Parliamentary Committees

Public Works Committee: Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:02): I move:

That the 34^th report of the committee for the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, entitled Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence, be noted.

Witnesses presented to the Public Works Committee at a public hearing on 17 October 2019 regarding the proposed Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence project. The South Australian section of the dog fence is 2,150 kilometres long and stretches from the Great Australian Bight to the New South Wales border.

The Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence project proposes to rebuild the South Australian sections of the dog fence that are in disrepair, many of which are over 100 years old. Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA) has advised that the South Australian dog fence is the most important asset protecting the $1.5 billion South Australian sheep industry.

Members present at the committee hearing heard that over the past 10 to 15 years the impact of wild dogs on the South Australian livestock industry has increased dramatically and that wild dog numbers have significantly increased, with dogs spreading to the zone used for sheep farming in South Australia. In 2018, the South Australian Dog Fence Board reported that $25 million was required to rebuild around 1,600 kilometres of the dog fence that are the oldest and most degraded sections of this very significant piece of infrastructure.

Public Works Committee members heard that the cost-benefit analysis from 2018 indicated the likely benefit of repairing the South Australian stretches of the dog fence could be up to $120 million over 20 years. This represents a possible return on investment of about 48 per cent. An expected outcome of this project is that the renewed dog fence will dramatically reduce the impact of wild dogs on livestock (mainly sheep) inside the dog fence. According to PIRSA, more than 60 additional full-time jobs will be created as a result of the rebuild project.

The PWC received evidence that the new dog fence would reduce wild dog management costs for pastoralists by up to $97 million over 20 years, and a sales income of sheep enterprises is expected to increase by up to $69.7 million. The cost breakdown of the project is as follows: the commonwealth government will contribute $10 million, the state government $10 million and the livestock industry $5 million. The rebuild of the dog fence is expected to commence in autumn 2020 and be completed by June 2024.

The committee examined written and oral evidence in relation to this project and received assurances by PIRSA officials that the appropriate consultation in relation to this project had been undertaken. The committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to appropriate agency consultation and meets the criteria for the examination of projects as set out within the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Based on the evidence considered and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the scope of the proposed public works.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:06): I rise to also speak on the dog fence and acknowledge that this is an important project. Clearly, my electorate of Giles will benefit and the pastoralists and others in my electorate will benefit. The member for Stuart and, obviously, the member for Flinders will benefit, but that benefit extends into other electorates as well, as the state of the wild dog fence has been an ongoing issue. I believe that the $25 million will be well spent. As has been said, there will be a return over the years on that investment.

Indeed, I thought it was so important a project for the livestock industry that in the lead-up to the last federal election I approached our federal colleagues—if there was going to be an incoming federal Labor government—for them to also match the Morrison government's commitment to the dog fence, and that commitment was forthcoming. I think that is worth knowing because it indicates bipartisan support at a federal level.

Clearly, in my role as the shadow primary industries minister, I see the value of this fence. I know that a lot of the pastoralists in my area have destocked, but over time, hopefully, when this drought breaks there will be a rebuilding of stock. That will take a considerable period of time because a number of pastoralists have been severely impacted by the ongoing drought. Indeed, some of the people I have spoken to in the north of our state indicate that, from their records, this is the worst drought they have experienced, and some of these families go right back to the 1800s in the areas where they run their pastoral properties.

There are also important peripheral benefits from work like this. It will create jobs out there in the north of the state and, hopefully, it will also provide some Aboriginal employment in that part of the state, and I know that a number of pastoral properties, around Roxby Downs in particular, have moved back into Aboriginal hands. This is a worthwhile project and I commend the government for making this commitment to the project—it was overdue.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:09): I have to say that it is actually a huge pleasure on my part to speak on this report on behalf of the people of Stuart. This has been an enormous issue for a very long time for people in my electorate and other parts of the state as well. It is something that has been perhaps one of my highest priorities since becoming a member of parliament.

I am really pleased, incredibly pleased, that the state government, the federal government and industry have come together to share this $25 million investment. I give credit to the Minister for Primary Industries for pulling this together under a fairly tight time frame in the middle of this year. I also give great credit to Geoff Power, who was the president of Livestock SA and worked incredibly hard on this issue for many years. Of course, Rowan Ramsey had a part in it as well with regard to encouraging the federal government.

