HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: INVASIVE SPECIES INQUIRY

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:10): I move:

That the 57th report of the committee, entitled Invasive Species Inquiry: 'It's not over until the cat lady sings', be noted.

This report relates to the committee's inquiry into invasive species in South Australia. The inquiry was first suggested by the former member for Stuart, a former member of the Natural Resources Committee and West Coast farmer, the Hon. Graham Gunn, back in 2009. Initial hearings in mid to late 2010 coincided with the outbreak of a mouse plague on Eyre Peninsula and the locust plague in the north-east of the state.

Recent rains in South Australia and around the nation have heralded a welcome end to one of the worst droughts in Australia's history. However, there is also a flipside: while floods were inundating parts of South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria the same rains were also producing a boost to pests, plants and animals, including weeds, feral cats, mice, rabbits, cane toads and camels.

This inquiry revealed a wealth of community knowledge about invasive species, as well as a strong commitment to tackling them. Committee members were particularly impressed by the hard work volunteers put into combating weeds and pest animals in order to protect endangered species. Volunteers are often the first line of defence against new invasive species, and I have to emphasise that without this volunteer labour force and expertise South Australia would be much worse off.

Despite the overwhelming challenges, volunteers like Ron Taylor devote significant proportions of their lives to the ongoing battle against invasive species. In the words of Mr Taylor:

I have been over on my West Coast property dealing with one of the worst weed infestations I have seen since I have owned it. I have come back and, instead of doing my normal weed management here as a volunteer, I was asked immediately by the department to go out and start slashing areas on the coastline because of a lack of budget by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I was even yesterday out there for nearly nine hours slashing wild oat that was two metres high.

Mr Taylor works about 100 hours a week volunteering and has been doing so for 18 years, and for this I would like to thank him, together with all the other dedicated natural resource management volunteers who do so much for our state. I would also like to quote from another volunteer who gave evidence to our inquiry. In the words of Margaret Wilksch, a Mount Barker councillor and long-time Landcare volunteer:

I am really concerned, and I have been for many years, about the weed situation, particularly in the high rainfall areas. It appears to me to actually be an increasing problem, whereas it should be a reducing problem...in the last three to five years, maybe it is the global warming, weeds seem to be having a better environment and growing worse than they were before.

On the subject of weeds, the CSIRO has estimated that escaped garden plant species account for 94 per cent of all naturalised weeds in Australia. The CSIRO reports that garden escapees comprise 69 per cent of the 954 listed agricultural weeds and 72 per cent of the 1,765 listed environmental weeds. Unsurprisingly, this phenomenon is often cited as a good argument for using indigenous species in home gardens. Members who know me in this place know that I am a keen advocate for the local provenance of Indigenous species—

The Hon. R.B. Such: Hear, hear!

The Hon. S.W. KEY: —having grown these, together with native plants, in my own garden—and I should acknowledge Dr Such's efforts in these areas as well. Indigenous species have significant benefits for gardens, for example, the excellent and much sought after Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board's Coastal Gardens—A Planting Guide (for anyone who has not seen that guide I suggest they try to get hold of it) where it describes local species as low maintenance, drought tolerant and providing good habitat for Indigenous fauna, including birds, butterflies and lizards.

South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Entomology has also published an excellent guide using native plants on the Northern Adelaide Plains to benefit horticulture, highlighting their role in displaying and suppressing weeds and supporting populations of beneficial insects, thus reducing the need for pesticides. However, while indigenous and native plants are fantastic, it is also apparent that in many places around the state our natural environment is so modified it would be clearly impractical and undesirable to try to return it to its pristine or pre-European state. I have to say my husband does not agree with this—he talks about botanical imperialism—but I certainly think we will need to take this on board.

Ecologist Mark Davis wrote recently in the June edition of Nature that:

Increasingly, the practical value of the native versus alien species dichotomy in conservation is declining—

and that, while the bias against alien species still exists—

...today's management approaches must recognise that the natural systems of the past are changing forever thanks to drivers such as climate change, nitrogen eutrophication, increased urbanisation and other land use changes.

Professor Davis suggests that:

It is time for scientists, land managers and policy makers to ditch this pre-occupation with the native-alien dichotomy and embrace more dynamic and pragmatic approaches to conservation and management of species—approaches better suited to our fast changing planet.

