Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges:

(a) the significant contribution Australia's livestock producers make to regional economies, employment and the nation's food security;

(b) that wild dogs are a serious and growing threat to livestock, costing an estimated $302 million in production losses each year; and

(c) the burden carried by property owners to deal with the wild dog predation on stock;

(2) notes that:

(a) the Government has cut important pest and invasive species management programs, despite the significant and growing economic impact of invasive species on Australian agriculture;

(b) federal funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator is due to expire at the end of September 2026, with funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan expiring a month later;

(c) the coordinator and the plan provide a nationally agreed, evidence-based framework that enables coordinated control across state and territory borders; and

(d) industry bodies have committed to co-funding the national wild dog program, yet the Government has chosen to ignore its responsibility to support coordinated wild dog control; and

(3) urges the Government to:

(a) guarantee ongoing funding to maintain the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator role;

(b) renew funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan to continue the second half of the ten year management program;

(c) recognise that a nationally coordinated approach to pests management is essential to protecting livestock, agricultural productivity and the prosperity of regional Australia; and

(d) commit to ongoing investment in the coordinated management and control of wild dogs and other invasive species that threaten Australian agriculture, regional communities and the environment.

I move this motion on behalf of our world-class livestock producers in Gippsland and throughout regional Australia. Wild dogs are one of the clearest examples of Labor governments at state and federal level failing to support our farmers, when pressure on them is actually increasing. This isn't a fringe issue. It goes to the heart of what regional communities expect from Canberra, which is certainty and action on the ground. Put simply, we need more boots and less suits—that's more boots on the ground, doing practical environmental work, and less suits in Canberra and Melbourne making excuses.

Wild dog predation costs Australian livestock producers in the order of $302 million a year in production costs. Those opposite may say this is primarily a state issue. Frankly, that is dodging their responsibility, because, while the state governments should not be let off the hook, there are very significant national issues that need to be dealt with in this place when it comes to invasive species.

When it comes to national food security, we have to work with the state governments and our landholders to protect them from losses associated with predators like wild dogs. When it comes to feeding the rest of the world with our imports, we need to make sure that our farmers can continue to produce that world-class protein that I referred to earlier. And, when it comes to invasive species, there needs to be some leadership in this place, in Canberra, to make sure we continue to keep the pressure on those species which are damaging the agricultural sector and our biodiversity, because our farmers cannot be expected to tackle these problems by themselves, particularly when it comes to wild dogs, which are emerging primarily from public land. Whether it be national parks, state forests or some other form of Crown land, the worst neighbour to have in many of our communities is public land managed by the state government. Wild dogs simply don't stop at the border of public land, and they don't stop at a state border.

The other point I want to make in relation to this issue before the House today is that this is also a mental health issue. Farmers and farming families are dealing with this issue on top of all of their other day-to-day tasks. On top of every other difficult issue they're dealing with on a day-to-day basis—trying to manage the regulation, trying to make sure they make a profit, dealing with seasonal conditions—they then have to protect their stock from predation by wild dogs emerging from public land. In electorates like Gippsland, which have many farms surrounded by public land, this is an ongoing challenge. I want to refer to one of my constituents, Stuart, a fifth-generation farmer from Benambra. He wrote to me and said, 'Given all the regular issues and struggles we deal with in this industry, we certainly can't afford the time and cost of this dog issue getting out of hand again.' He went on to say, 'Thankfully, I'm not particularly susceptible to mental health issues, but I was absolutely furious this morning when I found a gutted lamb. That could take a toll, potentially, in future; it's hard to know.'

The reason I'm raising this in the federal Parliament is because federal funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator expires at the end of September this year, and funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan expires a month after that. We are yet to hear from the Albanese government whether it will continue to fund those two important roles. Industry is seeking a federal commitment of just $250,000 a year over five years to keep the coordinator role and the action plan running. Again, in the context of a $302 million annual cost to livestock producers, that is a tiny amount of money to assist our world-class farming families.

I want to close by referencing one of our peak bodies, the National Farmers' Federation, just to demonstrate that this has nothing to do with party politics. When you have peak leadership groups in the farming sector on board with an issue, I call on the government to pay attention. The National Farmers' Federation president, Hamish McIntyre, has said, 'Wild dogs are especially cruel killers, often leaving livestock to suffer slow, painful deaths from their bites,' and: 'We're only halfway through a 10-year management plan. There's still a lot of important work ahead.' McIntyre also said, regarding the September deadline, 'It's vital that the national coordinator is reinstated come September. If funding isn't renewed, we'll be undoing more than a decade of progress.'

