 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE AMENDMENT BILL
In committee
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT:
I would like a clear indication of how members will respond in respect of this issue, because during the second reading stage I asked that we not consider this clause until we resume in October. The reason that I made that request is that this issue is currently before the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. In fact, at our next meeting in two weeks we will be sitting down to begin drafting our report, and I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of being a member of a committee that is producing a report to make recommendations in this area. So, before we have a chance to meet as a committee to discuss the evidence and so on, I am faced with the challenge of moving amendments to this clause, and I think that is undesirable. It is worth noting that the ERD committee has had an excellent record of being non-political. In fact, I am not sure that I can even remember a minority report. The committee has always worked very hard to try to produce a consensus view. In the first instance, it has to be noted that what the government is seeking to bring in right now is something which has only been used for the first time under existing section 51A during the last summer. Speaking with people such as the apple and pear growers, they told us that they did not request the changes. They are not opposed to the changes but they did not request them. There was the old permit system, and evidently they rang up and were virtually assured of being given a permit straightaway. There is a sneaking suspicion that perhaps the major reason the permit system was dispensed with was more an attempt at cost cutting within the department. Putting that aside, I do not think I have heard anyone in this place say—including myself—that there is not a place for the culling of birds, or, for that matter, other animals. In fact, on other occasions in this place I have supported the kangaroo cull. I note that the kangaroo cull is based on very sound scientific research carried out over many years. At the same time, in supporting the kangaroo cull, I have indicated that I am eager to see, as far as possible, that it is seen as a last resort and, if there are other means of reducing damage and/or reducing what is an over abundance of kangaroos—at least in relation to the red kangaroo and the grey, which are the species which are being shot—we should be seeking to do it.That is my view about bird species causing problems in the Adelaide Hills.
We are told that 40 000 parrots have been shot in the Adelaide Hills, although departmental people acknowledge that that is probably an under-estimate of the number. The reality is—and evidence we have been getting in the committee supports this—there is no real handle on the numbers being shot and, unfortunately, no real handle on the numbers that comprise the species. One must guess as to what percentage of the species is being culled on an annual basis. That does not seem to be a terribly sound way of going about things.
At the end of the day, I would be keen to see a system in place which recognises that there are problems created by animals at the moment and which seeks to reduce damage as far as is practicable, recognising that culling is one option that will need to be exercised, probably more in the short term than the long term. One would hope that a longer term strategy would be developed that would significantly reduce that need.
Witnesses appearing before the committee gave a range of options which, over a longer time frame, would significantly reduce the need for culling. Most members would take the view that, if we could avoid it, we would. Most fruit growers will tell you, `We do not want to do this.' It costs them time and money. We are increasingly finding that fruit growers and farmers generally are becoming greener by the year. I know that when I first came into this place the Stock Journal—and the UF&S had its own newspaper at that stage—constantly had stories complaining about greenies, yet recently it had the IBIS awards and all sorts of things. There has been a greening of agriculturalists and horticulturalists, and I think they are fair dinkum about that.
Witnesses representing horticultural groups before the committee complain that there is a dearth of knowledge, and they say there is not enough effort and support to get the best result. The best result is not simply a protection of the fruit: the best result also is minimising culling as far as possible, and that involves both a decrease in numbers, which may or may not be justified, and also what will clearly be some suffering as well. The Hon. T.G. Cameron: What do you do with them?The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When our committee gets the chance to report, we will go into that at considerable length. One of the witnesses before the committee talked about the fact that many of these parrots that are causing damage are blossom feeders. There are particular eucalypts that they feed on. There is an argument that, if areas away from orchards are selected for planting a species on which they normally feed, over a period of time—and not next year—that will provide an alternative feeding place. This evidence was given by Dr Paton at the University of Adelaide, who is probably the most prominent bird expert in South Australia.
Dr Paton also talked about the fact that some farmers seem to be suffering a lot more damage than others. It is a matter of adopting proper practices. It is not the number of birds you shoot that ultimately has the effect—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not know why you adopt that attitude. I am not getting stuck into the farmers, and none of the witnesses got stuck into them, either—not a single one. Nobody was complaining about what farmers were doing in any deliberate sense, but they did say there was a severe lack of science in the way it has been done. In fact, there has not been a refinement of best practice, if you like, on blocks which would involve a range of tactics by horticulturalists. It would include culling; it could include gas guns; it could include provision of various alternative feed; it would include a range of other things. It could include alternative feed, but not just the growing of other species; but there is a number of ways that you can attract them if you understand their behaviour.
