• Injured kangaroo

    KANGAROO GENOCIDE IN NSW

    ONGOING KANGAROO KILLING

    6th June 2019

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (15:18):In August last year the New South Wales Government changed the rules to make it easier to shoot kangaroos for non-commercial purposes. As a result of the changes, those carrying out the shooting no longer need a licence to kill. The few checks and balances that were in place to ensure a minimum level of accountability by shooters and the welfare of the animals have now gone. The changes brought in by the Government have created a culture of anything goes when it comes to killing these gentle, native wild animals. My office has been inundated with accounts from distraught members of the public who have witnessed the horrific treatment of these animals and their young since the changes came into effect. We have heard how killing sprees happen everywhere and all the time. The latest report came in this week. A New South Wales citizen told of the people living opposite who are:

    … intent on wiping out every kangaroo on the place. Shooting almost every night … Yesterday I witnessed them run down a kangaroo with their tractor, pin the animal against the fence and kill the animal before picking up the carcass in the front bucket of the tractor and dumping it in a ditch. It’s tragic—there was a lovely big mob of kangaroos down there. I have been onto the police and basically received a “Oh, well, it’s his property and he can kill kangaroos if he likes”‘ response.

    Another report told of a kangaroo found with:

    … multiple festering and stinking injuries resembling gunshot wounds to both shoulders, left bicep and forearm, left side ribs, chest and left rump. Wounds were maggoty; he was also being eaten alive by European wasps (on the wounds). Prognosis by the vet—”poor”.

    We have received gruesome images also from wildlife carers who are called out to rescue injured young joeys with bullet entry points in the neck and chest or in the abdomen via thighs; kangaroos shot in the base of the tail and then run over; kangaroos with jaws shot out; kangaroos shot with arrows; and joeys left to die in the pouch of their shot mother. These are the images we can find words to describe. Other scenes are so horrific they are beyond description, except to say that they would have caused immense suffering from slow and painful deaths. It is difficult to avoid the view that the Government’s changes to the rules for the non-commercial killing of kangaroos have encouraged a complete disregard for the welfare of one of our most cherished native animals and is vindicating what is becoming a virtual genocide of this species. I call upon the Government to review the current administrative regime allowing the indiscriminate wounding and killing of kangaroos on private property. The suffering caused to individual animals is unacceptable.

  • WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL RAISING – EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE BY PURPOSELY FLOODING PARTS THE NATIONAL PARK

    20th November 2018

    Questions without notice.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:13): My question is directed to theMinister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry. As the Minister responsible for animal welfare, what is his response to a Sydney Morning Herald article of 13 November that relied on an Office of Environment and Heritage report, which revealedthat the Government’s plans to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam would have adverse impacts on threatened species, such as the regent honeyeater and eastern brown tree creeper, as well as Sydney’s last emus. Given the Minister’s responsibilities underthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, what is his department planning to do to prevent individual animals suffering as a result of the flooding of downstream habitat?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:15): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he is drawing a very long bow in trying to attach this question to my portfolio. The member is suggesting that flooding events somehow should be investigated and potentially prosecuted under the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals Act—POCTA Act—that is administered by my agencies, with the policy work also enforced by the police, the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA. That is a long bow. It suggests that natural events such as flooding should be investigated by the RSPCA because it may endanger some native animals. That is what the member is saying. It is absolutely ridiculous. The member must have run out of ideas in the last week of Parliament. Surely he has questions about other areas of my portfolio. This a long bow at the very least.

    I do not imagine anyone in the agencies that enforce the POCTA Act would take seriously any suggestion that any flooding that happens in the Hawkesbury Valley should warrant an investigation under the POCTA Act. At this stage, I am happy to say that I am not aware of any work that my agency has done in relation to how this impacts on the POCTA side of my portfolio. The member referred to the Office of Environment and Heritage, which is the agency that is possibly responsible for some of the animals in the national park. But when it comes to cruelty to animals, we move to the POCTA Act. I do not think there is anything that my agency could be doing at this stage, particularly as we are only talking about environmental assessments of potential impacts of raising the dam wall. I am quite confident to suggest that, as far as I am aware, no work is being undertaken by my agencies under the POCTA Act.

    This is a very long bow. The question may have been better directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Possibly the Office of Environment and Heritage has looked at some of the impacts on some of the native wildlife. But the member has asked the question of me and, under the responsibility of the POCTA Act, I say that I am not aware of any work that is being done by my agencies in relation to this matter at this time.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:18): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate how his portfolio of animal protection does not include the impacts upon wild animals when a government makes a decision to cause the flooding of an area that will impact those wild animals?

    The Hon. Scott Farlow: Point of order: The supplementary question asked by the Hon. Mark Pearson did not seek an elucidation of the Minister’s answer; it is a new question.

