Game Bill
Page: 1178
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr WEBB (Monaro) [9.31 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who led for the Opposition in this debate, for his well-presented summary of the bill. I confirm from the outset that I, like him and other Opposition members, support the bill although we have some reservations and will attempt to amend it in the other place. The bill appears to be a step to the right by the Government, and I commend it both for that move and for introducing measures to control feral and pest animals across the State. Like many other honourable members, I have received much support from constituents via email, correspondence and direct representation. People have been speaking to me for years about this issue and the possibility of winding back the more severe provisions of firearms legislation to address animal control in New South Wales effectively. Without legislation such as this the battle to control feral animals and pest species in this State would be very difficult. There is a demonstrated need for such measures within the agricultural fraternity and on public lands.
Feral animals and pest species probably do about $1 billion worth of damage to the New South Wales environment every year. Damage caused by rabbits alone costs this country about $600 million annually. Any costs associated with the risk of feral pigs transporting diseases such as foot and mouth would be met—and felt—fairly and squarely by people across Australian society. We must have proper control measures. Recent and current inquiries into feral animal control, including problems with wild dogs and brumbies in Guy Fawkes River National Park, offer good examples of the need to control feral animals across New South Wales. This bill could also have a real effect on fox and feral cat predation on native and agricultural species. Shooting is an obvious effective control option. There is much debate about feral animal control. The baiting of wild dogs and foxes is an effective control mechanism. Other poisoning options such as the use of 1080 and baited carrots to control rabbits and the baiting and trapping of pigs are effective in some cases. However, controlled shooting is certainly a humane and successful adjunct to such strategies.
Proposals are afoot to manage Australian pest species, particularly brumbies, in the Snowy Mountains area. While capture methods and the use of control products are cost effective, shooting is an alternative to those strategies that must be considered and promoted where possible. It is a shame that we cannot make more use of hunt game. Kangaroos culled in the Royal National Park may be used for pet food but not for human consumption. There would be a major multiplier effect if we could offer that product for human consumption. Shooting is certainly a cost-effective control option that does not contaminate the product. This bill not only addresses feral animal control measures but promotes hunting as a viable sport and a means of returning dollars to New South Wales. Hunting could be promoted as a tourism strategy: overseas visitors will happily pay large sums to participate in their chosen sport while working in conjunction with local game industry operators to control pest species. Such tourism returns are certainly acknowledged in New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and other countries.
We must take feral animal control provisions further and apply them to our national parks. The National Party is promoting the idea of conducting trials in three national parks and many people have remarked to me that the strategy should be adopted throughout the country. Most people recognise that national parks and reserves provide a habitat for feral animals, which are largely uncontrolled and do significant environmental damage in such areas. Feral animals do not know where the boundaries of State forests and private lands lie; they do not know when they cross from wilderness areas into national parks. It makes sense to extend the hunting of pest species to national parks and to use the feral animal control methods outlined and allowed by the Game Bill in those areas for the benefit not just of shooters and shooting clubs but of the people of New South Wales and Australia as a whole. Such measures would help to preserve the environment and help native species that are being decimated by wild dogs, foxes, feral cats, feral pigs and other animals that destroy habitats in national park areas.
The Game Bill is heavy on definitions and control mechanisms. These are necessary in order to ensure that shooting occurs under controlled conditions and is undertaken by responsible people, who are licensed and who use registered firearms. Such people would undoubtedly be dedicated, semi-professional or experienced recreational shooters, with years of experience in the industry who have made a great financial investment in the sporting and recreational shooting and hunting fields. As we have seen in the fishing industry, controlled hunting can deliver enormous returns. When the Firearms Act came into force in 1996 firearms shops—an entire sector of the sporting industry—took a major tumble. Hunting would be conditional—that is obvious from the penalties already imposed by the numerous firearms Acts, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Weapons Prohibition Act and various other regulations regarding noise, assaults, trespass, creating nuisance and so on. The bill refers to the provision of inspectors and the powers that they will have to enforce these conditions and ensure that activities proceed properly.
There is opposition to the shooting concept in the bill. Unfortunately, those who oppose it simply do not understand the issues involved and the impact of pest animals on the environment. They do not realise the dollars invested by shooters. Recreational shooters are people like you and me, work colleagues and people we see walking down the street. They contribute in a major way to our society. They are prepared to contribute by assisting the Government, land management authorities, farmers and others in conservation measures to protect the environment. I applaud those who drafted the bill and those who are dedicated to making it an Act of Parliament.
