Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

7 September 2018

Dear Committee Secretary

Submission in response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Faunal Crisis

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Faunal Extinction Crisis.

Rewilding Australia works to restore ecosystem function by developing strategies to trial the reestablishment of keystone species lost from many of Australia’s ecosystems.

Rewilding Australia considers the two most significant causes of ongoing faunal extinction in Australia are the (i) impact from invasive species (particularly the European red Vulpes vulpes and the Felis catus, and (ii) human population growth and the land modification associated with this growth (urbanisation, road development, and resource extraction, as examples). The negative effects on Australia’s fauna from population growth will also be enhanced under a climate change scenario - as human modified landscapes will provide significant barriers to migration of wildlife that would otherwise shift under changing climatic conditions. The policy failure to appropriately deal with these two issues will ensure that Australia’s faunal decline will continue unabated.

1

Policy Failure Rewilding Australia’s concern is that current policies of Governments (Federal, State and Local) ensure that the process to undertake effective wildlife management at an appropriate scale and at an appropriate speed are lacking, and that proposals to restore ecosystems are so hindered by bureaucracy that wildlife management becomes cost-prohibitive and ineffective in its outcome.

Examples of these policy failures include:

Cat containment There is a lack of effective domestic cat containment across Australia. The Federal Government deems it a State issue; the States say it’s a Local Government issue, and Local Government says that direction and policy needs to come from above. The problem is that [and dogs] cross (i.e. walk, breed, disperse and move across) both local and State boundaries. In pragmatic terms, it is therefore a Federal issue. Until this issue is Federalised – Australia will continue as we have for the past two hundred plus years, and will have domestic cats becoming stray cats becoming feral cats. It is as sure as day follows night.

Recommendation: Implement cat containment as a biosecurity measure at a Federal level. Mandate that regulation will be implemented to contain all domestic cats by 2025, and have a rigorous licensing and penalty system for cat owners who disobey these laws.

1080 Poison regulation For many critical weight range species (35g-5500g), the use of 1080 provides the difference between persistence (at least in the short term) and extinction. The use of 1080 is so heavily regulated (in NSW) that Government and professional land managers wear a heavy burden of responsibility that promotes a reluctance to undertake baiting fox . The regulation currently focusses on a risk management framework that aims to protect roaming domestic dogs, rather than a focus on an ability to bait quickly and cost effectively to protect wildlife. As an example; in NSW, there is an ongoing requirement to collect signed hardcopy consent forms from landowners on a regular basis (every 6 months). There are also requirements to notify residents within a 1 kilometre radius of a bait station, and to re-notify every 6 months. The significant administrative burden in undertaking this process ensures that particularly community-led baiting programs, but also Government baiting programs, often falter in administrative backlogs. While the sale and supply of 1080 should certainly remain heavily regulated, the deployment requirements to those licensed to use the product should be limited to the provision of 1080 notification signage on the property entrance point(s).

Recommendation: Develop a working party between all State agencies that regulate pesticide application. Implement standard operating procedures that streamline the bait deployment process and place the onus of domestic dog protection onto the owners.

A reluctance from Government agencies to trial wildlife reintroductions A quotation from a senior government official to the Director of Rewilding Australia in 2013 when discussing the proposed reintroduction of a locally extinct species was “if only you were just breeding and releasing cats – then it would be much easier”. This highlights the paradigm that wildlife management in Australia is currently regulated under.

Recommendation: Develop an Australian Fauna Translocation Protocol that has easily navigable stages for wildlife managers to follow. Translocation (reintroduction or population augmentation/supplementation) to regions where a species once inhabited or inhabits in a reduced abundance should be generally permitted, and facilitation of the translocation should be the priority via such a process. This protocol should be developed in partnership with State and Territory environment agencies.

A reluctance of Government to fund wildlife management Rewilding Australia has operated since 2014 entirely on donations from the general public and other non-government organisations. The lack of available funding for operating, greatly reduces the capacity to undertake vital ecosystem restoration programs. The lack of Government funding for environmental management has become so critical, that it is also affecting Government agencies themselves – to the point that many NGOs – including Rewilding Australia, are providing funding to Government agencies so they can undertake duties that they have statutory requirements to undertake, however would otherwise not be performed.

Recommendation: Government to be held more accountable for management programs and population trajectories for all fauna species with funding targets imposed on the States to be mandated by the Federal Government.

