Bills

Dog Fence (Payments and Rates) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 February 2016.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:02): I rise to indicate my support for this bill. The Dog Fence stretches through remote isolated country of the Australian outback; indeed, a lot of it stretches through my electorate of Giles. Its purpose is to keep wild dogs from killing grazing animals, mainly sheep. 'Wild dogs' is a term that includes dingoes, hybrids or unmanaged domestic dogs. Historically, wild dogs had a major impact on the livestock industry, and we are continually striving to find new ways to humanely and sustainably control them.

The first merino flocks were brought to Australia in the 1800s. At first, wild dogs did not seem to affect livestock when grazing first began in the northern plains of South Australia around 1860. However, dingo populations soon multiplied and evidence suggests that they began to thrive on the newly-imported European rabbit.

By the early 1900s, dingo attacks made it virtually impossible to successfully establish a sheep industry. Sheep graziers began building fences around their properties in an effort to protect their flocks. Over time, neighbouring properties grouped together to become enclosed within vermin-proof fences.

The single line Dog Fence we know today was established in South Australia in 1946 to align with the most northern boundaries of the properties contained within the vermin-proof districts. At 5,400 kilometres long, it is the longest continuous fence in the world, 2½ half times the length of the Great Wall of China. Since 1947, the 2,178 kilometre stretch of fence within South Australia has been continuously maintained, realigned and upgraded.

The Dog Fence Board is the governing body set up to administer and manage the Dog Fence and ensure that it is regularly patrolled and maintained. The entire fence is inspected at least every second week by patrolmen (and hopefully some patrolwomen) employed by the local boards or by station owners themselves.

New fencing technology has seen the introduction of dog proof grids at road crossings and solar powered electrified sections. However, it is important to note that the Dog Fence also provides a boundary outside of which the dingo is recognised as a legitimate wildlife species. This is significant given the important role the dingo has always played in the lives of Aboriginal people becoming an integral part of camp life, oral literature, beliefs and practices. Therefore, it is imperative that we balance this cultural and ecological significance with the needs of the livestock industry, and this is also why it is important that the Dog Fence is properly maintained.

This amendment bill is about ensuring the Dog Fence can continue to be maintained into the future. It will allow the board to make annual increments to payments in line with inflation for some time into the future or until the act is next amended. For this reason, I strongly commend this bill to members.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:05): I rise to support this bill and would like to make a brief contribution. This bill aims to ensure that there are sufficient funds and resources to maintain the Dog Fence now and into the future.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just establish, member for Flinders, if you are going to be the lead speaker?

Mr TRELOAR: I will be the lead speaker. There are six local boards which sit under the Dog Fence Board; ownership of the fence is vested in those local boards, apart from the fact that there are two private owners who manage sections of the fence on their own properties. The boards administer the funds and are responsible for the employment of contractors who inspect and maintain sections of the fence. The Dog Fence Act was last reviewed in 2005.

Three main amendments have been proposed. The first is to do with the set cap of $250 per kilometre which goes to the local boards for maintenance. It is proposed that this be lifted to $400 per kilometre. The second proposed amendment relates to the rate charged to pastoralists, currently capped at $1.20 per square kilometre of rateable land—that is, land contained within pastoral leases. It is proposed that this be lifted to $2 per square kilometre. There is a minor technical amendment which refers to the name of the referencing body. I understand that was the South Australian Farmers Federation and now will be Livestock SA.

There is also the matter of funding sourced from the sheep transaction levy. I note in referring to the annual report of the Dog Fence Board that approximately half of the funds raised ($515,000 in 2015) are as a result of the sheep transaction levy. Every time sheep are traded anywhere across the state—whether it be in the pastoral zone, the wheat-sheep belt or in the high rainfall zone in the South-East—this transaction levy is paid. Part of it at least goes towards the maintenance of the fence.

I understand also that the government matches the rates and levies raised almost dollar for dollar, and I certainly hope that will continue. The Dog Fence is an iconic structure; it has been referred to by the member for Giles who touched on its importance. It stretches not just across the north of South Australia but also through New South Wales, around the border of New South Wales and across Queensland. It stretches from the Great Australian Bight, just south of Nundroo which is in my electorate, it winds its way through the pastoral zone—

The Hon. P. Caica: Good fishing spot.

Mr TRELOAR: Beautiful fishing spot. Right, member for Colton.

Mr Pederick: Fowlers Bay.

Mr TRELOAR: Fowlers Bay. It goes through the pastoral zone, through the Flinders Ranges, out through the north-east pastoral, around the border of New South Wales and winds its way through Queensland, ultimately finishing up somewhere near the coast, east of the Darling Downs. The total length right across Australia is 5,600 kilometres and, in fact, it is the longest fence in the world. Often, we just have the largest of something in the southern hemisphere but in this case it is the largest in the world. The South Australian segment is about 2,200 kilometres and, as I said, it stretches from the Great Australian Bight to the border just north of Broken Hill.

