Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2016.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:43): I rise today to speak to the Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. The bill amends the Biological Control Act 1986 to specifically include viruses and subviral agents within the definition of an organism. In regard to the Biological Control Act 1996, South Australia is part of a national scheme of mirror legislation based on the commonwealth legislation, the Biological Control Act of 1984.

Uniform legislation was passed by the state and Northern Territory parliaments to establish a uniform equitable system applying throughout Australia to ensure that biological control programs which had been identified as being in the public interest could proceed without interruption by litigation. These amendments address an issue which has arisen about the classification of viruses and subviral agents as living organisms, and the possible legal implications this might have for agent and target organism declarations made under the biological control acts.

Two new viruses are being assessed for national release: the next rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV1 or sometimes it is called RHD5) and the koi herpes virus to control European carp. The amendments are required before an application is made to ministers for these releases to proceed. To enable the proposed biological control agents for rabbits and European carp to be considered, this bill, on our information, must be passed by December 2016.

The bill introduces minor amendments to specifically include viruses and subviral agents within the definition of an organism. The bill addresses an issue which has arisen about the classification of viruses and subviral agents as living organisms and the possible legal implications this might have for agent and target organism declarations made under the biological controls acts. These amendments clarify biological control programs which use viruses and subviral agents and they are covered by the Biological Control Act 1986 (South Australia). The amendments maintain consistency with mirror legislation in the commonwealth and other jurisdictions to address a sovereign risk. They certainly, from our understanding, do not affect the original scope or intent of the act.

Certainly, there have been issues that have had to be dealt with and one of them has been Salvation Jane in the past. Salvation Jane is a dominant pasture weed and toxic to most grazing animals. One single plant produces over 10,000 seeds. It was estimated that in 1985 Salvation Jane was present on over 30 million hectares in Australia. By 2002, this weed had cost the wool and meat industries $125 million each year. Salvation Jane is a declared plant in South Australia and landowners have the responsibility to control the weed, hopefully with the assistance of natural resources management.

As cited in the biocontrol fact sheet, Salvation Jane biocontrol in South Australia involves a suite of agents that attack various parts of the plant: leaf mining moths attack the leaves, crown weevils attack the rosettes, flea beetles and root weevils attack the roots, and pollen beetles attack the flowers and seeds. The pollen beetle feeds on the flowers and seeds and the larvae of these beetles also have an effect on the weed. Crown weevil larvae also have effects on Salvation Jane and it is said to be more of a success than other methods, especially in areas that are susceptive to higher rainfall.

It has certainly been noticed that in more recent times, over the last decade or so, Salvation Jane is not as prevalent as it once was, so obviously these practices have come into play. I think part of the reason this legislation is being changed is that there were some legal challenges around some of these viruses with Salvation Jane all those years ago.

Anyone involved in farming certainly would be aware of myxomatosis and its effect on rabbits. The myxoma virus was the first virus released into the rabbit species in the 1950s. This virus spread through fleas and mosquitoes, and myxoma was first field tested in 1938 before being released in the 1950s. After the official release, the virus reduced the estimated rabbit population from 600 million to 100 million in two years.

Partial genetic immunity to the virus was observed and since the seventies, this resistance has grown. Now only 50 per cent of infected rabbits die. There is presently an outbreak of the myxomatosis virus in South Australia, and owners of rabbits are being urged to keep their rabbits indoors or away from mosquitoes and other biting insects as, for obvious reasons, the virus is fatal. I am talking pet rabbits here, obviously. I am not looking after my rabbits home on the farm.

Unfortunately, with many viruses such as those being discussed, animals tend to develop somewhat of an immunity, therefore resulting in the need for alternative strains which led to the introduction of the calicivirus. The rabbit calicivirus (RCD), also known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD), was first reported in China in 1984. RHD is a viral disease which only affects European rabbits. As RHD had the potential to be a biological control method for wild rabbits, the virus was brought to Australia and was quarantined at the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory where extensive studies were conducted.

In 1995, the virus escaped field trials. It was being trialled on Wardang Island, and there have been some quite legendary stories of how it happened. I remember talking to a group of learned gentlemen one night at the Cleve field days about how it might have escaped. There were a few knowing smiles but, at the end of the day, it was the best thing that happened in regard to controlling rabbits. Farmers and station owners had seen the potential of what this virus could do, and they were keen to get it out there. We saw, especially on larger properties, station owners delivering dead rabbits with the virus from helicopters to spread the disease more quickly on their properties.

Since 1995, this virus has spread across the majority of Australia. There were some concerns raised about the virus affecting humans. However, studies have shown humans who were exposed to the virus were not affected and the virus has been present in 40 countries since the eighties. Along with humans, no other animal species have been affected but, for those with pet rabbits, vaccinations are available and can be accessed at vet clinics. RHD can only be released during specific times of the year as it generally does not have an effect on kittens and young rabbits. Initial results in wetter areas were also lower.