Fox Control using 1080 and development of alternatives Fox control using 1080 is a necessary management tool for conserving wildlife in Australia. It is however, difficult to deliver at a landscape scale (see above, expensive to deliver at a landscape scale (to the point where some State Government agencies have to reduce the rate of application to the point where effectiveness at reducing foxes is lowered) and not effective beyond a matter of weeks once baiting is ceased (due to rapid recruitment of foxes from outside the baited area). A focus on developing new more humane, more target specific and more effective methods for reducing fox populations must be a priority for Government.

Rewilding Australia considers that the lack of focus on the funding and coordination of the development of novel methods for tackling foxes and cats as a major failure in wildlife management in Australia. These novel methods include facilitating research into the effects on fox and cat activity and abundance by investing in CRISPR - Gene Drive Technology development with an aim to affect the breeding outcomes in invasive species.

Recommendation: Fund the CSIRO to develop gene technologies to manage foxes and cats.

Legal Protection for Invasive Species Legal protection of invasive species that damage wildlife and ecosystems (the protection of deer and horses by the NSW Government as an example) are two policies that provide significant ongoing threat to wildlife management in Australia. No introduced species (other than the dingo, due to the ecosystem function role over the past 3-4 millennia) should be offered protection in any Australian jurisdiction. This policy principle should be enshrined by all States and Territories.

Recommendation: Undertake a review of all legislation and policy in Australia to identify any legal protections afforded to invasive species. Remove all barriers to environmental management objectives that aim to reduce or eradicate these species over time.

Decisions on wildlife management made by bureaucrats rather than [non-partisan] ecologists Probably Australia’s greatest example of a policy failure in wildlife management in Australia is the management of the ( harrisii). The devil is being managed to extinction by Government policy that has no foundation in ecology – but is rather designed to maintain the control of a species by a particular State Government, who sees the species as a ‘brand’ rather than an essential and missing part of an ecosystem (now functionally missing in Tasmania, as well as on mainland Australia). For the better part of the past decade the management of the devil has been undertaken by a small number of bureaucrats, politicians and the scientists who are funded by these bureaucrats. The management of the devil has been a dismal failure in terms of securing the species long-term future; with ongoing wild decline, and ongoing genetic and fecundity decline in the captive population. A mainland wild solution that has been advocated by some of Australia’s most respected ecologists as the most cost-effective and most likely strategy that would benefit the long term survival of the species.

Recommendation: A mainland reintroduction of the devil should be trialed as a priority. The added benefit of such a trial is that the devil may provide a role in suppressing fox and cat activity in mainland ecosystems, and thus may provide a significant role in restoring lost ecosystem function.

Improving the engagement of Australia’s population with wildlife , , , , , dibbler, , quenda, . Most Australian’s haven’t even heard about our unique and charismatic species. These species should be on every Australian bank note, on every Australian coin, on our postage stamps, and on other Australian products with high circulation. There should be a concerted effort to raise the awareness of Australian fauna. It is a simple approach, but would be highly beneficial. Australians should be further encouraged to interact with wildlife by being also allowed to keep some Australian mammal species in captivity, where suitable training, resourcing and participation in coordinated conservation focused captive breeding.

Recommendation: Implement a strategy to promote all Australia’s mammal fauna on high circulation / high volume items. Develop an interstate working group to implement a trial program for keeping of some native species where a conservation outcome can be reached (for example a captive-to-wild translocation of a species of glider, for example).

Population Policy Annual immigration targets that increase the human population of Australia year on year have been highly damaging to many ecosystems and species, and this damage is now intensifying along the highly biodiverse eastern seaboard of Australia. A common theme when discussing koala declines in NSW over the past decade with local community members who have witnessed koala declines is that there is a feeling that ‘there’s just more people around’, along with stories of increases in dog attacks, car strikes, and habitat fragmentation, as the human population has risen. Based on research by Martin and Ward (University of South Australia) Australia’s optimum population was probably exceeded in the mid 1970’s when Australia’s population passed 15 million.

Recommendation: A population policy should certainly be developed, with an aim to keep Australia’s population below 25 million people, by reducing the annual immigration intake and providing access to subsidised contraception, and family planning education and services.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit to the enquiry. If you require further information about any of the above, please contact Rob Brewster – Director, Rewilding Australia on or

Yours sincerely

Rob Brewster

Director - Rewilding Australia