The fence essentially protects sheep flocks in the southern half of the state, and it really defines the pastoral zone between the areas to the south of the fence, where sheep flocks predominate—there are some cattle, but sheep flock predominate—and to the north of the fence where, because of the dingo population, it is impossible to run a sheep flock. Having said that, I do know that dingoes do have some impact on newborn calves within the cattle flocks in the Far North of the state.

The dingo is kept out of the southern pastoral areas by the Dog Fence. It has had several incarnations. On the Eyre Peninsula we have a number of roads stretching east to west across the peninsula that are known as Dog Fence Road. My only assumption is that as settlement moved north so did the Dog Fence and so did the attempts by the settlers to eradicate the dingo from within the areas that they were settling and looking to run sheep.

I remember going to the Warramboo footy club at one time a few years ago and noticing that there were two things of interest on the wall. The first was the Norwood league side from I think 1909, which beat Carlton to win the Champions of Australia award that year, and the other thing was a stuffed dingo. It was the last dingo shot in the Warramboo district. They took such pride in achieving the result that they stuffed it and put it up in the footy club. In my wife's family legend has it that her grandfather shot the last dingo in the Cockaleechie district; so long, long has there been an effort to control and even eradicate dingoes.

Dingoes are a declared pest in South Australia on the south side of the fence. In fact, it is often referred to as a native dog, but my understanding is that it is not naturally occurring in Australia but rather it was introduced anywhere between 4½ thousand and 18,000 years ago, so best guess is putting it around 10,000 years ago. It is not naturally occurring but it certainly has been here long enough to become native, and no doubt it has had an impact on the native environment and landscape as a result of being here for many thousands of years.

Often, that area of land inside the Dog Fence is referred to as just that, 'the inside country'. Amongst pastoral people in the state, when you talk about inside and outside country they are very clear on what that means. It is a physical barrier to stop wild dogs entering the state.

Interestingly, I was reading an article in the Eyre Peninsula Tribune just a week or so ago about a wild dog that had been shot in the Port Neill district—my guess is 80 kilometres north of Port Lincoln. You can see that breaches do occur from time to time. This particular landowner lost six sheep on one night. He recognised immediately what the problem was, and he staked the dog out, I think even camping out overnight to ensure that he shot the dog; so, breaches do occur.

I remember a couple of years ago that, when it was dry out west in my electorate, there was particular pressure on the fence from camels. Camels are another introduced species that have become feral. Current estimates have camel numbers in Australia at about two million head. During the dry period towards the end of the millennium drought there was much pressure on the fence, and the camels were knocking it down. Not only were the camels coming in but, of course, it was also allowing the wild dogs to come in. So constant vigilance is required.

At the moment, rates are collected from the owners of rateable land, which are holdings of more than 10 square kilometres inside the fence. The current act caps the maximum rate at $1.20, and that is looking to be raised. Some consultation did occur in the lead up to this with Livestock SA, Primary Producers SA, the local boards and the South Australian Sheep Advisory Group. They raised no real issues or real concerns apart from the recognition that the fence needed to be maintained and even enhanced now and into the future.

If I could just go back to camels briefly. One of the recent improvements in the fence is that there has been an electrification of some areas, particularly around the Lake Frome stretch, and the federal government provided some $400,000 to electrify the top wire of the fence in that area. My understanding is that that has been very effective and there have been no breaches in that part of the fence in the past two years where that electric wire has been implemented.

The efforts continue. I know that there is an effort outside of the fence as well by landowners and also the department to control dogs. Baiting occurs within a 100 kilometre distance of the fence to really minimise the numbers on the north side of the fence and so minimise the pressure on the fence from dogs themselves. Baiting occurs inside and baiting occurs outside, and for a time even there was a bounty on dingoes.

An interesting development in all of this is, of course, the increasing numbers of hybrid dogs, and it is not surprising, I guess, that when dingoes do come into the inside country there are many domestic and working dogs and they manage to find each other often times and particularly as you come further south where dingoes are sighted. Often they are not purebred dingoes but rather hybrids. I stand to be corrected on this but the Australian blue heeler has been bred in fact with some wild dog. We will check on that; I can get back to the house on that.

With those few words, we do support the bill. I know that we have another couple of speakers on this side who would like to put a perspective from their electorates, but I do think that these moneys raised will be well spent, and I cannot overemphasise the importance of this fence in protecting the pastoral interests in this state.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:16): I rise to indicate my support for this bill. While dogs and dingoes are not only a major threat to the sheep industry they can also present a potential threat to public safety and public nuisance if they were to spread into the populated areas, and we heard the comments made previously by the member for Stuart about some domesticated dogs which have gone wild and which are creating some havoc south of the Dog Fence.