By creating the Game Council the bill creates unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, and there are anomalies in the definitions. However, that is what legislation does—it creates further layers of bureaucracy—but we have to weigh those deficiencies against the pluses in the legislation, which relate to feral animal and pest animal control. The legislation provides for public areas to be designated and approved by the Minister. The bill includes provisions relating to animal quotas and defines the various game animals, such as pigs, goats, rabbits, foxes, feral cats, deer and horses. I have had a great deal of experience in land management over many years, including the control of rabbits, foxes, feral cats and pigs. I have used rabbit traps, 1080 poison and other methods, but I have found shooting to be preferable. One year we shot 3,000 rabbits by spotlighting one night a week. Almost all were head-shot and the majority of them were used for human consumption or for feeding farm dogs. Not only did we control the animals, we did it simply, effectively and humanely. This legislation provides for the control of feral animals by this method. Feral animals, regardless of their size, can be effectively controlled by the use of firearms.
The Game Council will comprise representatives from recreational and shooting clubs and sportsmen throughout the community, as well as representatives of the various Ministers who have responsibility for land management. I agree with the composition of the council. The council will have a voice through reports and recommendations to government about the effectiveness of the bill. The legislation will require some amendments. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke about proposed amendments relating to conducting trials in national parks. Clearly, feral animals are out of control in New South Wales. I am not sure whether the National Parks and Wildlife Service knows what to do about this problem. Perhaps some of its ground staff do.
Recently there have been reports of the killing of sheep flocks by wild dogs from national parks. I am not necessarily talking about dingoes. It is difficult to differentiate between dingoes and other feral dogs. Unfortunately, the message from the National Parks and Wildlife Services regional managers is that they do not believe the sheep kill counts. They do not believe that they are legitimate feral dog kills; they do not want to accept the extent of the problem. The Minister has told them that as far as the New South Wales Government is concerned the impact on the sheep industry is not significant enough to talk about changes to feral dog control, particularly in areas such as the Monaro region. Unfortunately, the regional managers—like those who object to this bill, particularly those in the cities—do not understand the impact of feral animals not only on sheep but on kangaroo species and many other native species.
Foxes, feral dogs and feral cats have practically cleaned out the native wildlife in many national parks. That is why they predate on sheep flocks, cattle and other animals. They have been known to kill dogs on the chain, not to mention ducks, chickens and other animals, within close proximity to country towns. This bill will enable a cost-effective method to control the feral animals. The National Parks and Wildlife Service uses helicopters and professional shooters, at great cost, to control feral animals and pest species across the State. The Game Bill will allow recognised expert recreational hunters to do the job at little cost to government. They are happy to do it for nothing. In fact, they are happy to pay to do it. That is one of the reasons why this legislation will be an effective tool in the control of animals across the State.
The sport of shooting is enjoyed by many people, such as farmers, legitimate recreational shooters, club shooters, young people and old people. For a time I enjoyed the sport as a member of a target pistol club. It is great form of relaxation. Shooting, like most sports, returns a great deal of money to small businesses throughout the State and to government by way of licences and dollars spent in pursuit of this hobby. This bill will go a long way towards satisfying those involved in this sport, which has a high rate of participation in New South Wales. This State, through this legislation, can show other jurisdictions how to do the job. The bill will have a major effect on the control of pest and feral animals right across New South Wales in all land tenures.
Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [9.46 p.m.]: The Minister for Agriculture introduced the Game Bill 2001 on 28 November last year. The bill lay on the table for a considerable time to allow public consultation, feedback and submissions from the community on various aspects of it. The Minister was prepared to go down that track rather than put the bill through the House quickly; he allowed a period of consultation. That process has been a feature of the Minister's approach to a number of matters. In many ways he has set a standard for dealing with contentious issues. The Minister took on board the submissions from the general community, groups and organisations for and against the bill.
