Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this issue of great importance to regional Australia. In speaking on this motion, I want to refer to an article in the Sunday Age newspaper on the weekend. It referred to a situation in the suburb of Macleod, where a lady by the name of Amanda Tattam reported on the loss of her six chooks. The chooks were named Honey, Honeyhead, Hannah Montana, Alannah, Chloe and Delta. The chooks were taken by foxes over two consecutive events. She is quoted as saying:

I was devastated, absolutely gutted. We'd raised them from a very young age. I've got high fences and they're well housed, and this latest entry by a fox, everything was bolted.

She went on to say:

The problem is that no one takes responsibility. There is a lot of buck-passing going on … and everyone has given up on even trying to control them.

I do not wish to sound flippant, because I know such a loss is devastating, particularly with young children involved, but all I can say to suburban chook farmers is: welcome to our world. The article refers to foxes, but it could just as easily be referring to wild dogs and their impact on Australian farmers. Wild dog predation on stock and native fauna is destroying regional life in many areas of this country, and I fear that people in the city do not even know that it is happening.

Part of my motivation in moving this motion was to help bridge that gap—to start building an understanding in metropolitan areas about the devastating losses caused by wild dogs. I fear that it will take an attack on a bushwalker by a pack of wild dogs before this issue is brought to the attention of the vast majority of Australians. That is not hyperbole or fear-mongering. The Queensland government's report and economic assessment of wild dogs made a similar point:

As with semi-urban areas, wild dogs can lower the quality of life in rural areas by posing a constant threat to livestock and, in exceptional circumstances, posing a threat to human safety. Threats to human safety are known to escalate when wild dogs encroach on settlements and are not actively repelled. The tendency for this is greatest at tourist attractions … where some people seek or encourage 'contact' with the wild dogs.

I stress that we are talking about exceptional circumstances in this regard, but there nonetheless is a risk to human safety. I am already hearing anecdotal reports in my electorate of Gippsland of wild dogs becoming less frightened, less timid. Farmers are telling me of packs of dogs shadowing their moves from a distance as they tend to their stock. I fear that an injured bushwalker or a young child could be at risk from attack in the future, and I fear that it will take such a horrible incident to make decision makers at all levels of government properly fund on-the-ground measures to reduce the impact of wild dogs on regional communities. I hope we do not need to have a person in my community injured before governments at all levels start taking the threat of wild dogs more seriously.

The motion before the House refers to the social, economic and environmental impacts of wild dogs on the agricultural sector and Australia's native wildlife. Wild dogs are conservatively estimated to cost the Australian agricultural sector in excess of $60 million per year, and they are an enormous source of anger and frustration in many regional communities. The constant predation in areas such as Gippsland, north-east Victoria and Eden-Monaro has resulted in sheep farmers retreating from some blocks of land, particularly those which interface with national parks. The loss of productivity in Gippsland alone is estimated at $60 million, as farmers have fled from those areas and no longer stock them with sheep. The costs that we are talking about are associated with the direct stock losses, the cost of prevention measures undertaken and the lost productivity. Of course, as stock prices have increased in recent times the value of those losses has escalated, and I think the $60 million figure is actually a conservative amount. I fear it could be much higher than that.

In addition to the economic cost in Victoria of $18 million per year, there are very significant social impacts. I have had the opportunity to speak to many landholders in my electorate, and the wives of farmers and farmers themselves report severe mental health issues stemming from regularly viewing very traumatic scenes of stock attacked by packs of wild dogs. I recently had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Omeo with the Victorian Farmers Federation where local residents stood up and provided their firsthand accounts of the damage that has been caused to their stock. I was there with the member for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, and the member for Benalla, Bill Sykes, who are both actively involved in this issue.