We simply can't afford to go backwards. This motion is not asking for something radical. It asks the government to keep funding what it was already funding previously, and keep doing what has been working in terms of other major pest species around the nation. Farmers have done their part. Industry has done its part by committing to co-funding. It's time for the government to do its part.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to answer the question that some people might have: why is a member for an outer metro seat in Logan in the northern Gold Coast—between Brisbane and the Gold Coast—getting up to speak on this? There are two reasons: the first is that I never want to miss an opportunity in this place to let people know where I come from and to let people know what my roots are. I think the experiences which really drive my values are the ones that I had working as a station hand on outback sheep and cattle stations around Broken Hill—in fact, a couple of hundred kays west of Bourke, around a little town called Wanaaring.

The second reason I want to talk about this motion today is I'm probably one of the few people in this place, and may ever be in this place, who is able to actually give testimony to what happened when the dog fence fell apart in western New South Wales, because I was there. When the member for Gippsland talks about the federal government not having an interest in what goes on out there, I can tell you, as somebody who was actually there in western New South Wales when the dog fence fell apart in the early 2000s, it was the Liberal-National government who was in power at the time. So, when it comes to neglect, I think that they need to take a hard look at themselves and the fact that they're actually responsible for it. Because, as much as the member for Barker might have a little chuckle, I was actually working on the land, and I saw it fall apart in the space of two years or so, really.

It was the millennial drought, around 2000, when, over the course of one year—I can't remember which year, 2000 or 2001—we had about 180 points under the old system, which is just below two inches.

The place that I worked a lot on was owned by a family that owned four places which, combined, added up to about 300,000 or so acres. When I got there, they ran about 15,000 sheep across those four places, and, by the end of the millennium drought, there were about 2,000. So the drought knocked them down, but the broken fence kept them down. In that space of time, from when they had 15,000 sheep—the millennium drought was particularly harsh, lasing for two or three years—to the end of that, with 2,000 sheep, the dogs had moved in, and it was the dog problem that prevented them from restocking.

I got to work on sheep and cattle stations, but, after me, they were cattle stations. And, really, western New South Wales has barely recovered. I wanted to talk about this because, without listing all of the things that the Albanese government are doing around biosecurity or agriculture, and without trumpeting the fact that we are actually investing $20 million or so in a wild dog management plan and we do have the interests of our farmers at heart—families that really give me the values that I stand to represent in this place today—I think that we have, in the Albanese government, a complete change of philosophy.

The reason why the Howard government let the fence collapse and why the Albanese government is about rebuilding our fences and our industries is a change of philosophy. It's the same philosophy that is driving us to support our steel industry in Whyalla, our aluminium industry in Gladstone, our copper industry in Mount Isa and—just the other day—our aluminium industry in Tomago. It is a philosophy of 'nobody held back and nobody left behind'. The previous philosophy, of the Howard government and of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, is summed up best by their daring the car industry to walk out.

Whether it is in agriculture, whether it is in manufacturing or whether it is in mining, this Albanese Labor government has a philosophy of protecting those industries, looking after our farmers and our workers and trying to fix the mess that we have been left with after 30 years of neglect. So I condemn this motion, really. I think that it hides the facts; it hides the history. I can tell that from a personal perspective because I was there.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Gippsland. There is a lack of commitment by the Albanese government to the management of wild dogs. I appreciate the member for Forde giving us his experience, and, on behalf of the constituents and the farmers that I represent, I will appreciate the member for Forde advocating for the $250,000 a year that the industry is seeking.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting for Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

He's just said how important it is!

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

He said how important it is, and I look forward to him going and advocating that to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Wild dog predation costs Australian livestock producers an estimated $302 million every year in production losses. I have been a livestock producer in my life, and I saw what wild dogs did to the livestock I was caring for. It's a very distressing thing—a very distressing thing. It's not just financial. People become emotionally attached to their livestock.

Farmers cannot tackle this problem alone. Wild dogs are continually moving across neighbouring land, national parks or Crown land. They don't stop at state borders, they don't stop at the boundary of a national park and they certainly don't stop at the boundary of a farmer's property.