In his second reading speech on the Game Bill 2002, the bill now before the House, which was delivered on 19 March, the Minister introduced a number of changes. Obviously a number of contentious issues were raised during the consultation period from November last year to March this year. Unfortunately, during that period a great deal of misinformation was aired about the nature of the bill and what could result from it. However, I compliment the Minister on they way in which he was prepared to openly discuss the issues with the many groups, organisations and individuals and allay their fears about where this legislation would lead.
One of the aspects of the bill I would like to speak about is the provision that will permit people with a game hunting licence to hunt on both private and public lands. The bill will provide more control over the whole process of game hunting. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Monaro, was keen to espouse the view that it could lead to an industry. I do not necessarily share his views, but I note that we all support this bill. The bill will require private game hunters to hold a licence when hunting designated game animals unless they have a good reason for not doing so. In his second reading speech the Minister expanded on those reasons.
The State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards sought an assurance that the legislation would not prevent the control of pests under the Rural Lands Protection Act when such pests inhabit a proclaimed ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The Minister advised that the bill will not prevent control of pests in those circumstances, provided that the control program was consistent with the requirements of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. There are groups in my electorate that strongly support the passage of the bill, but there are other groups that have reservations about its impact.
Earlier I said that the public consultation period produced claims about the content of the bill and what it will allow. One claim was that the bill will give a green light to recreational hunters to use any means at their disposal to injure, maim or kill cats, dogs, deer, pigs, foxes, goats or other animals that crossed their path. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The bill deals with the composition, activities and limited powers of a new statutory body, the Game Council, and consolidates some of the hunter permit systems currently issued by State Government agencies to provide recreational hunters with access to game and pest animals on public and private lands. The bill defines pest animals on public lands and a limited number of animals on private lands as game animals.
Some of the controversy surrounding the bill has undoubtedly been laid to rest, but whether that has been understood and whether people are prepared to support the bill in its entirety remains to be seen. Criticism has been levelled at the role and composition of the Game Council, but the bill deals with the hard issues, such as control of feral pests. We have a great deal of difficulty in controlling and reducing the number of feral animals. Most people would probably agree that we would like to have them eliminated completely from certain parts of our environment. But the way such pests are to be eliminated is where we strike differences of opinion. The bill goes a long way towards introducing a resource into the control program that, until this stage, has not been considered part of the regime to control feral animals.
Everyone acknowledges the immense damage that feral animals do to the environment and the need to control them in some way. We have used, and continue to use, various chemicals and guns to control feral animals. Those methods are not pleasant, but we must acknowledge past mismanagement and the mistakes of humans. We have allowed some of those animals to roam free, escape into the wild and propagate. Therefore, we must now make the hard decisions, and we must be prepared to support the bill to ensure that feral animals are brought under control. The bill has provoked various opinions, and there is no doubt that many people will keep a close eye on it to see how it works. I look forward to hearing comments on the operation of the bill.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [9.55 p.m.]: I wish to put on record some of the issues raised by this bill that affect the people of the mid North Coast. Sporting shooting is undoubtedly active on the mid North Coast. In the past two years the Hastings Recreational Shooting Complex has developed to become one of the better shooting complexes, if not the best complex, in regional New South Wales. In Wingham, in the Manning Valley, there is also a strong recreational shooting movement. I support recreational shooting as an activity that brings pleasure to many people on the mid North Coast. I also support the responsible actions of the local rural lands protection board in controlling feral deer in the Lake Cathie area. Feral deer are causing so much concern that the National Parks and Wildlife Service developed a deer-catching cage. Unfortunately, the cage seemed to catch everything but deer; it caught many native Australian species such as kangaroo and wallaby. The service will now have to consider a responsible culling program.
The rural lands protection board certainly has the power, with ministerial approval, to initiate responsible culling programs. I hope that the bill in no way dilutes or remove those powers, because in areas such as the mid North Coast it is an appropriate process. I certainly support a move by the Government to tackle the control of wild fauna and flora. I certainly encourage the investment of more time, money and resources by organisations such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service to deal with these significant issues. The land space dedicated to national parks and nature reserves in New South Wales has increased significantly. However, the speed of resourcing to keep pace with that growth is of great concern. Many of these parks have the potential to turn into feral animal and feral weed parks. As more national parks and nature reserves are developed, no-one in this Chamber would want that to happen.
