Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Motions

1080 poison

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (14:36): I move:

That this house:

(1) recognises that sodium monofluoroacetate, commonly known as 1080 poison:

(a) is a highly dangerous neurotoxic poison with no antidote;

(b) is identified by the Council of Australian Governments as a chemical of security concern;

(c) is banned in most countries around the world because of its extraordinary cruelty;

(d) causes animals to suffer a prolonged, excruciatingly painful death;

(e) is impossible to be used while limiting deaths to a target species;

(f) is indiscriminate and kills endangered native species;

(g) can also kill by secondary contamination, where another animal preys on an affected animal after death;

(2) calls on the government to:

(a) implement recommendation 7 of the Environment and Planning Committee’s report on the inquiry into ecosystem decline, tabled in December 2021, by introducing a phase-out of the use of 1080 poison, to be finalised by December 2023:

(i) in Victoria’s national parks, beginning in July 2022;

(ii) on private and agricultural land, after 12 months; and

(b) commit to further investment and introduction of alternatives, including but not limited to immunocontraception, as an urgent priority.

Colleagues, I want to tell you a story. 4 September 2020 started out like any other day for Candice and her partner, Donna, in the small town of Stanmore in Queensland. They had taken their five dogs on a routine trail ride through a nearby state forest where animals frequent and are permitted. Three hours later Candice and Donna would watch helplessly as one by one each dog began screaming and thrashing as the horrific symptoms of 1080 poison took over. Kobi, their beloved border collie, was the first to succumb, running directly towards them, then frantically away to hide. Terrified and confused by his own behaviour, he was uncontrollably shaking. Immediately noticing similar symptoms in their young blue heeler, the pair desperately loaded both animals into the car, calling their vet on the way. By the time they arrived in Kilcoy, 30 minutes away, both dogs were already dead. Like a nightmare, Candice then answered her phone. Her father, who was alone at their property, had called with the news that their four-year-old border collie had died the same agonising death. In the hours that followed their remaining dogs would endure the same fate. Nitro was found in the creek of a neighbour’s property after running away, and Hero, their remaining fur-baby, died in their arms a short time later. All five dogs had eaten bait laid carelessly and without warning. No matter what Candice and Donna did, the dogs did not stand a chance.

Sodium monofluoroacetate has no antidote. That is why it is already banned in most countries around the world. I came to this role having campaigned at an election on a platform that was based on a fundamental philosophy: to change issues of vital importance to animals, people and the planet. In my time here I think the team and I have had a positive impact on many of the issues I strongly believe in. However, there were two key issues that I held closest of all—two major issues for me, because I have been at the coalface of both for more years now than I care to recall. Those are duck shooting and banning 1080 poison. The fight for the lives of our waterbirds goes on, but today we have a chance in this chamber to do something that is not just fundamentally good but at its core the right thing to do. As human beings we have one measure and one measure alone as to whether we are decent or not—that is, how we choose to treat beings other than ourselves when we have nothing to gain for ourselves but they have the one thing to gain that is so important: their very lives.

You have a choice today: vote for my motion and take a step towards saving millions of animals from a slow, painful death, or vote against and deliberately say by your action that you are quite happy to inflict an act of horrendous cruelty. In this motion I am calling on the Parliament to implement recommendation 7 of the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry into ecosystem decline. I know that ending the use of 1080 across Victoria means something must be done in its place, which is why I have asked the government not just to ban this poison but to fund alternatives such as immunocontraceptives for introduced species.

There is not enough time here for me to go through the history of 1080 and its development, so for now I am going to describe to you what sodium monofluoroacetate does. When ingested, the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Birds can take up to 262 hours and herbivores up to 44 hours, while carnivores can take up to 21 hours to finally succumb to the horrific effects of this poison. Symptoms usually begin to appear after 30 minutes to 3 hours. The list of symptoms for carnivorous animals such as dingoes, dogs, foxes and cats includes: restlessness, increased hyperexcitability, agitation, trembling and widening of the eye sockets. This is followed by sudden bursts of violent activity, frenzied manic behaviour, frantic running and bashing their heads against fences, trees and walls. Dogs particularly have been filmed running at speed into solid objects such as houses and cars to try and stop the pain. Abrupt vocalisations include whimpering, distressed howling and screaming that has been likened to that of human beings. Have any of you have heard a dog scream in agony? I forced myself to watch footage of animals affected by 1080. It leaves a scar on you that can never be healed.

This is followed by bleeding from bodily orifices, including the eyes and mouth; rapid, laboured breathing; and foaming at the mouth, with some animals partly choking on their own saliva. Observers of dogs that have been poisoned describe looks of sheer terror in their eyes. Vomiting, urinating, defecating uncontrollably follow as internal organs liquefy and are excreted. All animals affected eventually fall to the ground in tetanic seizure, with hind limbs or all four limbs and sometimes the tail extended rigidly from their arched bodies. This phase is full body seizure. Every muscle and every limb is forcibly extended until often the jaw is so forcibly opened that by the force of the muscles in stricture it dislocates, leaving it hanging like a piece of cloth flapping in the wind. At all times the front feet are clasped together, clenched or used to scratch frantically. This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the animals lie and kick or paddle with the front legs and squeal, crawl around and bite at objects if their jaws survived intact from the seizures. During this phase their eyes roll back so only the whites show and their teeth grind together. Finally, they begin to relax, breathing more slowly and shallowly, lying quietly with their hind legs still extended but semiparalysed. Next is a coma and eventual death.

What I have described here is certain; it is fact. It is what this poison was designed to do. It is exactly what this poison was developed to do—odourless, tasteless and colourless, developed as a chemical warfare weapon to be distributed in the water supply, so dangerous German troops were forbidden from handling barrels of it because one teaspoon is enough to kill 20 adult humans. In fact 1080 remains on our federal government’s list of chemicals of terrorist concern.

Let me stress again this point: there is no antidote. What I have described here is not only what happens through primary ingestion but through what is known as secondary contamination or secondary poisoning, where a scavenger species may consume part of a baited animal and because this poison is so potent that animal suffers the same fate. This is how so many native carrion birds and ground-dwelling native carnivores die. 1080 poison can also remain at almost 100 per cent toxicity in a carcass for months depending on weather conditions. This is a time bomb for native species.

This vile poison is being used to eradicate our native apex land predator in order to protect introduced species—farmed animals. We are actively going down a path of removing from our faunal landscape the animal that actually belongs here and controls species that kill our other wildlife. Not only that, but so many of our dingoes that are vital to our ecosystem are ruthlessly killed under this state’s wild dog bounty, despite the fact that almost 90 per cent of them—so-called ‘wild dogs’—are in fact purebred dingoes. This argument of predation from dingoes has been debunked.