A new strain has been identified which is a Korean strain of the calicivirus called the RHDV-K5. RHDV-K5 is already in many locations within Australia; however, it has not yet been formally introduced as a biological control method. Contrary to the calicivirus, RHDV-K5 is effective in cool, wet and other parts of Australia where the original calicivirus was not present. Rabbits are Australia's most costly pest, costing Australia's agriculture industry an estimated $206 million per year in damage. They contribute to soil erosion and are also allegedly associated with impacting 304 threatened species in Australia. RHDV-K5 is one of the most humane methods of pest control and is anticipated to be released in 2017.

I note a press release that went out recently from the federal member for Barker, my colleague Tony Pasin. Barker will participate in the release of a new variant of the rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, RHDV1 K5, at 15 sites, and a RabbitScan mobile app is now available to enable people to contribute to the national dataset. This comes some 21 years after the initial release. This new virus will be trialled next year at 20 sites across the electorate of Barker in an effort to significantly reduce rabbit populations and the devastating impact on agricultural production and native ecosystems. There were many local residents who got on board to help identify potential trial sites for the release of the virus in 2017.

Scientists and landowners certainly hope it will significantly reduce rabbit populations. Some of the sites across Barker and several other electorates include Alawoona, Brookfield Conservation Park, Cambrai, Kingston on Murray, Kingston South-East, Lameroo, Loxton, Lucindale, Meningie, Naracoorte, Parrakie, Renmark, Sandleton, Annadale, Blanchetown, Sedan and Taldra. Australia has had a good track record when it comes to the biological control of rabbits. When the first calicivirus was released, there was up to 98 per cent reduction in arid areas.

In regard to the reductions that were achieved from the release of myxoma virus in the fifties, more than 85 per cent of Australia's rabbit population was killed. This will certainly do great work in decreasing the rising rabbit population, and it has industry, government, researchers and local communities working together to address this problem. This is part of the Australian government's $1.2 million commitment to assist in the research and development of new rabbit controls. This trial will certainly be welcomed. People can search about RabbitScan and they can go to the Invasive Animals CRC website for more information.

Carp is another pest that has invaded our Murray River system, so I will talk about the carp herpes virus. Carp were first introduced into our systems over 100 years ago. They are in every state except the Northern Territory and now make up 80 to 90 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin's fish biomass. Females produce up to one million eggs per year. Carp are known to be very tolerant, can adapt to water with low oxygen levels and can live in salty water.

The federal government has allocated $15 million over 2½ years for the National Carp Control Plan. The carp virus only affects carp, is a natural occurring strain and has been investigated by the CSIRO for some eight years. It is suggested that the herpes virus has been around since the late nineties and is now present in 33 countries. The virus is expected to be released by the end of 2018 and it is expected that the virus will initially remove 70 to 80 per cent of carp in the river system. However, it will not eradicate the carp species.

The economic impact of carp is estimated to be up to $500 million per year. A trial in New South Wales showed that, after the removal of carp in a small designated area, the water became clear. I can tell you it has been a long time (many decades) since I have been able to see any distance in the River Murray. Concerns have been raised in relation to the removal of great amounts of carp and whether fish that consume carp will have enough food. However, studies in Queensland investigated how the ecosystem responded to the removal of carp. The studies found a significant increase in zooplankton. Subsequently, small-bodied fish increased by up to 1,000 per cent and native fish also exploded in numbers, and the biomass was more than the carp that was removed.

I note the recent announcement that Dr Matt Barwick was appointed as the head of the rollout of the virus and the community consultation process. It is on the internet—or the 'interweb', as the Attorney-General likes to call it—that Barnaby Joyce, our Deputy Prime Minister, was asked a question about the carp virus in federal parliament earlier this year, and I quote from part of his answer to the federal parliament:

It was great to be able to announce the $15 million that we will put towards the eradication of carp. We know that it is incredibly important. We are afflicted with these disgusting, mud-sucking creatures—bottom-dwelling, mud-sucking creatures. The only form of control is a version of herpes; it is the only thing that will get rid of these disgusting, mud-sucking creatures.

They probably do not give it enough inflection to match our Deputy Prime Minister, but I think you get the idea.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: What's that, Madam?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mud-sucking!

Mr PEDERICK: Mud-sucking creatures. There are things that will need to be ironed out before this carp virus is released. I believe that Senator Anne Ruston is involved in the investigations. I will be having discussions with her, and I certainly want to catch up with Dr Barwick. When you have an electorate at the bottom of the system—although, this will not affect my electorate, but it will affect four or five state electorates, including the member for Chaffey's electorate—if the carp virus is introduced, the management of the carp and getting them out of the system is the biggest issue facing downstream communities in the river system. It is a huge issue.

No-one is exactly sure how many hundred thousand tonnes or million tonnes of carp might be killed, how many will be killed in a set time and whether they will start from the bottom of the river system and work up. I commend the federal government funding and Matt Barwick. Let's hope that the appropriate work is done because the last thing we want is to have hundreds of thousands of tonnes of rotting carp that we are not able to manage out of the system.