Wild dogs are one part of a much bigger invasive species challenge facing Australian agriculture. Feral pigs are another example of the same pattern—animals moving through national parks and Crown land and onto productive farmland. It's the same with wild dogs; individual farmers are left to shoulder the cost of a problem that crosses land tenure and state boundaries.

The New South Wales coalition's $300 million biosecurity and feral animal package responds to this problem with a feral-pig bounty trial, aerial shooting, drone surveillance, five-year funding cycles and clear obligations on Crown land managers to pull their weight.

Federal funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator expires at the end of September 2026. That's why it's timely that the member for Gippsland got up and moved this motion, which is going to be supported by the member for Barker. We understand how bad the problem is and the role that the federal government has to play.

We are only halfway through a 10-year management plan, and the government is walking away right when the continuity of this program matters most. Here's the kicker: the funding required is such a modest ask. Industry is seeking a federal commitment of $250,000 a year over five years to keep the coordinator role and the action plan running. That's a very small amount of money against a $302 million annual cost to the sector. Multiple industry bodies have already committed to the co-funding of the program, but government has not managed this commitment. The farmers and the industry, on behalf of the people who love the products of Australian livestock, shouldn't have to go cap in hand to this government, begging to properly fund invasive species management. It should be a part of what we all agree is partially the responsibility of government.

The Albanese government is treating wild dog management as the responsibility of states, territories and landholders alone. It's cut important pest and invasive species management programs, despite the growing economic impact of invasive species on agriculture. The federal government already funds national coordinators for feral pigs, deer, rabbits, cats and foxes. Why would we treat the problem of wild dogs differently to those species that I just outlined? In many cases, they cause a much bigger problem. If the government is serious about supporting regional Australia, protecting food security and managing invasive species—I reiterate what the member for Gippsland said—practical environmentalism such as this needs more boots and fewer suits. We need boots on the ground, proper practical environmentalism, and fewer bureaucrats in places like Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra talking about what should be done.

If the government's serious about supporting regional Australia, it must and it needs to properly fund the National Wild Dog Action Plan, $250,000 a year. I really look forward, given that he's outlined how much of an expert he is on this, to the member for Forde going over to the minister for agriculture and saying, 'On behalf of the Australian farmers, we, the Labor Party, need to get this done.'

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank my good friend the member for Gippsland for bringing this motion before the House. There is a lot that I actually do agree with in this motion. Our livestock producers make an enormous contribution to this country. They put food on our tables, they support regional jobs and they keep local economies moving. In the Hunter we know that firsthand. From cattle properties around Lake Macquarie, Cessnock, Singleton to the smaller communities across our electorate, agriculture is part of who we are. These producers work bloody hard. They get up early, they work long days and they deal with drought, floods, rising costs, changing markets and pests.

Wild dogs are another challenge they shouldn't have to face alone. When a wild dog attacks livestock, it's not just a number on a spreadsheet; it's an animal that a farmer has raised, it's lost income and it's hours and hours of extra work. For a lot of farmers, it's extremely upsetting to walk into a paddock and see what's just happened. So I agree with the member for Gippsland that wild dogs are a serious issue and that they do need coordinated control measures. But I don't accept the suggestion that the Albanese Labor government has walked away from pest management and biosecurity.

The Commonwealth has invested more than $20 million to support wild dog management through the National Wild Dog Action Plan. We've also provided a $650,000 grant to Australian Wool Innovation through the Supporting Communities Manage Pest Animals and Weeds Program to support delivery of that plan. That matters because wild dogs don't care where one property ends and another one begins. They don't care about council boundaries. They don't care about state borders. If one landholder is doing the right thing but the property next door isn't involved in the program, the problem doesn't disappear. That's why farmers, governments, researchers and industry need to all work together. In our region, coordination matters because a wild dog can move through rough country and across multiple properties. No single farmer, no matter how hard they work, can solve this problem alone. That's exactly the sort of approach that works in places like the Hunter, where you've got farms, bushland, national parks and difficult country sitting alongside each other.

This government also understands that biosecurity is bigger than any one pest. Since 2022, we've invested more than $2 billion in additional biosecurity funding. That money is strengthening prevention, detection, response and recovery right across this country. We've invested in frontline biosecurity, we've backed preparedness for H5 bird flu and we've supported responses to the red imported fire ants. We're making sure our system is ready for the threats that can hurt our farmers, our environment and our economy.