Leading scientists that gave evidence at the inquiry, including Dr Kylie Cairns and Dr Ernest Healy, all stated that 1080 poison was indiscriminate—it did not, could not, kill only target species. In fact 1080 kills not only dingoes but native quolls and other predatory native species, including raptors. How can we forget the deliberate poisoning of over 400 wedge-tailed eagles? At the same time that we are targeting our native apex land predator and killing it off we have seen a rise in cat numbers because they do not take the bait. The Arthur Rylah Institute echoed the same sentiments in their submission. So we are actively going down the path of eradicating a native species wilfully and with gleeful cruelty in the same way that we humans caused the extinction of the thylacine, the Tasmanian tiger, albeit via a different method.

I repeat my statement from earlier in my contribution: you have a choice today. Vote for my motion and save millions of animals from a slow, painful death, or vote against it and deliberately say by your action you are quite happy to deliberately inflict these acts of horrendous cruelty. To the government I say: do not try to be all things to all people here. You know what I am asking is right. I want you to think back to what I just described to you as to what happens to these animals when they consume this poison. That reason alone is enough to say we should not be using 1080 poison in this state, in this country. To the opposition, I ask you to look into yourselves and ask this question: can we do what is right here? I know there are members on the crossbench who support my motion, and I thank them. There is proof in them that those with polar-opposite political views can agree to do the right thing when faced with making that call. And that is the question that everyone in the public will be asking: why didn’t you? Why did you shy away from kindness and deliberately choose cruelty?

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:51): I rise to speak on Mr Meddick’s motion, and in doing so I will say that the coalition do oppose Mr Meddick’s motion, and that is consistent with our position in the coalition minority report on the Environment and Planning Committee’s report Inquiry into Ecosystem Decline in Victoria, which was tabled in December 2021. Mr Meddick’s motion is based around recommendation 7 of that report. However, in our minority report, which was tabled by Dr Bach and Ms Bath, who are the Liberal and National members on that committee, recommendation 8 says The Nationals and Liberals oppose the phase-out of legal 1080 baiting used in accordance with the prescribed standard.

So what is 1080? Well, sodium fluoroacetate, better known as 1080, is an odourless, tasteless white powder that is diluted with water to concentrations specific to the species that is being targeted. It is used for the poisoning of wild dogs and other introduced predators by incorporating it into fresh, dried or processed meat baits. How safe is it? Well, we do know that it is a lethal poison; that is why it is used for baits for these animals. But access to 1080 is highly restricted and not available to the general public in its concentrated powder form. 1080 is only available in Australia in diluted premixed solution at concentrations applicable to the pest species that is being targeted, and only authorised and properly trained operators are permitted to handle 1080 or to prepare baits. Landholders and land managers are not permitted to handle 1080 solution in most states and can only access 1080 in a prepared fresh meat bait or manufactured meat bait. The concentrations used for vertebrate pest management and particularly wild dogs are extremely low and not lethal to humans. As an example of that, for a 90-kilogram adult human to be poisoned they would need to eat 9.5 kilograms of poisoned meat in one meal, which is equivalent to almost 40 baits. A 20-kilogram child would need to consume 1.5 kilograms of poisoned meat in a single meal.

We know that it is highly effective for the management of wild dogs, foxes and feral cats, but what is the threat to our native animals? Well, many scientific studies have been undertaken to consider the risk of 1080 on native wildlife, and all of them have found that there is no threat from 1080 baiting that is used to control wild dogs, foxes and feral cats to all of the populations of native animals that have been studied, including 29 species of native birds, seven species of native reptiles and amphibians and 44 species of native mammals, including carnivorous marsupials such as the spotted-tail quoll. The quoll population is actually really interesting, and the reason that it has been used as a case study for the impact of 1080 on native animals is that quolls, whilst they are very small animals and very light in body weight, are very voracious in their eating of meat and eat quite substantial amounts of meat per day. One study by Körtner in 2007 found that one female quoll that they studied had evidence of eating six of the wild dog baits with no impact on her health.

So what is the reason that it is not impacting on the native animals in Australia? Well, many Australian native animals are tolerant to 1080 because over 30 Australian native plants naturally produce sodium fluoroacetate, which is found in the 1080 baits. Synthetically manufactured 1080 is identical to it, and it retains all of the properties of the natural sodium fluoroacetate poison that is found in these native plants. This is the reason that people believe and scientists believe that Australian native animals are not affected by 1080 baits. We do know, as Mr Meddick pointed out, that 1080 baits can kill domestic and working dogs if they eat a lethal dose, and therefore it is imperative that domestic and working dogs are restrained from roaming freely and are muzzled if and when they are working and owners heed warning signs when baiting is occurring.

So why do we use it? Well, to date 1080 is the most efficient, humane and species-specific pesticide available for declared pest animal control in Australia. Remember: we are not talking about native animals, we are talking about pest animals and introduced breeds that actually cause significant deaths of native animals, so we are talking about wild dogs, wild foxes and feral cats that prey on our smaller native animals and that also prey on stock on farmers’ farms. This is used to control pest animals, and controlling pest animals is essential for the conservation of endangered native animals and for minimising their impact on native flora and fauna and farm livestock.

All Australian states and territories endorse 1080 baiting as part of an integrated approach to pest animal management. In Australia 1080 supply and use is highly regulated, as I have already said. It is a restricted schedule 7 chemical product and can only be supplied to persons who are authorised to use the product under the laws of a state or territory. Each Australian state and territory has strict regulations for the manufacturing, labelling, handling, storage, supply, use, retrieval and disposal of 1080 baits. 1080 baits are formulated to be lethal for the target pest species yet to minimise the impact on non-target species such as native wildlife. As I have said, it is a very effective way to manage those pest species in Australia, which actually helps to preserve our native wildlife but also to protect our stock on many farms as well. That is why the coalition will not be supporting this motion.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (14:58): I rise to speak on Mr Meddick’s motion in relation to 1080 poison. Like with the motion earlier today brought by Mr Barton in relation to workers in the gig economy, something he is very passionate about, I also commend Mr Meddick for bringing this motion to the house. He is very passionate about these matters. Whether or not people agree with him, I think the one thing you cannot argue with is how strongly Mr Meddick feels about these issues and his continued pursuit of them.