It would affect not just the environment and irrigators. Obviously, pipelines come out of the system at Murray Bridge, Mannum and other outlets along the river, watering most of our population, so we have to get this right, when critical human needs water is coming out of the Murray River. Most of these pipelines are not just-in-time pipelines; they are connected to dams and storages. I declare an interest to the degree because my property is on the Keith pipeline, which is a just-in-time pipeline, bar a few storage tanks along the way. Essentially, it is just-in-time delivery from a service at Tailem Bend, where it goes through the filtration process and then heads all the way to Keith in the South-East.

The big thing we need to know, especially in this state, is that the research has been done and that we have the appropriate actions in place to get rid of the carp. There is some talk about vacuum machines and so on, but I will not be happy unless we have at least one more built-in failsafe apart from the original way of however the government believe they can get rid of the dead carp in an effective manner. Certainly, I am keen to have further involvement and dialogue with my community at my end of the river, at the bottom end of the system, to get people along so that they are informed about potentially what will happen. By the looks of it, they are aiming at the latter part of 2018.

This is not to say that everyone is happy about the carp removal. Some of the fishermen in the Lakes and Coorong are heavily reliant on selling carp, especially with the damage inflicted on their nets by the New Zealand fur seals when they are fishing for Coorong mullet and other species. Some of them will lose that vital market to a fair degree. Obviously, with some of the carp left behind, they will still potentially have a market. The carp may be a little harder to catch, but there is certainly a big market in fishing for carp for the cray pots in the South-East, so that is something else that needs to be managed.

On the other side of the ledger, people have come to me and said that they want to be involved, to get a job or supply equipment and help out with this project, and that they are more than happy to get on board. In terms of the calicivirus, I think that will be an exercise that continues and will not be a huge drama. Hopefully, the release of the herpes virus into the carp will not be a huge drama either. In fact, I do not want it to be any drama. We need to make sure that all the discussions are had and that all the investigations and all the details are in place with respect to how we are going to get rid all the bodies of these filthy mud-sucking creatures. With those few words, I commend the Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 and indicate that our side of the house will be supporting it.

Sitting extended beyond 17.00 on motion of Hon. L.W.K. Bignell.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:04): I rise to speak on the Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016, which essentially makes amendments to our Biological Control Act 1986. Why is this so important? Because the area that has not been canvassed to date by either the proponents of this bill or indeed the opposition's position, as ably presented by the member for Hammond, and taking into account that the principal act of 1986 was established with a clear understanding and knowledge of the interests of the Australian economy and the general protection of the Australian environment, it is the necessity to implement and have an ongoing scheme for the biological control of pests across the states and territories.

Whilst the implementation of the scheme requires some uniform approach, and indeed legislation to a large degree, to try to administer the effective biological control, the act also is highly restrictive on the capacity for anyone, whether they are a farmer, an environmentalist or a resident, but someone who may be adversely affected when something goes terribly wrong, is extremely limited.

It is an act which already bars the capacity for people to take legal proceedings in respect of those who are responsible for the release of an agent organism in a state; and, secondly, if they have been instituted they have almost no capacity to recover any loss or damage in those circumstances. We therefore expect, and quite reasonably, that whatever the authority does—and we have a South Australian authority that is responsible under the act to administer it—it has to do properly because the consequences are very stark and there is not an easy remedy. In short, if they bugger it up, then there are very dire consequences.

So, when we come to considering a bill where we are going to amend it to expand the definition essentially of an organism, allegedly to avert any particular court challenge that might emanate from a virus not being defined as an organism (which I think would be hard to prove, and nobody seems have done it since we have had a number of grubs and bugs issued to deal with Salvation Jane) that is the fear being presented to us as the need to pass this legislation.

It was apparently the basis upon which the ministers got together in one of their meetings across Australia to consider to avert any possibility of there being a challenge before we deal with the carp virus (because, frankly, that seems to be the one that is really precipitating this), then we better get it right and we better make sure that we tidy it up. For that reason I am prepared to support that, but members ought to be aware that there is scant opportunity for an individual adversely affected by a process in which biological control is used and where there is damage caused.

Of course, if there is reckless indifference and some mischievous criminal activity by somebody, there are other means by which one can usually make some claim. At present, we are alienated if we are a victim, so we expect these authorities to properly test things before they administer them. I will come back in a moment to the two pests that have been identified that are in need of treatment.

One matter I do want to raise is the process whereby this has been brought to the parliament. A short second reading contribution was presented by the minister for primary industries—quite rightly: he is, of course, responsible for the act and its administration. He provided a short explanation to the parliament that outlined the need for the act as having its genesis in the June 1983 proposed release of insects to control Salvation Jane. Everyone knows about that: it is an important pasture weed in South Australia. In fact, it is a general pain in the neck in a lot of areas. I saw it growing recently along the median strip outside the Burnside Village, so it is pretty effective in getting anywhere and causing a problem.