I would also like to give credit to a person named Heather Miller, who is a local person in Stuart. As somebody who lives on stations, she has a background in NRM and in wild dog control. She has shared a lot of detailed information with me in regard to the behaviour of dogs, their patterns of movement, their breeding times and other details I was not intimately familiar with and helped me build a stronger case and share more useful and more productive information with my colleagues in parliament and in cabinet.

It is always tricky, of course, because there are a lot of people who have been involved in this, who I will not mention for the sake of time. However, a person I really want to mention is Geoff Mengersen from Depot Springs Station, just east of Copley. Very shortly after I was elected in March 2010, he got in touch—I think it was in about April 2010—and said, 'I really want you to come and sit down and have a talk. I need to explain this issue to you.' Of course, I was very pleased to do that.

He was the first person, not the only but the first, to really explain—in greater detail than I was already aware of as a person living in Wilmington and having worked in the outback with lots of friends on lots of different grazing properties—what it means to a pastoralist to have a wild dog, or half a dozen wild dogs, on your property, what it means to a pastoralist to be surrounded by other land where the control of wild dogs is not enthusiastically undertaken, what it means not only in regard to the financial impact on your property and your business but also in regard to the very severe impact on the sheep that suffer from predation.

He also explained to me very well—and he was not trying to sensationalise it—the emotional impact on a grazier, who feels a responsibility for his or her stock, knowing that there is a wild dog in the hills, often coming nightly from somebody else's property onto yours, and the very serious impact that that has. So I thank Geoff Mengersen for that.

There were others. In more recent times, Richard Treloar from Strathearn in the north-east, the Barrier Highway area, has been a strong campaigner on this. I have mentioned Peter Litchfield, from Mundowdna in the Marree area, as another person, and of course there are many others. They are the ones who actually sat down with me and tried to explain the impact of this, in far more detail than I already knew as just someone living in a country town. It really spurred me on to make this an incredibly high priority.

At one level, it is about economics. We have an approximately $1 billion a year sheep industry. It is less than that at the moment because we are currently in drought, so people have sold off a lot of their stock. However, in round terms, that is a good number for MPs to keep in their mind: a $1 billion a year impact, and if 5 per cent or 10 per cent or 15 per cent of that is impacted, that is serious.

You also think about the impact on lambing percentages, so you get down to that individual farm or station impact. There are people who have lost in excess—in some cases, well in excess—of a thousand lambs in a year. What is the impact on the lambs? What is the impact on the ewes? What is the impact on that business, and what is the impact on the grazier, whose life is about looking after those animals, knowing that he or she has not been successful in this case because the job was actually too difficult?

Linking all that back to the dog fence, the dog fence will never be perfect, but it can be, and it will be, much better than it is today. We have had, not in the last few years but in the several years before that, a massive breeding up of wild dogs below the fence. A few get in. Whether camels knock the fence over, a flood knocks the fence over or the maintenance is not quite right, dogs come streaming in and then they breed up inside the fence.

They have no desire to go back north. Typically, the animals in the north of South Australia prefer to move south. It is where there is more to eat, it is where the climate is kinder and it is where there is more to drink, and the dogs are no different. They breed up inside the fence. They are not trying to bust through it to get back up north, and the problem just gets greater and greater, to the point where we have seen wild dogs in parts of South Australia that you would never have expected to, as far north on Eyre Peninsula as Port Neill. There have been a lot of dog sightings out from Waikerie in the Riverland and around the Laura area in the Mid North.

This is a problem for the entire state, so I really do appreciate the state government, the federal government and Livestock SA stumping up, because if you are running sheep in Port Lincoln, if you are running sheep in Mount Gambier, you may not feel an immediate pressure from wild dogs but you are still, to a lesser extent than your northern neighbours, a significant beneficiary from a robust dog fence.

This is incredibly important. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is state and nation-building work in the same way that it was when the previously privately owned fences were joined up to create what we know now as the dog fence. Notwithstanding the hard work that people have put in to keep it up to scratch, insufficient resources over the years have seen it fall into greater disrepair. To renew—not fix up, but actually replace—such a significant amount of the dog fence and to leave behind only what is already the very best of it is an incredibly important step forward for our state and for our whole grazing industry.