Since the mid 1800s vermin-proof fences have been commonly used to protect the sheep industry from stock losses caused by wild dogs. By 1931 there were 56 proclaimed fence districts and about 54,600 kilometres of vermin-proof fences throughout the state. However, over time many of the internal fences fell into disrepair and industry called for a single continuous fence based on the existing barrier fences of the outer districts in the north of the state.

It is a shame that the former member for Stuart is not here because he might have been around at that time. In response, the parliament passed the Dog Fence Act 1946, which established a Dog Fence Board to administer the Dog Fence Fund and to maintain the Dog Fence. A full review of the Dog Fence Act 1946 was conducted in 1999, in consultation with industry, and the former Speaker the Hon. Graham Gunn was certainly here at that time.

The review resulted in minor amendments, including the recognition of dog-proof fences in other parts of the state. The revised act was assented on 29 September 2005 and commenced on 10 November 2005. Today the Dog Fence in South Australia is 2,178 kilometres long, extending from west of Fowlers Bay, as mentioned by the—

Mr Pederick: The member for Flinders.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —member for Flinders; thank you, member Hammond—on the cliffs of the Great Australian Bight, north to above Coober Pedy and east to the New South Wales above Broken Hill. It then joins with the New South Wales and Queensland dog fences for a total length of 5,400 kilometres.

Inside (that is south of) the Dog Fence, wild dogs are a declared pest under the South Australian Natural Resources Management Act 2004. Since 2009 the SA Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board—and I commend the Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board for the work that it does—has coordinated the Biteback program to assist regional land managers inside the fence with best practice control for wild dogs.

Land managers with similar geography and land systems are encouraged to work together in cooperative groups via the development of what are called local area plans (LAPs). Biteback provides land managers with a range of services, including:

a biennial 1080 bait mixing service;

year-round access to manufactured baits;

access to a trap loan service; and

offering its LAP groups advice on future management, upcoming technologies and interstate developments.

In addition to the Biteback program, Biosecurity SA conducts an aerial baiting program to augment Biteback's ground baiting program.

It is clear that the Dog Fence is vital in the protection of the sheep industry from stock losses by preventing the entry of wild dogs into southern pastoral areas. These amendments will allow the board to make annual increments to payments in line with inflation that will, in turn, ensure that the Dog Fence is adequately resourced and continues to be maintained in a dog-proof condition into the future. I strongly commend this bill to members.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:20): I, too, rise to support the Dog Fence (Payments and Rates) Amendment Bill 2016. The object of this bill is to make sure that there are sufficient funds and resources available to maintain the Dog Fence into the future. There are six local boards which sit under the Dog Fence Board and ownership of the fence is vested in those local boards, apart from two private owners who manage sections of the fence on their properties. These boards administer the funds and are responsible for the employment of contractors who inspect and maintain sections of the fence.

Three amendments are proposed in this bill today. The act sets a cap of $250 per kilometre which goes to the local boards for maintenance and it is proposed that this be lifted to $400 per kilometre. The rate charged to pastoralists is currently capped at $1.20 per square kilometre of rateable land and it is proposed that this is lifted to $2 per square kilometre. The third amendment, obviously, is the minor technical amendment to remove a reference to the South Australian Farmers Federation, which, it has been indicated before in this house, is now defunct, and replace it with Livestock SA Inc.

The rate involved has historically been increased by the consumer price index and is collected through the sheep transaction levy. The minimum payment, which is based on a property basis, is $100. The total of rates raised last year was $508,000 and that was matched, I believe, dollar for dollar by the state government. I hope the state government, even with this extra funding raised, will also match it dollar for dollar.

The Dog Fence Board was one of those boards which was very fortunate to survive the recent legislative consolidation of government boards and committees. The member for Flinders talked about pressure on the fence from camels, and the federal government provided $400,000 to electrify the top wire along the Lake Frome stretch of the fence. On our information, there have been no breaches of the fence by camels in the past two years. With continual maintenance and upgrades with electric wires, the condition of the fence is continually improving.

In regard to some of the history of the fence, it is obviously there to keep the dingo, Australia's wild native dog, from killing grazing animals, mainly sheep. The history of Merinos in South Australia, and Australia, goes way back to the 1800s when Merino flocks were brought out here. They were introduced to the northern plains of South Australia around 1860. It is interesting that, when you go through the Flinders Ranges, you can find historical monuments talking about the station owners and graziers and their management of their sheep flocks around that time.