I did not have a problem in reading, with some comfort, that there had been a claim to the minister 'which has been very effective and is now preventing its dominance in pastures'. That was good to hear, I thought, and it was certainly consistent with anecdotal information. When I have a briefing on this matter, I will inquire as to the progress of that and any assessments that have been done which actually support this statement which, as I say, I was pleased to read.

In the course of what is the next stage consistent with the progressing of most bills and changing of laws, a briefing was provided to me by Mr Will Zacharin (who, at the time was acting deputy chief executive of the primary industries department) and Ms Alice Vista, who I think is from the minister's office from recollection, but maybe somewhere else. In any event, both ably set out that they had no information about the Salvation Jane programs or any assessments or reviews that had taken place.

It seemed that they had not been alerted to the fact that these statements had been made in the second reading contribution, but they went on to outline the significant areas of proposed biological control they wished to implement and be part of a national push for, and that was the issuing of a virus to deal with carp and the calicivirus type 2 to deal with rabbits. As I say, they have been largely dealt with by the member for Hammond and he, of course, is very familiar with their problem and their management.

During the course of the briefing, I did inquire why there had been absolutely no mention by the minister, at the time of his second reading, of the two principal activities which we were about to be protected by, namely, the virus for the carp and the rabbits. We already knew that a national program had been announced during the last federal election campaign, about the middle of this year, by Senator Anne Ruston and the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, the federal minister, about a program they were going to promote. Funding had been announced for it and it was going to take, I think, two or three years to implement, even though it was active in other places in the world.

Obviously, introducing a virus needed to have special assessments and preparation done, etc. We knew about that. There was nothing to hide about that. It seemed pretty consistent that he would tell us about that. It seemed that there would be no reason he could not tell us how the first calicivirus program had gone. I remember all the hoo-ha when it happened because, of course, it went out a bit earlier than it should have at the time. Nevertheless, it was effective, and apparently immunity builds up and there is a need to develop and test another virus, and they have provided that. That is excellent.

However, that was a briefing that at least I had, given that the minister had given no information about what this was all really about. I made some inquiry about the assertions about Salvation Jane. I was forwarded—it must have been immediately after the meeting because they did not have anything—some flyers from the website which, frankly, did not tell me about the review, just about what 'salvation' meant and what it did, where it grew and so forth. What concerned me was that, firstly, there had been a non-disclosure by the minister as to what this was really about, which seemed bizarre to me, given that there were quite genuine and, it seemed to me, sensible reasons for doing it.

Secondly, when I asked to have information about the pest that was identified in the second reading to justify the existence of the review and the expansion of the definition, I was told that it was really nothing to do with this bill and that I did not need to have it. In that regard, I felt that the information given by Miss Ruth Sibley, who I think is also in the employ of the minister, suggesting that it was effectively going to be a waste of their time to have to follow up that information, was frankly unhelpful, unnecessary and totally inappropriate.

In whatever role she plays in the future in the promulgation and promotion of law reform, she needs to understand that whilst ministers gallivant off to have meetings at a national level and discuss things of mutual benefit and interest they need to come back to the parliament on a number of these things and they need to get our approval, and it is about time that she understood that. If her minister does not fully disclose that in the process of his presentation to the parliament and we ask for it, we are entitled to it and we expect to get it, and they will not have the swift passage of legislation unless they provide it. I hope I make myself clear for future purposes.

However, on that aspect, subsequently I met with minister Hunter, as I do once a year to deal with a number of issues in my electorate, and I asked him about pest management, which is always on my list. We have a problem with rabbits and foxes (apart from the ones I see in here). Coming from Kangaroo Island, I did not grow up with rabbits and foxes, but I have learnt a lot about them since. I get an update about what is happening or not happening with the foxes program, etc. I still do not know a lot about rabbits, and I do not care to, so I will leave the member for Hammond to sort them out.

However, I make the point that at least during the course of that meeting Ms Tara Bates, who I think is in the employ of minister Hunter at a senior level, did follow up and has followed up for me (it took her a while to get the information through her department and through SA Water) what was actually happening at the moment in respect of carp. Whilst there might be a tsunami of carp carcasses when we implement the benefits of the new virus proposed to be issued in a few years' time, I wanted some understanding of what was happening with this mischievous and unpleasant, at best, fish that nobody seemed to want or like.

I have been in the River Murray area with the member for Chaffey, who has taken me to a number of areas, and one of them was the Chowilla dam site—we call dams 'regulators' now—and this was a new and beautiful freshly built regulator. Of course, it is designed to do a number of things, one of which is to ensure that there is a water flow to manage areas further downstream that continue to need to be watered to protect our natural wildlife. It is a very interesting project and a very expensive one. However, not very much done seems to have been done to manage this offensive level of carp that is really taking all the oxygen out of the river system to the detriment of the other natural fishes, etc.

When I asked for that information, it was drip fed in, but it appears, in summary, that there are still some traps along the way, particularly at one of the locks. They are emptied from time to time (not very much as it turns out in the end), with only a very small amount of 80 to 100 kilograms a year from Lock 1. A small amount of that goes to Sydney. The Charlie Carp program seems not to be terribly effective, but a small amount may go to them or for lobster bait or other purposes. It seems that for quite some time now that the very expensive and perhaps not as effective trap system has not been at least been implemented; if it has, it is only for small amounts.