In general terms I also support using hunters and appropriately qualified and accredited private citizens to deal with feral animal control. However, I am concerned that neither the Government nor the Opposition has raised concerns about the powers of investigators to be appointed by the Game Council. Eight of the 16 members of the council will be representatives of hunting organisations. The extraordinary powers to be given to inspectors are dealt with from page 24 of the bill. The bill gives individual citizens powers which in some instances exceed the powers given to police. Those powers include the power of entry to private property, the use of force on entry to private property, and the use of search warrants.
I am sure everyone who wants to be involved in supporting this legislation and the Game Council is well meaning. As to the make-up of the Game Council, I am sure everyone has good intentions. However, so far as enacting good law is concerned, there are grave concerns that under the provisions of the bill the New South Wales Parliament is legislating for a Game Council made up primarily of private citizens and it is conferring powers on citizens appointed by other private citizens that are equal to and potentially even greater than those conferred on police officers. That is of grave concern to many people. A range of potential incidents could develop as a result of this legislation.
The bill confers on individual citizens, who will be appointed by a council of other citizens outside of the public sector, the power to detain and search vehicles or vessels. The bill introduces powers of seizure. The provisions relating to the seizure of property are of concern. To the layman the bill reads as though it will result in many punch-ups around regional and rural New South Wales as inspectors appointed by the Game Council seize property from individuals who are under investigation because of concerns about potential aspects of this legislation. Individual inspectors will have power to obtain information, documents and evidence from private residents. They will have the power to demand names and addresses and to demand the production of game hunting licences.
In general I believe the entire section relating to investigation will be of grave concern to any member of this Chamber who wants to enact good law. It is all very well for us to support the use of hunters and private citizens to deal with feral animal abatement in national parks, nature reserves and State forests and on Crown land. Most people would support that general principle. However, hidden in the bill is another issue of concern relating to the implementation of good law in New South Wales. It confers on citizens outside the government sector powers that are potentially draconian. That will lead to difficult situations when those powers are exercised after this legislation has been passed by Parliament.
I express those concerns in the hope that out of this debate will come good law. I note that both the Government and the Opposition will support the legislation through this Chamber. That means it will go straight to the upper House. I hope that the upper House will consider making significant amendments to the legislation, particularly to the section dealing with investigators. I hope it will bring those powers under the umbrella of the police or the appropriate government sector, or at least clarify the powers as they relate to the right of the individual.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.04 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has already stated, the Coalition will not oppose the Game Bill, which provides for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals, and promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of pest animals on public land. We should support the principle of controlling pest animals on public land, while defending the right of landowners to control pests on privately owned land. I have some concerns about the bill relating to the duplication of licences, the lack of power of the Game Council, the effect of the bill on the Rural Lands Protection Act and the New South Wales Firearms Act, and the exclusion of national park estate land from the definition of public land.
Feral animal control on public land, particularly in national parks, is one of the biggest problems facing rural and regional New South Wales. Landowners whose properties adjoin national parks and other Crown land are suffering the most. Wild dogs are breeding and living on public land, where they are out of reach of land-holders. These dogs then launch attacks on sheep and livestock, resulting in major economic loss for land-holders. Feral pig numbers are certainly increasing in national parks and on other public land. Pigs not only cause significant damage to livestock, fences and crops, but also pose a real risk of spreading disease in the event of an exotic disease outbreak. We have already seen the effects of the outbreak of such diseases in other countries and we certainly need to keep that in mind in respect of the livestock industry in this State and in this country.
The Carr Government continues to display its ignorance about the control of pest animals on public land. The object of this bill, to promote hunting of pest animals on public land, recognises the problem being caused to land-holders who own land that is surrounded by public land. The Coalition questions why the Game Bill excludes national park estate land from the definition of public land. The Coalition will move an amendment in the other place seeking a two-year trial of the hunting of game in three national parks. If that is successful, the national parks will be included in the definition of public land. It has been reported to me that wild dogs are moving unchecked out of national parks and into State forests and then onto private property, where they wreak havoc on the livelihood of farmers. We believe that the inclusion of national parks in the definition of public land will provide alternatives for the control of pests such as wild dogs and should therefore be supported.