Professor Davis points out that, while some alien species damage ecosystems, many others do not and, in fact, native or indigenous species are just as much a problem in rapidly changing environments.

In line with this perspective, committee members heard about the negative impacts of overabundant native species such as wombats, koalas, kangaroos, emus and some forms of unpalatable vegetation (for example, the sticky hop bush) and what they can do to grazing lands. This is in contrast to introduced species such as the freshwater crayfish marron. Having had some on the weekend in Kangaroo Island, I can certainly vouch for how wonderful it is. This does not strictly come from that island, so it is interesting how, in some cases, we have used different native species like the marron in a very positive way.

When we travelled to the arid lands natural resource region in late 2010, the Natural Resources Committee saw examples of the highly invasive Athel Pine from North Africa growing at Coward Springs. This tree is a weed of national significance and has been responsible for infesting hundreds of kilometres of the Finke and other arid rivers in the Northern Territory and the Far North of South Australia, with removal programs costing upwards of $2 million to date. While it is a listed weed, the pines at Coward Springs have been assessed for this location and allowed to remain to provide shade and dust suppression around the camp sites. The trees are carefully monitored to ensure they do not spread. Members of the committee support this sort of common-sense approach to invasive species management.

One hundred and seventy five years after South Australia's first European settlement was established in Kingscote (and today I believe we actually celebrate that 175 years), invasive species are widespread in South Australia. While combating invasive species is often portrayed in the media as a battle, it is a battle that can never be won. Faced with the seemingly impossible task of eradicating invasive species in South Australia, the committee concluded that key issues are invasiveness and the relative impacts of invasive species rather than the origin of the species.

While success stories regarding weed control are rare, one recent and ongoing success, which members would no doubt be aware of, is the ongoing biological control of the highly invasive weed known as Salvation Jane, which the CSIRO considered to be Australia's worst broadleaf temperate pasture weed. Since 1995 South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), working in partnership with the CSIRO and cross-border departments of primary industries, has overseen the release of four insects designed to limit the dominance of this weed by reducing its vigour and size and the quality of the seed produced.

These insects, (the crown weevil, the root weevil, the flea beetle and the pollen beetle) are proving successful in the controlling of the weed. I should say that the botanical and correct names are all in our report; I have decided not to murder them by my pronunciation in my presentation to you. Smaller and fewer plants mean that other more palatable pasture species or native plant species are able to compete more successfully, which is obviously great news.

In this report, the committee has made some key recommendations, some of which I would like to highlight today. Firstly, the committee has recommended legislation requiring mandatory registration and microchipping of domestic cats, together with a specific control program for non-registered and non-microchipped or unowned cats. There are some interesting terms associated with these cats. I think in one report they were addressed as 'free-living' cats; some of you may remember Top Cat on television—I think they were 'free-living' cats, from memory. It was my favourite show, but now I realise that they were actually cats that should have been controlled.

The Dog and Cat Management Board has estimated approximately 590,000 of these unowned cats exist in South Australia, which is about three times the number of pet cats. Unowned cats include neighbourhood cats that appear to be someone's pet but are not really. Unlike pet cats, that are generally well looked after and desexed, unowned cats are responsible for producing around 172,000 kittens each year. Members heard from the Dog and Cat Management Board and were told that over a seven-year period one female cat and her young can produce 420,000 cats, so you can see that this is a serious issue if left unchecked. I notice some members looking at me askance, but I certainly think the numbers are really worrying.

While visiting the South Australian arid lands NRM region last year, committee members heard evidence of the shocking rate of predation on small mammals and reptiles by cats. We were shown a photograph—and this photograph appears on page 22 of our report—of a feral cat that had been killed, with the contents of its stomach inspected. In this one cat's stomach were found 24 painted dragons, three bearded dragons, three striped skinks, two earless dragons, one mouse and one zebra finch, all of which were apparently the result of one day's hunting. I think it is pretty worrying that after one day's hunting all those animals have disappeared.

Time expired.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:23): I am delighted to continue speaking on this report. Committee members concluded that the only really effective way of controlling feral and unowned cats would be to introduce a biological control similar to that used against rabbits, together with statewide mandatory identification and inoculation of pet cats.

