Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 9:14:30 to 9:19:59
Discussion on the potential negative effects of broadcast baiting on native invertebrates and the broader environment, including the validity of current eradication modeling.
Topics: Biosecurity, Land management, Animal welfare
Speakers: Justine Saunders, Speaker 35, Unknown Speaker, Interjection
>> Okay. So, let's move from cost and effectiveness to the environment. There's now evidence that broadcast baiting is removing native invertebrate competitors and predators of fire ants, making it easier for the fire ant queens
>> I'm not in a position to comment on that. Can you comment, Dr. Collins?
>> Okay. Isn't it clear that what is needed is targeted specific species specific management in the light that it is no longer feasible to achieve total eradication
>> center I can only talk at the strategic level knowing that the the specifics of the program those questions as we've discussed previously really need to be directed to Queensland who are running the program but certainly um from the advice we received Queensland and agreed by all national partners is we're satisfied that the the the activities of the program in an endeavor to eradicate will be successful.
>> Once a program is entrenched, there are a lot of people feeding off it financially and they're not caring about the environment. Are you aware of that?
>> No, I'm not, Senator.
>> You're not? Okay. Is DAP aware of the research done by in Queensland by Dr. Connie Turney, a scientist, and her associates on the potential effects of the program pesticides on non-target organisms, soil, and water?
>> No, I'm not send
>> her paper, Dr. Attorney's paper, Toxic Consequences of Australia's Fire and Eradication Program, Pesticide Deployment, a comprehensive review, that's the title, raises concerns that warrant independent assessment considering the program safety asurances. Are you aware?
>> No, Senator,
>> will you be interested?
>> I think it should be provided to the
the funding is coming up next year,
response plan is under consideration.
>> So there'd be a lot of activity to justify it. The recent emergence of fire ant nests in Sydney raise ongoing concerns about the need for a wider strategy to manage new infestations from
overseas. So evidence earlier there have been been sporadic um for one of a better term of the detection of red and porter fire ants from overseas where that has occurred. We've successfully eradicated
>> What quarantine procedures and border protection strategies are being considered to manage future intrusions?
>> Uh as per my earlier evidence, Senator, we have a lay approach to managing biocurity both pre and postborder. So we have agreements with offshore countries. We have um fumigation arrangements um with jurisdictions depending on the nature of goods coming across the board. We have assurance and we have surveillance activities um both at the border and and pre-border and then of course postborder um and we don't say that we can prevent every risk coming across the border. We cannot that's an impossible task but we do manage and have very successfully manage the risk to appropriate level of protection which is as close to zero but not zero. We've done that very well and when it occurs postorder we work collectively um with jurisdictions and other stakeholders and industry in managing those risks when
that occurs. So, are you aware that the people opposing the fire ant eradication program are supporting the eradication of pro of fire ants?
>> I'm sorry, can you say again?
>> The people who are opposing the fire ant eradication program as it is,
>> yes,
>> are very strong advocates of getting rid of fire ants. They want to eradicate fire ants. They just don't like the process that's going through at the moment because it's destroying the environment, killing uh invertebrates, killing mammals as well, killing birds. um and it's costing and it's not not being effective. So they they want and they've got proper uh treatments in place.
>> I'm reassured to hear we all have the common objective. Um certainly but certainly the advice we have and we're very confident in the program as it's currently undertaking it activities.
Will these additional protections that you're talking about um as quarantine and as prevention of protection of borders be considered in the next funding review in the context of a shift to managing the problem rather than an eradication mindset? There's a lot of
>> issues there um Santa. So in [clears throat] terms of the program you're referring to relates to an incursion that's already post border. So and you're referring to are we going to be looking at funding for at the border? I mean they're very different issues.
>> Now are you looking at new methods because the current ones we don't believe are working.
>> Well we believe the current ones are working are working
>> the damage to the environment. You're okay with that.
>> You're talking about the southeast incursion that we've been dealing with we've been seeking to eradicate over many years now versus many many years >> versus emerging risks at the border. They're quite different issues and we have a range of mechanisms. government's made $200 billion investment in terms of sustainable biocurity um for the department and our primary responsibility is to manage that risk at the border but they're quite separate issues.
>> What sort of due diligence do you do on the current program? How do you know whether or not it's working? How do you know what damage is doing? How do you know whether or not it's safe for the environment and for humans?
>> Well, because because we have robust governance that sits on top of the program specifically. So we have technical experts from around the country that are looking at the routinely monitoring and reviewing the work of the program and we then have more senior levels which are looking at whether it's delivering effectively whether it's working within its budget whether and then we have strategic questions and routine reviews um looking at ensuring that it's actually