Can I say from the outset that clearly the things that Mr Meddick is asking the government to do are to implement recommendation 7 of the Environment and Planning Committee’s report on the inquiry into ecosystem decline, tabled in December 2021, by introducing a phase-out of the use of 1080 poison to be finalised by December 2023, with Victoria’s national parks beginning in July 2022 and private and agricultural land after 12 months, and to commit to further investment and the introduction of alternatives, including but not limited to immunocontraception, as an urgent priority. I note that the government is yet to respond to that report and those recommendations, and it is appropriate that we see what sort of response is forthcoming from the government to that report rather than dealing with it in a piecemeal fashion.

Mr Meddick has taken us through very graphically the use of 1080, and its use has also been touched on by other speakers. I will say that the use of 1080 is of course very strictly controlled but is considered to be a critical tool for protecting Victoria’s biodiversity and livestock industries from pest animals. We know that it is an active constituent in a number of pest-animal baits and that these products importantly are registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, and used in Victoria and other states and territories for the control of things such as foxes, rabbits, wild dogs and feral pigs. These baits are commonly used by public land managers, as we know, such as Parks Victoria, for biodiversity protection and by farmers to reduce damage caused by pest animals and to protect livestock from predators. In terms of its use, baiting is considered to be most effective when it is conducted across the landscape and in combination with other control methodologies.

Important points there that I think as part of this debate we need to be cognisant of are that the use of the products that contain 1080 have to be registered by the relevant authorities—where they are used, why they are used—and importantly they are to be used in proper and appropriate ways. Of course that is also monitored by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions. I think there are something like a dozen or so officers who are charged with the responsibility to follow up reports of misuse and the investigation of that use. I do not want to go into all of the detail, as I said, that Mr Meddick and others have covered off, but I think those are very important points to make.

I would also make the point that it is always difficult when we are talking in this sort of space. It is a very sensitive topic and a very difficult topic, and I completely understand that. I certainly understand Mr Meddick’s passion for this issue and his consistent advocacy in this space.

It is particularly used in the agricultural industry, and of course I am very pleased that the Labor government is backing our agricultural sector with an ambitious vision for its future with our 10-year agricultural strategy. In this year’s budget alone some of the investments that we have made in this very important sector of our economy are $1.8 million for collective biosecurity action, including support for community pest management groups; $12 million for a world-class glasshouse and innovation and incubation hub in Horsham in Mr Meddick’s electorate of Western Victoria to cement Victoria as a leader in alternative proteins, and I know that has been very well received; $2.9 million for Victorian grown to get more Victorian projects on the tables of Victorian homes and businesses and grow exports; $1.4 million to support climate-ready agriculture; and a record $18.6 million for initiatives to support animal care and protection—and I know that Mr Meddick talked about that earlier today as well and is very supportive of some of those measures.

Agriculture is a key component in our economy here in Victoria, and it is responsible for somewhere in the order of 74 800 jobs in agriculture and 21 700 farm businesses. $17.8 billion is the value of our agricultural production here in Victoria. We are the largest ag producer in the country. We produce $14 billion of value in Victorian food and fibre exports, and we are responsible for 27 per cent of the national food and fibre exports from Victoria throughout the world. So it is very important that we find best practice ways to protect that industry, bearing in mind the matters that are being brought forward in this motion today.

As I said at the commencement of my contribution, I am cognisant that the government is yet to formally respond to the report from the Environment and Planning Committee, particularly recommendation 7, which is encapsulated by Mr Meddick’s motion. I think it is important that the government does respond to that report, to that inquiry and to those recommendations, and that will assist the development of the appropriate uses of all of these sorts of materials, techniques and strategies to ensure that ecologically and environmentally we can live harmoniously with our environment as best we possibly can.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:06): I just want to thank Mr Meddick for bringing this motion to the house today. As someone who actually owned and operated a small farm myself, I know a little bit about this 1080. If it is any consolation, Mr Meddick, we would never have allowed 1080 on our property. We had the dogs and cats, we had our livestock and we were well aware of how fatal and severe 1080 is to all animals. The scientific research tells us that the death that animals suffer from 1080 poisoning is brutal. It is cruel and inhumane. It is my view that 1080 is a product of the past and should have stayed there. We all know how incredibly cruel the death is when animals ingest this bait, so let us change that.

Last year the highly regarded journal Australian Zoologist published a historical review of the Australian aerial baiting pest control that targeted dingoes and wild dogs over a 73-year period from 1946 to 2019. The findings of this review ought to be a cause of concern for anyone who is interested in sound public policy. The results of these tests, which commenced in 1968, showed that the baiting was an overwhelming failure. The review found that:

More tests in the 1970s had similar results, yet the broad-scale poisoning of pest species from the air continued. The application of aerial baiting in dingo/wild dog control is believed to have a temporal effect, anecdotally achieving short-term goals … There is no conclusive data, however, to support this claim.

We have been at this for three-quarters of a century. We have spent untold sums of public money and inflicted untold pain and suffering on an untold range and number of animals, and there is no conclusive data to support the claim that it even has a short-term effect on livestock losses. The paper goes on:

A review of the scientific and historical data raises concerns about the ethics, inefficiencies, indefinable impacts, and high uptake of baits by non-target species, throughout aerial baiting operations in agricultural and conservation zones. The report concludes that the impact of aerial baiting is essentially incalculable, and potentially environmentally hazardous. The risks of these programs have been greatly understated in published reports and reviews over the past 70 years.

As a result of findings such as this, most jurisdictions worldwide have banned or restricted the use of 1080 due to non-target species deaths as well as risks to human health and safety. Sadly 90 per cent of 1080 use globally occurs in Australia and New Zealand.

1080 is a chemical warfare weapon. In fact it remains on the Australian federal government’s list of chemicals of security concern. We know that 1080 can remain in the environment for long after it has been planted. 1080 has the potential to contaminate our water and food systems by entering through the faeces of poisoned animals. We should be concerned about the harmful effects of 1080. Not only is it cruel, but it damages our environment and it poses an unjustified risk to our community.

We need to protect our native wildlife. We need to protect our farms and livestock too. We have a toolbox to manage vermin. 1080 is now a tool that is obsolete and unnecessary. None of the alternatives are necessarily pleasant, nor are they perfect; however, they are considered more humane. We should always be trying to find a better way of doing things, so I commend this motion to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:11): I am pleased to make some brief comments in support of this motion. Phasing out the use of 1080 poison in Victoria is longstanding Greens policy. We know, like many in the community, that 1080 poison is a cruel and inhumane method of animal control that does not belong in Victoria. Animals who have consumed 1080 poison die a painful and prolonged death anywhere between a few hours and two days after consuming the poison. The poison causes severe effects, including tremors, vomiting, screaming fits and severe seizures. It has been described as akin to being electrocuted for two days.