On the subject of mouse plagues, the committee has recommended a review of the rules relating to financial assistance for farmers affected by mice. In response to requests from NRM groups and NRM boards, the committee has recommended that DENR establish a rolling fund specifically for NRM boards to access in times of emergency in order to tackle invasive species outbreaks in a timely fashion. There are also a number of other recommendations, and I and the committee hope that members will consider viewing this report.

On behalf of the chair of the committee, I wish to thank all those who gave their time to assist the committee with this inquiry. The committee received 26 written submissions and heard evidence from 27 witnesses. On her behalf, I commend the members of the committee, including me, Mr Geoff Brock MP, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP and the Hon. Russell Wortley MLC. All members of the committee have worked cooperatively throughout the course of the inquiry. Finally on behalf of the chair, I thank members of parliamentary staff for their assistance. I commend this report to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:26): I would like to just say a few words about this report. I was very pleased to be part of the committee that put this together. The member for Ashford (our chair) did say at the outset that recent rains have made this a far more pressing issue than it has been. This has always been a pressing issue, obviously, for decades. I am pleased that it is getting more attention at the moment.

The rains that we have had throughout South Australia in the last two years now have been thoroughly welcome. They do far more good than bad, but they certainly encourage everything that lives in our state to thrive and do better and that includes pests and weeds, and that has made this a more pressing problem than it probably has ever been recognised before in South Australia.

I would like to just touch on a couple of the recommendations from the report and highlight a few of them. I certainly do not want to say that these are the most important ones but, in the available time I have, I just want to highlight a couple of them. It was recommended that the minister direct DENR to establish a rolling fund specifically for NRM boards to access in times of emergency in order to tackle invasive species outbreaks.

I think that that is incredibly important, because there is enormous knowledge, enormous goodwill and a strong desire throughout all segments of the community to address issues as they arise but if the funds are not there, it just will not happen and it does seem to be putting the cart in front of the horse to recognise the problem and then have to hunt for scarce funds. We all know that funds for whatever project it happens to be are very scarce at the moment. By then, it is probably too late and, if it is not too late, your opportunity to have greater impact has certainly gone if you cannot get onto these problems quickly, so annexing some funds for that I think is very important.

Another recommendation to the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Environment and Conservation is to direct DTEI and DENR to work together with local councils to prepare a manual clarifying responsibility for weed management on road verges, road reserves and other corridors taking into account biodiversity and fire management. Again, I think this is incredibly important because typically these tracts of land are considered to be public land and that cuts both ways. It means that everybody has a responsibility and sometimes nobody takes the responsibility.

These tracts of land are vectors for the spread primarily of weeds but certainly for other pests as well. I think that even just clarifying the responsibilities—and hopefully that manual could include some recommendations for management and perhaps even some directives for management—would go a long way because I think, whether it is in a metropolitan area or a country area or even in a remote outback area, the public roads tend to act similarly with regard to allowing pests and weeds to spread more rapidly in those sections than they might in other areas.

Another recommendation which I would like to highlight, and with a bit of a positive stance, is to review the policy of withholding assistance to farmers affected by mouse plagues. That is a big issue in country areas. I suspect at the moment that people in metropolitan areas are also struggling with mice in their homes, but it is certainly a big issue for farmers. There has been some action on that, and I compliment the government on that. The bait mixing stations are a positive step forward, but on a personal level I recommend that mice be declared as a pest. I think that would go a long way towards helping this problem, too.

Another recommendation is to encourage relevant NRM boards to upgrade their public education campaigns about cane toads to assist early detection. To me, this is possibly the most important recommendation because it is possibly the one where we have the most opportunity to make an impact in South Australia. I am sure there is the odd toad hopping around that has come in a vehicle or container or something like that in South Australia, but broadly we consider ourselves to be free of cane toads in South Australia. I think that it would be incredibly foolish of anyone to expect that it will remain that way if we do not take some very positive and strong action.

