HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DOG FENCE

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries questions with regard to the dog fence.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: On Saturday 12 May, The Advertiser published an article which outlined advice from biosecurity experts from Adelaide and Deakin University suggesting:

The dog fence should be torn down and dingoes left to roam free and thrive for the good of native animals and the environment.

The article suggests that large sections of the dog fence are in disrepair and further suggests that it is not cost-effective to keep the fence up. The fence comprises both post and netting sections and sections which are electrified. I understand that at the moment the dog fence is patrolled by inspectors who drive along the fence line looking for breaks and other disturbances. In order for maintenance and repairs to be less labour intensive and therefore less costly, a project was established in the late eighties to determine the feasibility of remotely monitoring the electrified sections of the fence using radiotelemetry. My questions of the minister are:

1. What is the current value of the sheep and wool industry in South Australia?

2. Has the Department of Primary Industries and Regions made an assessment of the impact on these industries and the state's economy if the dog fence was removed?

3. Does the department intend to seriously consider the advice from these biosecurity experts?

4. Can the minister advise what progress, if any, has been made with regard to remotely monitoring the electrified sections of the dog fence?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. I have seen the recent media interest in the dog fence, with some of these issues being raised in the public arena. Under the Natural Resources Management Act it is illegal to keep dingoes across the southern side of the dog fence. They are considered to be a major threat to sheep graziers. The fence was constructed to assist in protecting sheep from the ravages of dingoes.

I understand that there are parts of the fence that are in very poor condition, and there are issues around the cost-effectiveness of maintaining a fence versus the potential impact on the industry. Certainly sheep growers further north have said to me that the dog fence is very important to them and they believe it would have a significant impact if it were dismantled. They are very keen to see the integrity of that fence maintained. I have also read the arguments of others who say, 'Let the dingoes roam free' and, 'These things balance themselves out.'

Obviously our sheep industry is very important to us. I do not have the exact figures with me, but it certainly is an important sector and it does play a very important role in terms of its economic contribution to this state. I think we would need to think very carefully about removing any protections for them. However, the minister responsible for the dog fence itself is minister Caica, the minister for environment and natural resources, so I am happy to refer the specifics of that question to minister Caica in another place and bring back a response.

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