This is very concerning because it appears, from what we are told, that it will be three years before this new program is implemented. Our River Murray system, which of course is a lifeblood for South Australia, is going to continue to be infested with these creatures. I will be disappointed if the government is not doing something about making sure that we at least keep some cap on the population of these fish, so that we might at least have some chance for the other life in the river to be protected. SA Water has the management of these locks, and I think it is incumbent upon them to give some information to the parliament—perhaps they could do it in their annual report, if we ever get it—as to what they are doing, and what application is being implemented, to biologically control that pest.

In respect of the amendments themselves, we are not making an amendment specifically for particular viruses to be allowed. We are changing the definition so if other viruses are developed or identified that will have an effect for pest management then there is no need for them to come back to the parliament to deal with it. I do not have a problem with that, but I make the point that I expect the management of the pest control to be carefully administered, properly researched, and with all of the appropriate safeguards.

I feel some comfort, at least, with the federal department covering these matters. They seem to at least have a grip on the situation, and are progressing along a path. I am informed that, for the purposes of the rabbits to initiate the release of the new virus at the beginning of autumn next year across Australia, or probably in trial periods to start with, we will need to pass this legislation this year. It is necessary to avoid the risk of liability in court proceedings if someone were to challenge that.

For that purpose, I am happy to advance this. If we were just dealing with carp and we had three years, frankly I would be asking the government to be a bit more effective in the provision of information when it is asked for in a timely manner, if they expect our support in respect of these matters, to ensure that we give swift passage to legislation that is meritorious. I would also ask that, where necessary, we be properly informed so that when we are consulting with any stakeholders, who may raise issues themselves, that can be appropriately dealt with. It is a lesson, I suggest, in making sure that some respect is maintained for the fact that it is this parliament that makes the decisions about law, not individual ministers or people who work for them.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:23): I will make a brief contribution because I know that everyone is a little weary after last night. I rise to speak about the Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which amends the Biological Control Act to specifically include viruses and subviral agents within the definition of an organism. Essentially, the act is part of a national scheme of mirror legislation which is based on the Biological Control Act 1984. Uniform legislation was passed by the state and Northern Territory parliaments to establish a uniform, equitable system, applying throughout Australia, to ensure biological control programs which have been identified as being in the public interest.

I take note of what the member for Bragg has said, that nine times out of 10, biological control works, is efficient, is not invasive, and does not impact on those surrounding areas and people who use the land or the waterways. But every now and then there are issues: there are impacts on those people who utilise the waterways and land. As the member for Bragg said, we do need those trials to be definitive. They need to be absolutely flawless in the way that these biological controls are rolled out.

There are two new viruses being assessed for national release: the next rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV1) and the koi herpesvirus, to control European carp. Essentially, the moving of the amendments to this bill through the South Australian parliament will give the necessary support for the projects related to these viruses to progress.

Pest animals, such as European carp and rabbits, have been a serious threat to South Australia's primary industries for more than a century, and their cost to the economy is something that I do not think has ever been defined. People do put numbers on it—they say that it was $743 million in 2007, but I would challenge that. I think we could probably put a zero on the end of that because of the damage that they do, and their impact is untold.

The carp virus was announced by the then minister for science, the Hon. Christopher Pyne, before the federal election. It is now under the care of Senator Anne Ruston. The federal government is hoping to release the cyprinid herpesvirus number 3 at the end of 2018 to reduce the huge numbers of the introduced European carp.

I think it is timely that we see this virus being released because, as we speak, we are implementing the Murray-Darling Basin plan, and that is to take water back from productive use, create efficiency gains right throughout the basin, put water into the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's bank, and then on-use it so that we can water flood plains, environmental assets, and make sure that our river system—our basin system, the delta—is healthy. With a healthy environment we have good water and more secure sustainable communities.

It has been reported that if this virus is released, there will be a huge clean-up bill. It is good to see that the federal government has committed $15 million to the National Carp Control Plan, which was dubbed by the then minister and the minister now, and the senior minister, Barnaby Joyce, as the 'scourge of the waterways'. They are a filthy animal, they are a mud-sucking, mud-plucking water deterrent. Anywhere you go where there is carp, the water is cloudy and full of carp.

Living on the river, I have quite a lot to do with carp. I am seeing a lot of carp getting into the flood plains at the moment. I am lucky enough to live on the great River Murray, and I am already seeing carp of significant size: carp of a metre-long and perhaps 250mm high. They make their way through our waterways, in only a couple of inches of water. It just shows you how these fish survive, how they breed, how they get into these wetlands, and how they are so destructive.

