STATEMENT OF ISSUES, AAT Appeal 2002

In 2002 we appealed the current 2001 NSW Kangaroo Management Plan. This Management Plan expires on the 30 December, 2006

This is our first submission to the Appeal, which we lost.

PRIMARY SUBMISSION TO THE NSW ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, BY PAT O’BRIEN, OF THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL KANGAROO PROTECTION COALITION. APPEAL FIRST LODGED 26/2/02, THIS DOCUMENT LODGED 1/6/2002

PREAMBLE; BETRAYAL AND SELLOUT OF OUR KANGAROOS

Australia's unique heritage of indigenous animals has been treated with contempt and brutality since white man arrived. We are a nation led by soul-less politicians whose only concern is money, power and the ability to destroy this continent's ecology behind a protective wall of propaganda and extraordinarily irresponsible legislation, which guarantees extinction. The first thing that needs to be said about the betrayal of the kangaroo is that the sell out has not been confined to government, industry, politicians, media and some scientists…the kangaroo has also been sold out by the environmental movement both nationally and internationally.

Over the years, millions of dollars were raised overseas to help the kangaroo. Millions and millions, money that never came back to Australia so that desperately needed legal action could be taken, or professional campaigns funded. In spite of the mountains of evidence that the kangaroo industry is robbing Australia of a critical component of its wildlife heritage, the major Australian conservation groups have by and large ignored the plight of the kangaroo. (Sue Arnold ('The Kangaroo BETRAYED!')

The kangaroo is a bloodied symbol of Australia, a nation whose leaders have turned away from their moral, social and environmental responsibility. The kangaroo's fate will be shared by the remaining unique wildlife in this great continent. Deliberate, politically induced extinction so that a few may gain from the death of a species. Further information can be found in the 'Hierarchy of Betrayal' (See Exhibit A)

2002 KANGAROO NATIONAL KILL QUOTA : 6, 942, 687, the largest in Australia’s history.

Submission to the AAT.

It is our contention that the Management Program should be set aside on the grounds that the Minister was not, or should not have been, satisfied as to some of the matters prescribed in subsection 10 (1b) of the Act, specifically (c), and matters prescribed in Regulation 5.

The issues raised by Regulation 5 of the Regulations are, for the decision we have requested to be reviewed, as follows:-

a. Whether there was sufficient information available to the Designated Authority, concerning the biology and ecology of kangaroos such as to enable the Designated Authority to evaluate the management plan;

c. Whether the management program contains measures to ensure that the taking of the kangaroos in the wild is not likely to cause irreversible changes, or have long-term deleterious effects on the kangaroos or their habitat;

d. Whether the management program provides for adequate monitoring and assessment of the effects of taking kangaroos;

e. Whether the management program provides for a response to changes in kangaroo populations and habitats, and to changes in the knowledge and understanding of the biology and ecology of kangaroos; and

f. Whether the management program is consistent with the object of the Act, namely "to comply with the obligations of Australia under the Convention and otherwise to further the protection and conservation of the wild fauna and flora of Australia and of other countries".

We also will be arguing that under Sub-section 10 (1b), the Legislation is not effective, in that it has failed to achieve the intent and/or objects of the Act.

We base our appeal on the issues listed below.

Our submission presents evidence and argument to support our contention that the Management Program should be set aside on the grounds that the Minister was not, or should not have been, satisfied as to the matters prescribed in Section 10(B), of the Act, and regulation 5, of the Regulations.

1. Not enough information. We do not believe there was enough information available to the Designated Authority, or to the Minister, concerning the biology and ecology of kangaroos, such as to enable the Designated Authority, or the Minister, to evaluate the management plan. We further contend that the NSW NPWS have ignored recent advances in the scientific knowledge of kangaroos, which was put on public record at the July 2001”Recent Advances in the Scientific Knowledge of Kangaroos” Conference at the University of New South Wales.

