Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016, and I thank the member for Hunter for his contribution and for his support for the bill. In an example not dissimilar to that put forward by the honourable member, recently, in a small village in my electorate by the name of Boonah, there was a bat colony. No bats were harmed, but the colony's roost was very strategically removed, at a time outside the mating season for the bats, to the immense pleasure of the local residents.

The removal of the colony has changed immensely the outlook, lifestyle and quality of life of some of the residents. Bats, when flying overhead, release droppings. In regional areas, the major source of water collection is rain off the roofs. When this mixes with flying-fox faeces, it can have an unsavoury taste, as one can imagine. So there were health issues that have been addressed. So I indicate to the member for Hunter that there are successful examples of colonies being moved on—and I wish strength to his arm, because I know I know how devastating and unwelcome these colonies can be to a community.

The bill amends the definition of 'organism' for the purposes of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and subviral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms. The need for the bill has arisen out of an ongoing contemporary scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community.

What is the Biological Control Act 1984 used for? It is apt that one would ask that. The Commonwealth act and mirror legislation in the states and territories provides a legislative framework for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public's best interest. The act includes structured consultation requirements which provide an opportunity for the community to have their say about proposed biological control activities. The act then provides for the declaration of the target organisms.

What would the Biological Control Act 1984 mean for my electorate? In my electorate I have quite a range of diversity, but the main economic driver in the electorate is, without a doubt, horticulture. This horticulture consists of the brassicas—cauliflower, cabbages—as well as carrots, beans, corn, potatoes and rotational crops in the way of legumes, including mung beans and soy beans. It is an incredibly fertile area. We also have a close relationship with the tourism sector, and this Biological Control Amendment Bill assists both of those growing economic drivers.

The bill also relates to eradicating rabbits. The member for Hunter spoke about the myxomatosis program back in the 1970s, which to date has been the most successful eradication program. I know there are many local farmers in my electorate who have an ongoing battle to control rabbit populations on their properties, despite the Queensland rabbit and wild dog fence running right through the middle of my electorate. In particular, in the Lockyer Valley, where much of South-East Queensland's vegetables are grown, there has been a drastic spike in rabbit numbers over the last couple of years, with local farmers saying that 2015 has been the worst year ever for rabbits. Rabbits are bad news for the crops I mentioned earlier—lettuce, broccoli and especially carrots. As we well know, rabbits love all of these, and the loss of stock for farmers has the impact of driving up prices because of spoilage out of paddock. Of course that spoilage then rolls through and has an effect on the hip pockets of mums and dads when they are buying fresh produce from retailers. This bill holds the potential to finally control rabbit numbers in a fast and effective way. The bill introduces the use of a virus which will limit wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of potential members. Such a measure would no doubt be well received. Without these agents, annual costs to agriculture alone would be more than $2 billion. That is an enormous amount of money that can be saved.

The other pest that the Biological Control Amendment Bill seeks to address closer to home for me is the carp. We have some beautiful waterways in my electorate. Wyaralong Dam is probably the most recent dam constructed in my electorate, and there are also Moogerah Dam, Maroon Dam, the Teviot Creek system, Christmas Creek and the Logan River system, just to name a few. These waterways provide a wonderful tourism economy—we are strategically located within an hour and a half of the Gold Coast and an hour and half from Brisbane, and for those families looking to come down and have a camping experience it is a wonderful area. We need to protect these water systems in many ways, and carp are a natural enemy in these waterways. You can see the presence of carp because they eat away at the banks, chasing moths. They are very predatory—they eat a number of native species, fish included, that cohabit these waterways. It is another pest that is a serious problem for both farmers and tourism operators.

The pristine waterways and dams in the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley have long been a tourism drawcard. However, during the last decade introduced carp have ravaged the natural ecosystems of our local waterways. But there is some good news. Just last Saturday in Wyaralong Dam there was a carp eradication competition held—a very industrious and entrepreneurial event. There were 251 competitors and they removed no less than 1,250 carp from the dam. In addition, they also raised over $5,000 in the eradication program, and they have put the money towards purchasing new young fish species to be introduced back into the dam. This bill seeks to fight the nationwide carp problem with cyprinid herpesvirus 3, which will reduce the pressure introduced carp species are placing on natural ecosystems.    Many people in my electorate are eager to see this method trialled in the Scenic Rim region where waterways have been downgraded significantly due to carp infestations. I have made representation to the Minister for Agriculture, requesting trials for this herpesvirus to be held in some of my local waterways, where trials can be contained and fish cannot go out to sea. That request was not a brainchild of mine—it was driven by a very motivated community who first heard about some of the work being done with the CSIRO and made the request directly to my office and about whether or not trials would be possible. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture has made the request through to the relevant peak body and is awaiting feedback from them as to whether or not Wright could be considered as a trial area given our heightened motivation to eradicate this pest series, the carp. More to the point, biocontrol agents have been used successfully in Australia to control pests and weeds that have had a significant economic and environmental impact. The cost of agricultural production losses attributable to pest animals was estimated to be more than $620 million in 2009. In 2004 a study estimated the agricultural cost of weeds alone to be nearly $4 billion per annum.

Biocontrol agents can be bacteria, fungi, viruses or predatory organisms, such as insects. They are highly specific and usually found in the native home-range of the invasive species. Biocontrol is a cost-effective solution to managing invasive species and generally does not require reapplication once established—unlike chemicals or poisons, where you need to go back continuously. Once the costs of testing and introducing control agents are met, the ongoing costs are small and the cost-benefit ratio of the control is high.

Candidate biocontrol agents undergo extensive testing to assess risks to domestic, agricultural and native species, and the release of control agents requires approval under a number of different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the Quarantine Act 1908 (Biosecurity Act 2015) for the importation and release of the control agents—fungi, insects, virus et cetera. The other two are: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to assess environmental impact and for inclusion on the live-import list; and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to assess the safety and efficacy of the agent.

Biocontrol may reduce the spread and density of infestations or reduce numbers to a level where other controls are no longer necessary. More commonly, other methods are still required to achieve the desired level of control, and an integrated management approach using a combination of control methods is recommended. This may include chemical controls, such as herbicides or baits, or physical controls, like the mechanical removal of weeds, ripping burrows and/or the use of competitive crops or pasture and grazing management.

In closing, I want to touch on the point made by the member for Hunter on the relocation of the APVMA and take this opportunity to thank them for the work they do. It is not inconceivable that we should have a government department which works closely with farmers located strategically in a regional base. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we should consider that—and I am sure that at every stage the Deputy Prime Minister is strategic in his thinking and always assessing the national benefit. I also want to acknowledge the work that CSIRO does in this area. Biosecurity should be paramount for Australia—we are geographically isolated from anyone and we have natural barriers. It is in our nation's best interest to protect and secure our native species. At any stretch, we should eradicate pests. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context