I continually make reference to wild dogs because they are a major problem in areas of national parks and forests that surround private land. The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] should be able to use skilled and appropriately registered hunters as a cost-effective resource in implementing control and management strategies for pest and game species. When the cull of horses was taking place in the Guy Fawkes River National Park a constituent of mine, Dennis Betteridge, rang to offer his services to the NPWS. He is experienced, skilled and appropriately licensed. However, his services were knocked back. His idea was that he could go into the national park, lay out blocks that would encourage the horses to come in and feed in certain areas, and then he would gradually take them out of those areas. The offer of his services was rejected by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
It is clear that the Government has no regard for the losses that feral animals are causing land-holders in areas surrounded by national parks. As is typical of the Carr Government, it has ignored sporting shooters. It has not consulted the Sporting Shooters Association, which has 36,000 members in this country. This major organisation should have been consulted before the bill was drafted. It has a hunting and conservation program which organises hunting activities for members on private land and Crown land, mostly State forests. That mechanism is already in place and would have been available. The Carr Government would have known this if it had consulted the Sporting Shooters Association. So there is already a system in place whereby State Forests has liaised with the Sporting Shooters Association to facilitate hunting on land controlled by State Forests. This should be expanded to take in national parks.
I understand that the bill allows for land-holders to hunt pests on their own land without a licence. However, hunters will be required to apply for a general game hunting licence before they can hunt game animals on private land of which they are not the owner. Hunters who have gone through the process of becoming a licensed firearms owner should not be forced to apply for and pay for another licence to hunt game that is not protected game on private land when they have the permission of the land-holder. That is an important point. The land-holder should have the ability to grant permission for any licensed firearm user to hunt game that is not protected game on their land without either party having to acquire an additional licence.
In the event of a land-holder wishing to grant permission for a third party to hunt protected game on private land, the Game Bill prescribes that both a land-holder and the prospective hunter must be the holder of a game hunting licence. To avoid licensing duplication resulting from this bill the Coalition will move in the other place that the licensing system be consolidated. In order to overcome the concerns of hunting clubs and the Sporting Shooters Association and to provide them with some security I call on the Minister to guarantee that game licences will not be recognised as providing proof of a genuine reason for recreational hunting under the New South Wales Firearms Act. The responsible approach of hunting and other recreational shooting clubs has been integral to the process of firearms licensing and ownership reform in this State. Their good work should not be undermined by the introduction of game hunting licences.
Along with other members of the Coalition, I also ask the Minister to clarify two further points in relation to the operation of the Game Bill. First, the Minister said in his second reading speech that he will ensure that a regulation exempting land-holders from the need to hold a game hunting licence when taking part in joint pest control programs is made as soon as possible should the bill receive the support of Parliament. I place on record again the Coalition's support for such a regulation and call on the Minister to guarantee that the regulation will be made.
I also call on the Minister to explain why a person assisting another person hunting pest animals in accordance with a duty imposed on the person under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 or the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921 is not exempt from the requirement to possess a game hunting licence. The damage feral and pest animals are causing in rural and regional New South Wales is one of the biggest problems facing country New South Wales, and the potential pest control benefits of this bill present the most compelling case for supporting it. Naturally, the Coalition will attempt to improve the bill by addressing some of the problems through the introduction of amendments to the bill in the other place.
Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [10.13 p.m.]: I support the Game Bill, the objects of which are to provide for the efficient management of native and introduced species of game animals and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land, and of certain pest animals on public land. Only a few months ago people from my community contacted me about land in the Mount Kembla area being looked after by the local Landcare group, which had spent many hours rejuvenating the site and putting in plants. Everything the Landcare group had planted was destroyed by introduced deer. I support the bill on the grounds that introduced animals are not part of the local environment and are not meant to be there. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that native flora and fauna are protected.
I spent a lot of time at Mount Kembla inspecting what was going on. It was recommended to me that the National Parks and Wildlife Service should hire people to cull the deer but the service was not in a position at that stage to do so. We have heard many stories about the effects of the bill. But the bill is not about allowing hunters the opportunity to shoot; it is about allowing the State Government to protect the environment. It is about local farmers protecting their holdings and allowing local people to make decisions about their environment. Hunting is permitted in New South Wales under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This bill does not amend that Act. It does not seek to legalise any form of hunting which currently is illegal. Moreover, clause 6 explicitly states that nothing in the bill exempts people from their responsibilities under the Act. The bill does not give a green light to recreational hunters to use any means at their disposal to injure, maim or kill cats, dogs, deer, pigs, foxes or goats or other animals that cross their path.
