Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Question Time Wild Dog Strategic Plan Wild Dog Strategic Plan The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition Wild Dog Strategic Plan The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:33): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment a question about wild dogs. Leave granted. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They're not the ones that savage him in caucus every Tuesday! Mr President, livestock is an integral part of our $18.2 billion agricultural sector. The overall livestock industry has a farm gate value of around $1.3 billion. Specifically, the sheep industry is a significant employer in South Australia and we have just under 7,000 sheep, lamb and wool producers employing some 20,000 people, farming around 11 million sheep, which is worth about half a billion dollars at the farm gate. A significant threat facing the livestock industry generally is that of wild dogs. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) released a report in 2014 estimating that wild dogs would have a $34 million impact on industry over 20 years. I note that in May this year the house passed the Dog Fence (Payment and Rebates) Amendment Bill which increased the levy from $1.20 per square kilometre to $2 per square kilometre. I understand the government will match this funding. However, Mr Geoff Power from Livestock SA is calling on the state government to provide $300,000 a year to fund two wild dog trappers to address this threat. Given that South Australia's portion of the dog fence is in desperate need of repair and the importance of livestock production to this state, it is unacceptable that Queensland has eight doggers, Western Australia has 13 doggers and South Australia has none. My question to the minister is will the state government commit to providing the additional $300,000 for funding two wild dog trappers? If not, why not? Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:35): I thank the honourable member for his most important question and the opportunity to put on the record the fact that the federal Liberal government withdrew funding for programs around wild dogs, but I will come to that in a minute. Members interjecting: The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The number of wild dogs, dingoes and part dingoes has increased in rangeland areas south of the dog fence, I am advised, in recent years, threatening the state's sheep industry. The state government takes the matter of wild dog management incredibly seriously. Considerable investment is made in managing wild dog populations. The state government, and I am advised also the South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board believes that the best solution for wild dogs in the region is a long-term strategic approach that requires long-term federal funding arrangements. Members interjecting: The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Although short-term arrangements to wild dog management is effective, and we are always grateful when the federal government gives the NRM board some grants to control wild dogs or indeed employ a dogger, as they have done in the past, it is the short-term nature of that funding which really causes problems for those dealing with wild dogs, because it is a long-standing issue that requires a partnership with the federal government and requires a long-term funding arrangement. As I said, short-term approaches to wild dog management can be effective. The SAAL NRM Board believes that the most successful arrangement for wild dog management comprises both service delivery and compliance and best practice activities. Inside the dog fence the SAAL NRM Board is leading initiatives to improve wild dog control through the Biteback Program. The SAAL NRM regions Biteback Program is jointly funded by the SAAL NRM Board and the South Australian Sheep Industry Fund. Commonwealth funding has also assisted, as I said, program delivery during 2014-15 and 2015-16. Drought assistance funding from the Australian government was used to employ a dog trapper and a second Biteback officer during the 2015-16 financial year. But this federal funding is not available in 2016-17. Investment in wild dog management remains a very high profile issue for the SAAL NRM Board. In 2016-17 the board will fund the following wild dog management activities: the employment of Biteback officers who will provide wild dog bait injection services for landholders with properties to the south of the dog fence. The officers will also support the 22 established community action groups which have local plans that define the minimum levels of landholder participation in wild dog baiting and management. There are aerial wild dog baiting activities in areas that are difficult to access by land, the provision of subsidised dog baits and Canid Pest Ejectors for landholders, and the provision of training via wild dog trapping workshops for landholders. As to Biteback targets, there is the control of wild dogs inside the dog fence by coordinating and supporting, as I said, 22 community-based local area planning groups which were established to undertake district scale control activities. This approach has resulted in a substantial increase in landholder participation rates in wild dog control across the landscape. The biannual bait injection service provided to landholders has been boosted by the installation of freezers to help ensure a continuous supply of baits outside of these times. I am advised that the state government recognises, of course, the success of this very important program, and negotiations are currently underway with industry partners, including Australian Wool Innovation, to investigate the potential to engage a state-wide Biteback coordinator. These initiatives have arisen as a result of improved communication and coordination, following the establishment of the South Australian Wild Dog Advisory Group. The group has overseen the drafting of a state wild dog strategic plan as the mechanism by which South Australia delivers its contributions to the National Wild Dog Action Plan. The draft state plan was circulated for consideration to 18 stakeholder groups in September 2015, including several NRM boards, the Dog Fence Board and Livestock SA. Some final matters regarding dog baiting outside the fence are currently being addressed, I am advised, before the plan will be presented to me for consideration. Under its terms of reference, the South Australian Wild Dog Advisory Group is charged with overseeing the development and implementation of this plan. It is important to state again that the long-term management of wild dogs and dingoes really relies on the input of stakeholders, landholders in particular, all working together as a community, to control wild dogs on their property. If one landholder or a number of landholders change the practices on their property, that is, moving from sheep to cattle, and decide they know longer need to be involved in wild dog control, that has repercussions for other pastoralists and landholders who are working in the sheep industry. The best thing that can be done is to get a jointly coordinated, cooperative relationship between landholders, and that is exactly what the government does. As I said, we were involved in a program that used the dogger, funded by the federal government, but the federal government saw fit to withdraw that funding.