Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  (i) Pure Compound Sodium Fluoroacetate ('1080') poison is classified by the World Health Organization as a Class l(a) poison – their highest rating for toxicity,

  (ii) in Australia, 1080 is listed as a schedule 7 poison, surpassed only by addictive, illicit and other prohibited substances, and is considered a chemical of security concern by the Australian Government

  (iii) despite most other countries adopting alternative, more humane, pest-management strategies, Australia and New Zealand account for the vast majority of 1080 use worldwide,

  (iv) 1080 poison is a cruel alternative to other known methods of pest control, including poisons with effective antidotes, and

  (v) 1080 poison is aerially distributed across Australia, including often untracked use throughout national parks, leaving other species and domesticated animals susceptible to agonising deaths that can last as long as five days; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to regulate for the orderly phase-out of 1080 poison.

I want to start today with a story that will make me sound naive. Years and years ago—decades ago—I had a mate across the Ditch, in New Zealand, who was a helicopter pilot. He did most of his work in the South Island. When I asked him what he actually did, he said he dropped tonnes of carrots for the deer to eat. Being an animal lover and a campaigner against animal suffering and cruelty for more than 40 years, I thought, 'Gee, that's great.' Then he explained that this was not a humanitarian aerial food drop for Bambi; the carrots were laced with the deadly poison 1080. I'd never heard of it. I have since learned that one teaspoon of 1080 can kill 100 people.

All these years later 1080 is still being used in New Zealand and here in Australia, including in our national parks like Kosciuszko National Park, just around the corner. In fact I have been told the world's largest manufacturer of 1080, the Tull company in Alabama, sells at least 80 per cent of its 1080 to Australia and New Zealand. Some is also sold, I believe, to Japan and Israel.

I checked with New Zealand yesterday and the poisoned carrot drops from helicopters and planes are still going on over there, but the main target now is not deer but possums. The obvious problem is that aerial drops of this deadly poison are so indiscriminate. So many other species of non-feral critters die as well, as the targets, in agonising deaths that can take up to four or five excruciating days. I have seen evidence of farmers' dogs dying from 1080 poisoning. One farmer, who has been corresponding with my office, tells me he's lost 16 dogs to 1080—sixteen! Additionally, dosage of 1080 is almost impossible to control. Even if an animal consumes a sub-lethal dose, it'll still be left permanently disabled and in terrible pain.

A 2005 peer-reviewed study in New Zealand found that this practice is so indiscriminate, so untargeted, that even reducing the dosage of 1080 in these poisoned carrots could not save native wildlife. Crucial bird species over there, like the tomtit, would have their populations smashed by factors of up to 50 per cent. In recent months we have seen news reports of several Kiwi families who have suffered near-fatal illnesses because they have eaten 1080-infested wild pig.

I recently read an article by an American poisons expert, Joanna Grossman, PhD. She was attacking the USDA—the United States Department of Agriculture—over the use of deadly poisons. She said:

… there's something particularly shocking about our government stockpiling and deploying some of the deadliest poisons in the world in a scorched earth attempt to deal with wildlife.

The fact that Australia is following this practice, especially while there are other known methods of pest control available, including other poisons with known antidotes, defies logic.

Speaking of wildlife, there's an agency in the United States called Wildlife Services. It is a program within the US Department of Agriculture that is cynically known as the 'killing agency'. They are the federal government's exterminator. They kill between 3 million and 5 million animals each year using some of the most inhumane methods imaginable. We are talking about chemical poisons; cruel, body-gripping traps that mangle target and non-target animals; aerial gunning operations gone bad that have even led to pilot deaths; and even sometimes using vehicles to run over and hit animals in a crude attempt to knock off unwanted pests.

As Ms Grossman pointed out, all of these methods are dangerous and suspect, but, as she said, there is something particularly shocking about a government stockpiling and deploying some of the deadliest poisons in the world in a scorched-earth attempt to deal with wildlife.

This is less about wildlife management, which presumably would at least involve a first attempt to effectively manage any problematic wildlife through non-lethal means rather than 'kill first, ask questions later' philosophy that that rids the ecosystems of native carnivores and countless other animals that add to the rich biological diversity of outdoor spaces. Simply put: why would a government need to use something like 1080 to mitigate wildlife damage? Can an agency supposedly committed to the coexistence of people and wildlife really not do better with all the funds and expertise at its disposal?