If they settle into an area and start feeding, as I understand it if they get frightened they tend to fly off into nearby trees. A couple have been shot. When the person goes away, they return to the area. One of the suggestions was that, if you get in early and disrupt them before they have settled in, they will move on.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: Are you talking about lorikeets?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am talking about lorikeets, yes.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Nobody was complaining or getting stuck into horticulturalists but they noted that a range of alternative strategies can and should be adopted. What I had hoped would happen is that the committee would have a chance to come back to this place and put forward a comprehensive bipartisan or tripartisan or, in this case, because four political parties are represented on the committee, a quadrapartisan view, with a preponderance of members from country areas as well. I had hoped that we could put before the Council something that would give all the protection that the horticulturalists want for their crops and also the best reasonable protection of the interests of the birds as well. This is not a matter of either/or; this is matter of getting the best result. The committee is committed to achieving that on all issues. I do not want to be in position of trying to second guess what the committee might report, but I do have a set of amendments. If I fail to have the clause deferred at this stage then I will be forced to move. Those amendments are, I suppose, my interpretation of the evidence that we have been getting and the common themes that seem to be emerging about the need for better science and a range of other things. Before I explore the amendments in too much detail, I would like an indication of whether or not this place is likely to give the ERD Committee a chance to report (and it will be reporting as soon as parliament resumes) or whether I will be forced to move my amendments somewhat on the run.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I really resent the suggestion that I have knocked up these amendments at the last minute to try to cause problems. The fact is, as I have said repeatedly, I believe that the ERD Committee should have reported before this matter was handled. I thought it was inappropriate for me to put forward amendments, which would show me taking a position, before the committee had had discussions. I have had some rough drafts, if you like, in my back pocket for some time. My understanding, until midnight last night, was that we would not deal with this clause: the minister told me last night that we would not deal with this clause. Since then, obviously, some other people have said, `Don't worry, you have the numbers.' So, I then had to sit down and really get to work on it. To suggest that I have suddenly knocked this up so that I can cause mischief is absolutely outrageous.
51A. (1) The Governor may, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations declaring that protected animals of a species referred to in the regulations may be killed under this section. (2) The minister must not make a recommendation under this section—
(a)in relation to animals of an endangered, vulnerable or rare species; or (b)if he or she is not satisfied that the animals are causing, or are likely to cause, significant damage to crops or other property; or (c)if he or she has not first sought and considered the advice of the council in relation to the proposed regulations. (3) The council's advice must be in writing and must include advice—
(a)as to whether the killing of animals pursuant to the regulations is likely to affect significantly the population of animals of that species in the state generally or in any part of the state; and (b)as to the monitoring (if any) that should be undertaken of the effect of killing animals pursuant to the regulations on populations of those animals. (4) The council must include a copy of its advice to the minister under this section in its annual report under section 19D. (5) Regulations under this section must set out—
(a)the part or parts of the state in which animals may be killed; and (b)the class or classes of persons who may kill animals; and (c)the circumstances in which and the methods by which animals may be killed; and (d)a code of practice that must be complied with in relation to the killing of animals pursuant to the regulations; and (e)any other restrictions or conditions subject to which animals may be killed; and (f)the period for which the regulations will remain in force. (6) Regulations under this section do not apply in relation to animals within a reserve. (7) Regulations made under this section cannot come into operation until the time has passed during which the regulations may be disallowed by resolution of either house of parliament. (8) Regulations under this section cannot remain in force for more than 12 months. (9) Before making a recommendation to the Governor under this section the minister must prepare a report setting out—
(a)the extent to which, in the opinion of the minister, protected animals are being taken without lawful authority under this act; and (b)the effect of the unlawful taking of those animals on the various populations of the various species of animals concerned. (10) Before making a recommendation to the Governor under this section the minister must prepare a report setting out—
(a)the minister's estimate of the number of individual protected animals of each species being taken without lawful authority under this Act and the method used by the minister in arriving at that estimate; and (b)the minister's estimate of the number of individual protected animals of each species previously killed under this section and under the corresponding section that it has replaced and the method used by the minister in arriving at that estimate; and (c)the effect on the various populations of those animals of the unlawful taking and the lawful killing of animals referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively; and (d)details of all other methods of which the minister knows that are available for the elimination or reduction of the adverse effects of protected animals on agriculture; and (e)details of the research (if any) that the minister has undertaken to determine if there are any methods in addition to those referred to in paragraph (d) for the control of protected animals. (11) The minister must, as soon as practicable after regulations are made under this section—