Why does that matter? Because Australian agriculture is something worth protecting. Farm-gate production was on track to exceed $100 billion last financial year, four years ahead of the industry's 2030 target. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because Australian farmers are among the best in the world; it happens because our produce is clean, safe and trusted; and it happens because governments, industry and farmers work together to protect that reputation.

I also want to recognise the burden that pest control puts on individual landholders. A farmer in the Hunter already has enough to do without spending more time and money dealing with wild dogs. They need support, they need practical information, they need neighbours working together and they need governments at every level doing their part. States and territories have the primary responsibility for managing established pest animals on the ground, but the Commonwealth has an important role in coordination, research and national leadership. We'll keep playing that role; we'll keep working with states and territories; we'll keep working with the industry; and, most importantly, we'll keep listening to the farmers who deal with these problems every single day.

There might be a political disagreement in this place about individual programs or where funding should sit. That's fine. But there shouldn't be a disagreement about the goal. We want fewer livestock lost to wild dogs, we want stronger regional communities, we want productive farms, and we want a biosecurity system that protects Australian agriculture for the long-term.

The farmers of the Hunter don't want speeches full of politics. They want practical results. That's what we'll keep fighting for, and that's what this government will keep delivering.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting for Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the statement the member for Hunter made—that we should listen to our farmers. So to the member for Hunter: listen up. My family and I farm, as does the member for Grey. In my case, we're livestock producers, so, when the beginning of a motion acknowledges the significant contribution Australian livestock producers make to regional economies, you've got me interested.

There is a special kind of torment that comes with a farmer knowing that there is a wild dog predating on their livestock. They go to bed at night praying that that dog isn't going to come back, because the scene isn't a dead lamb here or a dead ewe over there; it is a massacre. I've seen it—and not much curdles my blood, but it does. Not one ewe, not one lamb—we're talking about entire flocks, because, when a wild dog gets that taste, it doesn't stop. It's not killing because it needs to eat; it's killing for fun. And, quite frankly, the scene doesn't bear thinking about. That's why our nation has always given a particularly important role to the National Wild Dog Action Plan. Farmers are sitting at home worried about their livestock—livestock they care about; livestock they've spent a small fortune acquiring or breeding, but also a small fortune supporting, whether through treatments or other things.

So, when I hear those opposite say, 'We don't want to hear any more speeches about how important this is,' I couldn't agree more. But then I think to myself, 'Hang on—between the saying and the doing is an ocean.' On the one hand, we hear these lovely speeches. I heard one from the member from Hunter. I heard one from the member for Forde. They're people who are trotted out in this place to pretend like those opposite have an affinity with rural and regional producers, because, whilst they live in rural communities—or have, in the case of the member for Forde—they haven't been producers. The truth is that I then think to myself, 'Hang on—250 grand?' With respect, there are departments in this government's orbit that spend more in petty cash. To think that this is now at a point where this funding is uncertain—I can't understand. This is an economy that contributes $302 million annually. Those opposite are very quick to drape themselves in the imagery of rural Australia. But you have to actually back it up with actions, not just words.

So I'm going to suggest, contrary to what those opposite have suggested, that the current government is biased against agriculture. And how do I say that? As a former barrister, I need to be able to prove things. Let me start with banning live sheep exports. That wasn't a pro-farmer move, I think. I could then back it up by saying 'water buybacks in the Murray-Darling basin'. That's not a pro-farmer move, quite frankly. I could keep going, if you like.

Sorry, Member for Grey? We're freelancing here! What's your suggestion?

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The free trade—it is not free trade.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting for Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right. So there are many examples here that I can point to of those opposite acting against the interests of farmers, and this is just another example.

The member for Forde wanted to wax lyrical about the dog fence. Before the member for Grey served in this place, I worked with the former member for Grey to secure $29 million to re-establish the dog fence across northern South Australia, protecting much of the member for Grey's seat and, in turn, protecting mine, because my livestock producers want the front line in this fight to be a long way from where they are. That stands opposed to the Victorian Labor government's—this should take your breath away; as a livestock producer from South Australia, can I tell you, it does for me—reintroduction of dingoes in the Grampians. Those opposite want to say they're backing livestock producers. Well, there are 250,000 ways you can do that, shortly, as opposed to the $29 million we contributed to the wild dog fence. All of my colleagues know that the reintroduction of the dingo close to sheep enterprises is a very bad idea.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.