These animals cause environmental destruction and kill native fauna, to the extent that some are now endangered. I am sure that the Opposition agrees. We are not encouraging people to hunt but baiting can kill native fauna, which is irresponsible. The bill addresses the composition, activities and powers of a new statutory body, the Game Council, and consolidates some of the State Government hunting permit systems. The council will operate statewide so a game hunter who creates mayhem in one area will not be able to move to a different area without a record of his former behaviour. Pest animals on public lands and a limited number of animals on private lands are defined as game animals under the bill. The Game Council will administer a new two-tiered licensing system for hunters of game animals. Government agencies co-ordinate hunter access to game animals. This includes the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which will continue to have overall control of the hunting of ducks. It is necessary to have one authority with ultimate responsibility. The Government is not so much concerned about providing opportunities for hunters as about protecting our fauna.
In protecting our wildlife we often have to make hard decisions to cull animals that cause havoc within national parks and on private land. The bill constitutes a statutory hunting code of practice detailing the standard of behaviour expected of holders of a game hunting licence. One body will be responsible for providing those licences. People who hunt will be responsible to one body only, not to one body for a licence, another body for hunting and to a landowner who allows hunting in another area. Across the State one body will be responsible for this bill. One agency will be responsible for allowing people to hunt. The bill has one priority, and that is to protect our wildlife and national parks.
In Mount Kembla deer are chasing away the indigenous animals. The deer have destroyed the wildlife and desecrated the area. My local community has called on me to ask the National Parks and Wildlife Service to shoot those deer. While I am not a believer in killing for the sake of killing, I believe in protecting what we have. It is important to the Government and to my community to protect what we have, and the Government is acting responsibly by introducing this bill. I am sure that the Opposition would support that. To that end, it is important that one body ensures that hunters are licensed so that we can protect our wildlife and national parks.
Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.22 p.m.]: I support the general thrust of the bill. The Government's introduction of this bill is a recognition of a problem that has existed for many years. In fact, it has grown to unbelievable proportions in some rural electorates, many of which have been mentioned tonight. The objects of the bill are to provide for the effective management of native and introduced species of game animals and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land, and of certain pest animals on public land. The overview of the bill states:
The principal features of the Bill are as follows:
(a) Game animals for the purposes of the Bill are:
(i) native and introduced species (namely, deer, duck, quail, pheasant, partridge, peafowl and turkey), and
(ii) certain pest animals (namely, pigs, dogs (other than dingos), cats, goats, rabbits, hares and foxes living in the wild).
(b) The Bill constitutes a separate statutory authority, to be called the Game Council of New South Wales, to represent licensed game hunters, to administer the game hunting licensing system and to exercise other functions relating to the objects of the Bill. The Game Council is to comprise persons nominated by hunting organisations, wildlife management scientists and representatives of the rural lands protection boards, of Landcare organisations, of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council and of the Ministers administering the proposed Act, the Forestry Act 1916 and the Crown Lands Act 1989.
(c) The Bill provides for the following game hunting licences and licensing system:
(i) A general game hunting licence … A game hunting licence will not be required for the purpose of hunting certain pest animals on private land, for hunting on a person's own land and in other specified circumstances.
(ii) A restricted game hunting licence … Hunting will not be authorised on national park estate land and will only be authorised in State forests, vacant Crown land and other public land if the Minister responsible for the land has declared the land to be available for hunting.
(iii) An occupiers game hunting licence … Annual quotas for the hunting of protected game animals will be set by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and, in accordance with current requirements, will not be set to enable hunting for sporting or recreational purposes.
(d) The Bill makes provision for the appointment of inspectors by the Game Council and for all relevant entry, inspection and other powers for the enforcement of the proposed Act.
I welcome to my electorate tools that will enable land-holders to bring under control problems of feral animals such as rabbits, wild dogs, pigs, goats, et cetera. It is no secret that in my electorate there is an enormous area of land under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests. In fact, my electorate covers some of the Kosciuszko National Park. It has enormous plantings of State forests and private forestry as well as rural land-holdings. Because of the ongoing problems with feral animals a public meeting was called in Tumbarumba. To the community's credit approximately 50 farmers attended along with the relevant authorities including the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Pastures Protection Board, State Forests, et cetera at the public meeting held at the Tumbarumba bowls club.
