ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: NATIVE FAUNA AND AGRICULTURE

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the motion that the report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee concerning native fauna and agriculture be noted. As a consequence of European settlement and changes in our flora due predominantly to land clearance, there have been a number of changes in relation to native fauna. Obviously, some fauna that are dependent upon vegetation being cleared have decreased significantly in numbers. It is probably also true that some species have actually increased as a consequence of European settlement. For instance, the magpie feeds largely in open areas, so the large amount of clearance has led to an increase in the number of magpies. Luckily for us, magpies are not agricultural pests, so, although there has been a change in their numbers, there have been no consequences.

However, it is true that some species which have increased in numbers have had an impact on agriculture. Although the committee did not spend any real time considering this issue, the massive increase in kangaroo numbers has been a direct consequence of both clearing and the provision of water in many areas. I think that for some time it has been accepted that the numbers of certain species of kangaroos are unnaturally large, that they are not endangered in any way, and that in large numbers they create a cost for the agricultural community. Culling has been accepted, although I think it is fair to say that some people would argue that we should be looking at ways to reduce the cull by seeking to reduce their numbers by, for instance, changing the way water points work, particularly in pastoral areas.

The issue of kangaroos has been discussed for many decades, but it has been only in the last decade or so that there has been a significant increase in the debate about the impact of bird species, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and in relation to horticulture. I think it would be fair to say that the quality of information received so far is not particularly good. Although culling has been allowed for some time, government officers simply do not know the numbers of the various species or how many are being culled on an annual basis. It is difficult to make an informed decision about the right way to go when that basic information is not available.

So, the very first finding of the committee relates to the fact that we need much better information and research. It may prove that, in respect of some bird species, it is not the increase in number that is the problem but that the change in habitat has removed some food sources, particularly at certain times of the year. Many parrots feed on nectar in some eucalypts at certain times of the year, but if those eucalypts are scarce they will look for another form of sustenance. Unfortunately for fruit growers, that might turn out to be fruit.

As I said, we need to know whether the problem is simply that, first, bird numbers have increased and that is why they have become a pest or whether, secondly, their natural food source is no longer available. If that is the case, we do have an option in the long term. It will take a decade or two to resolve it, but we can ensure that their natural food source is boosted. The report touches on this. Of course, this is a longer term solution, but it might be that the birds have changed their habits and the other food source is still there. If that is the case, we will have to react differently again. The first thing that we need is better information than we have had so far. I know that the minister has said that we can cull, but at this stage we do not have a scientific basis for the cull in terms of knowing the correct thing to do and what the long-term consequences of the granting of a cull are likely to be.

It became quite apparent during the evidence that, at this stage, many horticulturists do not have integrated management plans on their properties, particularly in relation to the management of birds. For instance, some simply set up gas guns, and away they go, yet the committee has received evidence that gas guns can be totally ineffective if they are not used as part of a management plan and if there are no tactics in terms of the way they are used. Simply having a gun going off all day at regular intervals is of virtually no benefit at all. In fact, after a while it becomes an advertisement that there is fruit nearby. The birds learn that, if there is a gas gun, there is something worth eating nearby. Parrots are pretty smart birds and do not take long to work out something like that.

Similarly, the committee received evidence that some people use shooting in a haphazard way and not as part of an integrated plan. Whilst they manage to shoot a number of birds, that does not act as a deterrent. So, they are just constantly shooting more birds but, if that was combined as part of a bigger program, the evidence showed that culling could be used if it was done carefully and in a managed way. Just going out into the paddock occasionally and shooting a few parrots makes very little difference in terms of how much damage is done, particularly if they become smart enough to realise that you are going to take a couple of shots and go away again, and they just sit still in the trees.

There is one species of a very brightly coloured parrot in the Riverland which sits in the top of a tree, makes a lot of noise but does not eat much fruit. There is another parrot which actually eats most of the fruit and which is green in colour and tends to stay in the middle of the tree. The parrot that gets shot is the brightly coloured one that sits at the top of the tree making all the noise. The fruit growers experienced absolutely no impact whatsoever in terms of damage to the crop. It is not surprising that that brightly coloured noisy parrot is pretty rare and probably becoming increasingly rare because of its habit of sitting at the top of the tree making a noise.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: My recollection is that it is the Regent parrot-there are a couple of messages in all this. First, simply going out and shooting a couple of parrots may not make a hill of beans difference to how much crop damage you actually get. Whether it makes you feel any better because you have tried to do something about it, I do not know. But if, at the end of the day, the return to horticulturists is no greater, it really has been a terrible waste of time and counter-productive.

I will not cover everything in the report, because that has already been done by a previous speaker. Probably the most important recommendation is a suggestion that there be a system of essentially licensing people who want to be involved in culling and using gas guns, and that there be an expectation that, for a person to be licensed, they must have a management plan. In other words, rather than saying, `You can go ahead and use a gas gun to your heart's content and shoot parrots or any other bird that is causing a problem,' you must have a plan of action. We also recommend that it is important that courses be made available for horticulturalists to assist them in the development of such a plan.

I think that this should be welcomed by people all round. It should be welcomed by people who live anywhere near gas guns, because a proper management plan will involve gas guns being used less frequently but, I would stress, more effectively. People who are concerned about culling would welcome it, because we would probably find fewer birds being shot. Finally, and most importantly, I hope that horticulturalists themselves welcome it because, if it means they have more efficient practices, which means less but more calculated effort from them and less expense and less damage done to crops, that has to be seen as a major benefit for them as well.

It is also important that we establish a code of practice for the way one goes about culling. I believe that some people cull by using a short life poison. That is not a poison that kills the bird in the first instance, but it knocks it out so it can be collected. There is a danger that if you do that and do not collect the birds they will fall to the ground and while they are on the ground they will be attacked by ants and so on, and a great deal of unacceptable suffering could occur. A code of practice would have expectations about how you carry out certain practices. It is also important that we establish a reporting process to ensure the collection of adequate data. The point I made very early on was that we do not have adequate data and, if we are to make sensible and informed decisions in the longer term, they can be made only on the basis of good information.

Importantly, my final point is that we do need a long- term plan, which may include the provision of habitat that the birds will use as an alternative feeding place. There is no question that significant parts of South Australia need some revegetation work. The revegetation work can provide a number of benefits: everything from providing shelter to stock to lowering ground water. Importantly, if you use the right species, it could also provide an alternative food source. Then, as part of integrated management across a region, if you seek to displace the birds from the horticultural areas, they have somewhere to be displaced to, where they can feed. I note that that may take some time, but really we do need a long-term plan which guarantees the ongoing existence of the fauna whilst minimising the negative interaction it has with horticulture. I support the noting of the report.

The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER secured the adjournment of the debate.