In 2005 a CIA report on weapons of mass destruction revealed that 1080 was found in Saddam Hussein's chemical stockpile. In other words, the US federal government thinks that the tool of a mass murderer is apparently suitable to spread on public lands, and they are doing it using taxpayers' dollars. Joanna Grossman points out that President Richard Nixon signed an executive order in 1972 that prohibited the use of poisons like 1080 and sodium cyanide on public lands—and with good bloody reason. That executive action was unfortunately reversed, but the Nixon administration had the right idea. These deadly poisons have no place in and around the wild open spaces and trails that people use for hiking and recreation. No-one should ever have to fear losing their beloved dog because they stumbled upon some horrific killing device that was secretly placed there by government agencies. And that is happening here in national parks in Australia.

The unfortunate reality is that, if an odourless and colourless poison such as 1080 came into the wrong hands, it could be used to poison a public water supply. Before you scoff at that one, go back a few weeks to a story out of Alice Springs which had police warning Territorian pet owners to look out for symptoms of poisoning after a large amount of 1080 was stolen from a pastoralist's property near Alice Springs. Thieves broke into a locked shed and a locked box and stole the schedule 7 poison, which is also a listed as a chemical of security concern by our government. Alice Springs Superintendent Pauline Vickery said that police held concerns for people and animals potentially exposed to the chemical. She said: 'It is concerning that this chemical is out in the public domain. We urge people not to handle it as we believe it has toxic ramifications.' Police urged pet owners to secure their animals so they couldn't get access to deadly bait that may have been placed in a public space.

This is the very poison being seeded, I believe recklessly, in our national parks. One anti-1080 campaigner asked the authorities for details of any register, especially in Victoria and New South Wales, of where 1080 was being laid, especially in national parks where people go hiking in the bush with their kids. Even though dogs are banned, how do you stop a pet dog from straying there and taking a bait? My informant was told there is no such register. He was told that if he wanted to find out such information he would have to contact every single agency, every single branch, every single distributor in the country.

I know my detractors will say that this is a perfectly regulated practice tightly controlled by state licensing schemes and zoning requirements. Let's take a look at that one. Last year, as part of a thing called Project Eden, the Shire of Shark Bay in WA introduced its baiting program along the Peron Peninsula. Locals were told, don't worry, baits will be tightly restricted to 100 metres away from roads and 20 metres from private property boundaries. Twenty metres!

Good luck stopping a pet dog from making it 20 metres beyond your fence line. To me, the thought of a child making this simple mistake is almost too horrible to consider. To make matters worse, the local community was told that the coastal strip, which had previously been bombed by 1080, was still an exclusion zone. If baits can't be removed or even traced after their deployment, then how is this a targeted or safe practice?

I want to conclude by going back to where I started: a novice, a rube—me—believing all those years ago that carrots were being dropped by helicopter to feed Bambi. In real life, one of the most dangerous poisons in the world, a concentrated compound poison which would take only a teaspoon to kill 100 people, is still being used, I believe recklessly, in Australia and New Zealand. I fervently believe that 1080 should be, and must be, phased out in the very near future.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of the use of 1080, particularly in a Western Australia context. Without being flippant, this is the Australian parliament and what happens in New Zealand is something that we cannot control. What we can control is what happens within our borders. And as a senator from Western Australia, I have a particular interest in what happens within the border of Western Australia. 1080 is both an essential and vital part of our wild dog control program in Western Australia.

The reality is that 1080 is a poison. It kills animals, and it can kill humans, if it is ingested. That's what poisons are. It's a naturally occurring poison. That doesn't matter; a poison, whether it's synthetic or naturally occurring, is still a poison. This is interesting and very important in the Australian context, and, more importantly, in the Western Australia context, because this is a naturally occurring compound in some 40 plant species particularly in Australia, but also in Brazil and Africa. There are several native Australian plant genera that contain the toxin, including, most importantly, gastrolobium. I probably didn't know the technical name earlier today, and I think many more of us in the farming community would know it as poison P. It is fairly common, particularly in the south-west of WA, but parts of this genus are found right across Australia. As a result, particularly in the south-west of Western Australia but more broadly throughout Australia, there is a high level of tolerance to this toxic compound in native Australian animals. I'll go through that in more detail later.