We are talking about hardened farmers, people who are used to seeing some difficult scenes on their properties, but they are relating events with tears in their eyes as they describe the horrific scenes they go out to in the morning and see in their paddocks. There are graphic accounts of dogs emerging particularly from sections of public land and preying on young lambs. It is obvious just from talking to these people the stress that they are facing when they encounter such slaughter of stock, on an almost daily basis on many occasions. It is playing on the minds of many people in my community.

The tone of that meeting in Omeo was one of despair. It was also mixed with a barely concealed anger and frustration with the lack of action by governments at all levels. I have most recently been sent photos from one of the landholders in my electorate, and these are horrific scenes. I feel very fortunate that I have not had to go out and see the aftermath of such an attack. The photographs and the evidence of what is occurring, particularly in parts of the high country of Gippsland and the north-east, is something that I think everyone in this chamber should be made aware of. These farmers have the uncertainty when they go to bed at night of not knowing what they will wake up in the morning and find. They go to bed and they can listen to the dogs howling in the bush, and that must be playing on their minds. It is a very, very difficult issue for us. The emotional toll is enormous in regional communities.

One of the farmers in my electorate, Sally Moon, told the Bairnsdale Advertiser, my local paper, in May last year about the toll it was taking on her and her husband, Gordon, and her disappointment with the patronising attitude of government agencies. I will have to refer specifically to the former Brumby government in Victoria, which I feel over 11 years failed to do enough in this area. Sally said: 'I feel as if we are being totally abandoned. They treat us as if we are grass seed chewing idiots.' I think that sums up the attitude amongst many farmers—they feel that they are not getting support from governments.

The environmental impacts that I have referred to in this motion relate to the killing of native species by feral dogs, which I believe has been largely ignored by green groups who pretend to care for the environment. I have previously spoken in this place about these impacts, and I quoted at that time a man by the name of Robert Belcher from the Bonang area. He said that every time he opened up a wild dog after it was trapped or had been shot he found it 'chock-a-block full of either sheep and echidnas, and echidnas are native wildlife'. It is disappointing to me that we cannot hear the green groups talking about these issues. They spend more time talking about the need for humane dog traps than they do about the impact on wildlife or the thrill kills which see dogs ripping apart lambs or maiming sheep and just leaving them in the paddock. Remember that these dogs are not just in there for a feed; it is a thrill kill. There are massive amounts of stock being killed on an all too frequent basis.

The people in my electorate have combined to put a petition to the state government, and I acknowledge that the Victorian government is at least starting to take some serious action in this space. They have put together a $4 million commitment to provide a wild dog bounty and some aerial baiting. After years of neglect I think this is a very positive step in the right direction for the people of Victoria. I also acknowledge that this is primarily a state issue, but the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre was founded by the Commonwealth in 2004. The centre aims to counteract the impact of invasive animals through the development and application of new technologies and by integrating approaches across agencies and jurisdictions. These are words; they sound very impressive. But the people on the ground want action on the ground. Recently, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities a question in this place on the specific issue of feral animals and wild dogs. I quote from the answer that the minister gave me:

One of the challenges is that whenever we act we need to do it at the same time as the states are acting … Otherwise, all you do is keep trimming the numbers rather than making a real impact. When it can be coordinated, and from time to time it is done, there is an opportunity to be able to have a very direct impact on invasive species.

Given that the Victorian government is currently making a commitment to take direct action to reduce the impact of wild dogs, I would call on the federal government to be part of that solution.

I have a report here from the Parliamentary Library, which states that the funding allocated in 2009-10 for specific projects on invasive species, in particular, wild dog projects, amounted to $159,000. I do not suggest for a second that those are the only projects the government is undertaking in terms of feral animal control but, for projects specifically dealing with the wild dog issue, funding amounted to $159,000. I think there is now a real opportunity here for us, particularly in Victoria, to leverage off those state funds and make a serious attempt to reduce wild dog predation in Gippsland and right across Victoria.

