Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 makes the legislative amendments required to support national programs for the biological control of damaging pests and weeds. How many of us remember learning about the cactoblastis moth that was the biological control for prickly pear? Some of us first found out about the positive control relationship when studying high school science; others were only first acquainted when studying environmental biology at university. It allowed us to see the intricate and complicated life cycle relationships that can be beneficial for our environment. Ultimately, the agricultural base was helped by other initiatives in this biological control. Most of those controls related to the use of invertebrate and plant cycle relationships, and from that other strategies were developed which involved the use of natural virus enemies for different species.

The bill before the House clarifies the definition of an organism under the Biological Control Act 1984 to reflect the use of viruses and subviral agents or an agent organism to target organisms for biological control activities. This is consistent with the requirements of national biological control programs for pests and weeds that impact agricultural production and the environment; and it is aligned with the original intent of the act.

Viruses are known to be effective agents for biological control and have been used successfully in Australia to control wild rabbit populations. Rabbits were first brought to Australia as a ready source of food for the early settlers. They were far more used to catching and cooking rabbits as a meat source than they were trying to mimic the catching and cooking techniques for kangaroos and goannas used by our first peoples. They were a great food source and the rabbits were true to their description—they were admirably suited to the Australian environment and soon agricultural lands were being compromised because they 'bred like rabbits' and they were everywhere. The associated economic and environmental impacts needed to be addressed. The combined effect of myxoma virus, or myxomatosis, released in Australia during the 1950s and then calicivirus, the rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, which was released in1996, limits wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers.

In some scientific circles, the concept of a virus being considered as a living organism is yet a subject of debate. For anything to be listed as a living organism it must be able to reproduce; viruses need a host to reproduce. In light of this debate, the bill clarifies the definition of an organism for the purpose of this act, and omits the term 'live' to remove any ambiguity. The bill provides strengthened legislative authority for future biological control programs where scientific consensus recommends the use of viruses or subviral agents as an agent or target organism. By removing any doubt about the status of a virus under the act, the bill provides greater certainty for stakeholders who deliver and/or benefit from biological control programs, including government agencies, researchers, farmers, land managers and the general community.

The act only applies to the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, which is a neighbourhood of Gilmore. The act is already supported by mirror biological control legislation in all the other states and the Northern Territory. So a very clear definition for biological control is that it is an important tool for managing these invasive pests and weeds that impact on agriculture and the environment by using the pest's natural enemies. Biological control agents include insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses that specifically target a pest. Typically there is also a need to have an active human involvement in the management role—that is, we usually have to introduce that biological control.

Unfortunately, biocontrol is not a silver bullet and will not solve all of Australia's invasive species problems, because effective agents are not always found. In the case of the two rabbit viruses—myxomatosis and calicivirus—virus-host co-evolution has led to a decline in effectiveness of the viruses over time, as rabbits have developed or attained resistance to them. This is similar to how bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. As a result, we are continuing to search for new strains to counteract these effects. Government, in conjunction with scientific research, is applying skills to provide solutions for managing invasive species of national significance including: mammals, predominately rabbits; fish, starting with carp; weeds that affect agriculture and/or the environment; and invertebrate pests.

There are some significant case studies. CSIRO scientists, for example, are undertaking rigorous tests to determine the safety and suitability of the candidate biocontrol agent, cyprinid herpesvirus 3, in managing European carp numbers in Australia. Some may ask: so what? Carp was introduced quite a number of years ago to facilitate some of our European residents' love of this particular fish. It too has been a very disruptive and damaging environmental addition; it has out-competed many of our natural species by increasing the turbidity of rivers and creeks, as it is a bottom feeder and kicks up the mud. Our recreational fishermen and women find great joy in catch and release of trout on many of our waterways and sometimes they bag enough for a meal. There is a significant associated amateur fishing industry which brings seasonal tourism to many parts of Australia, particularly the inland, where this is a favourite past-time, but there has been a significant decline in the ability to hold such events as the species competition with carp has been extraordinary and has led to a decline in freshwater fish population diversity overall.

Jervis Bay, which is referred to in particular in this amendment to the bill, is a magnificent destination. Large tracts of the bay have been set aside as protected marine parks in order to preserve the species diversity and population number increase. There is no way that we should not be in a position to protect all the species in this environment with biological control, where applicable.

