HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Dog Fence (Payments and Rates) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 April 2016.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:53): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support this bill. At the outset, I should highlight the fact that this bill was quite curiously introduced into the House of Assembly on 24 February this year by the Hon. Susan Close, who I think represents the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation in that chamber. Given that this is the responsibility of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, a person with a keen interest in the Dog Fence said to me, 'He is in your house. Why wasn't it introduced in your house?' I said, 'Well, I think it might have been all to do with the management of the parliament at the time,' because at that stage, because of the Attorney-General's driving passion to get us to push through the planning bill, they had no other plans in the other place to actually get on with legislation.

They had nothing to do down there; they were running out of business. They were allowing private business, heaven forbid—do not tell the Hon. Gail Gago, but they were actually giving up government business time for private members' time, so they actually got minister Close to introduce this bill down there to take up a bit of their time while they had nothing to do.

Having said that, that takes nothing away from the worth of this bill. It does aim to ensure that there are sufficient funds and resources to maintain the Dog Fence into the future. I think most South Australians, particularly those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel extensively in the pastoral regions of not only this state but further afield, know the value of the Dog Fence.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament, on the recent trip we made to the AW NRM Board we crossed the Dog Fence on a couple of occasions—once on the Eyre Highway near Nundroo, and I had the pleasure of shutting the gate on the Dog Fence twice on Goog's Track. I was pleased to note that, in both cases, that fence was in very good order. Of course, that is relatively close-in territory; it is in some of the more remote areas where the fence can come under much more pressure.

There are six local boards which sit under the Dog Fence Board. Ownership of the fence is vested in those local boards, apart from two private owners who manage sections of the fence on their properties. The boards administer the funds and are responsible for the employment of contractors who inspect and maintain sections of the fence.

I understand that the act was last reviewed in 2005. The amendments proposed to come into fruition through this bill are: firstly, the act currently sets a cap of $250 per kilometre which goes to the local boards for maintenance. It is proposed that this is lifted to $400 per kilometre. Secondly, the rate charged to pastoralists is currently capped at $1.20 per square kilometre of rateable land. It is proposed that this is lifted to $2 per square kilometre. Thirdly (and quite importantly) a minor technical amendment to remove a reference to the South Australian Farmers Federation and replace it with Livestock SA Incorporated, because, of course, the South Australian Farmers Federation no longer exists.

The rate has historically been increased by CPI and is collected through the sheep transaction levy. The minimum payment per property is $100. The total rates raised last year amounted to $508,000 which is matched by the state government.

It is important to say that I think the Dog Fence Board is supported throughout the pastoral areas. It was indicative of the campaign that the Liberal Party and others supported the retention of the Dog Fence Board when it was flagged to be abolished under the program announced by the Premier some time ago. Thankfully, the work of many members of this house and the lower house actually managed to save the Dog Fence Board.

Many of us would know that there has been pressure on some sections of the fence from camels. The federal government recently provided $400,000 to electrify the top wire along the stretch of the fence in the vicinity of Lake Frome. I understand there have been no breaches of the fence by camels in the past two years and, in that sense, the condition of the fence is continually improving.

Certainly the Natural Resources Committee has had greater evidence on the impact of camels across the pastoral areas and Aboriginal lands. There are certainly different attitudes in different parts of the AW NRM Board, or different cultural attitudes to the method of controlling camels. That does provide some issues for the management of the fence, but we are certainly supportive of the work to control camels because they are animals that put a lot of pressure on the board.

In concluding can I say that my understanding is that Primary Producers SA (the umbrella group in South Australia), its constituent body Livestock SA, the local dog fence boards and the South Australian Sheep Advisory Group were all supportive of these changes. Can I also indicate that anybody wishing to learn a bit more about the local responsibilities in relation to the fence should read the contributions in the lower house made by the member for Flinders, Mr Treloar, and the member for Stuart, Mr van Holst Pellekaan, who are members with significant sections of the Dog Fence (particularly the member for Stuart) in their electorates. With those words, I indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:01): I rise on behalf of the Family First party to advise the chamber that we will also be supporting this bill. The Dog Fence is a very important fence for the sheep industry and the pastoral economy. Like the Hon. John Dawkins and some of my other colleagues, I have travelled through the Dog Fence areas several times over the years and you do see some parts of the Dog Fence that have been replaced and modernised in the structure of the fencing that they put in place to prevent the dogs heading south.

In other areas you see the worst-case scenario with the Dog Fence actually flat on the ground, the posts rotten and urgent repairs being needed. This costs money and is really the reason why we are debating this bill in the chamber today. My colleague the Hon. John Dawkins has made many comments that I was going to make. However, I will just put on the public record that with the massive workload that the minister has and the pressure that he is under (and will face in the future with the media) I really wonder why, with the Natural Resources Management Act, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, and water and climate change, and with defence of media attack, he has this act.