Although my comments here tonight deal specifically with Victoria, because I am most familiar with those areas, I understand that this issue spreads right across Australia, into Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. It is an issue of great significance to many people who live in rural and regional areas. I am not suggesting at all that there is any easy solution to this problem. But we need to make it a bigger priority for government funding. It will take a partnership approach and a willingness from the new state government in Victoria to allow more flexible working arrangements, to allocate more resources to both professional trapping and shooting, and also helping to meet some of the fencing costs, particularly in those areas where Crown land is housing this menace.

We need to use all the tools that are at our disposal and, as I have said before in this place, we need to adopt a national approach and get serious about reducing the impact of these feral species across state borders. I will refer to my opening comments that, tragically, maybe it does take the slaughter of a few hens by foxes in a suburban environment to bring it home to all Australians that our farmers need more help to deal with wild dogs. (Time expired)

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gippsland for bringing the motion to the attention of the House as it, again, underlines the findings of a report from an inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in 2005. Members may remember the report entitled Taking control: a national approach to pest animals. The inquiry was chaired so well at the time by the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, with me as deputy. We endeavoured to identify national significant pest animals issues and considered how existing Australian and state government processes could be better linked for more coordinated management of those issues across state boundaries. The member for Gippsland identified some of those issues, including the need to coordinate and work better in those areas. Many of the recommendations have already been taken up and, as time passed, other measures have been put into place that have now superseded much of what is contained in that report. We can look at the broader picture of a number of feral animals and their impact on agriculture, but I note this motion is concentrating on wild dogs and their impact on regional Australians, which is still an important issue.

The pest animals question has been a significant one for farmers over the years and the government has taken it very seriously. The impact of wild dogs on livestock production and our environment is significant. It has been estimated that wild dogs cause a production loss of $48.5 million per annum. But the management of wild dogs is primarily a state and territory responsibility. Most states and territories have legislation in place to manage wild dogs and pest animals more generally, mainly because pest animals vary from state to state and usually need specific action for effective eradication. The federal government has enacted legislation to support its responsibilities for managing pest animals, such as wild dogs, through the protection of areas of national environmental significance in accordance with the guiding principles of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act. While state and territory governments and individual landowners have primary responsibility for the management of wild dogs, the Australian government coordinates and supports nationally significant activities to reduce the impacts of pest animals. Under the Caring for our Country initiative the Australian government funds projects to mitigate the impact of wild dogs. Wild dogs are a target for investment in the 2011-12 business plan. Open calls, through the priority investment, are made for protecting our biodiversity and natural icons. The budget for Caring for our Country in 2011-12 is $456 million. Grants are being sought for $183 million through the business plan. An amount of $178 million and community action grants of $5 million are open until August.

In addition, the Gillard government supports a national wild dog facilitator, through the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Pest Animal Research Program, to promote and build capacity in developing and implementing strategic management approaches to control wild dogs. The Australian government provides other strategic investment in nationally significant research and best practice activities through the Australian Pest Animal Research Program and the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre. Some of the projects funded through the Australian Pest Animal Research Program include best practice guidelines in the use of guard dogs. In the report we talked about the need for more research into guard animals such as alpacas, llamas and maremma dogs, which act as guards for livestock in many parts of the world and are very successful. We received evidence at the inquiry that a dog will not get off the back of a ute if there is an alpaca in the yard. Also, alpacas are very successful, evidently, against foxes, so they are useful around hen houses. There is also discussion of best practice baiting, dispersal, the seasonal movement of wild dogs and the evaluation and development of best practice for wild dog management.

The government has also presented through representation on committees such as the non-government National Wild Dog Management Advisory Group and the Vertebrate Pests Committee, which is a sectional committee reporting to the National Biosecurity Committee. So there is a considerable amount of material to work from. Each state has particular problems with pest animals as some feral animals have penetrated wider than others in this country.