As I said when I began, this is a poison, and we do have to view all things with a wider perspective. I think I'm probably one of the few people in this place—and I suspect, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, you are another—who has seen both the outcome of 1080 bait ingestion and the outcome of a wild-dog attack on sheep populations. I'm happy to accept that the outcome of 1080 bait ingestion on a wild dog is dramatic, but even more dramatic is the impact of even one wild dog on a sheep herd or on millions of native Australian animals every year.

1080 bait has been used in Western Australia, particularly through what was called the Western Shield program. It has been a broad-scale program that has been targeting foxes in particular and also wild dogs since about 1994. What has it led to? There's an ongoing problem with wild dogs—I do acknowledge that—but it has had some very positive impacts, in certain areas, on enabling the ongoing presence of sheep. It has also had a positive impact on populations of a number of native animal species. The findings—and I believe this comes from the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia—are that there has been a significant improvement in the population of several native species. In fact, for the first time, it led to three species of mammals being taken off the Endangered Species List. That is a direct result of the baiting program using 1080 for the control of feral animals in Australia. Feral animals have a devastating effect on agricultural production. There are whole areas in Western Australia—in particular, the eastern rangelands around Kalgoorlie and parts of the southern Pilbara—where traditional sheep areas now cannot produce sheep. They have moved into goats and/or cattle. Some have gone out of production altogether because of the presence of wild dogs.

Senator Hinch said there are a number of alternative approaches; and there may will be in the future—in particular, genetic approaches that can take away the need for trapping, shooting and the use of poisons—but they are not effective and certainly they are not able to be rolled out at the moment. When you consider the vast open spaces of Western Australia, particularly the areas where agriculture meets the non-agricultural parts of Western Australia, the idea of using a poison with an antidote is both meaningless and completely redundant, even if such a poison were available and cost-effective.

So we need to use a suite of measures. Nobody believes that 1080 alone is going to be successful in controlling the wild dog populations and protecting both agriculture and native species, but it is an important component in what we are trying to do. A review of 1080 conducted in 2008 found that there was poisoning of non-targeted animals. However, it was significantly limited and did not adversely affect the overall population of non-targeted animals. On the other side of that, there are obviously a large number of animals protected when predatory animals are killed.

Whilst the poisoning of non-targeted species is, of course, something that nobody wants, 1080 is a highly restricted product. It is restricted under legislation which requires significant control of its supply and its use. It has to be used by trained persons who are authorised by state and territory governments. Western Australia also has a significantly enhanced set of control regimes: 1080 is not available to the general public, authorisation is required before anyone can obtain 1080 baits, a risk assessment is undertaken before authorisation is given, training requirements are stipulated and must be met and reporting of any incidents is mandatory. So it is a highly regulated poison. It is regulated under the federal acts and under the state Poisons Act. In terms of its lethality—I think this is worth mentioning—the lethal dose is the generally used measure of the lethality of poisons, and it is measured in milligrams per kilogram. In Western Australia, for a dog, it is 0.11; for a fox, it is 0.14; for a bobtail skink, a native species, it is over 800; for a particular species of goanna, it is 235; for the brushtail possum, it is 118; for the western grey kangaroo, it is 47; for the quoll, it is seven; and for emus, it is 96. Again, for dogs and foxes it is under one—0.11 and 0.14 for dogs and foxes respectively. So, obviously, you have very significant differences in lethality for the targeted species, particularly introduced species, and native species.

Just for some context: wild dog control is obviously very important in Western Australia, particularly for the protection of the sheep meat and wool industry but also increasingly for rangeland goats, and I have been hearing over the last year—and I'm sure Senator Smith would have heard the same thing in his travels in the north of Western Australia—that cattle are increasingly coming under threat due to the size and scale of the problem in some areas. So, in our livestock industries, you're talking about a very significant asset that we are protecting across Western Australia, and this is a very important part of that control.

Just briefly, before I finish up, I would also like to mention that farming and farming industries would prefer not to have to use any chemicals or any poisons; it's as simple as that. Nobody uses these things on a farm with any joy. Farmers are very keen to minimise the use of chemicals and poisons at every opportunity. But they are a part of the reality of farming and farming systems, and, at the moment, in the suite of tools we have available to us, the use of 1080 is a vital part of our armoury, particularly against wild dogs.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is unable to support Senator Hinch's motion. It is the job of the regulator in Australia, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to assess the safety of compounds used in agvet products and approve their use. The regulator is responsible for the protection of the health and safety of all Australians and of our environment, animal and crops.

