- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 13 September 2005
Wilderness Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 32 of 103
| Next Item »
Page: 17551
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 24 February 2005.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.35 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Wilderness Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Jon Jenkins. This is a very important bill. Its object is to amend the Wilderness Act 1987 to include as a management principle for wilderness areas the reduction or control of feral animals and noxious weeds and the amelioration of the effect of such animals and weeds on wilderness areas. The bill makes it clear that feral animals include any of the following animals living in the wild: pig, dog—other than dingo—cat, goat, rabbit, hare and fox. The bill defines "noxious weed" in the following terms:
A noxious weed is defined, in relation to a wilderness area, as a plant declared to be a noxious weed in respect of the State, or part of the State in which the wilderness area is located under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.
Honourable members are concerned about the impact of feral animals on native animals. Many of the feral animals listed in the bill are aggressive and attack native animals. For example, wallabies, koalas and bilbies are gentle but in many cases they are vulnerable to wild dogs, wild cats and so on. As we know from recent examinations and surveys, bilbies are almost extinct because of feral animals. Bilbies are gentle creatures. There have been attempts to fence off areas where bilbies have been located or relocated in the hope of protecting them from feral animals. I note that the Environment Liaison Office [ELO] has been surprisingly critical of the bill. In fact, it opposes the bill. I have received a letter from the ELO dated 13 September, which states:
Members of the Environment Liaison Office (ELO) strongly oppose the Wilderness Amendment Bill 2004 introduced by the Hon. Jon Jenkins, MLC. The ELO Group agrees that the issue raised in the Bill is important, however it is considered that the legislation is unnecessary and unhelpful.
That is its opinion, which I do not agree with. The ELO criticises the bill, saying:
The Bill's definition of 'feral animal' is too narrow and the proposed legislation may constrain Departmental efforts to control feral animals not on this shortlist. The notable exceptions are feral horses and cattle, which cause massive overgrazing of lands across Australia, including reserves.
The ELO claims:
The legislation would prevent control of feral horses and cattle in Kosciuszko and Guy Fawkes National Parks.
I do not believe that would be the effect of the bill. The bill does not state that feral animals cannot be controlled; it simply lists some of the feral animals that are a threat to our native animals. As far as we are aware, horses do not normally attack wallabies, koalas or other such animals. Therefore, they are in a different category to the feral animals listed in the bill. Honourable members may be surprised to know that many feral animals have increased in such numbers that they have become a great threat to native animals in New South Wales and throughout the nation. For example, fox numbers have increased throughout Australia and widespread attacks are made upon vulnerable, rare and endangered native animal species, thereby wiping out small populations of native animals. Foxes are a key threat in New South Wales. Indeed, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has in place a threat abatement plan to limit the impact of red foxes on the environment. This bill seeks to strengthen that management policy. However, I understand that landholders have no obligation to control species that are classed as pests.
Across New South Wales 81 priority sites for fox control have been identified and these provide recovery action for 34 threatened species, 11 mammals, 15 birds and 8 reptiles. One main action of the plan includes fox control programs across all land tenures at these sites. Australia faces a serious problem simply from the introduction of one feral animal. In Australia foxes breed from July to October, with peak breeding activity in August. The average litter is four, although up to 10 young have been recorded. Honourable members are already well informed about the impact of feral cats, which were introduced at the time of the first European settlement. Cats are not native to Australia. Cats were popular with the early settlers because they helped to control the numbers of rats, rabbits and mice. In fact, cats were released into the goldfields to keep down the number of mice. Others escaped into the bush where they became independent of humans and, thus, became known as feral. Even though cats may appear to be quite harmless and a good domestic pet, when neglected they may end up in the wild. The cats, and subsequent generations of cats, may become ferocious and feral in order to survive and secure food.
Feral cats have spread rapidly across Australia. It is estimated that there are now 400,000 feral cats in New South Wales and 12 million across Australia. Feral cats can also grow in size and, in particular, are extremely successful in killing mammals weighing less than 220 grams or birds weighing less than 200 grams. They also eat reptiles and other animals. Feral cats are responsible for the extinction and decline of many species of mammals and birds on islands around Australia and in other parts of the world. According to the web site of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, by 1,857 feral cat attacks were linked to the disappearance of 13 species of mammals and four species of birds from the Western Division. Cats are nocturnal hunters and can travel for several kilometres at night in search of prey. The State Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service face an enormous challenge in seeking to combat this serious threat to native animals. I urge all honourable members to support this bill because it highlights the need for priority and encourages the Government to take that requisite action.
