a couple of years back. During a debate on the topic of conservation hunting in the context of “animal cruelty”, Mr Shoebridge had this to say:

The Greens New South Wales consider that the control of feral animals must be carried out effectively and humanely. Sharp and Saunders, two authors of numerous Government standard operating procedures for feral animal control, state:

“There are three essential requirements for a pest control technique—necessity, effectiveness and humaneness.

“They recommend in general that ground shooting should be used only in a strategic manner as part of a coordinated program. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Game Council New South Wales, and its practice of using recreational hunters, is able to control feral animal populations in New South Wales either effectively or humanely. There is significant evidence that some hunters engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices, including hunting protected species, and subjecting animals to long and lingering deaths. This evidence is found in a number of publications, including Environmental Crime in Australia by Bricknell, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010; Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity, a report of the Australian Institute of Criminology on 14 October 2010; and Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment by Russell G. Smith and Katherine Anderson of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2004.”

Ref: Parliamentary Hansard, Tuesday June 16th, 2011

The bit you need to consider in the context of deception is the bit where Mr Shoebridge quotes the sources of his “significant evidence”; reports by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Now in the world of academic publications, these guys are pretty good, and let’s face it, we expect them to be. It’s not Fairfax churning out reams of Barbara Cartland-esque ‘literature’ we’re talking about here, this is proper, scientific, peer reviewed stuff, written by experts in the relevant fields, all published under titles employing highly prejudicial descriptors such as “crime”, “illegal” and “non-compliance”.

It’s not until one invests considerable time and effort in reading the reports that the air begins to become somewhat fetid with the aroma of rodent, for the evidence Mr Shoebridge cites is nowhere to be found!

Now it never pays to assume that one’s copy of a report is the only one in circulation. Drafts have a nasty habit of escaping and works are sometimes amended and re-released/re-posted months down the track, often is some very obscure places. No, if you want to be certain about a report’s content and conclusions, the only way to do it is to contact the author/s.

The following is the text of just such an enquiry sent to Dr Samantha Bricknell, Senior Research Analyst, the Australian Institute of Criminology, dated Wednesday, July 13, 2011:

Dear Dr Bricknell,

In follow-up to our telephone conversation on Friday 8 July I write to seek comment from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) on the veracity of claims made in the following statement made in the NSW Parliament on 16 June 2011.

"The question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Game Council New South Wales, and its practice of using recreational hunters, is able to control feral animal populations in New South Wales either effectively or humanely. There is significant evidence that some hunters engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices, including hunting protected species, and subjecting animals to long and lingering deaths. This evidence is found in a number of publications, including Environmental Crime in Australia by Bricknell, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010; Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity, a report of the Australian Institute of Criminology on 14 October 2010; and Understanding Non-compliance in the Marine Environment by Russell G. Smith and Katherine Anderson of the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2004.”

In particular I would appreciate comment on whether any of the three cited AIC reports contain "significant" evidence that some hunters:

(a) engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices,
(b) hunt protected species,
(c) subject animals to long and lingering deaths.
 

Yours sincerely,

------------------
 

And now Dr Bricknell’s very prompt response, dated July 28th, 2011:

Dear...

In reference to your letter dated 13 July 2011, and as discussed in our telephone conversation earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reports cited in a statement made to the NSW Parliament on 16 June 2011 - Environmental Crime in Australia (Bricknell 2010) and Understanding non-compliance in the marine environment (Smith and Anderson 2004) - do not make reference to 'significant' evidence that hunters:

(a) engage in cruel and unauthorised hunting practices
(b) hunt protected species
(c) subject animals to long and lingering deaths.

There is one reference in Smith and Anderson (2004: 2) to 'illegal hunting or removal of threatened species such as the dugong, turtles and cetaceans' but not to who is doing the illegal hunting.

Please note that Illegal trade in fauna and flora and harms to biodiversity is not a separate publication, but a chapter in the Environmental Crime report.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Samantha Bricknell
Senior Research Analyst

-----------------------------

As both a believer in our Parliamentary system, and as a responsible traditional hunter, the outcome of this investigation troubles me in two ways:

(a) Despite being demonstrably incorrect, Mr Shoebridge’s statements will remain for evermore in Hansard, unchallenged as though they are gospel truths, waiting to be pounced on by anyone looking for a couple of handy reports to cite as evidence that hunters are cruel and generally irresponsible. I call that mission accomplished!

(b) Because it would seem that Mr Shoebridge’s propensity for fabricating facts to suit his agenda will go unnoticed and without censure, with the result that there is no barrier to him misleading the Parliament or the citizens of NSW as often as he finds it advantageous to do so.

I accept that politics is a dirty business. I accept also that as a hunter I am destined to be maligned, ridiculed and vilified by hunting’s opponents, in ways so vile and despicable that they can have only one intent – to promote a climate of fear, hatred and disdain in the community.

I do not accept that it is ethical to mislead Parliament or the NSW taxpayer in pursuit of a purely political agenda.

Is misleading Parliament a legitimate course of action or an abuse of power and privilege? As always, you are welcome to share your views below.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....