Once again, Labor puts on the record in the Senate that, unfortunately, public confidence in the APVMA is already in decline because of the Turnbull government's decision to forcibly relocate it from Canberra to Armidale. The best way to keep our community safe is to maintain the regulator's independence and to rebuild its capacity to do its work in the most effective and timely manner. The Turnbull government must make it a priority to restore Australia's confidence in the APVMA by reversing the damaging relocation of the APVMA. The APVMA CEO, Dr Parker, has already been forced to acknowledge that the APVMA cannot recruit the necessary regulatory scientists to work in Armidale. On 2 July this year, a statement from the APVMA announced:

"Our existing plans for teleworking, an enhanced reliance on external scientific assessors and recruitment into Armidale have not reduced our relocation risks to an acceptable level and more must be done," Dr Parker said.

"Retaining the knowledge and expertise of our scientists is essential to the effective operations of the APVMA and accommodating these specialist staff in a Canberra office further supports the APVMA to deliver its statutory obligations.

"I have advised the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP, that in addition to core regulatory operations to Armidale, we will retain a unit of 30 to 40 specialist scientists and decision makers in Canberra."

Labor has always said the forced relocation of the APVMA would risk the capability of the independent authority. It is important for the Senate to reflect on the word 'independent'. It is crucial that the Australian community can have complete and full trust in the regulation of agricultural chemicals. At the heart of that is a truly independent and scientifically competent regulator that is free from undue commercial and political influence.

The government has been reckless in the way it has forced the regulator to relocate to the former Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England, a decision that required a government policy order, a GPO—signed off by the finance minister, Senator Cormann, on 23 November 2016—to force it to relocate. The current CEO of the APVMA is now in direct conflict with the GPO, as it states that the APVMA must be located in a regional community and within 10 kilometres by road of the main campus of a regional university that is recognised for research and teaching in the field of agricultural science. The GPO defined 'regional community' to mean a community that is not within 150 kilometres by road of Canberra or the capital of a state. We also know it is in direct conflict because Dr Parker informed senators that no staff would be allowed to stay in Canberra. On 24 October 2017 former Senator Gallagher asked the following question at Senate estimates in relation to the APVMA relocation and concerns about retaining its highly qualified staff: 'As part of that you wouldn't be looking to maintain an office presence in Canberra of any sort?' Dr Parker said: 'No. That would be against the government order.' So what has changed? Is the GPO no longer valid or did Dr Parker mislead the Senate committee?

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources need to start taking the failing relocation seriously, otherwise Australian agriculture, our environment and the safety of all Australians and their pets will be compromised, but not because we think the staff will make poor decisions. The APVMA will continue to maintain rigorous and robust scientific assessments for managing the risks associated with chemicals used in ag vet products. However, the timeliness of decisions could be severely impacted, and this will have negative consequences.

With regard to the specific chemical brought to the attention of the Senate today, sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080, is a poison used to control vertebrate pests in Australia such as foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. It is a critical component of the integrated pest control program for foxes, wild dogs, feral pigs and feral cats. This is not only essential for farmers to protect their livestock but also to support effective pest control programs in Australia's national parks and reserves.

The chemical is already heavily restricted and controlled. This includes by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The APVMA approval and registration provides that, when used in accordance with labelled directions, the product should not present any unacceptable risk to users, non-target animals or the environment more broadly. The APVMA's control scheme for this is already rigorous and comprehensive. The APVMA has classified it as a restricted chemical product to ensure that only authorised persons under the relevant state or territory law can use or supply 1080 products. State and territories also employ various regulatory and non-regulatory measures to ensure the product is used responsibly and in full consideration of risks to non-target animals. For example, in Victoria, a 1080 user must:

1. have completed recognised training (or be directly supervised by a trained and licensed person)

2. have a licence to use the product

3. obtain the product from an accredited supplier

4. use the product according to the Directions for the use of 1080 and PAPP pest animal bait products in Victoria

5. comply with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth), the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 (Vic), the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and associated regulations.

Other states and territories have similar controls.