These cane toads will work their way down the Murray. I think it would be incredibly hard to stop them, but we need to try. They will work their way down the Cooper Creek and Diamantina River as well, and I worry about those areas as well because, as many in this chamber would know, while some of those waterholes do not progress down to Lake Eyre continuously, some sections of them never dry up and so we will never get the cane toads out of them if we let them in, and they will ravage those environments. I see that as a recommendation where we actually could achieve the most by getting onto that problem before it is too late, putting resources towards that to try to stop the arrival of cane toads, rather than trying to manage them, deal with them, exterminate them, after they are here, which is so often the difficulty we face with these sorts of issues.

Another recommendation I would like to highlight—again, with a positive spin for the government—is to allow land managers to trial aerial baiting for non-domestic cats, dingoes and foxes south of the dog fence. Everybody here knows that is a campaign that I have taken on very vigorously, and I appreciate the fact that the government has given permission to private landowners to aerially bait below the dog fence for dingoes, and I think that is a very positive step. I think there is a lot more support that could be given to remove dingoes from below the dog fence but I am pleased to highlight that that recommendation has already been surpassed, let alone taken.

The last recommendation is with regard to Biodiversity SA, the Eyre Peninsula NRM Board, the Northern and Yorke NRM Board and interested committee groups, including Port Augusta Coastal Homes Association Incorporated, to seek ways of halting the spread of the native pearl oyster in the Upper Spencer Gulf around the Port Augusta area. There is an example of a situation where they are out of control. I think it would be silly for us to assume that we will get rid of them, but that is an incredibly important recommendation to at least contain them and stop them where they are. I appreciate that some work is going into that. I would also like to thank the Port Augusta Coastal Homes Association Incorporated for the good work that they have done addressing that issue over approximately 20 years, but particularly with regard to their written and in person presentations to our committee.

I would like to touch on the issue of resources, addressing these problems again. Resources is a vexed issue, and I started out by highlighting the recommendation for a rolling fund and, as members know, I support that strongly. Resources are a difficult one, and I would like to give an example. I have seen several cases on boundaries between private farmland and national parks in the electorate of Stuart where there are more weeds on the national park side than there are on the private landowners' side. I am not having a crack at national parks or staff or DENR, because it is an incredibly hard job and sometimes these areas of land might be in prime focus for the landowner but they might be at the back of the park or one of the areas that DENR or parks staff have not been able to get to.

What tends to happen is that there is a directive given to the landowner: 'You must address this issue.' The responsibility is the same for the land manager whether it is public land or private land, but the private landowner is told, 'You must address this issue and, if you don't, we will employ a contractor and we will get the job done and we will pass the cost on to you.' Often when the private landowner says, 'But, parks, what about your side of the fence?' The answer is: 'But we haven't got the resources.' The private landowner says, 'Well, I haven't got the resources either. I can't afford it. You can't afford it, but you're going to get it done and send me the bill, but you are not going to address the issue yourself.' I would like to put that on record as a problem that does exist.

I am not saying for a second that DENR staff should be doing any more than they can possibly do, because they typically do work extremely hard and address as much as they possibly can, but there is a very good example where the expectation is the same on both sides of the fence, but the application is not the same on both sides of the fence. I encourage the government to consider that example when considering recommendation No. 2 of this report about a rolling fund.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Natural Resources Committee staff, who have worked incredibly hard on this significant report, and the people who put in submissions—as the chair said, there is an extraordinary amount of information out there in the world. People work incredibly hard, whether they are private landowners or people living in their residential homes in the city who get out and about. Whether they are in the metropolitan or a rural area, they put their time and effort towards this problem, and we are very thankful for all their contributions. We would not achieve as much without their support.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:36): I will be brief. I am very impressed with this report, and I think it highlights the value of having parliamentary committees. The report is fairly short, it is to the point, and I think the committee that developed it should be commended. It is one thing, of course, to have a report; the important aspect is whether the recommendations are acted upon. Obviously, in a few minutes I cannot highlight all aspects, but I note on page 23 it states:

At present there is no consistent policy across South Australia regarding the registration and microchipping of pet cats, though some Local Councils have enacted by-laws—

including the one where I live, the City of Mitcham.