I would also like to add to the debate by suggesting that there is some room for humane pest eradication, which could include our recreational shooters. I believe that recreational hunting in Australia is a legitimate pastime involving people of all ages on both private property and on government land, as permitted by each state's legislation. Hunting has been controversial in the past, but I believe the sporting shooters of Australia are working to spread a more educated and balanced message about the value of hunting as a conservation tool as well as a fast and humane way of despatching pest species. Therefore, they should be included in any pest management scheme, with the appropriate checks and balances required for pest removal. They present a very economically sound way of approaching feral pest eradication, because it is funded by the shooter themselves working in harmony with the farmers or the property managers.

The other part of this issue is education. Many of the subspecies of wild dogs are pests as a result of human carelessness. Dogs should not be allowed to interact with dingos and dingo numbers should be controlled so that they remain part of the wildlife food chain but are kept in their natural areas. A lot of our feral dogs and cats were not feral generations ago. They have been let loose for a number of reasons or they have been allowed to breed and their numbers have become so prolific that it becomes harder and harder to control them. It is not good to keep a pet without being responsible for its breeding habits. Much of the legislation in the cities of Australia is brought about because of the irresponsible breeding and unintended release of animals. Community education is needed to make sure that people understand that link between feral animals and pets. I would also add that we have had problems, in some instances, with pet shops and horrific puppy farms. I believe these add to the feral animal problem and do not encourage responsible ownership.

So there are many avenues, especially education about the link between feral animals and animals that have been neglected and have got away from the urban fringes of cities and that cause so many problems. As the member for Gippsland said, wild dogs not only attack domestic animals but also attack much wildlife and are a major problem in the protection of the wildlife of Australia. There is a great need to do that. In Tasmania we had a property based game management program, which was probably one of the best in Australia. It certainly worked at eradicating pests and also kept a balance in the wildlife on many of those properties that bounced up against Crown land.

This has certainly been a useful exercise and an opportunity to bring the federal government's program to the attention of the House. I believe this federal government is working hard and that on many aspects of the coordination mentioned in this motion we are heading in the right direction. The more connection we can have between the states and the federal government, the better off we will be. (Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise this evening to speak on the motion of the member for Gippsland on the impact of wild dogs. I acknowledge his contribution and his genuine concern about this issue, and I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Lyons and his long interest in this issue in this place.

This is not a minor problem. Wild dogs, as the member for Gippsland said, have an impact in excess of $60 million annually—and, quite frankly, that is a conservative estimate. Like the member for Lyons, I believe we have seen a quite remarkable decrease in funding, but, probably more important than that, we are actually seeing a change in focus on the way wild dogs are managed by different agencies and the Invasive Animals CRC. Particularly in a lot of our national parks, there is more of a focus on management of size—of numbers—than on eradication, and that is presenting a real problem. There is a lot of concern about the welfare of these wild dogs and the suffering that may be caused to them through trapping or baiting but very little focus on the pain and suffering or the welfare of the livestock they attack.

I do not come to this place without some knowledge of this. Indeed, some years ago we had one wild dog that came into the vicinity of our property. From memory, it took three months before my brother finally located this dog and shot it early one morning. The amount of damage that that one dog inflicted on our livestock was horrific, and not just on the ones that were killed. On one occasion we found a dozen prime lambs that had been driven into a dam and drowned. We saw sheep with their muzzles chewed off. Many sheep—more than dozens—had pieces chewed out of them in a feeding frenzy. So I know first-hand the pain and suffering that these dogs can inflict.

The problem we have is that a lot of the focus now from the CRCs and others is in putting barriers up for protection, with no disrespect to my learned colleague from Lyons, with maremma dogs and alpacas; and a lot of the focus has gone away from baiting. There is a campaign at the moment to move away from 1080 poison, which has been a very effective bait for many years. There is one source in the world that produces 1080 and there is a concern that the ongoing supply of 1080 is at risk not only for wild dogs but for rabbits, foxes and feral pigs. There is a real concern about that. I know that in national parks in lots of the Eastern Fall country in New South Wales rather than baiting to eliminate the dogs they are placing the baits at such large intervals apart that those dogs are not finding the baits or there are not enough baits to handle the number of dogs that are coming through. This is a problem not only in what we would consider the traditional sheep grazing areas but I know that in western Queensland in the south-west corner across millions of acres sheep are no longer run. The reports coming through now are that the cattle are at risk; that calves are being taken at birth. There are anecdotal reports that dogs are being relocated from places like Fraser Island and released in national parks in western Queensland, to be taken away from the human population, but exacerbating the problem in the west.