There are some significant vectors through the Marree area and the Roxby Downs area, and also through the Frome Downs area, and I am sure there are other key vectors further west for dog incursions that I am not as personally familiar with. The member for Flinders would certainly know about those and the member for Giles would have some insight from his constituents as well. To take this step forward is critically important.

What we also need to do, though, is still work on the dogs that are already inside the fence. Over the next few years, we will renew the fence, but that does not mean that we can ease up in any way on the work to remove dogs from inside the fence. It is every landholder's legal responsibility to remove wild dogs from their property below the dog fence. Whether they hold the land for grazing purposes or not, it is still the responsibility of every single landholder to put the effort into that so that all graziers below the fence can benefit as much as humanly possible from what we are doing.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:19): I rise to speak briefly on the 34^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence. I do so with great pride because the dog fence, as previous speakers have expressed, is a piece of infrastructure that has long protected a very important industry in South Australia.

Currently, as the numbers stand, the sheep industry in South Australia is worth about $1.48 billion. We are looking to grow that industry, and to do that we have had to put policy, mechanisms and infrastructure in place to not only protect the industry but also give our sheep producers, meat and wool producers, and our pastoralists the confidence to continue to invest in and look to the future of how they are going to be a part of the growing sector that is one of the great economies in South Australia.

We know that the grains industry is not only a major contributor to our commodity bottom line but also our largest exporter. The red meat sector is growing very quickly and it is looking at ways it can grow. Traditionally, the SASAG group have been instrumental in overseeing funding and government liaising on how we work with the sheep industry. The guard is about to change as both the sheep industry—the South Australian body—and the cattle industry are now coming in under the Livestock SA banner.

Working our way forward, we are working with industry now on how we can rebuild the dog fence. We instigated a BDO report that gave us a better understanding of exactly what sections of the fence needed to be replaced—21,050 kilometres in South Australia—and there was an underlying need for 1,600 kilometres to be replaced. With that 1,600 kilometres came a price tag, and the price tag has been deemed to be $25 million. Along the way, we have developed a relationship with the member for Grey, the member for Stuart, the member for Flinders and myself to work our way through this and, as a collective, collaborate and lobby both the commonwealth and the state government, and understand that the industry had to have some skin in the game, so we came together.

Very proudly, we were able to work with the Morrison Coalition prior to their election to secure a commitment of $10 million. The Marshall Liberal government have seen fit to invest a further $10 million, and industry have said they will put $5 million as their co-contribution into the rebuild in any way they can, and they have consulted far and wide. We have seen sheep producers, the pastoralists, having to dig into their pockets to be a part of the solution, and I thank them for that. It is a commitment, and it is a commitment that comes at a time when they are experiencing hardship, particularly through the drought, and they have seen the worth of the rebuild of this fence.

Currently, we have the Dog Fence Rebuild Committee led by Geoff Power, a well-respected grazier-pastoralist in South Australia. He and his team have travelled to Queensland to have a look at some of those exclusion fences to make sure that this rebuild is just, that it is warranted and that we put a piece of infrastructure in place that will potentially last another 100 years. Of course, with that comes a maintenance program; we understand that.

Looking at the dog fence, there are parts of it that have been there for many, many decades and are well past the use-by date. Previous governments have looked at the fence, they have kicked the fence and they have walked away from the fence, and that has been quite sad. We have seen the lack of will to put significant investment into that fence to protect the industry.

Regarding the Sheep Industry Blueprint, the aspiration is to grow that industry to $1.8 billion by 2020. The $1.8 billion target is achievable, but we are pushing against a headwind with the drought. On my recent visits to some of that pasture country I have seen real heartache up there. We have seen a lot of destocking. We have seen a lot of animals being moved to other parts of the country in order to preserve breeding stock, to preserve some of the investment that has been accumulated over a long time—in some instances decades—into those properties, collecting breeding stock, making sure they can grow their piece of the pie as part of the industry.

