Page 3813 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note that the New South Wales legislation was opposed by the New South Wales Greens, as I would expect. They raised significant concerns in the debate in the New South Wales parliament. I particularly want to touch on two issues today. One is heritage and one is animal welfare.
When it comes to heritage, some people see brumbies as part of Australia’s heritage. However, the environmental damage they do is unacceptable. The New South Wales government needs to find a way to protect the heritage without trashing the environment. It is important to reflect on what heritage we are talking about here, of course. Yes, the feral horses have been in Australia for a couple of hundred years, at the most, but we are talking about landscapes that have formed over millennia that are unique. They are endemically Australian and they are the ones that we, as the current generations, are the custodians of and have a responsibility to protect.
I should also reflect briefly on the animal welfare issues. Governments at times do need to make difficult decisions, and culling brumbies will have some animal welfare impacts. It is a process that none of us would ever like to have to undertake, but it is one that is necessary. The alternative is unacceptable damage to the ecosystems and our native wildlife—as I have touched on, many of them threatened species—and very sensitive environments. To allow the brumbies to simply roam freely through these areas is not something that we can simply stand by and allow to happen.
The culling does need to be done as humanely as possible. I know that that has been one of the stated concerns about particularly aerial culling, but we also need to ensure that we are able to put an effective program in place. This is where we need to defer to scientific advice and animal welfare experts on the best way that that can be done. The approach of the New South Wales government has not done either of those things. It is deeply regrettable that they have put in place the legislation that they have.
In summary, I would simply say that the New South Wales legislation is problematic. It will impact on the ACT. It is poorly thought through. It has not been taken on the best scientific advice available. As Ms Cheyne notes in her motion, the fact that the key New South Wales scientific adviser has resigned in protest at this decision reflects the lack of a scientific basis for this decision.
We will be supporting Ms Cheyne’s motion today. She has laid out the issues very well: the importance of Namadgi National Park as part of the Australian Alps national parks, the impact that feral species can have, and the particular impacts of feral horses. I have touched on that in my remarks today. She noted the situation in New South Wales and the significant number of eminent organisations that have condemned this decision, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, the Australian Academy of Science and the National Parks Association of New South Wales. Despite the somewhat disdainful commentary that Ms Lee gave in her remarks, I prefer to take the advice from those organisations than from Ms Lee when it comes to these matters.
I also note the comments in the motion about the increasing risk of feral horses entering neighbouring jurisdictions such as the ACT. It has probably been the key
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video