Like any pesticide, 1080 should be used as part of an integrated pest management program combining other control measures. Integrated pest control might include trapping, better fencing and other options. Chemical alternatives are limited, although PAPP became available in 2016. 1080 remains in use in several other countries. New Zealand uses 1080 to control possums, rats, rabbits and deer. The US uses 1080 to control coyotes. Mexico, Japan, Korea and Israel use it for rodent control. The product's possession, sale and use is heavily restricted in Australia. This is appropriate. It remains an important tool for agriculture and natural resource management. It is inappropriate for the Senate to call on the government to regulate chemicals in Australia. As already stated, this is a job for independent regulator.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion about the use of 1080. I thank Senator Hinch for bringing this motion on for debate this afternoon. I want to begin by reflecting on what happens when an animal is poisoned by sodium fluoroacetate, or 1080 poison. It's truly awful. This is the description on the RSPCA Australia website:

The initial obvious symptoms of 1080 poisoning are retching, vomiting, anxiety, disorientation, shaking, frenzied behaviour, manic running, vocalisation and drooling. Once the poison enters the central nervous system affected animals will experience convulsions, uncontrolled paddling and muscle spasms, followed by total collapse and death. During periods of prolonged convulsions animals may be conscious between fits and experience pain or anxiety. There is also potential for animals to injure themselves over this period. Symptoms usually appear within 3 hours of bait ingestion with death occurring 2-10 hours later.

The Greens have made a number of previous efforts to ban or phase out 1080, including a temporarily successful move in Tasmania to ban its use under the Greens coalition government. But that ban has since been reversed by the current Liberal government. However, in saying that, I also want to acknowledge that 1080 does indeed currently play a critical role in invasive species and pest control. It's used widely and in most cases very carefully by park rangers and other natural resource managers to tackle foxes and other invasive mammals.

We Greens understand the importance of protecting native and local systems and so acknowledge that, without some form of intervention to reduce pest animal populations, pests and invasive species on habitats and food chains actually can lead to distressing and considerable animal suffering in addition to endangerment and extinction. And, indeed, there is no doubt that the use of 1080 has saved untold numbers of small marsupials from being killed and eaten by foxes, wild dogs and cats, particularly in Western Australia where many native fauna have pre-existing genetic resistance to the active ingredient in 1080, which makes it more straightforward to use 1080, because you're not going to be killing the native wildlife that you are trying to protect. This has resulted in species that were likely to have become extinct because of predation by foxes and cats being brought back from the brink. But that doesn't mean that we've got to stick with the status quo.

Needless animal suffering is never justified and alternatives to 1080 are beginning to be available. The reason the Greens are supporting this motion today is the fact that it is calling for the orderly phase-out of 1080. And that orderly phase-out is an animal welfare priority of the highest order. In some environments, that orderly phase-out would mean an immediate ban or a reinstatement of the ban because other alternatives are available, other more humane and just-as-effective alternatives are available. In others, a staged phase-out would mean, yes, we keep using 1080 while new, more humane alternatives are approved and regulated.

There is no doubt that 1080 is currently used in circumstances where it's not justified and where it should not be used. Senator Hinch talked about the use of 1080 for deer populations. In the eastern states, 1080 is not widely used for killing deer populations. There are other methods of control that should be being used but are not being used for deer populations. In Tasmanian eucalypt plantations, 1080 is being used to kill off small wallabies, which is totally unjustified. The use of 1080 for the killing of wild dogs is also, in many circumstances, not justified, because there are other poisons available that have fewer animal welfare concerns.

Where there are other alternatives, 1080 should be immediately phased out. But where those alternatives don't yet exist, the government must massively scale up research and innovation to develop those alternatives. Greens policy, which I'll summarise, says that on the interaction of animal welfare and protection of animal species, we must use the most humane, effective means available in the control of introduced species, including humane population management methods. We need much more research and development of those more humane methods for the management and control of introduced species. It's important to note that in general those alternatives are generally going to be more effective and more humane if they don't require the wide-spread killing of mature animals, and that there is so much potential for biological control and fertility control. If you have methods that use those, that is a much more effective and much, more humane method of dealing with pest animals than the use of poisons which require you to go out and kill large numbers of mature animals.

To achieve this balancing act of protecting animal welfare and dealing with pest animals is only going to be possible with a government that puts a high priority on both animal welfare and environment protection. Bring on that government. The Greens look forward to being part of such a government, because it will surprise no-one that the current government cares about neither. You can see its lack of care about animal welfare, its lack of care about environment protection. You can see it in its failure to ban the horrendous practice of live exports. You can see it in its addiction to facilitating broad-scale land clearing. You can see it in its rolling over of its failed logging laws that destroy both our forests and the animals that live in them. You can see it in the fossil fuel expansion and its never-ending cuts to the environment department.