At the moment, dealing with drought and with uncertainty certainly questions the ability to generate that $1.8 billion economy, so the fact that a Marshall Liberal government and a Morrison Coalition, with industry, have stumped up for their belief in what the dog fence is worth, and in its ability to underpin an industry that is very buoyant at the moment, should be applauded. If we look back to the 1982 drought, through low commodity prices you could not get enough money to buy a bullet to shoot a sheep.

We are experiencing very buoyant returns for sheep and wool and that is why we see fit to invest in the fence, to give those pastoralists, those sheep producers, the confidence to be part of a growing industry. Of course, coming into government we saw the initial pressure on a dog fence that was not maintained or that had little focus on it by the previous government. However, we came in and acknowledged the pressure on the fence but also thought we would be more proactive and so invested a further $1.2 billion into a tracking program, a more coordinated baiting program.

That said, pastoralists have been doing an outstanding job but they needed a hand; they needed some funding that would help decelerate the growing numbers of dogs. Prior to coming into government we saw some very good breeding seasons. Good rainfall produces life, accelerates the life cycle, and we have seen dog numbers increase and, as the drought bites, those dogs are moving south, as the member for Stuart has rightly said.

I previously owned a vineyard at Overland Corner and there were wild dogs sighted down there at Taylorville. We have seen wild dogs in the Mallee. That just demonstrates that the dogs are moving south, and some of them are very cunning, smart animals and very hard to track, trace and destroy. The baiting program has been very important, our coordinated program by both land and air. I know from my trip up into some of the pasture country a couple of weeks ago that there is a large baiting program going on not only in South Australia but also Queensland, because if those dogs are heading south they are heading south out of Queensland, south out of New South Wales, and south out of our pasture country.

I think we are working extremely well with industry. We are working well in having the dog fence rebuilt. Tenders have closed for materials, and for those fencing gangs to put their best foot forward so that we can get on with rebuilding the fence in the first quarter of 2020. The member for MacKillop, as a large sheep producer, would be quite buoyed by this project, and the member for Stuart and his constituency are very excited at the prospect of a government that actually cares and is investing in and protecting an industry that is so valuable. So roll on the sheep industry, the growth agenda of $1.8 billion, and the $7.5 million blueprint we are currently supporting.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:29): I rise to make a contribution on the 34^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence. What an exciting day this is. I thank the minister for agriculture for taking the time to visit the electorate of Flinders earlier this year, when we travelled north from Ceduna and inspected part of the dog fence within the electorate of Flinders which, as it happens, is part of the dog fence that has actually been identified as being up for renewal.

I appreciate the contributions from both the member for Stuart and the member for Giles, who have significant portions of the dog fence running through their electorates, as it wanders its way through pastoral country, from the north-west through to the north-east, from the Great Australian Bight, in the electorate of Flinders, just west of Nundroo, or just west of Yalata actually. It really delineates the sheep country from the cattle country. Our sheep flocks need to be protected from what was originally the dingo but is now known as the wild dog population because, more often than not, we are not seeing purebred dingoes but, rather, populations of dogs that have interbred with domestic dogs, which are regarded as wild dogs.

When we were in the West, we met with local landowners who have an interest in the dog fence. The Minister for Energy and Mining mentioned Geoff Power, who comes from his neck of the woods and is a prominent member of the Dog Fence Board. That part of the fence in the West is looked after by the Penong Dog Fence Board. There are a number of dog fence boards throughout the state. Quite a few members of the Penong Dog Fence Board met us north of Ceduna. It was a really productive meeting in the lead-up to this project being announced.

The Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence project proposes to rebuild sections of the South Australian dog fence that are 100 years old to ensure protection of South Australia's livestock industries. The South Australian dog fence is 2,150 kilometres long and stretches from the Great Australian Bight to the New South Wales border, and as much as 1,600 kilometres has been identified as needing to be replaced.

PIRSA advised the committee that the South Australian dog fence is a most important asset. I think that has been identified today. The minister for agriculture even referred to it as 'nation building' it is so significant. Even though it might not be a particularly high priority for people in metropolitan Adelaide, or even farmers and graziers further south in the state, it is critical to keeping the wild dog population at bay and protecting our sheep industry in the southern part of the state.