We note that in a previous appeal through the AAT in 1985, No.N85/229 AAT No 2692, Para 119, when discussing the difference between Western grey and Eastern grey kangaroos, the members noted that “The Tribunal noted with considerable concern that the culling quota for grey kangaroos as appearing in the management program as approved in October 1985, like that appearing in the 1984 program, did not separate the quotas for Eastern and Western Greys, even though these are different and separate species. The reasons were stated in exhibits and oral evidence to be partly historical, because the separate identity of the two species was confirmed relatively recently, and partly practical, because of the difficulty of identifying the two species separately in the field. The Western Grey, in the zone where the two species co-exist, is present in considerably smaller numbers than the Eastern Grey. The Tribunal considered that a management program in which the quotas for two species were expressly combined, was not capable of being evaluated by the Designated Authority in such a way as to enable the Designated Authority to give to the Minister, in respect of the Western Grey, the advice required to be given by Regulation 5(1)(c) and (d). Those provisions are concerned with the survival of species as such; and the combination of two species under one culling quota ignores the overriding importance given to that matter by the Regulations.” Further argument is expressed in Paras 121 and 122 of the same transcript.

That was in 1985. We respectfully submit that, in the year 2002, there is more information, and more recognition, in relation to the differences in kangaroo species, and more concern in the community about the continued survival of our large kangaroos. The four different species, which are commercially killed in NSW, have different habitat and grazing preferences, and have significant differences in fecundity, biology, and habitat. It is ludicrous to believe that four different species can be just lumped together in one management plan. (Which only consists of 17 pages!)

On page 109 of the Section 37 documents, EA have stated that “these (differences) are relatively well understood and accounted for in the various quotas for each species.” We submit that these differences are not well understood, and even if they were, we will provide evidence throughout our submission that those differences would be ignored, as government agencies continue to promote their own agendas, regardless of threats to kangaroo populations. Many millions of dollars have been spent on research to ensure that the fishing Industry is “sustainable”, yet fish stocks of most species have collapsed around the world, and are still collapsing. The evidence is everywhere. Even the “orange roughy”, a recently discovered deepwater species, was declared endangered within two years of the commencement of a commercial fishery. (Greenpeace) The reasons for this is because managers failed to listen to concerns about these matters from the community, and even from the Industry participants, and had legislation to protect Industry, their political masters, and their own jobs and careers, rather than the fish stocks.

Our evidence in this submission clearly demonstrates that the commercial kangaroo management philosophy is no different from fisheries management philosophy. Just as the inability, or unwillingness, of fisheries managers to comprehend or consider the downstream impacts that depleting one species would have on another, so have kangaroo management agencies failed to address the issue of separate species management, and many other matters. One important matter is the impact that a depletion of one species’ numbers, may have on another species, or even the most basic of differences, those of species population dynamics, and differing genetic strengths or weaknesses.

On Page 11 of the Plan, (3rd para from bottom of page), states ” while there are variations between the kangaroo species, these are relatively well understood and accounted for in the various quotas for each species.” The Plan fails to provide any evidence that is the case, as to how, where, and by whom, are the variations in the various species “accounted for”. We believe that such statements are simplistic and unproven, and bear little reality to the complexities of inter- species relationships.

According to the Plan, the quotas are set based on a “pre-conceived” recognition that approximately 15% for the two species of greys, and wallaroos, and 17% for reds, is “sustainable”. We fail to see how this quota determination has any bearing on effective or adequate separate species management, and nor has a safety factor been written into the Plan, only pure speculation that the collective “four species” kill is “sustainable”. The RSPCA is opposed to the quota system, for many reasons, as are animal/welfare wildlife protection groups. We provide evidence later in our submission that the red kangaroo recruitment rate is very much lower than the quota.

Throughout the Plan, there appears to have been little effort by commercial kangaroo kill managers to address serious issues of kangaroo management, which were first noticed and commented on by the Tribunal in the previous Fund for Animals appeal in 1985.

We include documentation (See Exhibit B) by zoologist Dr Peter Preuss, B.Sc, Botany, Zoology Ecology) relating to a research program that was deliberately sabotaged by NSW NPWS, when it began to show that the commercial kangaroo kill was actually creating more problems for farmers than they had before. When the opportunity occurred to easily obtain good data, NSW NPWS actually deliberately sabotaged the research.

