❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the state government's response to the cane toad threat in the Kimberley region, specifically questioning ministerial attendance at a key forum, funding levels, and the rate of cane toad advance. The answer defends the government's approach, citing appropriate staff attendance, ongoing surveys, and the inappropriateness of comparing cane toad funding to red fire ant eradication efforts.
AnsweredQoN 28Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
KUNUNURRA CANE TOAD FORUM
I refer to the cane toad forum that was held at the Kununurra Leisure Centre over the weekend of 19-20 March 2005, and to the key importance of this meeting, which was attended by Australian experts in the field of cane toad monitoring and management. (1) Why did neither of the ministers representing the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Conservation and Land Management - the two peak bodies in charge of cane toad management - attend the forum given that the Minister for the Environment’s agency, CALM, has identified political support as a key component of the strategy? (2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the cane toad forum that was held at the Kununurra Leisure Centre over the weekend of 19-20 March 2005, and to the key importance of this meeting, which was attended by Australian experts in the field of cane toad monitoring and management. (1) Why did neither of the ministers representing the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Conservation and Land Management - the two peak bodies in charge of cane toad management - attend the forum given that the Minister for the Environment’s agency, CALM, has identified political support as a key component of the strategy? (2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(1) Why did neither of the ministers representing the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Conservation and Land Management - the two peak bodies in charge of cane toad management - attend the forum given that the Minister for the Environment’s agency, CALM, has identified political support as a key component of the strategy? (2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(1) Why did neither of the ministers representing the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Conservation and Land Management - the two peak bodies in charge of cane toad management - attend the forum given that the Minister for the Environment’s agency, CALM, has identified political support as a key component of the strategy? (2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(2) Is the minister aware that evidence was presented at the forum that indicates that the cane toad advance to the Kimberley could be as fast as 200 kilometres a year as opposed to the current estimate of 27 kilometres a year? (3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(3) Given that small isolated groups of cane toads have been found less that 100 kilometres from the Western Australian border, what immediate funding will be provided for funding and/or trapping programs in the Northern Territory to slow the advance of the cane toad? (4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(4) Does the minister consider that the one-off funding arrangement of $600 000 on 11 December 2004 to deal with cane toads is an acceptable contribution compared with the $3.5 million that has been contributed over the past two years to deal with red fire ants? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Not only is this an extensive question but also there is a comprehensive answer, as members might expect there would be. I therefore seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
As the member has indicated on 11 December 2004 the Minister for the Environment and I announced the allocation of an additional $600,000 of State funds to the Department of Agriculture for the management of cane toads. The Department of Agriculture (DAWA), in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the Agriculture Protection Board (APB), are implementing an initiative which addresses four key areas: quarantine and surveillance, implications for biodiversity, research and development, and public awareness and education. The focus of activity will be on statewide coordination, public awareness, biodiversity asset identification and protection, and delaying the entry and establishment of cane toads in WA. A joint funding arrangement with the Commonwealth Government ($600,000) is also being finalised to complement the State funding. (1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(1) As this forum was focused on operational and research issues/direction, senior State and local agency staff from DAWA and CALM attended the forum. The Acting Director, Nature Conservation from CALM presented the initiative and responded to forum questions. I believe this was an appropriate Government attendance to the forum. (2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(2) I am aware that different rates of spread were presented at the forum however the member would be aware the exact rate of spread of cane toads will depend on whether humans assist their spread, and the magnitude of wet season rains. Colonisation of cane toads within catchments is far greater than between catchments. For example, in the Northern Territory intra-catchment invasion rates were over 100 km per year, compared with 27 km per year for the across country invasion. (3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(3) Repeated targeted surveys over the last three months along the Victoria Highway where reported cane toad sightings by the public have been made (approximately 80 km from the border) have not found any cane toads. The current initiative will be investigating innovative control techniques such as trapping and fencing for critical habitat protection. DAWA and CALM will also be involved in the evaluation of trap designs as part of the NT national trap design competition. (4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
(4) I believe the State allocation to this initiative is significant and any comparison to the State’s allocation to the red fire ant program is inappropriate. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program is a national eradication program funded under a national cost-sharing agreement with the States and Territories. Eradication of the ant from Australia is considered achievable as it was found in two very restricted areas in Queensland. The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Plan was endorsed by Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in August 2001 and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established the Fire Ant Control Centre to implement the eradication program over five financial years. A total of approximately $200 million has been contributed by all Government jurisdictions for red imported fire ant eradication over the life of the program. In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
In contrast, the cane toad cannot be eradicated from Australia with current technologies. National cost-sharing arrangements are not invoked in such circumstances and individual jurisdictions must provide funding for any activity in their State.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.