The first three decades of this period was relatively free of dingoes. However, dingo populations multiplied, and evidence suggests that they began to thrive on the newly imported European rabbits—they could have eaten a few more of them—which were running in feral plagues at the same time.

By the early 1900s, this made it impossible to establish a sheep industry. What happened was that in 1946 a single-line dog fence was established to align with the most northern boundaries of the properties contained within the vermin-proof districts that had been established earlier, with people putting in about 30,000 miles of their own fences to protect their flocks from these wild dogs.

As has been indicated in the house, the fence now extends from the Great Australian Bight in South Australia near Fowlers Bay, eastward across South Australia, through New South Wales to finish at the Bunya Mountains of Queensland near the Pacific coast. It is the longest continuous fence in the world at 5,400 kilometres long, with 2,178 kilometres being in South Australia. As has been indicated earlier, it is 2½ times the length of the Great Wall of China.

Under the Dog Fence Act of 1946 there was a rate levied on grazing properties based inside the fence to fund the wages for maintenance and patrol workers. Since 1947, the fence within South Australia has been continuously maintained, realigned and upgraded. New fencing technology has been incorporated so that dog-proof grids at road crossings and solar-powered electric sections have been introduced.

A few years ago I travelled around with the member for Stuart. While we were in Coober Pedy we were taken out to the Dog Fence and had a viewing of the grids and the well-maintained fence just outside of Coober Pedy. I note that there has been extra work done with electrifying the fence to keep camels out. There is nothing like seeing a mob of camels running alongside you on the other side of a fence, wondering what they are going to do next. We witnessed that as a family up at Innamincka and it is pretty ferocious. Evidently, there are millions of camels racing around in the outback that can cause this damage.

Certainly, in the main, the Dog Fence does its job. Cattle owners north of the line have had significant damage in the past, especially in times of drought. I have been at Cowarie Station, Sharon Oldfield's property on the Birdsville track, during the drought, where the property was virtually reduced to beach sand. Even though they had agisted over three-quarters of the stock off the property, the wild dogs were causing havoc for newborn calves. Because they are an organic property they were not baiting, so they were shooting hundreds of dogs, trying to keep ahead of the situation.

As has been indicated by the member for Flinders, there is baiting done by vehicle or by plane both inside and outside the fence. I think the restriction on how much aerial baiting you can do should be lifted so that a bigger attack can be made on these dogs so we can get a better result not just for the pastoralists who are doing this work, because essentially they are doing this work for the good of the state. Baiting is far more efficient than trying to bounce a Toyota around a lot of inhospitable country in a lot of areas to put baits out by hand. I certainly think that should be opened up more to get more control of these wild dogs.

I know there has been a lot of consultation in regard to this with Livestock South Australia, Primary Producers South Australia, the local boards and the South Australian Sheep Advisory Group. My office put a call in to Geoff Power, and he is a very good operator. He is president of the Livestock South Australia board and he runs a self-replacing Merino flock near Orroroo. He is a past president of WoolProducers Australia and has been an executive member of the organisation since 2005.

Geoff has also been a member of the South Australian Sheep Advisory Group, and that group advises the South Australian Minister for Agriculture on sheep and wool matters. Geoff is also a member of the South Australian Wild Dog Action Group and is working with wool producers on a national approach to tackle increasing numbers of wild dogs in pastoral regions.

So, I thought, who better to contact than Geoff Power? He made a few quick phone calls today just to make sure everything was on the right track for us, and contacted us earlier today and said, 'No, it is all fine; we can support the increases and the increased funding going into keeping these pests out of the inside country.'

I do want it to be recorded—and it will obviously be recorded here today—that people in the outside country do suffer from dogs. Because a lot of these properties have organic status, there are issues around being able to use 1080 bait. Obviously, they cannot, so hundreds of dogs have to be shot. They can cause a lot of damage to cattle, tearing them down very cruelly and causing a very slow death for a lot of cattle, mainly calves.

It should be noted that if this fence was not there, the multimillion-dollar sheep industry that we have in this state would not exist. With those few remarks, I commend the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:30): I just want to make a few comments with regard to this that are more generic than just talking about the Dog Fence. In question time today, the Minister for Agriculture talked about how important the livestock industry was to South Australia. It is heartening to see that members of the Labor government do at last recognise the importance of agriculture to this state and to the economy of this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was my question. I have always been interested—

Mr WILLIAMS: It was a good question, and I am praising you for it. Deputy Speaker, it has taken a long time for the Labor government to recognise the importance of agriculture to this state. I recently gave evidence to the Natural Resources Committee of this parliament concerning the savage increases in natural resources management board levies in several parts of this state.