We respectfully submit that this Management plan, which fails to separate any of the species for individual sustainable management purposes, also fails to meet the requirements of subsection 10 1(B), and Regulation 5 under the Act, specifically a, c, and e. 2. Shift of “ damage mitigation” to “sustainable use”. On Page 129, community concerns were expressed about a shift from “damage mitigation” to “sustainable use”. Again the agencies waffled on about not being able to audit damage mitigation, but they fail to show why not. If there are no mechanisms to audit, as they claim, why not develop them? They have not produced any evidence, or any convincing argument, to justify this statement.

Although the NSW NPWS sometimes claim that land assessments are made to justify damage mitigation, before issuing kill permits, our understanding of the matter is that is not the case. Our understanding is that there is no land assessment before issuing a commercial or non-commercial permit to kill kangaroos, no assessment of grazing pressure, no requirement to adequately fence cropping paddocks. There is certainly no mention of a requirement of farm assessments in the Plan.

We note that in the previous appeal through the AAT in 1985, No.N85/229 AAT No 2692, Para 34, the then Federal Minister Barry Cohen said at a public meeting in Charleville, Queensland, on 18 June 1985 (reported in Australian Foreign Affairs Record, vol. 56 no. 6 June 1985) "I am the Minister for the Environment with the responsibility to protect the species of kangaroos in sufficient numbers throughout their various habitats in Australia. The Government as a whole also has a responsibility to ensure that Australia's primary producers do not have their properties so over-run with kangaroos that their livelihood and Australian prosperity is threatened. It is often difficult to strike a delicate balance between the two objectives. The purpose of the national management plan is to try to ensure that both of these objectives are met. The kangaroo industry which includes shooters, pet food manufacturers and the skin and fur traders is seen by the Government as a tool in that management plan. We do not and I repeat do not, see the industry as an end in itself. That may not please some of you but I would be less than honest if I suggested that I or the Government was implementing the management plan to ensure the prosperity of the kangaroo industry." End Quote.

Clearly the government of the day did not support the development of a kangaroo Industry based on kangaroos as a resource. Our understanding is that the present Federal government policy is still the same. If it is not, the NSW NPWS should produce a current Government policy statement to prove that their assertions are consistent with Federal government policy, as required by the Legislation.

Much of the land in question is in the arid and semi-arid range lands and is not suited to grazing. In fact, only twenty-five of the past one hundred years have been drought free. These areas are insignificant in terms of crop production and account for less than 15% of meat production. The environmental destruction caused by this industry is immense. Kangaroo shooters' vehicles crisscross the fragile outback terrain causing erosion and disturbance of rare native flora and fauna.

The kangaroos, even in very large numbers, can only be placed VERY LOW on a long list of environmental and economic factors affecting landholders' profits. The viability of properties on this marginal and uneconomic land, so low in nutrients, must be questioned.

There is considerable evidence to show that there is no competition between sheep cattle and kangaroos, except when severe drought occurs, or when heavy overgrazing is permitted. (Dr Steve Mc Leod, NSW Agriculture), (Page 151, T- documents)

Another research project from Gatton Agricultural College indicates that cattle grazing alone have more impact on the soil than kangaroos and cattle grazing together. (Letter, Qld. Country Life, February 2002)

Kangaroo shooters' vehicles crisscross the fragile outback terrain, causing environmental degradation and crushing the small native animals, some of which are endangered. When shooters gut the kangaroos, they leave their remains behind, which feeds the feral animals such as pigs, cats and foxes. (See Photos, Exhibit D)

The author of the Bible of Environment Australia 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', Gordon Grigg, describes kangaroos as pests more than 40 times but has now made new contradictory statements that “scientific evidence concludes kangaroos are not a competitive grazing threat to cattle and sheep: " this would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the 'total grazing pressure' (TGP ) than is generally accepted," and " the hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by 'pest control of kangaroos' is probably doomed to failure " (See Exhibit E), Gordon Grigg at the Wildlife Management Society Annual General Meeting, Dubbo, NSW 3-5/12/2001, and exhibit E (1) David Nichols. )

Its not the effect of hard-hoofed animals per se on our fragile soils that cause land degradation; it’s too many hard-hoofed animals on too much marginal land. There are many Australian farmers who manage their farms well, do not overgraze, who plant more trees, allow regrowth, use cell grazing and water retention techniques, fence adequately, and who don’t kill the wildlife. These farmers have few land degradation problems. The real issue is whether or not we should be farming in the arid and semi-arid zones at all.

