Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Native Animal Culling NATIVE ANIMAL CULLING The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council NATIVE ANIMAL CULLING The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation about the culling of native animals. Leave granted. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: In response to a freedom of information request, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources has released to me information on permits to cull native animals over the last two years and the numbers are deeply disturbing: over 100,000 animals in just two years; 44,778 animals in 2010-11 up to 56,499 in the year 2011-12. The FOI response reveals that permits to destroy wildlife were issued for 12,181 animals listed as 'rare' by the state government and even two species listed as 'vulnerable': the yellow-tailed black cockatoo and tammar wallaby were allowed to be killed. The most popular species to be destroyed were the western grey kangaroo with over 35,000 permits, followed by the tammar wallaby with 17,575 and the brush-tailed possum with 10,446, despite it also being listed as rare because of habitat destruction. Other species to be killed were the Cape Barren Goose, 385, the eastern grey kangaroo, 1,320, and the little egret, 30. Reasons given for culling include 'loss of amenity', 'spreading rubbish' and 'fouling playing fields and swimming pools'. The lack of transparency around destruction permits for native wildlife, especially when they are in relation to rare and vulnerable species, is of serious concern to many in the community. This is especially so as these statistics are just the number of formal permits issued and do not include native animals killed without permits. Many people are saying that the public should not have to chase this information under freedom of information. My questions of the minister are: 1.	As the new minister for conservation, are you concerned about the number of permits being granted by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources for the culling of native animals? 2.	Will you commit to reviewing the government's Living with Wildlife policy to ensure that culling permits are only granted as a last resort and only after all other non-lethal options have been exhausted? 3.	Will you commit to removing the cloak of secrecy around these permits by tabling destruction permits in parliament, or at the very least publishing them on the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources website? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability Minister for Water and the River Murray Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:45): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources administers the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, which regulates the management of wildlife. Under section 53(1)(c) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act a permit may be granted to a person that allows the destruction or removal of animals that are causing, or are likely to cause, damage to the environment or to crops, stock or other property. The department encourages a 'living with wildlife' approach to managing interactions between wildlife and people. This approach promotes positive attitudes towards wildlife, encourages wildlife conservation and considers the welfare of all animals. It focuses on reducing negative impacts caused by wildlife through using humane and non-lethal methods. The department also provides advice about appropriate ways to reduce the impacts of wildlife on human activities, and takes into account the underlying causes of these impacts, such as urbanisation, land clearance, changed land use and development activities. A decision to grant a permit to destroy wildlife takes account of the ecological, economic, social and animal welfare principles that are involved. A permit is only granted once a range of non-lethal options have been tried first, unless there is an overriding public safety issue, such as wombat burrows undermining railway lines, for example. All destruction of wildlife must comply with the relevant code of practice and conditions of permit. In the 2010-11 financial year, the department issued 614 permits for the destruction of wildlife. In 2011-12, the department issued 775 permits. This increase is most likely attributed to the increase in animal populations associated with three years of good rainfall. For example, kangaroos, I am advised, are opportunistic breeders that can increase their numbers quickly when there is food and water available. With good crops, birds that feed on grain or fruit, such as corellas and lorikeets, increase in number and this can lead to an increase in some of the negative impacts on agriculture, amenity and businesses. So, although the species covered under destruction permits are generally common or abundant, in certain circumstances it is necessary to issue a permit for a species that is rare or vulnerable. This decision is not made lightly and permit conditions such as numbers, timing or technique are set to protect the conservation status of the species. A permit system is necessary to ensure that problem birds or animals are not being removed unnecessarily or in unsustainable numbers. It also makes people accountable for the number of animals they destroy and encourages them to work with their local natural resources centre to first try non-lethal control methods.