    The Hon. Penny Sharpe: To the point of order: I listened very carefully. The Minister’s answer included discussion about whether it was forced flooding or natural flooding. I believe the Hon. Mark Pearson has asked for elucidation in relation to that particular aspect of the Minister’s answer. As such, the question is in order.

    The PRESIDENT: I will allow the supplementary question. It is in order. I remind the Minister that he can answer the question in any way he deems fit.

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:19): All my answers are fit. When we talk about flooding, whether it is the result of someone’s actions—

    The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Clerk will stop the clock. As members are well aware, rulings by past Presidents permit members to read extracts from documents. Those rulings are well regarded. It is also well known that members are not permitted to use props in the Chamber. I advise members that flashing a newspaper page in the air and pointing to something on the page is not deemed to be reading an extract from the paper but is, in my view, using a prop. Members will be called to order if they undertake such actions. The Minister has the call.

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Regardless of whether an animal is impacted from flooding as a result of someone’s action or inaction, I do not see the correlation between that and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is like saying that if animals are impacted by an out-of-control fire the RSPCA, under its legislation, should investigate to hold those responsible to account. If the Hon. Mark Pearce has some legal advice that is contrary to my assessment, I would love to see it. I believe the question should have been directed to the Office of Environment and Heritage, which is better placed to look at this issue.

    Through the assessment process of this project and the environmental impact statement, I am sure that the impacts on wildlife, Aboriginal cultural heritage and the national park will be looked at. I do not believe it should be investigated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. As I said, if the member has anything that will convince me otherwise, I will be more than happy to look at it. As I stand here, I do not have any indication that his information is any different from my answer. The Hon. Mark Pearce should have directed the question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment.

  • LAND CLEARING AND NATIVE ANIMAL HABITAT LOSS

    13th November 2018

    Questions without notice.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:47): My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. As Minister responsible for animal welfare, what is his response to the Sydney Morning Herald article of 7 November, which estimates that in 2017, under his watch, 10 million native animals died directly as a result of habitat destruction due to land clearing allowed under the Government’s changes to the native vegetation protection laws? In particular, how does the Minister manage the conflict of interest between his department’s support for land clearing for agriculture and his responsibilities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to prevent animal suffering?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:47): The Government would like to see some more information and evidence to justify that claim of those numbers of species. In these couple of reports, they have come up with their own methodology about a square area size and then applied that to come out with this incredible number of animals that they claim have lost their lives as a result of the removal of native vegetation. First, I would like to see more information to justify that claim. Secondly, the Hon. Mark Pearson refers to the conflict of interest that we have in relation to land clearing. The thing that a lot of people on that side of the Chamber—the crossbench and the Opposition—fail to recognise is the habitat that is enhanced or restored under our new biodiversity changes that we put through in this State, not acknowledging at all the fact that in a lot of cases the largest numbers of approvals that we are seeing relate to invasive native species.

    Has the member ever stood in a monoculture forest of an invasive native species and not heard a bird or seen a single piece of groundcover? There is no biodiversity in those areas. These constitute a large number of the approvals that have been given under the Government’s changes. But there has been not one acknowledgement of the trees that have been planted or the sensitive areas that have been set aside. More importantly, those areas have been set aside and managed, not locked up and allowed to fester with feral animals and noxious weeds, which are among the largest threats to native animals in this State.

    So I will not acknowledge the premise of the question—that there is a conflict of interest. In large part, the habitat that has been restored, the set-asides that are being managed, the invasive native species that are being managed and controlled, and a lot of the feral weeds and animals that are being managed, are doing more for the biodiversity of this State than has occurred under previous ways of managing land in this State. I dismiss, firstly, the numbers in relation to the loss of native species. Secondly, I dismiss the claim that the legislation that this Government put through was just about land clearing. It is a matter of cherry-picking one part of the policy and not acknowledging the other parts—especially the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Government has set aside for saving our species, which also went through under the changes to legislation.

    I am not going to accept that there is a conflict, and I am not going to accept the premise of the question. I would like those opposite and on the crossbench to start acknowledging some of the other aspects of this change in the way that we manage biodiversity in this State. We know that the previous way was not working. When those opposite start citing the numbers of species that have gone onto the threatened list, they should acknowledge that that happened under the legislation and the changes that the former Government put through.

    The native vegetation laws in this State were not working, particularly for our native species. To continue to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. That is why we brought a balanced change into this area, and that is why we will see an increase in biodiversity in this State as a result of those changes.

  • Australia's gentle icon with nowhere safe to hide

    KANGAROO SLAUGHTERFEST IN NSW

    19th September 2018

    Notice of motion.

    Mark Pearson tabled a motion condemning the NSW Government over its treatment of kangaroos.