The herpesvirus is envisaged to kill 95 per cent of carp in the river system over the next 30 years. It is not going to be a virus that is going to kill carp overnight, and it is not going to be a virus that, once it is introduced into the river system, kills everything stone dead. We have a gazillion tonne of carp floating in the waterways, but there is going to be the science and the clean-up in relation to how we deal with it. Many people have said that it should be introduced from the bottom up, and as the river flow takes those carp out to sea it will reduce the majority of the clean-up. That is all very well in theory, but I think the science is yet to be brought up on that.

I know that, if the herpesvirus were released now and it were successful, money for the clean-up would be much more easily used. Because we have high flow, dead fish float to the top and flow out to sea, but the waterways and the backwaters—the environmental assets—are what we really need to protect, as that is where the carp are breeding. Obviously, carp have been in this country for more than 100 years, and they have been established in every state except for the Northern Territory. I think that they have enough of their own issues up there, particularly with cane toads and other biological control methods that have been brought into this country and gone pear-shaped.

Carp are able to consume good water and turn it into cloudy, muddy water. I do another way, which is quite an expensive way, of biological control of carp, and that is a piece of PVC pipe, and it is something I taught my kids. When the water came up on the flood plains, they would go carp thrashing, which is all about bashing the carp with the PVC pipe. There was no interference. You would throw them up onto the bank or up onto a high spot into the trees. Birds and other predators would get them, so they would not last there too long and therefore they would not smell. If we are going to have inaccessible waterways, where thousands of tonnes of carp float to the top and prove to be an issue, that is when that federal government money to clean up will be critical.

Obviously, we need to look closely at the research on how the ecosystem will change without carp and the decomposition of their bodies. In my electorate, particularly in the Riverland, we have a number of wetlands, environmental assets where, as we speak, with the high river, there is a carp-breeding frenzy at the moment. The carp are thick wherever you go. I would like to advocate that yabbies are starting to run. So, all those people who enjoy a yabby, particularly the tourists who want to come up to the Riverland and visit, please come up and make sure you spend some money while you are up there catching yabbies and that, if you do get carp in your nets, you put them somewhere where they cannot wriggle back into the river and make a mess.

According to the CSIRO, the herpes virus, or KHV as it is known, first appeared in Israel in 1998 and spread rapidly throughout much of the world, although not Australia or New Zealand. It causes high death rates in common carp and the ornamental koi carp. No other species of fish, including goldfish, are known to be affected by this virus. The CSIRO has undertaken significant and ongoing research to test the susceptibility of the virus to other fish and amphibian species, consulting with conservation groups, recreational fishers and resource managers.

Scientists at the CSIRO have spent many years experimenting in the world's most sophisticated high contaminant facility to address the issue. I am sure there are many people who are cynical out there. I know that the member for Hammond is very concerned. He will be engaging with his community to make sure that all the research and all the trials are done so that they do not adversely impact on the people in his electorate.

They say that up to 58 million individual carp are eaten for breakfast in Israel every day. Imagine if we could change the Australian palate to accept eating carp, but we are spoilt by the other beautiful freshwater species, such as Murray cod, the different perch (silver and gold) and the different callop. We have all those different species, and we also have introduced species like redfin, which is a no-go zone, and we have catfish, which is a no-take zone.

To rid the river system and our waterways of carp would be an absolute coup. It would potentially bring our river ways and waterways back to a much cleaner and clearer state, but we do have to live with the other side effects of having clear water, such as weeds. I know that during the drought we had low flow and low numbers of carp in our river system; hence, the river system became clearer, but a lot of the weed that grew on the bottom of the river started choking the river. So, there are side effects of having good clear water that will also need to be addressed, I am sure.

As the carp rot, they take the oxygen from the water, and that is one of the issues. The smell, the impact on aquatic life and the impact on the quality of water have also been mentioned today. The federal government has estimated that the damage that carp cause will far outweigh the benefits of what this herpes virus will do.

Again, we need to embrace the challenge if there is one. We need to cut back the carp population and the destruction it is causing to our Murray-Darling Basin system and other associated waterways. We need to make sure that it is eradicated, but eradicated safely, and that it does not have that impact on the people who live in those waterways and those local communities.

Regarding the rabbit virus, the amendment bill also progresses plans for the rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHDV1). Myxoma and the calicivirus have been successful, drastically reducing pest rabbit numbers in Australia after they reached about 600 million in 1950. I can say with some credibility that the electorate of Chaffey has been a breeding ground for carp. It has been a breeding ground particularly in the Mallee as well for rabbits, so I think that the electorate of Chaffey would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of these two biological control agents, as long as it is all kept in check and all the protocols and all the trials are proving successful.

As we know, wild rabbits were introduced into Australia in the mid-1800s by a wealthy Victorian grazier for the sport of hunting. It does provide an economic benefit. There are some people who love a good rabbit stew, but most people would rather see a dead rabbit than a live rabbit because, while the rabbit is alive, it is eating pasture, it is eating crop, it is digging holes, it is undermining trees and fences, and it is just destructive.