In the evidence I gave, there was evidence from a federal government report which suggested that the increase in the level of disposable incomes of regional South Australians over the 10-year period of 2001-11 was a mere fraction of the increase in the level of disposable incomes of those people in metropolitan Adelaide.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but, off the top of my head, I think in metropolitan Adelaide over that 10-year period, real household incomes increased by something like $175 per week, whereas real household incomes in my part of the world—the high rainfall part of South Australia—increased by I think it was something less than $40—I am not sure whether it was $29 or $39.

The reality is that the farming communities in this state are doing it tough, and have been doing it tough for a long time. It is essential that we have a dog fence in South Australia. The lead speaker for the opposition will be asking at least one question of the minister regarding the ongoing commitment of the state to pay for its share of the maintenance of the Dog Fence. That is a very important question, and I will be very interested in the minister's answer on the commitment of the government.

I raise this matter because the farming community are doing it tough, yet they form the backbone of the economy of this state. They keep being asked to pay at every opportunity where it can be identified that the cost can be sheeted home to that community. Other speakers from this side of the house have pointed out that around half the money that is current expended—and I think that that will be the ongoing concept—comes from the sheep transaction levy.

Every sheep that is bought and sold—remembering many sheep get bought and sold on more than one occasion during their life—every time there is a transaction, there is a levy paid by the vendor which is collected by the state government. Those moneys, in part, fund the maintenance of the Dog Fence.

The highest rate per acre of sheep in South Australia, I suspect, would be in my electorate in the South-East—a long, long way from the Dog Fence. In my electorate, the seat of MacKillop, and next door, the seat of Mount Gambier, I suspect the average contribution by the average farmer would be higher than that of any other part of the state, yet we are the furthest away from the Dog Fence. We could argue, I think quite legitimately, that we should be paying a lower rate. We do not argue that, and I have no intention of arguing that on behalf of my constituents.

However, I make the point to this government that we are asked to pay what I believe is much more than our fair share for a number of services. I would like the government, and those people responsible in this government, to take this on board, and with particular emphasis on the imposts now being put on my constituents through the natural resources management boards, particularly with the water planning and management costs that are being demanded by this government.

I have been doing considerable research on this particular matter, and the minister has been running around saying that these costs were identified in the 2011 budget. I have just gone back to the budget improvement measures document, the second report of the Sustainable Budget Commission of August 2010, and I have been reading that the actual concept was to only recover water planning and management costs from SA Water, not from the average water licence holder across the state.

In the meantime, my constituents—sheep farmers in my electorate—are being asked to pay substantially towards the maintenance of the Dog Fence. They are also being asked to pay substantially towards the costs of water planning and management and they are asked to pay substantially towards any costs that can be identified. We would not mind that if the same principle was applied across the board: that wherever you can identify the people who created the cost, then sheet the full cost back to those particular people.

If that was the principle adopted right across government, I would not have an argument at all. I remember suggesting to minister Hunter in another place, when discussing the proposal to impose a drainage levy on the constituents in my electorate, that when this government sought full cost recovery for the provision of public transport services in Adelaide then I would be willing to discuss a drainage levy with my constituents.

I say the same thing with regard to full cost recovery of water planning and management services. If those people who are actually creating those costs were paying for it, I would have no argument, no problem with my constituents paying for the cost of managing the water licensing system in the South-East. What irks me is that we are paying for costs which are created in other parts of the state, and I do not believe that should be fairly put on my constituents.

I will continue to argue that whilst the minister continues to refuse to be accountable, and he does that by not doing what he is obliged to do under the National Water Initiative; that is, to publish a lot of data and information about those costs and the way he has determined those costs. He is refusing to do that, notwithstanding that his government has signed an agreement which obliges him to do that, and I will continue to work in that space to try to get that information so I can go back to my constituents and say, 'Well, in fact, this is the real cost,' or indeed, 'Yes, you are being fleeced by this government.'

I make those comments with regard to this particular bill because I think there is a connection. I am not arguing that the people in the South-East should not be contributing towards the Dog Fence—although I think we are paying fairly dearly for it—but I think my constituents fully accept that this is a very important industry for the state. I just wish that this government would actually believe in their hearts what they say when they acknowledge the importance of the agricultural industry to this state.

I wish that they would fully accept that the agricultural industry in this state is much more important than the motor industry, yet we hear them talk about the motor industry and the demise of that industry almost on a daily basis. Notwithstanding that it is obviously a big issue for those people directly involved, we have lost many more jobs in agriculture in the last 20 years—probably even in the last 10 years—than have been lost and will be lost in the motor industry in South Australia. I have not heard a squeak from the Labor Government. That is why I made the comment a few moments ago that it is heartening to see the government at least talking about and giving a voice to the importance of agriculture in this state.