But even if the government were to find its inner environmentalist, its inner animal welfarist, there is the relocation of the APVMA and the catastrophic damage to its functioning. Because the APVMA is having its capacity completely slashed due to the relocation, the regulatory changes that would be required to bring in these new methods of pest animal control and to facilitate new and more effective solutions would be stuck in limbo for months, if not years. It's simply not good enough.

To sum up, the Greens fully acknowledge there is work to be done on the transition away from 1080. Alternatives are needed for the role it now plays in protecting native wildlife. But it is absolutely necessary that that work begins as soon as possible. That is why the Greens will be giving support to this motion today.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we have the Greens telling our farmers how we should look after our land and feral animals. I find it amazing, Senator Rice talking about the Greens and the environment. I tell you what the Greens do to the environment. With all their power and sway over the Labor Party, they lock up land for national parks, lock it up and leave it. There is virtually no hazard reduction burning, no grazing allowed—you can't have hard-hooved animals in national parks. Of course, the deer and goats and wild pigs walk around national parks in ugg boots to protect the environment, I'm sure. Sorry for my sarcasm. It rains, the grass grows higher, the fuel levels get higher and higher, the lightning strikes and we burn the national parks and kill the animals. That's conservation, Greens style.

Here they are once again, telling us how to run our farms. Is it any wonder that the farmers loathe the Greens. The Greens hate farmers. They only hate miners worse than farmers. When we moved to Inverell in 1979, we bought 7,100 acres. It was moving with rabbits, and I mean moving. We ran around 6 to 6½ thousand sheep and probably 30,000 rabbits. I wonder how the Greens would have suggested we reduce the rabbit population? You couldn't use a rabbit trap—that could be cruel. Go out and shoot them one by one? They'd breed faster than you could produce the bullets. We put 1080 on the whole property—7,000 acres. We cleaned the rabbits out. We went around and picked up the dead ones, because most of them, when they get 1080 poison, go down a rabbit warren or into a hollow log and you can't find them. We never lost a sheep dog. That was our main concern—that we didn't lose our dogs. If foxes died, I couldn't care. If wild pigs died, I couldn't care. If crows died, I couldn't care either, but of course the crows are very clever birds: they just vomited it out and survived. It was a bit different in the old days with hallucigen. That one was a bit smart for the crows, and we didn't have the crows then picking the eyes out of our sheep when they got down. But the Greens wouldn't understand this issue of looking after animals. The real environmentalists are the farmers, looking after the animals and their land as best they can. Sadly, it's pretty hard for many of them to be green when so many are so far in the red, but hopefully that will turn around with rain, low interest rates, a low dollar and the better commodity prices that we've worked so hard on.

Widespread rabbit plagues are another thing we brought to this country that should never have been brought here. How do the Greens and even Senator Hinch suggest we get rid of them? What about the wild pigs? How do we get rid of the wild pigs? My wife and I have a problem at home with wild pigs. We went out one night, and we could hear four or five wild pigs circling little lambs. The little lambs were about a week old. The wild pigs had cut them off from their mothers. Luckily, when we drove over the contour bank at about 10 o'clock on a cold night they cleared off. We saved the lambs; they ran off to their mothers, to the ewes, to be protected.

This is the point I make: we have these feral animals causing so much loss of production to our country as far as wool, mutton, lamb and beef goes, and yet the big issue is the cause of the environment. Senator Hinch, I will gladly take you to our property and show you where the pigs are nosing up the soil; they're opening it up and exposing it to soil erosion. Rabbits: there are pictures of dryland farms from years ago, from before the 1950s and when 1080 was not allowed here—we didn't have it. The country was so bare. The wind was blowing the topsoil away. And when it did rain, of course the soil was washed away because of the erosion caused by rabbits, and their digging of their warrens and holes et cetera. They do huge environmental damage, and so 1080 is essential to get rid of rabbits.

Wild dogs are in national parks and on farms. Sadly, they're spreading far and wide across our nation too. When I talk to graziers at Tenterfield, many are going out of sheep because of wild dogs. We hear about the wild dogs out in Queensland. They went out of sheep up there because the dogs simply killed the sheep, mauled them to death. Senator Rice talks about painful deaths. She should go and have a look at the sheep when they have been mauled, when they've had the wool pulled from out of their sides and out of their shoulders, by wild dogs. Then the flystrike hits the sheep. Is that a good death, is it?