I understand that the Minister for Environment and Conservation is working keenly on this issue, and I trust that he will take steps shortly to ensure that across the state we have a consistent application of a cat management policy. The committee recommended, under 9a on page 8, that the Minister for Environment and Conservation should 'prepare and introduce legislation providing for mandatory registration and microchipping of domestic cats with a limit on the number of cats per household'. I think that is a very sensible recommendation. Since it has been implemented in Mitcham, the initial hoo-ha from a small group has died down because it is actually in the interests of people who value their cat to have a regime that involves its proper care and management.

I want to make a couple of points. One is that in terms of invasive species, particularly weeds, it is important that the research centres be maintained at both state and federal level. If you do not do the research, you will not find out how to deal with the issue. Over time, there has been a tendency for governments, federally in particular, to cut back on research focused on weeds and other invasive species. It highlights also the value, importance and increased significance of genetic engineering because the only way to deal with a lot of these invasive species is through genetic manipulation, genetic engineering.

There is no way in the world we are ever going to be able to control these invasive species with sprays or poisons; they might make a dent, but that is about all. I think people, and governments in particular, really need to fund sophisticated genetic engineering techniques so that we can control some of these invasive species, which cause a lot of damage not only to the farming community but to the wider community and the environment.

The last point I would make is that it highlights the importance of having strict and well enforced quarantine provisions. I think, for too long in this country, we have treated lightly people who seek to break those quarantine laws. We see the consequence in the cost to, as I say, not only farming communities, but the wider community—the cost of what is inflicted as a result of stupidity and criminal behaviour by people who breach those quarantine laws.

So, I think it highlights the fact that we need to have a very effective and efficient quarantine system and come down hard on people who seek to breach the quarantine laws. As the CSIRO indicated, and it is reported in this report, many of the invasive species have come via private households and the cost now is inflicted right across the community.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:40): First of all, I would just like to say what a pleasure it has been to work on this report with the committee, under the tremendous chairmanship of the Hon. Steph Key. It is a committee that has worked exceptionally well together and we have certainly taken on board all of the submissions on this inquiry.

I might say that, with weeds in this state, it is a continuous problem for all property managers and owners that we often spend a fortune ourselves on controlling weeds. I will give you an example of one of my brothers who purchased a fairly large property that was covered in false caper, horehound and Salvation Jane. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars cleaning up those weeds, but the problem he now has is that the adjoining property, roads and parks have not been doing anything about those weeds.

Those weeds are not a problem to them, so they do not put any resources into them. The weeds are only occurring on the edge of those parks, so they do not see a problem, but all his good work will be to no end if those weeds are not controlled within those parks and are allowed to spread back onto the grazing country surrounding those parks. So, I would encourage the powers that be to make sure that the resources are in place, so that we can control the weeds on public lands and our parks, so that it will be better for everybody concerned.

As far as the invasive animals go, we hear a lot about mice, pigs, camels, donkeys, cane toads and rabbits. I think it is extremely important that we do make sure that cane toads never get into this state. Most of those other animals can be controlled to a certain extent, but the biggest problems we have are cats and foxes.

I even see on my own property, where I do a lot of trapping and baiting for both these species, that every time all the ground-nesting birds just start to build up a bit and start to become a bit more plentiful, the cats and foxes move in and, overnight, they will destroy the lot. It is quite depressing when we see this. As was mentioned before, when a cat can go and eat 32 different lizards in one day, plus a mouse and a bird, you can imagine the damage they are doing to our environment. It is the same with the foxes.

What I think we have to do is come up with biological control methods to control both these species. As far as the cats go, if we could develop some system that killed all cats, bar those that have been inoculated against that vector, we would be in a great situation where, perhaps, the only cats that were around were pet cats that remained within their own properties. Those would be desexed and you would actually have properties that breed cats for those people, so that we would have no feral cats whatsoever.

I am sure that, once we got to that stage, many of our small species, be they birds or reptiles, will again become plentiful. They soon bounce back when these cats and foxes are controlled, as we saw up in the North where vast areas had been fenced off. All the cats, foxes and rabbits had been removed and all those small species started to regenerate. So, I think it is important that, as a government, we put the resources into place to make sure that we can control these animals.