I wish that they would implement some positive policies to support and indeed enhance agriculture. It is the one industry we have in this state that could derive much more economic benefit for every South Australian, but because this government sees agriculture as a milch cow, which it can continue to tax, rather than an opportunity, the farming community of this state continues to do it tough and will continue to do it tough under this government, and the rest of the economy will not benefit in the way that it could if our agricultural sector was supported by a government that understood it. I will close my comments there and commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (16:41): It is an interesting position to follow what I thought was the agrarian socialist member for MacKillop, but obviously from that contribution that cannot be attributed to him anymore. I support the Dog Fence (Payments and Rates) Amendment Bill 2016. Wild dogs, including dingoes, have increased significantly in the areas south of the Dog Fence in recent years, threatening particularly, as we have heard, the state's sheep industry. The Dog Fence, along with other associated measures, plays an important role in protecting this industry and controlling other adverse effects increased by the number of wild dogs.

One of the opportunities afforded to me as the Presiding Member of the parliament's Natural Resources Committee is that over the years I have visited different sections of the Dog Fence with the committee and Natural Resources management staff and board members, and I have for a long time heard from a number of members in this house. I particularly remember being on the Natural Resources Committee with the previous member for Stuart and former Speaker, the Hon. Graeme Gunn, and also the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, former member of the Legislative Council, who helped educate me on the importance of the Dog Fence.

They were followed by the current member for Stuart, who raised this issue very early in his time on the Natural Resources Committee, and that has continued as a concern with the Hon. John Dawkins in the other place and the member for Flinders, who was our lead speaker for the opposition in this particular debate today. So, I have had the opportunity to see the fence and also hear firsthand from people who both work along that fence and benefit from the fence. I also remember very clearly one of the times that I went there seeing the damage that wild cats were perpetrating in the area, particularly to birds and native animals and reptiles.

One of the programs that has been successful in this area is the Biteback program, which focuses on wild dogs inside the Dog Fence. This program has been boosted through an additional $300,000 of state and Australian government drought assistance funding and a further $100,000 from the South Australian Arid Lands board's regional NRM levy funding—the funding that the member for MacKillop was speaking about earlier, so there are some direct connections, as he was trying to make, between the regional NRM levy funding.

Some of the new measures that have been implemented to benefit the livestock industry include a second Biteback officer working one-on-one with landholders; additional bait supply services inside and outside the Dog Fence; support for travel costs for specialist shooters to drought affected properties; engaging a professional regional dog trapper; and training land managers in trapping techniques.

As members would appreciate, we are talking about a very large area of land involving many stakeholders, so good and effective collaboration is essential for an effective strategy. Many of these initiatives have arisen as a result of improved communication and coordination. For example, SAAL wild dog staff work very closely with 22 local wild dog planning groups south of the Dog Fence to tackle wild dogs at a local scale, and the sense of collaboration has increased since the South Australian Wild Dog Advisory Group (SAWDAG) was established in 2013.

SAWDAG's role is to provide recommendations and oversee the implementation of priority actions for South Australia under the state and national wild dog plans. Representatives from the industry, natural resources management, the Dog Fence Board, biodiversity conservation, Aboriginal communities and governments sit on the advisory group chaired by Mr Geoff Power, a highly respected figure in the Australian wool industry and President of Livestock SA.

The group released a draft State Wild Dog Strategic Plan which was discussed during the forum held in Port Augusta in 2015 and attended by around 60 people representing pastoral, conservation, Aboriginal and government perspectives. The draft document was circulated for consideration to 18 stakeholders, including several NRM boards, the Dog Fence Board and Livestock SA in September 2015. I understand that a final draft will be presented following endorsement by the South Australian Wild Dog Advisory Group.

This plan will help South Australia deliver its contributions to achieving outcomes under the National Wild Dog Action Plan released in 2014 and endorsed by this government. Controlling wild dog populations and protecting our livestock industries is an important national challenge, and we must ensure that we are using all of the tools available to us to succeed. This amendment bill is about ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to maintain the Dog Fence into the future, and on that basis, I commend the bill to members.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:47): Let me say very clearly that I support this bill, as I gather do all members of this house. Wild dogs are a terribly big and I believe still underestimated problem for South Australia. I am heartened to have just listened to the speech by the member for Ashford, who I know has done tremendous work with the Natural Resources Committee that she chairs, and I thank her for that. I have to say, though, that I do believe from a government and industry perspective there is still much more to do.

Wild dogs are a very emotive issue. They are a beautiful, wonderful, natural, native Australian animal, and they have a very important place in our nation—outside the Dog Fence. Inside the Dog Fence they are a declared pest and it is every landholder's responsibility to eradicate wild dogs inside the fence, and they need the government's help to do that, and they need industry help to do that as well.