The use of 1080 poison contaminates our waterways and can last in areas for up to a year. It has no taste or smell, making it impossible to use it to target just one species, and because it is often distributed through aerial baiting, it is spread indiscriminately across our regions, meaning that any animal could ingest the poison. It is frequently consumed by non-target species, like domestic pets, or native species like the endangered spotted-tail quoll.

In Victoria we also use 1080 poison to deliberately target the endangered and increasingly at risk dingo, a move which is not backed up by the evidence. The persistent misconception that dingoes threaten livestock numbers, like sheep, is disproved by the fact that sheep losses from dingoes are very low—fewer than 200 per 1 million sheep each year. Rather than addressing a threat to biosecurity, it actually creates one by thinning the numbers of our apex predator and reducing its sway over the invasive populations it helps control.

The use of this dangerous poison is now out of step with community values. I have tabled petitions in this chamber calling for 1080 poison to be banned for good, and thousands of signed petitions are hosted on platforms such as change.org. The rest of the world has already banned or restricted the use of 1080, recognising it for what it is: a dangerous chemical weapon. Australia is once again an outlier on nature and the environment.

Phasing out 1080 poison was one of the recommendations of the Environment and Planning Committee’s inquiry into ecosystem decline. The Greens-initiated inquiry was a landmark investigation into biodiversity and ecosystems in Victoria, and its findings were stark. The fact is we are already in an extinction crisis, with over 2000 species on Victoria’s threatened species list. Invasive species are one of the biggest threats to our native wildlife. Along with phasing out 1080 and researching more humane methods for controlling pest animals, the committee’s report included eight other recommendations for managing invasive species, including reviewing the legislative framework to, amongst other things, make invasive species a responsibility of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change; ensuring a focus on preserving biodiversity rather than facilitating agriculture; providing adequate resources to implement the existing legislative responsibilities; trialling the reintroduction of dingoes as an apex predator in appropriate regions; funding research into decontrol methods; and considering a range of mechanisms for controlling feral cats. I note the government is due to respond to the inquiry at the beginning of next month. I expect the government to be taking all of these recommendations relating to invasive species as well as the impacts on climate change and habitat loss very seriously.

The report also found that Victoria has been grossly underfunding conservation and biodiversity measures to the tune of billions of dollars. It was very disappointing that the latest budget contains virtually no new funding for protecting our environment or saving our threatened species. In fact over the forward estimates the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is set to lose $900 million in an almost $1 billion reduction in spending on the environment over the next four years from this government. At a time when our environment is already at serious risk and our extinction crisis continues to worsen, we cannot delay action any longer. The significant report into the ecosystem decline represents a turning point for our state, where if we did have a big funding boost we could reverse the damage to our environment and restore it to health for all of us and for future generations. I look forward to the government’s response and expect to see a full acceptance of the recommendations, including the phase-out of 1080 poison.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:15): I rise to speak on Mr Meddick’s motion regarding the use of 1080 poison. This is a matter close to Derryn’s heart so I am proud to speak on this on behalf of the party. Derryn Hinch has been campaigning on animal welfare since a time when many in this chamber were in school and potentially some were in nappies. He wrote about kangaroo slaughter for the New York Times in the 1970s and took a petition with 30 000 names to Canberra, protesting the live export of sheep and horses in the 1980s. In 2018, when he was a senator, Hinch introduced a bill which would phase out long-haul live sheep exports to the Middle East over five years. On this issue, though, Derryn spoke directly to 1080 poison in the Senate in 2018, calling for a phasing out of the substance. He called it a ‘horrific killing device that was … placed … by government agencies’, and it is for this reason that we will support this motion.

Some of the reasons to support the elimination of 1080 poison include that it is indiscriminate, meaning that it kills everything that eats it, not just the target pest animal. Following on from that it kills native animals as well as pet dogs and other animals. A teaspoon of this stuff has the potential to kill 100 people if ingested. It is illegal in many other countries due to its security issues, such as in the USA, and there are councils which have stopped using 1080 in recent times in Australia as well. There are alternatives to managing pest populations despite their being quite expensive and labour intensive. I do, however, preface that by saying Ms Maxwell and I, who have rural electorates, are concerned at the cost implications and logistical issues that this motion may pose for farmers. We also fear that should this pass today there may be inadequate time to introduce new pest management strategies, which would hugely impact farmers and land managers.

Whilst farmers rights and good intentions are often ignored, they need to be considered. These are the hard workers who put food on our plate and bring exceptional economic prosperity to our state. We think that the time constraints in this motion may be difficult to meet. However, we hope, despite the ambitiousness of the time line, that if this motion passes, the government will work collaboratively with farmers and land managers to assist with the move away from 1080.

It is important to note that whilst 1080 is a cruel and indiscriminate poison for animals, it is often used to stop other animals being killed by foxes and also to preserve businesses. Chickens, lambs and many other young animals are particularly vulnerable to foxes, but they can also kill horses by digging burrows or dens in paddocks where horses or other stock may graze and therefore break a leg. Foxes are relentless, awful creatures. On farms, rabbits are a destructive animal that eat produce, burrow and cause multiple issues across the agricultural sector. In terms of native animals, despite the argument that they can be killed by ingesting 1080, the use of 1080 to eradicate pest animal populations has in some areas allowed native animal species to flourish. For example, a report by the Invasive Species Council titled 1080: A Weighty Ethical Issue found the poison helped eradicate foxes in South Australia’s Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park, which enabled western quolls and brushtail possums to be successfully reintroduced in 2014. So this continued narrative that people or organisations that use 1080 to control fox or rabbit populations are trying to kill everything in their sights can be misleading. It is often in fact the opposite: that they are trying to save certain other species or animals that may or may not be connected to farming practices.

In saying this, we understand that there are other ways to control pest animal populations. We think these should be explored in heavy consultation with landowners, farmers, traditional owners and other experts to ensure that there are not any unintended consequences and that it is a cost-effective approach also.

To summarise, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will support this motion. We would be very happy to see 1080 phased out in Victoria and, frankly, across the country, and we hope that if this motion does pass today the government will ensure proper consultation in a replacement approach for controlling pest animal populations. I thank Mr Meddick for bringing this motion to the house, which we will support.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:20): I rise to speak in support of Mr Meddick’s motion. It was interesting hearing Mr Grimley talking about the long experience of Mr Hinch in this area. Certainly as someone who has got a conservation reserve of some 300 acres that backs onto the Snowy Mountains national park, I am well aware of the use of 1080 and I am well aware of the ineffective use of 1080. I am well aware that it has not stopped the feral pigs, it has not stopped the foxes, it has not stopped the rabbits and it has not stopped the wild dogs and the feral cats. We still have a significant issue with all of those despite decades of baiting using 1080. So we have to do this differently. We know that this is an incredibly dangerous poison. While it has not stopped the number of pigs, rabbits, foxes and dogs in my area, it has had an effect on some of our lizards, it has had an effect even on some of our marsupials and it has really had an effect on some of our birds.

I was pleased to see that some jurisdictions are already phasing this out in Australia. We know that most jurisdictions overseas have already done it. They understand that it is a horrible poison that does awful things to any animal that consumes it, but more importantly it actually is not an effective pest management and pest control strategy. As we know, it has been banned in most countries. I mean, it was banned in the USA in the 1970s. This is something that other jurisdictions moved on from long ago. Australia is in a real backwater in regard to the use of this poison.

I note that—it was only probably last year—the Blue Mountains local government have phased out using this. There have been calls for national parks in New South Wales to phase out using this, and, probably closer to home, we have had a parliamentary inquiry report that is recommending that we phase this out—so we must do this. As that inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria found, we have some really significant issues around the decline of our ecosystem, the decline of our species and the extraordinary rate of extinction of our native animals in this country. 1080 plays a role in that, and it does not play a good role. There are far better ways to protect our native flora and fauna than using 1080, which has been found to, as I say, not even be effective.

So this is a sensible motion, I think. Most of the farmers in our region no longer use 1080. They do not have to. We have hunters in the area—which might not be the Animal Justice Party’s solution to this. We have hunters and we have other ways to protect any of the livestock in the area that has been attacked by dogs in the past. That concern has largely disappeared in my area, as has the use of 1080. So there are other ways to deal with this, and I commend this motion.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:24): I will indeed be brief. The issue of 1080 poison bait is one that crosses over between conservation and agriculture. Both farmers and many environmentalists consider it an important tool in controlling pest animals, particularly foxes and wild dogs, as well as rabbits. As any farmer will tell you, it can be an incredibly valuable tool, especially around lambing season. I have used 1080 on the farm before and during lambing time. It is highly effective at knocking out foxes and boosting lamb survival rates. We would put out many hundreds of baits over a period of weeks before and during lambing, and we would find dead foxes everywhere—a lot of them. Foxes eat lambs for a period of weeks during the lambing season. In between, for the rest of the year, they must be slaughtering the native wildlife by the thousands. City MPs who do not understand how things have to work in the bush should be very careful about making rules for us. One of American economist Thomas Sowell’s more well-known quotes is well worth considering here: ‘There are no solutions … only trade-offs’. That is one that is worth printing out and hanging on your office wall—especially valuable for people in this place who often think there is a perfect solution to a problem, only to have policy meet reality and be forced to realise that there are known and unknown consequences and trade-offs with their new policy or approach.

Some of the announcements related to mental health over the last year are a great example. Apparently we will just whip up a bunch of new mental health workers to be stationed in schools, as though we were just hiding them under the bed somewhere, and they will not have to be taken from other services that will be diminished by their absence. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

1080, or sodium fluoroacetate, is an effective poison bait used primarily in Australia and New Zealand. One of the reasons for this is that we have several plant species here that produce it naturally and many native animals have a high tolerance for it. It is widely considered an effective and targeted tool for pest management in both agriculture and conservation. But it is not without detractors or issues; hence the quote about trade-offs. 1080 cannot distinguish between a feral wild dog or cat or your fluffy pet. It does not happen very often, but it is possible that pets or working dogs will eat the bait. It is also true that animals can suffer for a while after ingestion. I am, honestly, not overly concerned about the suffering of the fox that was going to eat my lambs, but if there is an alternative, that is great. If we want a faster death, we could increase the dose rate again, but we have traded off a quick death in order to reduce non-target poisoning.

Different agencies and environmental groups have different takes on its effectiveness in protecting threatened and endangered native animals. It was apparently very effective at Phillip Island in eradicating foxes there and protecting the penguins. The parliamentary inquiry also heard from other researchers suggesting that there might be a greater impact on native species than many previous studies indicate. Perhaps that is true. Maybe there are more trade-offs than we thought. I can appreciate that Mr Meddick and other animal activists would prefer a method of pest control that creates less suffering. If that can be done, if there are effective and cheap methods to control pest animals with fewer negative impacts on non-target species and less suffering, then that is great. I am sure everybody will jump on board. We will not need the government stepping in to ban it. People will willingly move to a newer, better solution. My main concern, and the reason that I will not be supporting this motion, is that I do not think that we are there yet. There is no evidence that alternatives to 1080 baiting are ready for widescale use as a replacement. Keep researching them and conducting trials, but a ban on 1080 may well lead to the use of alternative poisons with more negative impacts and less success at controlling pest species. The Liberal Democrats will not support this motion.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (15:29): I also rise to speak on Mr Meddick’s motion in relation to banning 1080. Mr Meddick and I were on the same committee, the Environment and Planning Committee, when we were doing an inquiry in relation to the ecosystem. That is one of the matters that was actually canvassed by the committee, and I understand Mr Meddick is referencing the committee’s recommendation in relation to the government banning 1080 poison use in Victoria. Now, I sort of sympathise and I accept and I want to commend Mr Meddick for his advocacy on animal welfare. I have got to give him that. He has been working tirelessly with his party and his group in making sure that animal welfare is put at the front of whatever we do in the state of Victoria. I think that is a good thing to do and to advocate on; I commend him on that.

I think no-one in this chamber or in Victoria wants to see any animal suffer. I do not know many humans who actually want to go and see—there are some sick ones, but humans generally do not want to see any humans or any being or animals suffer. Unfortunately 1080 has had to be used or deployed by the agricultural industry. It is all about a balancing act. It is probably not the best poison to use—well, any poison is not a good thing to use. But as some of the speakers have talked about, it is how you balance that, how you provide certainty to farmers who want to protect their animals, their crops or their land from one of the main predators being targeted by 1080—foxes, in this instance, basically during lamb season—and how you actually address that problem. I think we all would love to be able to address that problem without deploying 1080 if we were able to deploy a humane method to do that. I have had some discussions with Mr Meddick about various options that might be available and some research in that area. I think we can all agree that, on alternatives to 1080, we should continue to look at methods to explore how we can deploy some other methods in lieu of the 1080, and the recommendation of the committee was trying to balance that.

Now, from my reading of various submissions and what other people and experts in the field have talked about, I am not sure we have got that replacement. I suppose there might be some debate about whether we are six months away or 12 months away or we already have it, or it could be years away. I think on the principle itself about whether or not 1080 is the only method, at this point in time as far as I know it is the only workable solution—it may not be the preferred one—to deal with animal pests. We talked about foxes and we talked about rabbits, for example. We do have animals; we live on a farm, and rabbits go and dig holes in the paddocks. I think Mr Grimley talked about horses breaking their legs, so it is definitely a problem. It is all about a balancing act and which one you want to protect—the horses, for example, in that instance and in our experience, or the foxes or the rabbits.

So I think it is premature for us to have a total ban on the 1080 because we have not got the alternative in place. But I do accept what Mr Meddick is saying and maybe trying to achieve, and we could probably expedite the research and investment to make sure we put something in place to replace it. I think that is a good thing and that is something I will support and I am happy to advocate for within government—to actually provide more investment and research to find a workable alternative to the use of 1080, to produce a product or a poison or a virus or whatever we want to call it to basically eliminate the problem, which is dealing with pests which actually impact on the agricultural industry but also doing it in a humane way with something that is an alternative to 1080. I suppose what I am saying is: if we have an alternative tomorrow to 1080, we should deploy that. Should we continue to invest or maybe look at further investment to make sure we find an alternative? I think we should, so we agree on that.

But what I am mindful of also is that we have an agricultural industry in Victoria which we need to protect and maintain, because the state depends heavily on agriculture. It is one of our biggest industries. Especially in this turbulent world we are in, with what is happening in Europe at the moment, there is more demand on Australia and New Zealand’s farming and agriculture industries to make sure we continue to produce food to feed the world. I am proud that the Victorian government have invested heavily to support the industry, as the industry supports some 75 000 jobs in the agriculture industry, some 21 700 farm businesses that operate in Victoria and $17.8 billion of agricultural production in Victoria. We are the largest ag producers in the country, with $14 billion of Victorian food and fibre exports. Some 27 per cent of our national food and fibre exports come from Victoria, which is more than any other state. That is the point I was making earlier about how you balance and protect an industry to make sure the industry continues to flourish for the reasons I outlined earlier—not just for feeding Victoria but feeding the country and the rest of the world. It is a very important sector.

Unfortunately the only viable option—as far as I know, from what I have read—at this point in time is using 1080. My understanding is there are various licensing arrangements in place, where people need to have a licence to actually use it and specialised training to be able to deploy the correct amount of doses, because it is a dangerous product. There is no question about that. It is not the safest method to use. I think there is no argument there at all. But I think we have enough regulations and safeguards in place to make sure it is being used in accordance with safe operating procedures. That is why until there is a viable solution or a viable product put in place, unfortunately—and I will say unfortunately—I do not see any way other than to continue to use 1080, but I am looking forward to the day when we have a total ban on the use of 1080 in Victoria. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, and hopefully that will be in line with what the committee have said. That is why the government in the next six months—I think it is less than six months now, four months—have the time to respond to the committee’s report.

I want to commend all the members on the committee. They actually did some really terrific work on the ecosystem report, which contains the recommendation in relation to 1080. I am hopeful that the government will come back with a solution, and the only way will be to put further investment into research to find a product that can replace 1080. With these comments, I will leave it at that.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (15:38): I rise to speak on notice of motion 760 moved by Mr Meddick in relation to 1080 poison. It is quite a common rodenticide and pesticide that is used in Australia. It is a product that is obviously highly toxic, as a number of the speakers have shared with the chamber today. Obviously Mr Meddick, Mr Barton and Mr Melhem also reflected on this poison that is being debated today. It is an interesting one because motions such as this always raise the different, competing interests in society—they come to the fore. Obviously we need effective pest control mechanisms, and 1080 seems to be one that is used quite frequently.

I note that there has been an Environment and Planning Committee report which has called for the phasing out of this poison, which would make sense when you see how toxic it is. Before coming to the chamber today to speak on the motion before the house I did a little bit of my own research into it, and I could see some quite horrific videos online shared by animal activists on the effects of this poison on animals out there.

Obviously we have heard stories before that have been shared of other animals, such as pet dogs and others, that are not the target but are also victims of this poison inadvertently. But it is one of those bills which raises the prospect of the competing interests between, in some instances, the agriculture sector, which needs to stop these pests, and the protection of our biodiversity. Some of the species targeted by 1080 are not native species and actually endanger native species, and that is why the use of this poison is prevalent. Obviously Victoria’s agricultural industry is a very successful sector. It employs over 70 000 people. There are over 21 000 farms in our state, over $17 billion of value in agricultural production and we are the largest agricultural producer in the country. The value of Victorian food and fibre exports is $14 billion, and 27 per cent of national food and fibre exports come from Victoria—more than any other state. It is important because at this time the Victorian agricultural sector and the agricultural sector in Australia and globally are facing a number of challenges brought about by the global pandemic—issues such as rising fuel prices, global shipping and transportation costs, challenges with labour and a number of other factors that our agricultural sector is facing in this country.

Pest control is still an ongoing issue, and the use of 1080 at this point seems quite common because it obviously works. It has some devastating effects on animals that are not the target of 1080 but it seems they are being caught in this, and I think it is quite sensible that we do inquire into the need for alternatives, investigate their effective use and make them readily available as soon as possible. Mr Meddick’s motion calls for a phasing out, effectively, in line with the Environment and Planning Committee’s report, by December 2023, which is actually quite soon. It would only be about 18 months away for the complete phasing out of this poison, and at this time from all the research and what I have read on this topic there is not an easy replacement right now. There are other methods, but whether they are going to be implemented, as Mr Grimley said, in a timely fashion is not necessarily clear for me today. Mr Meddick, I know, brings this with the best intentions and utmost concern for animal welfare, and on that point I do agree with him. It is, like I said, quite devastating to see the effect that this poison has on animals, and obviously although it is targeted at pest animals, native wildlife can also be victims of 1080 poison. So I guess the choice of control techniques depends on many factors, including a combination of lethal and non-lethal methods, to achieve the best pest control in different locations across our state and nation.

But I guess also a best practice assessment of the benefits and costs—a cost-benefit analysis—before the use of 1080 is needed. 1080 obviously is a restricted poison. You need to be licensed in order to use this poison. Agriculture Victoria regulates the use of 1080 in Victoria. 1080 products can only be supplied and used by a person holding an appropriate permit licence in Victoria. This can only be obtained by completing mandatory training in the safe use of agricultural chemicals. 1080 products must be used in strict accordance with the product label and document directions for the use of 1080 and pest animal bait products in Victoria. It is obviously enforced as well, so misuse will be investigated and appropriate penalties will apply. So there is a mechanism in place to make sure that this poison is not misused. But, again, I can see Mr Meddick’s serious concern about the ongoing use of this poison, and I am very hopeful that better alternatives will be developed and in due course implemented in our agricultural sector and more broadly in society. Right now as we speak today I do not feel I can support the motion for a number of reasons, some of which were outlined by previous speakers such as Mr Melhem. But even Mr Grimley made some important points about how, until there are safe alternatives, right now it is a needed mechanism in that kind of pest control system.

Obviously it is difficult because animal welfare is always front of mind, and we need to make sure that whatever method is used minimises harm to any other animals. We do understand that dogs are amongst the most susceptible, but native fauna and birds can also be susceptible to 1080 and we want to minimise any impacts through best practice approaches. Native fauna generally has a lower susceptibility than introduced mammals. This is due to the presence of native plant species that produce naturally high levels of fluoroacetate. These plants are widely distributed in Australia, and many native Australian animals have a tolerance for 1080 which reduces the risk that these non-targeted species—birds, reptiles et cetera—fall victim. Baiting achieves benefits for native animals through the removal of feral predators and competitors. That is the other argument in this discussion. I guess to prevent secondary poisoning of wildlife, baits are formulated to target specific species with low concentrations which degrade rapidly. I think it was Mr Barton who touched upon that in some instances 1080 can be prevalent and may have long-lasting effects. That is why it is important that a more targeted range be produced.

The damage caused by wild dogs and foxes is confronting, brutal and distressing. When wild dogs attack they often leave sheep alive with horrific injuries. These poor animal welfare outcomes can be prevented with good pest management practices, including the highly regulated use of 1080, but obviously we are also concerned about environmental contamination which can take place due to 1080. 1080 does not necessarily contaminate the environment as it rapidly degrades through the action of soil microbes, and the low rates used mean that any 1080 finding its way into the watercourses is significantly diluted to prevent harmful contamination of any soil water.

Obviously there are risks to humans. As a poison 1080 poses a risk to people; however, this is managed through strict regulatory controls on its supply and use. I talked about how Agriculture Victoria regulates the licensing provisions around 1080 so only people that have the appropriate licence and training can use it. But I think we would all like to see the phasing out of toxic chemicals such as 1080 being used on animals as a control mechanism. We do not want it. We want a more natural and a better, safer solution, and I am hopeful that something can be developed as soon as possible so that we can move towards banning the use of 1080. It just does not seem like it is the right time now. On that note I will conclude my contribution.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:48): First of all I want to acknowledge the incredible work of Mr Meddick in the very many fights that he takes on in the protection of animals. Certainly he has a long record of doing this and a very strong conviction with regard to all species, I would say. I hope I am not overgeneralising in that regard. I certainly know that he is well respected for this incredible work, and I know that the government works quite closely with him. There are certainly some joint projects and task forces and other things that have been brought about—very constructive work. I think that is a good part of the democratic process—that we are able to work together as colleagues in this place, so to speak, on projects that are for the betterment of the community or for the betterment of animals that we hold so dear. I certainly have a lot of respect for that.

I did want to just tap into our agricultural sector, noting that all Victorians benefit from a strong and growing agricultural sector and the jobs that it supports—so thinking about animals and other aspects of agriculture, but obviously there are also some really exciting alternatives now as well. That is why we are backing agriculture with an ambitious vision for its future with our 10-year agriculture strategy. Our agriculture investments in the 2022–23 budget include $1.8 million for collective biosecurity action, including support for community pest management groups, and $12 million for a world-class glasshouse and innovation and incubation hub in Horsham to cement Victoria as a leader in alternative proteins. This is a really exciting space, actually. I have no expertise whatsoever when it comes to alternative proteins, but nevertheless when we are looking forward to sustainability into the future and to feeding the masses, so to speak, to have other options certainly, I would say, is a positive thing. It is very good that we are investing, and it is a significant investment when you look at it. That is $12 million towards alternative proteins. I have not actually sampled them, but I am seeing more and more of these alternatives coming into the supermarket, so that suggests that there is growing appeal and popularity for these products, which is interesting. It is a very creative and dynamic space as well. I certainly commend all those who are participating in these activities, noting how important it is not only to be able to feed current Victorians but also to nurture Victorians into the future. And, who knows, these could be products that might be able to be exported. Maybe they are already exported, for all I know. As I said, I do not have a lot of expertise in the actual subject matter, but suffice to say it is certainly an exciting space to be involved in.

There is $2.9 million for ‘Victorian grown’ to get more Victorian produce on the tables of Victorian homes and businesses and grow exports. On that topic of exports, sometimes we probably take for granted how significant Australia is as a player in this space, both locally and abroad. The quality of our products, I know, is incredible. It was some time back that I lived overseas, but when I did live overseas—and I will not name countries or places because I have had wonderful food overseas as well, let me say, so I am at the risk of generalising—I have to say that there were times when I had taken for granted, almost, the quality of our produce. You eat overseas and you come home, and in some ways you go, ‘Wow, we do a mighty fine job in that space’. Not only the great variety of fresh foods that we have available but also the restaurants and the different cultural influences on foods in Australia are outstanding. I know that things have evolved considerably from where things may have been once, and this is a testament to—I am talking in the Victorian space, but I do not want to limit it. I think I have to limit it to that because we are in a Victorian context, but I would say that across Australia there is some fabulous produce as well. However, I am mighty proud of Victoria and what we are able to produce, and I certainly know that we definitely hold our own on the world stage when it comes to that.

Another really exciting space is our $1.4 million to support climate-ready agriculture. Again this is coming back to the theme, which is actually a really important one, of sustainability into the future and also for the benefit of farmers themselves so that they have businesses that they are able to sustain into the future, ones where they are able to work with the landscape in a way that actually supports them as well. I mean, we know traditionally that Australia is certainly not an easy place to farm. I am sure farming is never an easy thing to do, but it is a land of extremes, and so I have a lot of admiration and respect for being able to cope with those extremes. And then you add climate change on top of that and you are certainly adding some particularly difficult climatic circumstances under which to crop or otherwise, to graze animals et cetera—my humblest respect to them—day in, day out. I do not think there is ever a day off for a farmer. I remember as a child I was lucky enough that my parents at times would take us to camp on a farm—like I said, with the permission of the farmer, who would allow us to camp there—and we would be able to ride on the bike around the property and stuff. It was amazing but also enlightened us to the incredible demands.

I also have older relatives in my family, a great aunt and uncle, who used to run a dairy farm in Tasmania—sorry, that is Tasmania, but nevertheless still Australia—and I know the incredible hours that they worked. Can I say my great-aunt—she is in her 80s—even though she does not have that dairy farm anymore, still kind of lives that life in the sense she still works around the clock and does everything herself. Because that is the other thing—the incredible resilience of farmers who cannot necessarily just call on someone to come and repair this or that or otherwise on their properties. I know with my great-aunt that we are mystified. I mean, it is actually formidable that she is still that fit, but for want of a better word she seems to have been conditioned from her life on that dairy farm in terms of getting up really early, going to bed early and doing everything herself, even painting things herself et cetera. I just think that is probably a testament to her life experience in that regard.

Anyway, I was a little off track there, but it is just to say that I have an understanding of the rigour and the challenges that are involved with farming and have respect for that as well, knowing that it does build a pretty resilient human being and one that, even as a city dweller, I have enormous respect for. I do understand that, whilst I have not lived that life, it is a seven-day-a-week job. Let us be clear about that: it is a seven-day-a-week job, and we know that it is a particularly tough one. And because there are also export and other industries that rely on our farmers, we need to back them in, and we certainly do. We also have a record investment of $18.6 million for initiatives to support animal care and protection. That is also a testament to our government’s commitment, because again, we understand that all species need respect, and we obviously want to honour that. But there are so many good reasons why we are committed to that as well. Just on a final point, we know that there are 74 800 jobs in agriculture and 21 700 farm businesses, so this is certainly a significant part of the Victorian economy and landscape.

Sitting suspended 3.59 pm until 4.21 pm.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (16:21): I note that the time for this particular motion brought by Mr Meddick today is almost upon us, so with the brief opportunity that I have today to talk to this particular motion I want to as a regional member acknowledge the importance of addressing this issue of 1080 and the impact of this particular substance on wildlife and on fauna which ingest it or are indeed part of the chain of ingestion and the consequences that that brings.

I also want to acknowledge that there was an Environment and Planning Committee report tabled in December 2021 which proposed the introduction of a phase-out of the use of 1080, to be finalised by December 2023, which is paragraph (2)(a) of Mr Meddick’s motion, and that contains a number of time frames associated with implementation of that recommendation. There is an opportunity here, given that we are yet to see a finalised government response on recommendation 7 of that report, for a range of other members to be heard as they take various positions on this matter.

I note that this is a matter of significant importance to members across the entire state, that there are divergent views on this particular matter and indeed that Mr Meddick has spent a lot of time discussing the impact of this issue on native and introduced species. To that end, I want to note that Mr Meddick has sought the opportunity to sum up, and in doing so I do not wish to intrude upon his time any further than I have already, but I do want to note that this is an area of great interest to primary producers and to people in the agricultural and horticultural sector, as it also is for environmentalists and for landholders Australia wide. This is not an issue peculiar to Victoria, and it is an issue which has in fact led to a wideranging debate and to some very intricate discussions on scientific information and data and research and papers on what the use of 1080 looks like not just in a temporary sense but what its longitudinal impact is as well.

So on that basis I want to perhaps give Mr Meddick an adequate opportunity to sum up in relation to his motion today, and with that I will look forward to what he has to say but also what other members in this place have to say too given the complexity of the issue.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16:24): I do not intend to carry on this summation for an extended period of time. I do want to take the opportunity to dispel a couple of things that have been said during this debate. One of the things that was said was that this poison has some sort of relation to the naturally occurring fluoroacetates that occur in the globular species of plants. They were simply the architecture; they were simply a scaffold upon which this was based. Sodium monofluoroacetate has no relationship whatsoever with the naturally occurring fluoroacetates in plants. It has no relationship whatsoever. It is completely synthesised and is thousands upon thousands of times stronger, which speaks to its toxicity. Those are the facts.

Secondly, I want to talk about the fact that it is impossible for this to be targeted to individual species and, in a baiting program, for it to be only those species that are affected. To say that is just inherently wrong when we consider that, for instance, foxes do not consume baits where they find them. Foxes cache the baits. They take them off property. They take them to wherever they are hiding, wherever they are living and they consume baits there. They do not eat them where they find them. Birds pick up baits, travel through the air and drop the baits on other people’s property. It is physically impossible to contain a bait to a premises; therefore it is also impossible to limit the consumption of those baits to the target species only.

Having made those points, I have been contacted while we have been having this debate. My office has also been contacted by a number of other members from very diverse backgrounds—members of our chamber who are from both the city and the country who have not had a say in this, who want to have their voices heard. They want to know more; they want to find out more about 1080 poison. They want to find out more of the science. They do not want to pre-empt also the findings being accepted or not by the government of the report that was handed down, and they want to be able to come into this chamber and have their say as well. I want this to be a very open, a very honest and a very fulsome discussion before this motion comes to a vote. I want those members to have the opportunity to do that research. I want them to have the opportunity to come in here and put their points of view, because I believe that if they do so they will vote in favour of the motion. I want to give them that opportunity.

It is incumbent on me to make sure that they get that opportunity. I want them to go out and speak to the people that I have spoken to. I want them to have the benefit in a short space of time perhaps of speaking to the people that I have spent the last 15 years speaking to and of speaking to those people who have had animals die. I want them to hear the stories of those people. I want them to understand in far greater detail the subject matter that I am going to ask them to take a position on, because they need to. It is emotive. I understand that. It is always emotive when people lose companion animals, particularly in the fashion that this poison will inflict upon them. We have a responsibility to make sure that every aspect of this issue is investigated, is heard and that they get the chance to also investigate the alternative methods. We need to make sure that that occurs.

Members interjecting.

Mr MEDDICK: Sorry, I am just a bit confused by some of the actions that are going on here. I am being a bit thrown off. (Time expired)

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (16:29): I move, by leave:

That additional time be afforded to speakers to be able to contribute to this particular motion.

Noting that we have indeed run out of time for this particular item today, on that basis I am moving, by leave, that additional time be made at a later date.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Ms Shing, could you repeat the motion?

Ms SHING: I move, by leave:

That the standing order applicable to the summing-up being the end of the debate be suspended such as to allow additional speakers to contribute to this motion.

With an adjourning off to happen, given the time that we are up against today.

Mr Ondarchie: Time had expired.

Ms SHING: Noting that the time has expired, Mr Ondarchie.

Motion agreed to.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (16:32): I move:

That this matter be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.