As many of us might know, myxomatosis was a biological control in the 1950s, and that saw a dramatic reduction in the rabbit population. As a child, I would always know if a rabbit had myxomatosis. It had the milky eyes, it was always very thin, it was diseased and it was something you would always stay away from. In 1984, a new emerging disease of rabbits was described, the calicivirus. It was brought into Australia in 1991. It was extensively assessed for its suitability here in Australia, and it was released. This was somewhat questionable, but it was released and it did have an impact on rabbit numbers.

I want to touch briefly on something else that I as a horticulturalist over a number of years have used, and that is integrated pest management. Integrated pest management is a great tool for reducing the use of pesticides and insecticides, but it is also a biological control for insects that are a great cost to our green reputation.

I would like to put on the record that Biological Services up at Loxton, next to the Loxton Research Centre, owned by James Altmann, is probably one of the country's leading biological control pest breeders. He really does a great job. He is undertaking some great research and some great pilot programs on the Adelaide plains at the moment with the intensive crop management that they need to reduce the pesticides and insecticides. There is also a biological control for pest pressure. What it does is reduce residue through MRI tests, particularly with our clean, green environment and our clean, green reputation into our export markets. It reduces the off label use and it gives us a better opportunity for our clean and green exports.

Those education programs around integrated pest management are the future of food production and particularly of our horticulture. As a horticulturalist, I used one for 20 years, and it reduced my amount of insecticide, the oil sprays and all of that insecticide control of pests. It does take it a little while to get it balanced, but it does work and I think it will be the way of the future. It reduced my sprays by up to 75 per cent, so the cost-benefit analysis stacked up, but it is a long-term strategy.

The parasitic wasp, again, is something that Biological Services is breeding. Funnily enough, they breed them in pumpkins. Once they have bred them, they get them out and collect them. They then release them into the orchards, and they control the scales—red scale, brown scale, the soft and hard scales. There is a method with biological control. Again, integrated pest management is the way of the future. If the herpesvirus and the new calicivirus are trialled properly—rolled out, managed, cleaned up—it will be a coup for our environment. It will also be a coup for our food production in this state. I support the amendment and I am hoping that it is all rolled out nicely and safely.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:40): I rise to support the Biological Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Biological Control Act 1986 (South Australia) to specifically include viruses and subviral agents within the definition of an organism.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: I almost fell into the same trap.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: They are leading me astray, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does this have anything to do with country living?

Mr TRELOAR: Biological control is a method of controlling pests such as insects, mites, weeds and plant diseases using other organisms. It relies on predation, parasitism, herbivory or other natural mechanisms, but typically also involves an active human management role. It can be an important component of integrated pest management programs. In fact, the member for Chaffey was just talking about his experience with integrated pest management programs and the importance of those programs within horticultural and agricultural cropping systems going into the future.

There are three basic types of biological pest control strategies. The first is importation, in which a natural enemy of a pest is introduced in the hope of achieving control. The second is augmentation, in which locally occurring natural enemies are bred and released to improve control. Finally, conservation is where measures are taken to increase natural enemies, such as by planting crop plants in the borders of cropped fields.

The Biological Control Act of 1986 is part of a national scheme of mirror legislation that is based on the Biological Control Act of 1984. Uniform legislation was passed by the state and Northern Territory parliaments to establish a uniform equitable system applying throughout Australia, to ensure biological control programs which have been identified as being in the public interest could proceed without interruption by litigation—most important. These amendments address an issue that has arisen about the classification of viruses and subviral agents as living organisms and the possible legal implications this might have for agent and target organism declarations made under the biological control acts.

Two new viruses are being assessed for national release: the next rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV1) and the Koi herpes virus to control European carp. The amendments are required before an application is made to ministers for these releases to proceed. To enable the proposed biological control agents for rabbits and European carp to be considered, this bill must be passed by December 2016. Hence, here we are in the third week of November with some pressure on this parliament to get this bill through.

Both the member for Hammond and the member for Chaffey, with their River Murray frontage in their electorates, know far more about the damage that European carp has done to that riverine environment than I do. I remember hearing always that European carp, having been introduced into our rivers and waterways, had devastated the native fish stocks and overtaken every other single fish species within those systems. So, control of carp would be a wonderful thing. I do not think they are particularly edible either, are they, member for Hammond?

Mr Pederick: They're not my favourite, but you can eat them.

Mr TRELOAR: You can eat them, but they are not much sought after game fish, unlike some of the other river fish such as the Murray cod, and no doubt carp have had an impact on cod numbers. That will be welcome, and not before time. The other one that was mentioned is the new rabbit virus. All Australian schoolchildren are familiar with the story about the introduction of myxomatosis in the 1950s and how successful that was. In the 1860s, the rabbit was introduced into Victoria originally so that some landowner could go hunting or trapping.

By the time my grandfather went farming on the West Coast of Eyre Peninsula in the 1920s, they were literally everywhere in plague proportions, over the entire southern Australian landscape, and they were devastating. They denuded the landscape of grass and any tree seedlings and native eucalypts that might have been emerging and created in many situations a dust bowl.