Those two things can cause a bit of conflict because, as I said, they are beautiful, wonderful native animals. Some people do not like the idea that they should be killed anywhere in the nation. That is not my view; my view is that it is important to differentiate and we have chosen historically to make the Dog Fence the demarcation border, if you like. They cause extraordinary, vicious damage to stock. It is quite a natural thing for a dog to do; do not blame the dogs. It is their natural thing to come, when they have the opportunity, particularly when times are tougher, particularly when there has been less rain and we are in drought and native food sources start to get thinner and thinner on the ground, then stock become much more attractive.

It is primarily sheep but it is also cattle. It is important that this house understands that there is a significant percentage of deaths to cattle on cattle properties from wild dogs, and it has been proven all over Australia. It is not only sheep, but sheep are far more vulnerable. They kill and maim ferociously. It is the natural thing to do for them, it is not their fault, it is just what they do.

The big problem we have in South Australia is that over the last 15 to 20 years they have been breeding up inside the Dog Fence. The fence cannot be a perfect barrier. We need to always make it as good as it can possibly be but it cannot be a perfect barrier. There will be times when camels will knock it over or when flooding rains will knock it over and, when that happens, it is typically not possible for somebody to get in to do maintenance and upgrading work sometimes for many weeks after the damage has occurred.

Dogs come through, they typically head south. It is a natural thing to do, it is not a random thing. They do not just come through the fence and head back to where they were. In South Australia, in general, the further south you go the more rain there is, the more vegetation there is, the more flora and fauna there is and, of course, for the dogs, there is more food. So, they come south and they stay south and they have no reason to go back north.

The fence gets fixed and stops the next lot of dogs from coming through until there is more damage, but the dogs that are below the fence breed up. For many years now they have been breeding up relatively unchecked. I thank the government and the sheep industry, very importantly, for the money that has been put into the Biteback program over the last few years. It has started to make a big difference.

Of course, this is an ongoing job. It is not as if you go out and trap or shoot or poison a particular number of wild dogs and say, 'That is good. We had 20, we have just got rid of 15, so we only have five left,' because as soon as you take your eye off the ball that five becomes 10, 20, then 15 and 20 again very quickly. It is a forever job. It is very important that the government and the industry provide graziers with ongoing support. It has been good but the reality is that the funding that exists at the moment is about to run out at the end of June this year. I am hopeful that funding will be extended but I am not aware of any commitment that has been made yet towards that.

I think it is very important that that comes so that people know what they are doing, very importantly so that the people who have been trained as dog trackers and dog trappers can stay doing the work they are doing because, if that is what you need for your livelihood and you do not have any assurance that that is going to continue, and you get another opportunity to go and earn your money some other way, you will go and do that. Not only will we have lost the people doing the work but we will have lost those skills as well. I know people in exactly that situation who say, 'What do I do? I need to feed my family. I have to take another job if I do not know that this one is going to continue.'

I say again, I appreciate the resources that have gone into this but it is very important that they continue. It should be just like funding for roads, schools or hospitals—it should be something that goes on forever—because the problem, unfortunately, is not going to go away until the fence is a perfect, impenetrable barrier, and of course it can never be that.

I do not know whether one of the previous speakers might have mentioned this but I read yesterday that a dog was shot near Port Neill on Eyre Peninsula, by my estimate 300 kilometres away from the closest part of the Dog Fence. I read this report yesterday, so it has only happened very recently. That is just one example in the electorate of the member for Flinders. In my electorate that sort of thing is happening all the time around Wilmington, where I live, and around Orroroo, which is south of Wilmington. People are seeing wild dogs and shooting them when they have the opportunity. It is a very serious issue.

That brings me to the substance of this bill which is about increasing the capacity for the Dog Fence Board to charge more from graziers for the maintenance of the Dog Fence, and it is very important that the house understands the connection but the difference between the funding that the member for Ashford was talking about and that I have been talking about until now which is about wild dog eradication below the Dog Fence. It includes baiting, trapping and shooting on the margins just outside the Dog Fence and in some cases much further away. That is funding for eradicating dogs from places that they should not be, as distinct from what this bill seeks to do, which is to provide the capacity to charge more for the maintenance of the fence itself.

They are two different things, and both of them are important. And, please, nobody in this place think that by raising rates the Dog Fence Board can charge for the maintenance of the fence, but then the other money does not have to be spent, because they are two different things. They are connected, they try to do similar work for the same purpose, but they are different buckets of money for different purposes within the same broader job of trying to keep livestock safe inside the Dog Fence.