You talk about deaths. I know what the Greens are like. I was on a Senate committee hearing at Byron Bay. It was quite amazing. We were talking about sharks. We had two witnesses that day who told the committee the life of an animal is equal to the life of a human. How outrageously ridiculous. They were saying if you're driving down the road in a B-double—65 tonnes all up—down a steep hill and a kangaroo comes out on one side of the road and a three-year-old boy runs out on the other side of the road, you should contemplate hitting the boy and saving the kangaroo. Absolutely outrageous! That is out of tune, that animals are as equally important as human life. I have seen it with the Greens; this is how they behave.

The call is to ban 1080; to phase it out; to let the rabbits breed back to the huge populations we saw in the early 1900s; to let them destroy the environment, eat out the native grasses, create barren land, cause soil erosion; and to let them reduce our production of beef and sheep et cetera, our food production, and to starve the states, starve the country and starve those people we feed overseas. Is that the plan? The biggest problem with 1080—I've been tempted to use it in recent months, but I fear for our sheepdogs. I haven't used it. Sure animals do die, sadly, but not often. We've seen an inquiry by the APVMA saying non-targeted animals have died because of 1080, because it stays in the meat for a long time—until it literally rots away. It even stays in the bones. That is one fear I always have for our dogs: that they'd eat it. I can assure you our sheepdogs at home are very much loved.

But what do we do about the feral pigs? Foxes? Yes, we've got PAPP for foxes and wild dogs. That might be working well, but 1080 is a good, cheap way to destroy those feral animals that are causing so much damage to our farmland and our farm production. And you can't get it easy, I tell you, Senator Hinch; you can't get it easy. I've bought 1080 on many occasions, going to what was then the PP Board—the Pasture Protection Board—and dealing with the 1080 rabbit inspector. We'd buy the carrots crushed up, no poison on them. We'd go and feed the rabbits and they'd clean all the carrots up. Two days later we'd feed them again; we'd put out the poison carrots and then we'd go and pick up the dead rabbits.

It's amazing how not having rabbits can restore the country. Rabbits can graze the country down to about a millimetre high. They call them 'underground mutton'. They'd even eat underground, if they could. They destroy our native grass, our native pastures and our agriculture production. People are saying, 'Do away with it.' No, don't do away with it. Be careful with it. It is a very dangerous poison. I'm well aware of it. It's very dangerous. But we have strict regulations. To access 1080, don't think you can just walk into the hardware shop and buy it. It is certainly not like that. It is strict to get to it. They have to know who you are. When you prepare your property for 1080, you have to ring all your neighbours and tell them you're putting it out. You've got to put signs up on your fences on your property saying, '1080 poison being applied on this property.' You must work with your neighbours to look after the animals and see that the animals you are targeting are the ones you are killing.

It's a slow and painful death, Senator Rice says. Go and see the sheep that are ripped apart by wild dogs and tell me whether that's a quick, pain-free death, Senator Rice. It is appalling. That wouldn't worry you, Senator Rice. The painful death of having 1080—

Senator Rice interjecting—

That's what you said—it's a slow and painful death. Yes, it may be, but what about the animals being destroyed? What about the lambs when the pigs are ripping them apart? That's a quick, peaceful death, is it? Give me a break. You have no idea. I support the retention of 1080. I support the huge restrictions on access to it. Of course we must do things as landholders, as far as notifying the neighbours is concerned. It's up to us to see that our sheepdogs are protected. Keep them in the yard, don't let them out, pick up the dead animals—the dead foxes, not that sheepdogs are keen to eat dead foxes, I can assure you, but they might. You only need one sample and your dog is in serious trouble. Senator Hinch, you say to phase it out. What will replace it? You might have PAPP for wild dogs and foxes. What are we going to use to control the rabbits and the pigs? That's the big question.

As I said—I'm repeating myself—the enormous environmental damage these animals are doing to our land is just amazing. The loosening of the soil and accessing the soil, causing erosion when it does rain. Sadly, that's not a worry at the moment because of the big drought we're in, but the rains will come, as sure as I stand here. We know the rains will come; we just can't tell exactly when. I wish I knew. We'd be in a good position to manage our farms very well if we knew when it was going to rain, but one thing we do know is that the drought will end, the rains will come and the drought will return. I don't know when. This is about managing our environment, looking after our land, doing the right thing and keeping the feral animals where they should be—dead.

Debate adjourned.