We as a nation still need to control rabbits, as they have developed some resistance. Initially, the release of the two rabbit biocontrol agents led to a dramatic reduction of Australia's rabbit population. That reduction has recovered more than $70 billion to the agricultural industries since 1950. There still needs to be a lot more research into the methods of overcoming that resistance. Even in the coastal villages in Gilmore we are overrun by rabbits and very often we run over them on the road, because they run everywhere.

Another school-learning memory is evoked when we mention the dung beetles, which in their behavioural pattern bury dung and, as a consequence, reduce bush flies. Now there is another dung beetle which will continue this amazing process. Of course, the economic gains are related to a reduction of fly attacks on our livestock and, as a consequence, a better value at the saleyards.

In 2014, CSIRO researchers released French and Spanish spring-active Onthophagus vacca and Bubus bubalus dung beetles in Australia's latest effort to improve dung burial. Burying dung improves pasture productivity, sequesters carbon and controls buffalo and bush flies. We are all aware that biological control is essential for weeds, and there is a growing demand by producers for an agent that tackles Crofton weed, also known as sticky snakeroot or Mexican devil. It has been smothering the native bush in Australia since the early 1900s, but now the release of a new biological control agent brings in hope to manage this invasive weed. During the 1990s, I was a part owner of land near Oberon. The previous owners had allowed serrated tussock, Yass tussock, blackberries, thistles and so many weeds to prosper that several paddocks could only carry three head of cattle. Manual and chemical removal were the only form of control. So there is much work to be done on further research against so many other species. Manual removal is slow and tedious, but so too is biological research.

When I moved to Gilmore, there was a delightful looking yellow daisy in many of the paddocks, yet others nearby were completely clear. This intrigued me until I spoke to some of the farmers. I was looking at none other than fireweed, a toxic plant that sterilizes a paddock until the plant is completely eradicated. We do actually have a program for biological research for fireweed—a cooperative venture with research in South Africa. Naturally, there is always a need for extended funding as it takes many seasons to establish effectiveness of any biological control method. There have been villages in Africa where the seeds of the fireweed have been accidently mixed with cropping seeds, ground and baked in native breads, and the whole village has become ill, with many dying as a consequence.

Initially, I pursued an unusual pathway for eradication of this weed. It involved the allocation of correctional service clients to carry out the task of manual removal. This could have had two major benefits: one was the eradication of the noxious weed and the other was a possible reduction in recidivism, because anyone who has had the task of removing fireweed would never want to be in a place where they had to do it again. However, farms are seen as private property, so, consequently, that was not a possibility. Biological control seems to be the best solution in this case.

This brings me back to the central focus of the bill at hand—amendments to include viruses as part of the spectrum of organisms for biological control. I have only touched lightly on the economic benefits of biological control. While the following quote relates specifically to the control of weeds, it is equally applicable to other aspects of biological control and lays a foundation for future research directions. According to R McFadyen's keynote paper written for the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Return on investment: determining the economic impact of biological control programmes:

In >100 years of weed biological control, few economic impact assessments of biological control programmes have been undertaken, and all were successes. Yet biological control is still largely paid for by governments, who need proof of the return on their investment. Cost/benefit analyses can also be used to rank biological control against other management methods. A recent economic impact assessment of all weed biological control undertaken in Australia since 1903, including both successes and failures, demonstrated annual benefits of $95.3 million from an average annual investment of $4.3 million (Aus$, 2005 values), a cost/benefit ratio of 23:1. Even with the enormous economic impact of the prickly pear success excluded, the cost/benefit ratio of all other programmes was 12:1. The benefit came from 17 successful programmes: two, which are usually considered failures, in fact returned strongly positive benefits because small reductions in the weed problem nevertheless resulted in considerable cost savings.

The scarcity of economic studies has many causes: long period from commencement to full field results; difficulties in assigning monetary values to biodiversity and social impacts; and difficulties in assessing impacts of biological control. The Australian study demonstrated the economic returns from partial successes, where these reduce the costs of other management methods. It also demonstrated the importance of obtaining baseline economic data before starting biological control and at intervals during the agent release period. Seeking advice from economists at all stages of a biological control programme must become as routine as consulting statisticians.

But, in addition to the agricultural benefits, there are tourism opportunities, especially in relation to getting rid of carp from our waterways and protecting places like Jervis Bay from invasive species. Carp reduce our native populations, reduce our wealth of diversity and, as a consequence, severely degrade our tourism potential. It is, most definitely, not just the environment that benefits; it is the whole community on so many different levels.

I commend the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 to the House.

See this speech in context