I certainly do support giving the board the capacity to increase the fees that it charges, both the per kilometre fee for the maintenance of the fence itself but also the per square kilometre charge for landholders below the fence. I know that there is always some consternation for people who are well south of the fence who think, 'Well, why should we pay this money? The fence is several hundred kilometres away from us.' I can understand that, particularly in light of what the member for MacKillop said about charges forever growing.

The government, for many years now over many industries, has gone to this user pays system, which makes some sense when you look at it. Why should people who do not benefit pay? However, it is getting to the stage where the government is asking industries to pay for just about everything to do with their industry but they have not reduced the tax take in any other way. They have not reduced the overall burden on those people, so the people or companies, whoever they happen to be, in industries pay more now for industry-specific levies, but they also still pay the same tax as they have always paid in every other way.

It is important to understand, as the member for MacKillop tried to say and others may have said as well, that the burden just cannot keep growing and growing. The government cannot just keep saying to everybody, 'You're just paying a bit more for this, and you're connected to that, so you pay another levy here and another levy there.' It is important to understand that it is not a bottomless pit. It cannot just keep going, given that we know there is no reduction in the pre-existing taxes; it is only ever an addition in levies, taxes and charges.

Having said that, in the Port Neill example that I just mentioned there are many examples of dogs being shot in the Riverland, well below the Dog Fence particularly around the Waikerie area, which has been a real hot spot in the last few years for people with wild dogs, and also around Port Augusta, the area that I am familiar with. The reality is that we need this buffer, we need this barrier, we need all the things that we are doing—trapping, shooting, baiting, fencing—otherwise we would have dogs everywhere. We have got way too many as it is at the moment, but otherwise it would just continue and continue.

While I can understand that if a person was a grazier near Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier or Port Vincent it might seem a little bit tough to have to pay for the maintenance of the Dog Fence, but I think the reality is that those people and those grazing companies—whether it be a small family operation or a large organisation—do benefit enormously by virtue of the fact that the Dog Fence is there.

Those levies across the entire state at the moment raise, I believe, $508,000 per year. The government matches that, and I think that is a good system too. The industry has said through Livestock SA and many other organisations that they support this bill and they are prepared to say on behalf of the graziers they represent that the industry should pay more; but what is good about that is that when it is dollar for dollar the government will pay more as well.

What I would ask the minister to confirm in her opportunity to speak after this is that the government will continue to match dollar for dollar, so that when the rates that the Dog Fence Board can charge increase, if that is what the Dog Fence Board chooses to do and more money is raised directly from landholders, the government will continue to match that funding dollar for dollar as it always has.

I would not support the bill nearly as keenly if that was not the case. I do think it is very important so that the industry is contributing 50 per cent and it is asked to pay more but then the government contributes 50 per cent and by default it will pay more as well towards the same body of work. So, if the minister is able to confirm that will be the case I would be very grateful for that.

I think that I will leave it at that with a few final comments about the importance of agriculture in general. We are talking about grazing at the moment, but agriculture is our most important industry in South Australia. It is not our largest growth opportunity, and everybody in this place knows that I want to support all industries across the board, but while often the focus is on the growth industries it is important to understand that agriculture remains the largest wealth contributor to our state's economy, and that will continue for a very long time.

As the member for Flinders once said to me about six years ago, shortly after we came into this place together: we can talk, we can argue, we can agree, we can do anything we like in here in parliament to try to improve our state's economic prosperity, we can do anything we like in here but nothing will do it as much as whether it rains or not. If it rains and we get good rains across our entire state that dwarfs anything that the government or the opposition can do with regard to contributing to our state's economy. If it does not rain our whole state is in trouble.

So, we should still continue to do the positive and constructive work that we do here to improve our state, whether it be social things, housing things, all the way through to business and the harder core economic things. We still need to work on all of those things, but, please, let us never forget how important agriculture is to our state, and the Dog Fence is incredibly important to agriculture in our state.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (17:01): I am very pleased to close the second reading debate. There have been so many thoughtful and useful contributions by people who have a very detailed and deep knowledge of the value of the Dog Fence and also of the communities that it supports. In closing, I would briefly draw the attention of people to section 31 of the act, in order to seek to give some assurance that has been asked for in recent contributions. Section 31 states:

The Treasurer must, out of money to be provided by parliament for the purpose…

(b) as soon as may be after the commencement of each financial year, pay to the board a subsidy at the rate of $1 for every dollar of the rates and contributions by councils…

That, I hope, is a sufficient assurance of the position of the government in its commitment to supporting the ongoing maintenance of the Dog Fence and to having public contributions, as well as private contributions, to that.

I thank all those who were involved in preparing this bill, the advisers and the drafters, and also those who were involved in extensive consultation that was undertaken. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (17:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.