Dogs will travel: once they are through in numbers enough to breed up then they will travel. Famously, a few years ago a wild dog was shot as far south as Port Neill on Eyre Peninsula. It is not inconceivable that, should a significant population build up inside what is now a decrepit fence, they could travel far south and be on the outskirts of metropolitan Adelaide.

As I said, the dog fence is 2,150 kilometres long. Over the last decade, the impact of wild dogs on the South Australian livestock industry has dramatically increased. It is not just the numbers and the damage they do to sheep flocks—even calves on a property running cattle—it also means that an extraordinary amount of time, an extraordinary amount of resources and much worry is spent by the pastoralists and their families on trying to control the dogs and protect their flocks and livelihoods.

In 2018, the South Australian Dog Fence Board reported several strategic priorities to reduce the impact of wild dogs. The board highlighted that $25 million was required to rebuild 1,600 kilometres of the dog fence. Agreement was reached between the commonwealth, the state and industry, with the commonwealth contributing $10 million, the state contributing $10 million and industry contributing $5 million to renew the fence. As well as that, there will need to be ongoing maintenance, monitoring and repair. Baiting and trapping will continue—a little while ago, this government announced funding for an extra two trappers—and shooting is critical to maintaining dog numbers at a low level.

Hopefully, once the fence is renewed it will preclude any dogs getting through—that would be in an ideal world—but there are situations where camels might break through, floodwaters might come down or strong winds might blow the fence over and the dogs will still have an opportunity to get through, so regular patrolling is critical. Rebuilding the dog fence will protect South Australia's $4.3 billion livestock industry by supporting the economic priorities for South Australia, and they are: increasing and securing productivity for the livestock industry inside the fence, growing the regions through a stronger livestock industry and employment to rebuild the fence.

Tenders were called for (the tender process has closed) and there would have been a good number of applications, I am sure. It is going to be a huge job. Obviously, it will take more than one successful tender to rebuild this, particularly given that the build is expected to commence in autumn of next year, only a few months away, and be completed by June 2024. Within a four-year period we should have a brand-new dog fence over much of the distance and certainly a very serviceable dog fence over the rest of it.

An independent economic analysis predicted that replacing the 100-year-old sections of the dog fence could benefit South Australia by up to $120 million over 20 years, which is a significant return on investment, estimated to be around 48 per cent. There are not too many investments where you can get that sort of return in the current economic climate.

There will be more than 60 additional full-time jobs created as a result of the rebuild. I assume that is over the life of the build, which we have identified as being over four years. The new dog fence will reduce wild dog management costs for pastoralists, which I alluded to before, by up to $97 million over 20 years. That is a significant saving in time, resources and money for pastoralists who abut the fence and also those who are a little bit further south.

The sales income of sheep enterprises is expected to increase by almost $70 million. That really identifies part of the problem, because dogs can significantly impact sheep numbers on any given property or in any given enterprise. It only takes the loss of a few ewes and many lambs to significantly impact the bottom line of any pastoral enterprise.

I congratulate the Marshall government and the minister for agriculture on pushing this, and I also congratulate the Public Works Committee, ably led by the member for Kavel, and the other members who have considered this proposal, understood the importance of it and are recommending that it be approved.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:37): I rise to add my support to that of others in this place in relation to the 34^th report of the Public Works Committee, on the Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence. The South Australian dog fence is the most important asset protecting the $1.5 billion South Australian sheep industry. It is a strong line of defence to protect the sheep industry from wild dog attacks. With the numbers of wild dogs reportedly growing, the rebuild of this fence is a priority for our government.

The scale of the fence is, of course, significant: at 2,150 kilometres long, it stretches from the Great Australian Bight to the New South Wales border. This ageing infrastructure, which in sections is 100 years old, is costing our sheep industry dearly. It really is welcome to see bipartisan support for this build and reconstruction, particularly on the opposition side, and I welcome the member for Giles' support of the dog fence. His seat also takes in the dog fence, so no doubt he is fully aware of all the implications amongst his constituents.