The resources must be put in place because, if we do not, we will start to lose species. We will all rue the day when those species have disappeared because we did not do anything about these invasive species. I commend this report to the house.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:45): I have great pleasure in also speaking on this report. I want to compliment the other members of the Natural Resources Committee and our chair, the Hon. Steph Key. This committee has been an excellent committee to work with, not only on the invasive species report but across all avenues of its jurisdiction and requests.

As with previous speakers, when it first came up the issue of invasive species did not seem to be a big issue, but as we got into the report there were a lot of issues that were highlighted. The member for Stuart has brought up one issue regarding funding. The rains that have been coming to the state in the last couple of years have been very welcome, but funding is set in advance and there are occasions when the great rains that have come in have been greatly beneficial to the rural area and the grain industry but at the same time have been detrimental, with the growth of weeds, etc., across the whole of the state.

When the time comes, quite often it is the situation that departments do not have the funding. So, as the member for Stuart has indicated, it is part of the report, and I strongly recommend, that there be an allocation or an allowance for emergency funding to be sought so the issue of invasive weeds, or whatever it may be, can be treated immediately instead of having to wait for some approval, which, at that stage, may be too long.

The other issue is weed management on road verges. There has been a lot of confusion as to who is responsible for that. There are local governments and there are also departments for lands and government agencies responsible for other areas. Sometimes, by the time a decision is made and they have come to a compromise, the damage has already been done with the invasive weeds coming across into private land, into their paddocks.

Another big issue that the member for Stuart brought up is mouse plagues. In some regional areas of South Australia the mouse plague has not been a real issue, but it has been in the Mid North, the top end of South Australia and the West Coast. This is an issue where the private owner of the land is responsible for maintaining the mouse plague on their property, and that is fair enough. I have had farmers say that they have killed nearly 1,000 mice in a night, and that is a lot of expense for them to go to—the mice have come from outside their area—so we need to look at some sort of funding for farmers to be able to combat this. The damage to them is one thing, but the damage to the state and the economic growth of our grain industry is another issue that we also need to address.

The issue of cane toads. We have not had the issue of cane toads, and not many people talk about it, but with the floods from Queensland coming down, with all the water and all the traffic, there is a great opportunity for cane toads to invade South Australia. Once cane toads get in they are virtually impossible to eradicate. As has been said previously, cane toads could come down on trucks (under wheels and inside containers) or come down the Murray-Darling Basin through all the rivers. We need to have an educational program to ensure that people are aware of that and understand it, because if that gets out of control then we are really going to be behind the eight ball.

The other issue is the aerial baiting of dingoes and wild dogs, etc., on the south side of the dog fence. I think that is an issue. I heard on the radio the other day that because the dog fence was down—there are a lot of gaps in it and there are still many kilometres of the fence itself under water—the dingoes and the wild dogs have come down from the north; they are coming in south of the dog fence. That should not happen, but it has happened, and those farmers need to be able to do some aerial baiting. That is one of the recommendations of this committee, and I hope that the government takes it on board.

The other thing is that we need to ensure that funding for invasive weeds is maintained and controlled at the time, and we said that earlier. We need to at least maintain that, but we also need to increase the funding so that invasive weeds can be managed according to the weather. As we indicated earlier, the rain has been terrific, but when the rain comes it also brings in more invasive species, and there is an issue with the weeds. As the member for Mount Gambier said, with some of our species of animals once they have gone we will never see them back again. We need to make certain that that does not happen.

Another issue from a national parks point of view is that, if there are any invasive weeds on those lands, the comment is often made that that they do not have the funds. That is a valid point. Also, if it is on private land then the private landowner has to maintain it and eradicate those invasive weeds; if they do not, then the work will be carried out and they will be billed for that. We must ensure that there are adequate funds to fight the invasive weeds when they are on government land.

The member for Fisher has already indicated that we need to maintain money for research. As we move along, it is fine to maintain the current level; as a cost saver we may save some money in the short term—half a million or a million dollars—but if we do not maintain the research what could be the long-term damage to our state and our communities?