Other feral animals include deer and pigs, which were brought into Australia on the First Fleet. By 1880 pigs were causing problems in several areas, including the Darling, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee and Murray river catchments. They are found across Australia, with the highest densities in New South Wales, Queensland and Northern Australia to the Kimberley region. Wild pigs eat and destroy native plants and animals. Their tusks, which they use to dig up the soil, cause direct disturbance to habitats. This may increase erosion and reduce water quality in streams and pools. Their digging for food has a disastrous impact on vegetation and forest litter, along drainage lines and around swamps and lagoons. After rain, when the ground is softer, their actions destabilise stream banks and accelerate erosion.
The Commonwealth Government has acknowledged the serious impact that feral pigs have on the environment. The damage done by feral pigs is currently listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Wild pigs rapidly increase in number when living in favourable environmental conditions, such as the Macquarie Marshes in the Central West of New South Wales. It is estimated that the maximum annual increase in the feral pig population is nearly 300 per cent, despite a high rate of mortality from shooting. Feral pigs have a high reproductive potential and obtain sexual maturity at approximately seven months. Females may produce two litters of six piglets every 12 to 15 months and in favourable environmental conditions they can reproduce rapidly. Rural lands protection boards have reported that feral pig populations are increasing in their areas.
I have highlighted the serious impact of feral animals on our State. A survey conducted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service found that feral pigs had a negative impact on 33 out of 100 reserves in which they were reported. Some of those reserves include Narran Lake Nature Reserve, Goulburn River National Park and Kosciuszko National Park. Australians are aware that rabbits are regarded as one of Australia's most destructive pests, even though they may be soft, cuddly pets for children. Rabbits were first brought to Australia on the First Fleet in 1788 and they were let loose in the bush in 1859. They, too, have rapidly spread across Australia and many programs have been set up by both State and Federal governments to try to deal with the serious threat they pose to native animal species and ecological communities. They also cause damage to historic and cultural sites through soil erosion from overgrazing. Another unintentional side effect is rabbits are a source of food for other feral animals, including dogs, foxes and cats, causing those pests to multiply.
Wild dogs are perhaps the most dangerous of feral animals. They hunt native animals such as wallabies and koalas. They carry disease and parasites, and they prey on sheep, cattle, goats and other livestock. Wild dogs are also a threat to remaining dingo populations in certain core habitat areas. The dingo is listed as a pest that requires eradication under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 and it is not protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. I remember when the Hon. Richard Jones, a defender of dingos, brought a dingo pup into Parliament House in an endeavour to ensure that dingos were protected. The dingo is classified as an indigenous animal under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 because it was established in New South Wales before European settlement.
Some time ago a parliamentary committee inquired into this matter and recommended that as a priority research continue into the effect on threatened species of aerial baiting of wild dogs. The committee also recommended that until conclusive evidence demonstrated that threatened species were not affected by aerial baiting, a precautionary and restricted use of this method should be implemented. I have highlighted some of the damage caused by feral animals, but I shall not go into detail with respect to noxious weeds.
Members of The Nationals and others with a farming background would know about similar problems. Briefly, more than 2,800 introduced plants species are now naturalised in Australia, and it is estimated that approximately 25 per cent of these are significant environmental weeds. Approximately 65 per cent of Australia's environmental weeds were intentionally introduced as ornamental species. This bill is necessary. Some may say that the bill is minor in terms of legislative content, but I believe it will help to give priority to wilderness areas. Therefore, I call on honourable members to support the second reading of the bill.
Mr IAN COHEN [3.50 p.m.]: Together with the Environment Liaison Office [ELO] and members of the environment movement, the Greens oppose the Wilderness Amendment Bill. The contribution of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was interesting. No-one would deny that feral animals in the environment are a major problem, as I have stated on the parliamentary record many times. Indeed, when certain unpalatable decisions were made in terms of reducing the number of feral animals I acknowledged the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and various other authorities, and said that such culling often needs to be undertaken. However, sometimes the methods are maligned in the media as being inappropriate. Nevertheless, I have seen the National Parks and Wildlife Service cull feral animals, and it has been active in the national park estate in general and in wilderness areas in particular. I do not think anyone would deny that problems exist at present.
The ELO, members of the conservation movement and I do not think the bill is necessary. There is no need to amend the Wilderness Act to introduce a management principle for wilderness areas that aims to reduce or control feral animals and noxious weeds, and ameliorate the effect of such animals and weeds on wilderness areas. The Act already contains a management principle that has this effect. My point is that it is okay to support the principle of managing feral animals but it must be done in an appropriate manner and in a way—I will explain this later—that will have an appropriate impact. It should not take the focus away from managing feral pests, both weed and animal, and flora and fauna in areas where such management is more important. It would be a significant mistake if the House supported the transfer of national parks to wilderness areas based on spurious evidence.