The dog fence is not a new issue for me and my family. We bordered some of the dog fence many years ago until we sold the property, Wooltana Station. One of the reasons for selling was the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the dog fence. The age and deterioration of the fence was certainly an issue but, not only that, there was a dog fence board that used to maintain the fence, but the main maintenance was meant to be upheld by the growers at the time.

In fact, if you go back far enough, the dog fence was originally put up by individual landowners to protect their patch of dirt. Eventually, a number of landowners got together and joined the fence to make it as long as it is today, keeping the dogs out from the north and the south. The dog fence means a whole lot; in fact, more so today not only for its pure value but for the choice it gives us to grow what we want in our region and whether to have sheep in this country.

They say that Australia once rode on the sheep's back; it was developed through the farming of sheep in its early heydays and pioneering economics. In Longreach, Queensland, they used to have a flock of around two million-odd sheep in that region. I think that figure is now below 700,000 due to drought. Most importantly, dogs were an issue that caused people to turn away from sheep and move towards cattle. But this has changed. In the area around Longreach, people are doing exactly the same as our pioneers did in South Australia over 100 years ago—fencing off their properties from dogs at their own cost so that they can run the sheep.

I want to touch on a couple of big properties that used to run sheep. One was called Isis Downs in Queensland, a property that was owned by Kerry Packer. It has a huge shearing shed and is a bit of a tourist attraction with 120 stands. Apparently, in its heyday when it was shearing time, you could be sacked from one end of the board and re-employed on the other end because there were two or three teams running depending on—

Members interjecting:

Mr McBRIDE: I am not sure how many roustabouts 120 stands would require, but it would have been a whole community shearing nearly in excess of 80,000 to 120,000 sheep. The property no longer has sheep on it, and one reason for that could have been the labour component associated with sheep. It is more intensive. The other reason was the wild dog issue. We were also lucky enough to see Cordillo Downs on the Natural Resources Committee. That also has another large shearing shed. It is now a tourist attraction and it is an all-cattle station. They would not even contemplate putting sheep on that property today because of the wild dog issue.

Dogs are certainly an issue in New South Wales. We had a property in New England near the Great Dividing Range. We were on the western side and would never confront the eastern side. On the eastern side were a lot of national parks. All those properties that abound or adjoin the national parks are cattle properties. One of the reasons for that is that if they had sheep they would be eaten by wild dogs.

Another phenomenon about wild dogs that most will not recognise here is that South Australia suffers from wild dog, but it is more of a dingo wild dog than the crossbred wild dog of the eastern coast. Originally, the east coast wild dogs mated with dingoes, but Alsatians and greyhounds and other dogs that people abandoned in the national parks have crossbred with the dingo and now they are a real predator. They are more of a predator than the dingo because it is said that the dingo will only hunt for its needs. It only hunts because it gets hungry. It does play occasionally and is known to do that.

However, the wild dog from the east side of Australia, with its crossbreeding, hunts just to play around and take the delicacies, and that is the kidneys of the sheep. When they capture sheep they rip the kidneys out and walk away and leave the rest. This is why wild dogs in the New South Wales area are a really emotional issue. They kill large numbers when they get amongst the sheep producers on the east coast or in the Great Dividing Range west of that. When I was living in the area, there was a dog there and there was a great deal of concern because of the damage that even one dog or many more dogs could do.

We had a meeting up there and obviously all rationale was sought to find a way of getting rid of the wild dogs or the dog that was in the area—it could be shooting it, it could be poisoning it, it could be baiting it. When there was a wild dog issue in the region, you would get 200 or 300 people living within an area of 50 to 100 square kilometres gathering to talk about it. That just gives you an indication of its importance. When we talk about a wild dog issue, it might involve 100 kilometres and only one property with a station and staff, but up there it was very intense and well populated and obviously the matter of economic difficulty created by wild dogs was certainly well received.

The rebuild of the fence will have significant benefits. Analysis has shown that the rebuild of the 1,600 kilometres of dog fence will create significant benefits in the vicinity of $120 million over 20 years—a return on investment of 48 per cent. This analysis provides a compelling case. More than 60 additional full-time jobs will be created as a result of the rebuild. Wild dog management costs will be reduced for pastoralists by up to $97 million over 20 years and sales income of sheep enterprises is expected to increase by up to nearly $70 million.