All groups worked together in an endeavour to come up with a solution to the problem of wild dogs, the losses caused by feral pigs on farm animals, and the general overrun of rabbits, cats, et cetera, and their effect on the native fauna. At that meeting it was decided to formulate a working group. I pay credit to the Tumbarumba working group which consists of the organisations that attended the public meeting. When communities work together they can come up with solutions to problems. The Game Bill is another tool that the people of Tumbarumba can utilise to control this problem. The executive summary produced by the working group states:
The Dog and Fox Control Plan is the result of the co-operative efforts of the Tumbarumba Shire Feral Animal Working Group.
The group involves a number of local community members and representatives of the Hume Rural Lands Protection Board, National Parks and Wildlife Service, State Forests and Tumbarumba Shire.
The plan has been prepared in response to the fact that dogs are causing stock management problems for graziers since the arrival of domestic stock in the area and adjacent mountains in the 1800's.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been an increase in wild dog attacks since 1999.
Some farmers in the Tumbarumba region are no longer able to farm their land because of the prevalence of attacks by wild dogs, particularly where farmland adjoins State forests, native wildlife reserves or national parks. The summary continued:
The Tumbarumba Shire has legislative responsibility under the Companion Animals Act for the control of domestic dogs.
State Forests is currently involved in a number of dog control and dog research activities in the Bago, Maragle and Munderoo Forests.
The NPWS is responsible for the control of wild dogs and the conservation of the dingo in NPWS managed lands.
Wild dog control has been carried out in the Kosciuszko National Park area by NPWS for many years, including trapping and baiting.
Once again anecdotal evidence shows that more resources need to be poured into national parks and State forests to provide the necessary tools to do the job, including appropriate legislation. The article continues:
The Hume Rural Lands Protection Board is responsible for all pest animal control on private lands and provides a significant service to achieve this aim.
Wild dogs have a significant negative impact on many agricultural enterprises as well as negative impacts on native fauna.
I have touched briefly on some of the problems experienced by land-holders, particularly with having to destock. The article further states:
The aim of the plan is to "provide a co-ordinated and effective wild dog and fox control program to minimise the impact of wild dogs and foxes on agricultural production and native animals."
It is proposed to achieve this aim through the implementation of a co-ordinated strategic dog control program. The main components of the program are 1080 baiting, trapping and monitoring.
The principal strategy is to prevent stock losses by establishing a buffer zone around the western side of the Kosciuszko National Park and the south of Bago State Forest.
It has been identified that national parks and State forests harbour these wild dogs and feral animals. The article continues:
The buffer zone includes some areas of private land.
Trapping will be principally when stock losses occur in areas already being baited or when agency representatives determine that trapping is necessary.
In the lead-up to winter, now is a particularly bad time for wild dog attacks. Given the necessary resources trappers will be able to put more results on the fences—and by that I mean more wild dogs will be trapped and hung on the fences to show their catch. The articles further states:
Monitoring using sand pads will also be carried out to provide data for an overall assessment of the movement and abundance of wild dogs and other species. Monitoring data will be used to bait station locations and other aspects of the program.
I have read that article onto the record to show that some communities are working positively to bring this situation under control. I have some reservations about some parts of the bill, and I refer to comments by the honourable member for Port Macquarie, who pointed out some sections that I, too, have concerns with from page 24 onwards. However, I understand those matters will be raised in another place and amendments will be moved. I seek balanced legislation that protects native animals and enables farmers and land-holders to bring this problem under control. I seek legislation that does not allow the indiscriminate shooting of animals but targets animals that need to be controlled.
I am a land-holder and in the last two years I have noticed an increase in rabbits and hares on my block. In fact, last weekend I spotted two foxes whereas previously I have not spotted a fox for years. On Saturday on the road to Holbrook I saw six foxes on the road. Whether they were shot or baited, I do not know, but it demonstrates their prevalence. I went to a public meeting in Wodonga which was attended by 450 people. They all expressed concern about feral animals on their land and sought to reach a sensible solution to the problem of feral animals, deer, goats, foxes, cats, and so on.
[Debated interrupted.]