I support this motion. This is not a trivial matter, it is a serious economic matter, but it is also an animal welfare matter to the livestock right across Australia that are impacted by wild dogs. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion and thank the honourable member for Gippsland for bringing this private member's motion before the House. I concur with points made by all speakers, including the member for Lyons and also the member for Parkes. It has been said that there are clear social and economic impacts of wild dogs on the grazing industry across Australia and the member for Parkes mentioned the amount of $60 million. I agree with him that would be a rather conservative estimate of the money. We know that the management of wild dogs is primarily a state and territory responsibility with local government and local management committees of varying names but the same type of responsibility involved. The Commonwealth has a place in this and has a concern about it as well, but at state level there is very specific legislation. It has been the subject of some debate in my local area this year and there has been coverage of it in the local papers, particularly in the Northern Star. There is a story about a private trapper in the shire next to mine, Byron Shire, and the success he has said in eradicating wild dogs in the region. On that issue of management and size and eradication, eradicating can be difficult in any area but it is something that we have to keep as a goal because it is something we have to be aiming towards.

The federal government has legislation to support responsibilities for managing pest animals such as wild dogs but it is through the protection of the national environmental significance areas through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Gillard government takes the issue of wild dogs seriously. The federal government contributes to wild dog research and on-ground work. It contributes approximately 40 per cent of the cost of the National Wild Dog Facilitator, funds nationally significant research and best practice projects, provides grant opportunities through Caring for our Country and has representation on various committees, including, for example, the National Wild Dog Management Advisory Group.

Turning to the issue, I want to quote from locals who get on blogs and talk about this. I have a comment here from the Northern Star blog, which is our newspaper. It says, 'It is no good being squeamish, dismissive or do-gooder over the increasing feral dog problem.' I agree. These days, due to the legal requirement for soft jaw traps and animal welfare provision, I feel that wild dogs are handled and put down humanely. But laying dog traps is only part of an integrated feral animal control approach that includes baiting, shooting and other deterrence measures, such as guard animals et cetera. I will come back to the issue of guard animals.

Dog trapping takes a lot of time and skill to do properly, so most people cannot do it successfully without extensive training. Hence pooling money from landowners for the engagement of a trapper or licensed shooter makes sense. Daytime attacks on stock and people are becoming more common as dog packs and foxes increasingly lose their fear of mankind while obtaining food by predation of stock and native fauna. That is another of the issues in my area in particular. Some people have put in control measures and some people have the guard animals, but the predation is increasing in the daytime, so even when they have managed to fix the problem at night it is happening more in the daytime.

I will quote from another comment by a local person. They use different names on the blogs, so not being funny the person I quoted earlier was called Big Bunny. This person is Horizon. Those names do not detract from the seriousness of the issue, but those are the names that people use on the blogs. These are farmers; these are landholders. They know the nature of this. Big Bunny and Horizon. Horizon is from Wollongbar. You might have seen Wollongbar in the news, because the Hendra virus has been found in one horse in Wollongbar, which is in my electorate. He says: 'Get yourself a Maremma dog or two and problem solved permanently and instantly. I had the exact same problem with foxes and domesticated neighbouring dogs on the loose in Wollongbar and tried everything. I was constantly losing sheep and goats. Local government bodies are hopeless as usual'—that is not my comment, but his—'I introduced one Maremma and the problem was solved.' (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.