Increasing and securing productivity for the livestock industry inside the fence will in turn underpin stronger regional economies through benefits that a stronger livestock industry would bring and through employment generated through the rebuild itself. The $10 million investment by our state government together with the $10 million from the commonwealth government and the $5 million from the livestock industry is a partnership that underscores the importance of this fence to our state.

Another great point is the fact that we have the federal and state governments and our industry all working together, understanding the issues. It is known that these dogs obviously start in the pastoral regions and then head further south. Something that has been said here already in some of the supportive speeches is that landowners have to take responsibility for managing these dogs, but then so does National Parks.

While the rest of the community plays their part, a property like Bon Bon station, out from Glendambo, bought with federal funds back in 2008 and looked after by National Parks, also has to play its role in managing vermin—wild dogs and other predators—in these parks so that they do not create a haven for dogs to live in.

Obviously, we also want the landowners to be part of this. One of the problems with wild dogs and controlling them (and we face this issue ourselves personally now) is gun control and having guns in vehicles so that when you see a wild dog it is paramount that you actually destroy it. However, having guns in a vehicle with employees who may not be full time and may even be backpackers from overseas—because it is so difficult getting employees out in these regions—is another reason that this issue of the dogs has become so hard.

It is okay when you are a family out in the pastoral regions and you can even train your son, your children, and your wife can even have a gun licence; they are all responsible people. But when you have employees, especially from overseas—getting labour from any source that you can—having gun licences given to those types of people is a really difficult challenge because, firstly, they do not have a licence and, secondly, it is very difficult to get a licence. By the time you get them upskilled and so forth, they have to move on because their visa will have expired. These are all the difficulties we are having with employment and controlling dogs inside the dog fence.

Baiting is another difficulty. More than 20 or 30 years ago, people used to bait up a dead sheep or a dead kangaroo or something like that by chucking a few 1080 and strychnine baits out the window as they were going down the road. You cannot do that anymore; you are not allowed to do that anymore. You could lay them right across your property for 100—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr McBRIDE: Yes, I know—for a very good reason. Things have changed. But that makes the task of controlling these dogs that much harder. This is why this dog fence must work. This is why it must be improved and redeveloped and looked after more than ever before.

I am pleased that the Public Works Committee has undertaken its assessment and recommended the proposed public works. The generational investment by the Marshall Liberal government in this important piece of infrastructure is a testament to the fact that we are listening to our regions and that we value our primary industries and the value our regional communities bring to our state. I commend this report to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:48): I want to keep my remarks brief because I certainly do wish for the house to move in line with the member for Kavel's motion that the 34^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled Rebuild of the South Australian Dog Fence, be noted. Indeed, I think it is important that that occur. I confine my remarks to some short observations about the importance of the dog fence in terms of the history of South Australia and the history of pastoral development in this state.

What we know is that in the early development of pastoral country in the north there were two matters of particular significance and particular gaps in knowledge that caused catastrophic losses in the very early days. One of those was the carrying capacity of the land, and the other was the dramatic effect that wild dogs had almost immediately once sheep were introduced into that country. So the development of fencing, at first around properties, was a very early priority, and how to get to grips with the danger of losses caused by wild dogs was a matter that exercised people's minds right from the start.

As the member for Kavel has indicated, the rebuild that will occur with this $25 million of much-needed capital funding will restore sections of the fence that are now over 100 years old and well and truly required as we combat the pressure of dogs coming on that fence and then pressing south of the fence. I also want to make it clear from the point of view of my role as the Presiding Member of the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament that this has been a matter of significant interest for my committee.

I want to note the visit the committee did to the arid lands in August last year at which time we had the opportunity to inspect the fence near Coober Pedy and receive briefings in relation to the work that has been conducted south of the fence in relation to the Biteback program. That program has been operating since 2009, effectively to bait with a view to eradicate wild dogs south of the fence.

