Mr Hunter questions the Premier about the government's support for a motion to investigate making wild dogs a protected species and banning 1080 baiting, expressing concern about the impact on the livestock industry. The Premier clarifies that the government supported an investigation into current dingo management, not a direct ban or protection, and accuses Mr Hunter of playing politics.

AnsweredQoN 291Legislative Assembly
Asked
14 May 2026
Portfolio
Premier

QuestionView source ↗

Wild dogs—Protection291.Mr Lachlan Hunterto
thePremier:I refer to the
Premier's government supporting the Greens and the Animal Justice Party in the
other place yesterday on their push to make wild dogs a protected species and
to ban 1080 baiting. Does the Premier accept that this reckless decision would
have devastating consequences for the Western Australian livestock industry,
regional communities and pastoralists already battling increasing wild dog
attacks across the state of Western Australia?Mr Roger Cook replied:I thank the member
for the question. Unfortunately, he is simply playing politics and is not doing
justice to the debate that took place in the other place. To be clear, the
motion our government supported in the other place was to investigate whether
WA's current approach to—Mr Lachlan Hunterinterjected.The Speaker:Member for Central Wheatbelt!Mr Roger Cook:—dingoes remains appropriate.The member for
Central Wheatbelt is basically saying that nothing should change, we should not
try to do better and we should not try to look at alternative opportunities for
controlling these pests.Mr Lachlan Hunterinterjected.The Speaker:Member for Central Wheatbelt, you have
asked a question. Do not interject.Mr Roger Cook:During the debate yesterday, the
Minister for Agriculture and Food said:Given the wording
of the motion is to investigate these matters, the government will not oppose
the motion. I commit here today to ask the Biosecurity Council to consider and
look at these issues.That seems to me to
be a pretty commonsense approach, making sure that governments are alive to all
opportunities to continue to improve the situation in respect of wild dog
attacks. The member raised this issue in this place yesterday. I assume he is
sincere in his desire for the government to do everything it can. This motion
simply encourages us to continue to do more.
Wild dogs—Protection
291.Mr Lachlan Hunterto
thePremier:
I refer to the
Premier's government supporting the Greens and the Animal Justice Party in the
other place yesterday on their push to make wild dogs a protected species and
to ban 1080 baiting. Does the Premier accept that this reckless decision would
have devastating consequences for the Western Australian livestock industry,
regional communities and pastoralists already battling increasing wild dog
attacks across the state of Western Australia?
Mr Roger Cook replied:
I thank the member
for the question. Unfortunately, he is simply playing politics and is not doing
justice to the debate that took place in the other place. To be clear, the
motion our government supported in the other place was to investigate whether
WA's current approach to—
Mr Lachlan Hunterinterjected.
The Speaker:Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Roger Cook:—dingoes remains appropriate.
The member for
Central Wheatbelt is basically saying that nothing should change, we should not
try to do better and we should not try to look at alternative opportunities for
controlling these pests.
Mr Lachlan Hunterinterjected.
The Speaker:Member for Central Wheatbelt, you have
asked a question. Do not interject.
Mr Roger Cook:During the debate yesterday, the
Minister for Agriculture and Food said:
Given the wording
of the motion is to investigate these matters, the government will not oppose
the motion. I commit here today to ask the Biosecurity Council to consider and
look at these issues.
That seems to me to
be a pretty commonsense approach, making sure that governments are alive to all
opportunities to continue to improve the situation in respect of wild dog
attacks. The member raised this issue in this place yesterday. I assume he is
sincere in his desire for the government to do everything it can. This motion
simply encourages us to continue to do more.

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member
for the question. Unfortunately, he is simply playing politics and is not doing
justice to the debate that took place in the other place. To be clear, the
motion our government supported in the other place was to investigate whether
WA's current approach to—
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Roger Cook: —dingoes remains appropriate.
The member for
Central Wheatbelt is basically saying that nothing should change, we should not
try to do better and we should not try to look at alternative opportunities for
controlling these pests.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt, you have
asked a question. Do not interject.
Mr Roger Cook: During the debate yesterday, the
Minister for Agriculture and Food said:
Given the wording
of the motion is to investigate these matters, the government will not oppose
the motion. I commit here today to ask the Biosecurity Council to consider and
look at these issues.
That seems to me to
be a pretty commonsense approach, making sure that governments are alive to all
opportunities to continue to improve the situation in respect of wild dog
attacks. The member raised this issue in this place yesterday. I assume he is
sincere in his desire for the government to do everything it can. This motion
simply encourages us to continue to do more.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more