I remember my grandfather in the old days clearing mallee. Much criticism has come in later years of the extensive clearing of our mallee landscape. One of the reasons was that any Mallee scrub that was lost, even if it was around stony knobs or on sandy rises or scrubby bits, was a haven for rabbits, where they were able to live and breed and then move out and essentially eat an entire wheat crop, which made it very difficult for farming to continue.

When I was a young boy, my grandfather taught me how to set rabbit traps. They are of course illegal these days, but he spent many thousands of hours setting rabbit traps and trying to control rabbits using such things as 1080 poisoned oats. As young farm boys, one of the skills we learned was how to set a rabbit trap. It was quite an art. I remember my grandfather always used to cut a newspaper into small squares and lay them carefully over the plate before sprinkling soil on the top. We always asked him what the pieces of paper were for, and he always said, 'It's so the rabbits have got something to read while they are waiting for you to come and get them.' As far as I know, that was true.

The calicivirus was remarkably successful in decimating rabbit numbers. Rabbits are still in existence. Slowly, over time, rabbits became somewhat immune to the myxomatosis virus and then, of course, the calicivirus famously escaped from Wardang Island off Yorke Peninsula.

Mr Pederick: Mysteriously.

Mr TRELOAR: They mysteriously escaped from Wardang Island off the coast of Yorke Peninsula in the early 1990s. I think the plan was to release the virus within the next 12 or 18 months, but somehow it managed to get off the island and the impact was, once again, almost immediate and ultimately successful. There is some resistance bred into a rabbit population. This I am sure will be the next stage in the management of rabbit numbers. It will not eradicate rabbits; I do not think it ever will. They are so suited as an introduced species to the Australian environment that they will remain forever, but it is about managing the numbers. We are not setting rabbit traps any more, but it means less poisoning and shooting certainly. I am looking forward to that.

Famously, Australia, through northern New South Wales and Queensland, was inundated by the prickly pear in the early decades of the 20^th century.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: What I am getting to, minister, is how successful the biological control program for the prickly pear was. Prickly pear cacti were introduced into Queensland—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Wait for this—you said your mother or your grandmother used to grow them.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: No, my grandmother grew oleanders, actually. The Prickly pear cacti was introduced into Queensland, Australia as ornamental plants. They quickly spread to cover over 25 million hectares of Australia. They are admirably suited to northern New South Wales and south Queensland.

Two control agents were used to help control the spread of the plant, the cactus moth (cactoblastis) and the dactylopius scale insects. This was an incredibly successful biological control because it virtually eradicated the prickly pear cactus from the Australian farming and pastoral landscape within a few years. So, success can be had at a local level. There are any number of introduced plant species in our South Australian agricultural landscape, and I notice the member for Hammond nodding knowingly. I suggest that we have all spent a fortune trying to control one of them.

One weed that was becoming prevalent on the southern part of Eyre Peninsula was Salvation Jane, otherwise known as Paterson's curse, although we knew it more as Salvation Jane. In recent years, I know that our local NRM board has been very active in releasing a rust throughout the more highly infested areas, and once again this has proved a very successful biological control. Where once upon a time we saw purple hills in the springtime, apart from seeing the odd purple flower of the Salvation Jane, we rarely see thick infestations.

It is absolutely worth pursuing. If it is done correctly, researched properly, accredited and managed by human intervention, it can be a very successful program. I look forward to the passage of this bill and the opportunity to further control the European rabbit in the Australian landscape and also cleaning up our beautiful riverine waterways in southern Australia of the European carp.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (17:51): I would like to thank everyone who has made a contribution to this bill, in particular the members for Hammond and Chaffey. I found their contributions very interesting. Obviously the knowledge and the passion they have for their local area is to be commended. I enjoyed both their contributions and I thank them for the efforts they put in and the questions they asked about what this could mean into the future. Of course, this is mirror legislation that we have to bring in right across all the states as part of the federal plan.

I would also like to thank all the hardworking people in Primary Industries and Regions South Australia, particularly in Biosecurity South Australia—people like Will Zacharin, Dr John Virtue, Mark Ramsey and everyone else who has done so much in this space. I would like to thank my federal counterparts Barnaby Joyce and Senator Anne Ruston. This is something we are taking a national approach to.

Before I conclude, I would like to mention the member for Bragg, who came into this place and put down public servants and put down political staffers. I do not think there is any place for that. I am quite happy to take criticism as a member of parliament. I have seen the member for Bragg in briefings over the years, and she is an expert on everything and she knows more, she thinks, than all these hardworking public servants who do such a good job for South Australia. They really put their heart and soul into what they are doing, so I think it is very unfair of the member for Bragg to come in here and talk down these hardworking public servants who do such a tremendous job.

She reminds me of one of the aristocratic Bellamy family from Upstairs, Downstairs, where she lives upstairs and is better than everyone else in the world and the servants live downstairs. There is no place in our society for that sort of behaviour. We all have to get on. Everyone has a role to play, and I think our public servants do a tremendous job. With that little discussion I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (17:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.