To be clear, we know that inside the fence the status of wild dogs and dingoes is clear: they are a declared pest under South Australia's natural resources legislation, now the Landscape SA legislation. We know that the present threat of wild dogs inside the fence is something that we directly endeavour to deal with. Outside the fence, wild dogs and dingoes are neither specifically protected nor are they declared, but they are acknowledged for their significance. There is a balancing act to be achieved, hence the very important role of the fence in drawing a clear dividing line between an area where we know there will continue to be dogs and dingoes and an area where we want to be able to run sheep without the devastating effects that the dogs can cause.

I want to specifically recognise at this time that a history of the dog fence was prepared on the occasion of the centenary of Federation of South Australia and that was concerning the period from 1947, the initial dog fence legislation, until 2012. It is a publication entitled Holding the Line. It was originally authored by Leith Yelland and, after his unfortunate passing, it was revised and updated by Patricia Fraser in November 2012. Time does not permit me to go through that publication at any length; I would like to do so given an opportunity. But I want to make the observation that what has happened with the development of the dog fence has been a very practical endeavour. It has been driven by people who actually live and work in the area.

As I said at the outset, it started with individual pastoralists looking to fence off their own properties and it became clear that it was going to be far more efficient not to ring fence individual properties but to have a single fence that covered the entire state. There was very early on a high degree of cooperation among those pastoralists, legislation and the establishment of the Dog Fence Board which has served us well for those many decades ever since.

I particularly recognise in that regard the sustained work on the dog fence, commencing with Byron MacLachlan at Commonwealth Hill and Ian McTaggart of Nonning Pastoral and their descendants, notably the long ongoing work of Hugh MacLachlan and his sons in recent years who continue that work. This is the government coming to the development of much-needed capital works to restore and maintain one of the state's key pastoral assets. I commend this work and I commend the motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:55): It is with great pride that I rise to speak to the 34^th report of the Public Works Committee in relation to the rebuild of the dog fence. What an important motion this is. This is something that has been debated for many years and, thankfully under the Marshall Liberal government, we have been able to auspice $25 million, which is a contribution of $10 million of state money, $10 million of federal government money and $5 million from industry. In the little bit of time that I have, I want to commend the industry for getting behind this scheme—

Mr Teague interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, I'm not complaining. It is something that industry are obviously concerned about and I am glad that they have got on to it. There is an extra levy per head of sheep that is sold. I really want to commend industry because I remember the days, about eight years ago, when we were all working towards getting Primary Producers South Australia, Livestock South Australia and Grain Producers South Australia. There was talk of industry levies coming in to make it work because, quite frankly, through South Australian Farmers Federation membership dropping, the funds just ran out and it basically fell over in the end. I really want to commend the industry.

I want to commend Geoff Power for his absolutely tireless work in lobbying politicians of all colours to make sure we get this bill progressed for the 1,600 kilometres of the 2,150 kilometres of the South Australian section of the dog fence. It is absolutely vital to our industry, vital to the billions of dollars of livestock production in this state, and it is a great project.

I want to comment ever so briefly on people who live north of the fence and station owners, like Sharon Oldfield at Cowarie Station, who I have visited multiple times. She wants to keep up her organic status and cannot use 1080 baits because she is north of the fence. This shows the impact that dogs have on cattle: they pull down calves and that sort of thing. They spend a lot of money and time shooting dogs north of the fence.

I would just like to commend the Public Works Committee and commend the Marshall Liberal government, the federal government and certainly the industry for getting behind this. I commend the motion.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:58): This is a very substantial and significant project, and I am appreciative of the member for Stuart, the member for Chaffey, the member for Flinders, the member for Giles, the member for MacKillop, the member for Heysen, and the member for Hammond for not only contributing to the debate in the house today but also being very strong advocates for this vital project.

I said in my earlier remarks that the dog fence is the single most important asset protecting the $1.5 billion South Australian sheep industry. It is also right for the member for Stuart to say that it is a nation-building project and for the member for Flinders to reflect also on that point. This government has made a significant commitment and so has the industry to ensure that this vital work can be performed now.

It is difficult work, it is hard work, it is important work. Members may know that over $1 million is being spent on topping out sandhills alone and putting in place a clay surface to better allow for the construction of this fence. As I say, it is vital work, and I am very proud that we have been able to recommend this project and to bring it forward so quickly as a government. I know that all South Australians will benefit.

Motion carried.