I personally think it would be better under the Minister for Primary Industries with some real focus on agriculture for once. I wonder why it is in his hands when he is such a very busy minister. Perhaps he wants to stop the dogs from coming down into Adelaide. Perhaps that is why he has the carriage of this legislation. That is not really a joke because, first and foremost, without a dog fence those dingoes would be all over the Adelaide Parklands.

It is not that long ago that they were shooting these dingoes east of the Adelaide Hills, the ranges there and, in fact, I believe there was a report of one in the Upper South-East only a few years ago. It is very important that the government of the day works with the pastoralists to ensure that we do have a state-of-the-art dog fence. I know that in parts of the new Dog Fence area now they also use electric fencing. We have to be very vigilant on this.

The government actually reports that there were no issues raised with the proposals during consultation with stakeholders. I am pleased about that. I have not had any. Whilst I do quite a bit of work from time to time with pastoralists across South Australia, I had none of them objecting to me about this. I understand that Livestock SA (they have a very good chairman, Mr Geoff Power) agrees with this.

The minister can correct me if I am wrong. Most of the time he corrects me even when I am right; if I am wrong, then I stand to be battered by the minister for being wrong. The point that I want to put on the record is that I understand that this consultation occurred in December 2014. My question is, if this consultation occurred in 2014, why are we only now debating this bill? That was a long time ago.

As has been indicated, the Liberal Party supports this. I understand that crossbench colleagues do as well. We will be supporting the bill. I just appeal to whoever is in government to always work with the pastoralists and Livestock SA to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to prevent those dogs from getting out of the cattle country and into the sheep country. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:06): As this bill deals with the construction and maintenance of the fence, I just have a couple of questions for the minister, but I do not necessarily require an answer today. Can the minister advise the chamber the total length of the fence and the total length of the electrified portions of the fence? Secondly, has there been any progress in the monitoring of the electrified portion of the fence by radio telemetry technology, which would reduce the need for on-site monitoring?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:06): I thank honourable members who have spoken on this bill and indicated their support for it. The major focus of the amendment bill is about ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to maintain the Dog Fence into the future and a minor administrative amendment which the Hon. Mr Dawkins explained adequately well to the house.

The Dog Fence protects the sheep industry from stock losses by preventing the entry of wild dogs to the southern pastoral areas. The Dog Fence Board, which administers the Dog Fence Act, requested it be amended by increasing the cap on the maximum amount payable to fence owners from $250 to $400 per kilometre of fence, and the cap on the amount that can be levied from $1.20 to a maximum of $2 per square kilometre of rateable land. Over the years the act has been in existence, inflationary pressures have driven the legislative caps in the legislation up to their limit, or close to their limit, thus necessitating us to revisit this legislation now.

These amendments will allow the board to make annual increments to payments in line with inflation for some time into the future, or until the act is next amended. As honourable members have said in their contributions, no issues were raised as part of the consultation with key stakeholders. I do welcome the support, and offers of support, from the opposition and minor parties for this legislation. The Hon. John Dawkins, in his contribution, reflected on the management of the lower house; there is nothing that I want to say about that situation.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has reflected on a few issues and asked the question, if the consultation was conducted in December 2014, why have we waited this five months to progress the legislation. It is because consultation is the start of the process; it is not the end point. It is the beginning of a process, and there are some procedural matters that need to be taken through in the form of drafting legislation, getting those drafts approved by stakeholders, governmental agreement and then taking it through cabinet necessarily. It takes a little bit of time, but I do not think the time from 2014 to now is too excessive to get legislation that, after all, finally no-one has an issue with.

The Hon. Mr Darley asked questions about the length of the fence and the length of the electrified portion and on the telemetry situation. I will have my advisers with me shortly. I will ask if that advice is easily at hand and I will give that in terms of our response at the committee stage. I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I can advise the Dog Fence is 2,178 kilometres long in South Australia, extending from west to Fowler's Bay on the cliffs of the Great Australian Bight north to above Coober Pedy and east to the New South Wales border above Broken Hill. It then joins with the New South Wales and Queensland dog fences for a total length of 5,400 kilometres.

My further advice is that the board continually aims to improve the management of the fence, and, where technology allows, the board will review and adopt the technology if it meets their requirements. That does not exactly answer the question the Hon. Mr Darley asked, so I will go back and seek advice about the electrified portion of the fence and the telemetry options that the board may have considered and not proceeded with.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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