Again, I want to reinforce what a pleasure it has been to be on this committee. It has been a great learning curve for me, and I congratulate our chair, the Hon. Steph Key, and the other members of the committee. It is a well-worked committee, and I look forward to a lot more progress. I commend the report to the parliament.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:52): I, too, rise to support this inquiry on invasive species by the Natural Resources Committee. In relation to making mice a declared pest, I fully support the comments of the member for Stuart, and I fully support his common sense and intense lobbying for dingo baits to be dropped from aircraft: I could not believe it when he informed me that it was not legal. It seems as though it is legislation or regulation drawn up by people who do not understand the vastness of the outback or what can be achieved when you put reality in place. I commend the government for taking that recommendation on board already, and I commend the work of the member for Stuart in lobbying hard for his constituency.

A major issue I am concerned about in the Murray Mallee is branched broomrape. We have the spectre of funding completely ceasing at the end of June next year, and that is causing great uncertainty in the community—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I welcome the minister for mineral resources' contribution to this debate.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I think you will have to try a bit harder than that, Tom. You will need a far bigger bucket of lollies, and I do not think it will ever be big enough. You were not friends with him that long, I must say.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not enough.

Mr PEDERICK: Not enough! However, this is a very serious issue. As of the end of next June it looks as though federal funding will slip away, and I hope state funding does not slip away. The state has been putting in about $1.9 million per year and the federal government about $2.6 million. Over the last 10 years, about $45 million has been committed to surveying and the control program in regard to branched broomrape.

What these surveys have done is allow many people in the affected area (an area of about 70 square kilometres, mainly in my electorate but some in the member for Schubert's electorate) to deliver grain from paddocks that have been affected by broomrape but that have been surveyed to be clean to go into Viterra's storage facilities. If the survey shows that there is any risk, they can deliver that grain to a feed mill like Ridley in Murray Bridge and get rid of it that way.

I had a report back from a meeting on Monday night about what will happen, and we have already seen some action in regards to potato farming in the area. I understand there is a company that was very active in the potato market and it looked like they were taking some market away from some Queensland producers, so Queensland have slapped a ban (on an area up to 50 kilometres outside of the broomrape area) on any production from that area going into their state. So this is already happening: people are putting restrictions on what is grown in the broomrape area.

I understand Tasmania is looking at restricting access to produce as well; and AQIS, as far as grain deliveries, will not sign off on grain from the area unless it has been certified clean. So, if the survey work ceases, several hundred farmers in the Mallee—good, hardworking citizens—will be in strife. I don't mean just in strife; their very livelihoods are at risk. It is a Viterra requirement that these paddocks are signed off for these surveys and that is the only way that their grain can be delivered.

These people have to know this year so that they can plan their futures, not just with their grain produce but with their stock—their cattle, their sheep—so that they can have some peace of mind and they can get on with their lives and get on with their businesses. It is not only the practical aspects that we need to look at here; we have to look at the mental health of these people who have been under strain with this issue for many, many years.

They need the government's support, and they certainly need our support on this side of the house. However, we have a government which is currently in government because of this issue, so they need to stand up and recognise that they certainly do not need the numbers that they did in 2002 when this was a big issue. For the reality of agriculture, not just in this state and not just in my patch, but in South Australia and Australia, we do need to keep up the funding to fight this pest, because there are already people putting restrictions on trade who want to pull up the produce from this area.

I understand the minister is coming out in mid-August to talk to producers, and that is a good thing. I commend the minister for coming out to talk to concerned growers. However, we must make sure that the appropriate amount of money is allocated to keep ahead of this pest. Many people in Adelaide would not even be aware of the issue but, if neglected, we risk not just dryland production but a lot of irrigated production from my electorate, the member for Schubert's electorate and the member for Stuart's electorate. In fact, it could affect production right throughout the state, and that is no idle comment.

We must keep up our commitment. In fact, if the federal government pulls out, the state government will need to increase its commitment to keep up the appropriate survey work so that farmers can simply operate in their day-to-day work. They have had to work with paddocks in quarantine for 10 to 12 years and they have had to work with all the protocols: cleaning vehicles, access to properties and other protocols. They are finding it tough; they are finding it tough because they are stepping into a no-man's-land here. In closing my remarks, I urge the government to keep on with this issue—because if we don't, well, help us all.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:00): I want to speak to this very important motion, because it is an area which certainly comes across as being of interest to me. I understand that it is 12 o'clock, so I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT