Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, you have been in your role long enough now to know, and you would have talked to many farmers, what a devastation ferrel deer are to farming. They’re totally devastating to the values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) and other areas.
The aerial cull that was done was gratifying in the number of feral deer that were killed. Also shocking that there are so many that could be killed – 711, 750, or something. The Invasive Species Council has a list of the key priorities to eradicating deer. They’re very clear – deer can only be eradicated if you get in early, so this is the time to do what’s needed. Top of their list is to remove feral deer’s partly protected status and manage them as an invasive species under the Biosecurity Act.
Is the Government planning on doing that?
Ms PALMER – This is such an incredibly complex area. I have met with the Invasive Species Council and I am aware of their position. It was surprising to see the number of deer taken through that aerial cull. That’s a matter for the Minister for Parks, but obviously I have a keen interest in it.
In a direct answer to your question – no, we’re not actively considering that at the moment. We are looking at a balance here between our hunters who have deer as a traditional resource and the fact that we are seeing deer now in peri urban areas. How do we remove them from those areas in a safe manner? That’s more complex than I envisaged when I started in this role.
There’s also the issue of foot and mouth disease in Bali. It’s not in Australia. We have that extra layer of protection around Tasmania so our country, our state, is in a safe biosecurity position. If there was to be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease and if it did come to Tasmania, which is exceptionally unlikely, could deer be carriers of that across our state?
There’s a balancing act in respecting deer as a traditional hunting resource, managing it in our peri urban areas, ensuring farmers have the means to protect their properties and the environmental impacts it can have.
Dr WOODRUFF – I’ve spoken to, I’m sure you have too, farmers who have large farms in the Midlands and they’re very clear that when you’re talking about it as a hunting resource, you actually mean it’s a financial income for a very small group of people in Tasmania. About five very wealthy and influential landowners are hugely influential in this situation. On the other side is the real threat to life to Tasmanians with deer moving into suburban areas, the devastating loss of the cultural heritage in the TWWHA, and real everyday farm income losses all around the Midlands.
We don’t understand, and neither does anyone else I speak to, why you keep hanging onto the interests of a few people making money out of hunting when there are plenty of deer for people to shoot if they’re professional or recreational shooters. Keeping them as a resource for people to sell to hunters is morally reprehensible, given the threat not just to cultural values and farm income, but to people’s lives on the road. Can you recognise those three really core threats? There are such a small number of people on this side and all the rest of Tasmania on the other side. I am 100 per cent confident that if you put that equation to Tasmanians, everyone expect probably five people and their families and friends would be voting for that. Can you please reconsider that issue and recognise the threats to people and income?
Ms PALMER – I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that five people are hunters?
Dr WOODRUFF -There’s very significant –
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, please let her finish.
Ms PALMER – There are thousands of people and hundreds of Tasmanian families where hunting is a way of live. They want to be able to do that. That’s not five people, that’s thousands of people. What we have through the deer management plan is tried to give some flexibility in this space, particularly to farmers and landholders, so that there are permits that they can access quickly while protecting deer for those who want to go hunting.
Dr WOODRUFF – Why aren’t they required to have massive fences around their properties to stop the deer escaping? The problem is they’re making money and people are having a great time hunting. That’s great and we don’t want to stop that. But it’s a risk to the rest of Tasmania and there’s no responsibility for those farmers to fence their properties to stop deer escaping and just going everywhere, breeding up to enormous proportions.
Ms PALMER – I’ll pass to the deputy secretary.
Ms WILSON – I believe the member is talking about wild fallow deer, not farmed deer, because this Government has introduced, new regulations around farmed deer.
Dr WOODRUFF – Yes, you’re right.
Ms WILSON – The Government has set an approach, through the deer management plan, in terms of the zones which provides clarity. Importantly, it provides some mechanisms for private citizens and the agency, particularly around zone two and three. As part of our staged implementation process, property protection permits for properties in zone two and three are being issued for all classes of deer for up to five years without quotas or tags. This aligns with the Government’s policy objective of no deer in high value conservation areas, and it’s consistent with the plan.
The Government has introduced the concept of four week emergency property protection permits for properties in zone one experiencing damage cause by deer during periods such as the anterless moratorium and hunting seasons where specific class of deer can’t be taken. They do not allow stags to be taken during the rut.
Importantly also, there’s the concept of special purpose wildlife permits available for up to a year for properties in zone one to manage the impacts of deer on environmental assets that are protected under legislation. To get those, a property manager must demonstrate that the deer have an impact on the protected environmental values of the property and either agreed or have developed a property-based wildlife management plan.
Dr WOODRUFF – What about the environment values outside the properties? We are all paying for that.
Ms WILSON – The mechanisms are there through property protection and special purpose permits, and it could provide some flexibility.