I am arguing not against the principle of this bill but against its direction, because many problems with feral animals and plants arise at the interface, closer to so-called civilisation, human habitat, with the escape of animals and so on. Many environmental areas, other than wilderness areas, require proper attention in terms of managing feral animals and plants. My main issue with the bill is that it does not hit the mark it purportedly targets; it misses the point in many ways. Section 9 (a) of the Act states that the first management principle for wilderness is:
… to restore (if applicable) and protect the unmodified state of the area and its plant and animal communities.
This principle is adequate direction to the Department of Environment and Conservation to take action against feral animals, weeds or any other element in the environment that threatens the unmodified state of the wilderness. The National Parks and Wildlife Act requires the conservation of biodiversity, the maintenance of ecosystem function and natural landscapes, and the protection of ecological integrity. These principles also apply to all wilderness areas. All wilderness areas declared under the Wilderness Act are managed for pest species, including all weeds declared under the Noxious Weeds Act, through provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. All such areas are also reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as either national parks, nature reserves or State conservation areas.
This bill will have the effect of artificially distorting the allocation of resources and removing funding from feral animal and noxious weed control in areas that need it most—not wilderness but areas adjacent to rural and urban centres. Animals, including escaped dogs, pigs and feral cats cause greater problems in these areas. Other feral animals, including deer, feral cattle and feral horses, have been mentioned in this debate. I do not think cane toads have been mentioned although they should be. Interestingly, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile noted that feral horses are not included in the same category because they do not kill other animals. I acknowledge that horses are herbivores. However, cattle and horses have a devastating effect in many sensitive areas; they are not native to these environments.
Feral horses and cattle do a great deal of damage by digging up the earth with their hard hooves, particularly around water courses and so on, and grazing on native grasses in a way that is often unsustainable. That has a significant impact on the integrity of wilderness areas, national parks and nature conservation areas in general. In other interface areas between urban and rural population centres weeds are more likely to escape gardens and farms and spread into national parks. It is unnecessary to single out wilderness areas for feral animal and weed control. Indeed, such singling out could interfere with integrated strategic operations necessary for the effective control of feral animals and weeds. Without an integrated approach, the elimination of feral pests from wilderness areas would be ineffective. Pests could then harbour in neighbouring reserves that are not wilderness, then return to wilderness areas. An integrated approach is needed effectively to control feral pests and weeds both in and around wilderness areas.
The definition of "feral animals" in the bill is too narrow. It does not include cattle or horses, which can cause immense damage, especially in arid and inland areas. This legislation would constrain departmental efforts at controlling feral animals not defined in the list, such as the feral horses and cattle in Kosciuszko National Park and Guy Fawkes National Park. Recently there has been much media attention about dealing with the feral horses, particularly in Guy Fawkes National Park and the controversial shooting of those horses. It is interesting to note that other efforts have been made to control the feral horses in Guy Fawkes National Park. There has been some success in rounding up the horses by attracting them in a much more passive and humane manner, and that is to be commended.
However, the problem of feral pests extends far beyond wilderness areas. While it would be ideal to have more funding for the eradication of feral animals and weeds, the National Parks and Wildlife Service does a good job in attempting to minimise the problems. Often I hear members of the House condemn the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In most cases the National Parks and Wildlife Service gets it right. Indeed, it has been working with other organisations, such as rural lands protection boards, in a strategic manner to deal with feral animals in wilderness areas. Providing the National Parks and Wildlife Service with more resources would be preferable, but I point out the invaluable contribution made by community groups in the eradication of weeds and feral pests.
The Hon. Jon Jenkins stated in his second reading speech that the problems caused by feral animals and the lack of any real effort to deal with those problems are well known within environmental circles. He said it was quite clear that the Environmental Liaison Office consulted with environmental groups within environmental circles. It might be opportune for the Hon. Jon Jenkins to highlight exactly which environmental circles he refers to when he makes statements like that.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No-one gives the ELO any credibility.
Mr IAN COHEN: I note the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Old habits die hard, I suppose, but the ELO provides a significant amount of information. I think it has credibility.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is part of your cheer squad.
Mr IAN COHEN: For the information of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is paid by the peak environment organisations to provide information to members of Parliament, so I think the honourable member is making an unfair insult.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:02 : Update this page