(a)cause a copy of each of the reports under subsections (9) and (10) to be laid before each house of parliament; and (b)cause a notice to be published in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the state stating that the regulations have been made and specifying an address at which copies of the reports under subsections (9) and (10) may be obtained or inspected during normal business hours. (12) It is lawful to kill a protected animal in accordance with regulations under this section. (13) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she—
(a)is entitled to kill an animal in accordance with regulations under this section; but (b)contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of the regulations when killing the animal. Maximum penalty: $5 000 or imprisonment for 12 months. (14) If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (13), the minister may, by notice served personally on the person within 3 months after conviction, direct the person not to take an animal referred to in regulations under this section. (15) The notice must specify the species of animal to which it applies and the period during which it will operate. (16) A person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (14) who takes an animal in contravention of the notice is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years. (17) This section expires on the fifth anniversary of its commencement. I was seeking to get an indication as to whether or not the numbers would see the measure defeated at this stage so that we could treat the matter after the committee reports. That clearly is now not the case, so I need to move the proposed new section. The amendment includes essentially all the substance of the measure within the bill, and I will highlight those areas that are different and why they have been included. The first difference is that the power to allow quite significant shooting of these birds should happen under regulation rather than simple proclamation. It is a matter of opinion whether these things should be done by regulation or proclamation, but I find it staggering that more than 40 000 native birds could be shot without parliamentary approval. That is the first issue of difference. The next issue was raised and acknowledged by several witnesses, and I refer to the need for a code of practice. Codes of practice would involve a number of things. Importantly, if birds are being shot, there are questions as to what they are shot with. For example, what is the appropriate weapon and what is the appropriate sort of shot for the parrots, or whatever the species is, in question? One way of culling is to use a short-term poison which does not kill the animal but which knocks it out briefly so they can be gathered up and humanely gassed. One of the problems is that, because it only knocks them out for a fairly short time, if they are not collected they become a feast for ants in the meantime, and I do not think that any reasonable person would want large numbers of birds to suffer that fate.
Another important component of the code of practice, which would be determined by the minister, would be a requirement that, if culling is occurring, a record be kept. One of the problems that the evidence has revealed is that we do not really know how many birds are being culled at present. It seems to me not an unreasonable requirement that, if the horticulturist has been out on the property and has shot 20 rosellas, that should be entered into a log that is kept with the gun.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: You really think that they would do that?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Some will, some will not. Our experience with the tuna industry, even with its problems, is that many tuna people have been keeping logs about dolphin deaths, shark entanglements, and other things like that, and that is a requirement. It would be a bit better than no knowledge at all, which is the current situation. What better way can there be of getting an estimate of the level of culling that is occurring? If we try to determine the level of culling that is occurring, other than having every property inspected all the time, who else would know other than the horticulturists themselves?
It is important information, not only to get a measure of the total kill, but it would also be possible to find out whether or not there are geographical problems, for example, whether or not there are concentrations in particular areas. Trials might try to find other ways of shifting the birds on. If there is data, we have something to use to move things forward, to find out what works and what does not work. It is not an unreasonable requirement that, within a code of practice, a simple log be kept of the number of birds that have been culled.
553There is a risk that some people will choose not to keep it accurately, but I do not believe that the overwhelming majority would not do so. I am sure that most of them would try to do the right thing if they understood that, at the end of the day, this information would be used not only for trying to find out the total number of birds killed but perhaps also to gain some understanding of what else is happening in a geographical sense in terms of even reacting to different crops—different varieties of apples. We are told anecdotally at this stage that apparently the parrots are not keen on delicious apples and a couple of the older breeds of apple, but they really go for the new breeds. It seems as though they have the same exotic tastes as those at the end of some of our export markets. That does tell us something and it is useful information.