    I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move:

    1. That this House condemns the government’s decision to amend the licencing provisions under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 to allow the almost unrestricted slaughter of kangaroos by      landholders and their agents.

    2. That this House notes that the ongoing drought has caused kangaroos to move in from their native habitats into rural landholdings, in the search for food and water.

    3. That this House notes that it is scientifically impossible for kangaroos to breed up into plague proportions given their low rates of reproduction and high juvenile mortality due to predation.

    4. That this House notes with extreme distress that as a result of the government’s licencing amendments, there is a genocide being committed against kangaroos in country New South Wales.

    5. That this House recognises the extreme stress caused to wildlife carer groups by having to:
    (a) witness the gruesome impact of the virtually unfettered slaughter of kangaroos and
    (b) care for an overwhelming number of injured and orphaned kangaroos as a direct consequence of the loosening of the licencing provisions.

    6. The House calls upon the Minister for Primary Industries to
    (a) facilitate an observational visit to those rural areas where kangaroos are claimed to be in plague proportions and
    (b) invite all members to participate in order to identify areas where kangaroos are
    i. in such numbers that they are at risk of starvation or
    ii. causing irreparable damage to rural landholdings or
    iii. causing the death of cattle and sheep through competition for the available food supply.
    (c) arrange food drops to any areas where kangaroos are found to be starving.

  • 68 NORTH COAST KOALAS KILLED ON THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY SINCE 2013

    14th August 2018

    Questions without notice.

    Graphic footage has emerged of a truck driver who ignored flashing warning signs set up by Roads and Maritime Services workers who were attempting to rescue an injured koala trapped on the Pacific highway.  68 North Coast koalas have been killed on the Pacific Highway since 2013.  We understand that the truck driver has been charged.

    KOALA PROTECTION

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:22): My question is directed to the Hon. Don Harwin representing the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. An ABC Government Information (Public Access) Act request revealed that 68 North Coast koalas have been killed on the Pacific Highway since 2013. Fatalities include a koala killed by a truck driver who ignored flashing warning signs set up by Roads and Maritime Services [RMS] workers who were attempting to rescue the koala trapped on the highway. Noting that koalas are endangered on the North Coast, what is the Government doing to improve koala protections on the Pacific Highway? And will the Minister advise whether the truck driver has been charged with killing an animal and contravening RMS traffic directives?

    The Hon. Don Harwin: As the matter is more properly within the portfolio of the roads Minister, my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Government will answer the Hon. Mark Pearson.

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:23): I thank the House for its indulgence. The member asked a question that should have been directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight rather than the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I am advised that as part of the strategy to increase koala habitat and connect existing habitat, 80,000 koala habitat trees have been planted on 110 hectares of previously cleared land with another 10,000 trees to be planted on 20 hectares when construction on the Pacific Highway is complete.

    So far, more than 7,000 workers have been trained through a koala zero harm induction program to identify koala habitat, key threat mitigation strategies and how to implement strict rescue procedures. When complete, the highway will provide a closed system of fauna fencing with 26 bridges and large culverts to allow local wildlife and koalas to safely cross, which is about one crossing every 500 metres. I can advise members that 23 kilometres of temporary fencing and 16 kilometres of permanent fencing has been installed on the existing Pacific Highway at Wardell Road. All project sites and access roads have been protected with temporary koala fencing and speed zones have been reduced in known koala areas. Six vehicle activated koala signs and seven static safety signs have been installed on local roads in consultation with Ballina Shire Council and Friends of the Koala to increase driver awareness about koalas in the area. RMS continues to work with stakeholders to ensure the best outcome for koalas and is keeping the community informed of progress. A progress update on the Koala Management Plan was released in February 2018. An independent ecological contractor has started a monitoring program that will be in place for up to 15 years. This will help to measure the effectiveness of the mitigation strategies.

    I saw the ABC story about the incident in the tunnel to which the Hon. Mark Pearson is referring. The images were quite confronting to view. I am advised that RMS staff took all reasonable steps to prevent this incident, including reducing traffic to one lane, reducing the speed limit, alerting motorists to the koala in the tunnel and calling the koala rescue group Friends of the Koala to help rescue the animal. Despite the best efforts of RMS staff, the koala was struck after a motorist failed to observe the warnings. Since the 2017 incident, RMS have reviewed fencing in the area. Following the incident, an additional 120 metres of fauna fencing was installed north of the tunnel. RMS is not aware of any other koalas being hit by traffic on this section of the highway since the incident. In addition to the recent announcement by the Minister for the Environment, the Government has some measures that will be installed in areas such as Appin Road to address its area of concern. I hope that provides the Hon. Mark Pearson with a bit of information as to what RMS has been doing. I thank the House and the member for allowing me to provide that information, although the original question was asked to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure.

Page 1 of 712345...Last »