The code of practice is one of the few ways that I can think of where we can have a requirement whereby everyone who has decided to participate in culling has an obligation to provide information, as well as behaving in an appropriate manner more generally, which would include shooting practice and all those sorts of things. The question of a code of practice is the second issue. The third issue is a requirement that a report be made by the minister as to the extent, in the opinion of the minister, that protected animals are being taken without lawful authority under this act. We have given an example relating to the Riverland, where one particular species of parrot, the regent parrot, which is not particularly common, has an unfortunate habit of perching on the top of trees and being pretty loud. It does not eat a lot of fruit, but it is very noticeable and quite colourful, as I understand it. However, the parrot that is causing all the damage is a green coloured parrot that darts into the middle of a tree, is pretty quiet but eats lots of fruit. Unfortunately, the fruit growers more often than not shoot the regent parrot, which they are not supposed to shoot, and the parrot that is doing all the damage is being left alone. They see the damaged fruit, they see this parrot and it is copping it, but one would hope—The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not talking about that: I am talking about the innocent party in this case that occasionally cops it. All I am seeking to do is to get some understanding. This will be a much more difficult issue to determine, because I am sure the log books will not list the protected ones that are shot. However, the minister should seek to determine, as best he or she can, the level at which perhaps other species, off species, are being shot and, in many cases, quite innocently—there is a dash of colour through the trees and sometimes you do not know what species the parrot is. Of course, the other part of that report would be the effect that the unlawful taking of these animals is having on the populations of those species. That is the third issue. It is really an issue surrounding the killing of non-target species: we need to keep a monitor on that.
The fourth issue is a report which now seeks to look at issues surrounding the species that are being targeted and our best efforts to try to determine the size of the populations and the impact on those populations of culling. As I said earlier when we first debated this clause, and in my second reading contribution, every witness has conceded that we have very little knowledge about the size of the populations of these species. If we do not know the size of the species—and at this stage we do not know very much about the size of the cull—it is really guesswork about what percentage is being killed and also what the likely impact is on the species. I know the current guess is that the culls involve about 10 per cent of the species that are being targeted.
The next issue is an important one and one which is not addressed at this stage. Under the old system, you needed a permit. Now the minister will simply exempt certain species, but what happens if a person is behaving inappropriately? They do not need a permit: they can be doing the wrong thing, for example, shooting off target species and all sorts of other things. In my view, the way to approach that is by using what they call the negative licensing approach: you do not require a licence but, if a person does something wrong, they will not be allowed to continue. So, if a person has been found to be doing the wrong thing, if they have been abusing the right given to them by the minister, that can be taken away.
Under the current act, and certainly under the amendments that the minister is proposing, no sanction that is strong enough is available to the minister. I think that is important. Those are the areas of difference from the original clause. As I said, this contains virtually everything that the minister had included, but I have added to it. I restate one last time: my record in this place in relation to culling has been quite clear. I have supported kangaroo culling. I have actually criticised the government for not culling koalas on Kangaroo Island—and criticised it very strongly. If anyone says, `You are against culling and you are against culling native animals— The Hon. T.G. Cameron: We are not saying that.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I am just saying that they are simply not true conclusions—and it is not true in this case, either. All I am asking members to do is to ensure that, if we do this, we do it properly. People need to be aware that the witnesses—and these witnesses include people who represent the horticulturalists—are telling us that not enough effort is going into getting background information about these matters. This is coming from horticulturalists, people such as the Apple and Pear Growers Association—
The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Most of what I am doing here does not imply the spending of money, for instance, a code of practice which might be used to ensure that we can collect data. As I said, it is only the horticulturalists who are in a position to collect a lot of that data. That is something that the government will need to do. It is not something that the apple and pear growers can do with anywhere near the same level of efficiency or accuracy. I urge members to give this matter serious consideration. I know that there have been suggestions that we may be able to revisit this matter after the committee has reported, but my experience in this place is that, if you want to amend an act, the best time to do it is when a bill amending that act is before the parliament. If there is not a bill before us, there is no guarantee that you will get a chance to fix things later on.
I say to government members: next time you are in opposition, you will find that to be case. If you do not take the opportunity while the bill is before the parliament, more often than not the opportunity does not come back for another 10—
The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am making the point that experience does show that the best time to fix legislation is when it is before parliament and not to trust someone saying, `We will do it later.' That can be a bit of a never, never promise. I urge all members to give the matter serious consideration and I urge their support. I am sorry again that this is being considered in much haste but, as I said, until some time after midnight last night I was still being assured that we would not be debating this matter: it was not until question time today that I was informed that we would be. That did cause a great deal of haste towards the end.
Amendment defeated.
Bill passed.