The recent quota increases, which have outraged the community groups, have again raised the question of "why have quotas anyway?" If only half of the previous years' quota was shot, why did they raise it by 1.2 million in 2002? The NPWS and EA have changed the correction factors to 6.9 to help them estimate the populations. "They need to explain the reasons as populations may not have changed at all " (Dr David Croft). We need a Review of environmental factors. The RSPCA is opposed to the quotas system.

The quota determination does not include road kills, the number of kangaroos shot illegally, those killed through “shoot and let lie permits”, those lost through disease outbreaks which sporadically occur after rain, damage mitigation permits issued by NPWS etc. Most females carry two joeys, one in the pouch and one at foot so for every female kangaroo killed, another two die as well.

Historical records show that kangaroos were widespread throughout all of Australia at the time our forebears settled the country, recorded by noted Historian Dr John Auty. Refer Dr John Auty Paper UNSW July 14, 2001 "Recent Advances in the Scientific Knowledge of Kangaroos" (See Exhibit F) (Please note this document will be available to the Tribunal shortly)

Claims made by farmers and Industry that kangaroos have increased by many millions since white settlers arrived are myths and propagandised. Significant numbers of large kangaroos now only occur in scattered areas of Central Australia, where they are being ruthlessly and relentlessly killed. (Dr John Auty, Exhibit A, the Kangaroo Betrayed)

The publication THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA places the number of shot at species of kangaroos at between 25 and 35 million. ( would the tribunal please note that this estimated figure jumped to an estimated 60 million in 2001, just two years later, a biologically impossible increase.) The official quota for the year 1999 was 5,682,146 and the actual "cull" was 2,600,139. The quota represents just 1% of the equivalent kangaroo population and the actual "cull" is only .5%. These figures show conclusively that the "cull" is not necessary on grounds of large numbers interfering with grazing business. These figures show that the grazing community is driven by tradition rather than fact, in vilifying the kangaroo as some kind of wrongdoer.

For kangaroo "culling" to be necessary, the scientifically understood method requires that significant, widespread and continual damage to range lands and infrastructure is actually happening, and caused by kangaroos. No such evidence exists, and because of the proportionally smaller number of kangaroos than stock, for it to exist, would mean that kangaroos would have to be far greater destroyers per capita than introduced stock.

The kangaroo has lived on this continent for tens of thousands of years and has developed characteristics to suit the environment. It requires less water, has soft feet, is on average smaller than sheep, seeks shade in the sun, has no need to grow wool or fat, is efficient in travelling and not limited by artificial boundaries. Rather it follows its food requirements, which are in most instances, quite different to that of the introduced animals. It is of some note that in the publication THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA, there are over 40 references to the perceived "pest" status of kangaroos.

There are several scientific papers (Olsen, Braysher), and the kangaroo protection publication (The Kangaroo Betrayed, Exhibit A), which show that kangaroos are not a serious threat to livestock producers, other than in periods of extreme drought. Also, there are now several fencing systems which have been developed by major fencing companies, which are inexpensive to erect, easy to maintain, and very effective at keeping perceived pest animals such as kangaroos from crops. We submit that NSW NPWS have realised that the damage mitigation clause may no longer by itself, justify the continued commercial killing of kangaroos.

We note also that the NSW NPWS claim that in year 2000, there were 7.7 million kangaroos in NSW in the Kangaroo Management Zones. The quota would be approximately 15% of that, or around 1,155,000. Only a small proportion of the quota will be killed, about half, or approximately 577,500 kangaroos. This number is insignificant in terms of contributing to damage control.

Kangaroo shooting for commercial purposes is widespread, relentless and driven by financial interest. The Environment Australia publication, THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA, supposedly a justification of this practise, is nothing of the sort. Nowhere in its 134 pages does it state that kangaroos are a significant and widespread problem other than a perceived one to the grazing community. It does however, on many occasions, point out that the unsustainable use of land by sheep and cattle producers is a real problem.

Obviously there is another agenda behind the deletion of damage mitigation, and the subsequent “sustainable use” inclusion to the current Plan. In the face of evidence that large kangaroos are not significant threats to farmers, we can only assume that it is merely an underhand attempt by elements within NSW NPWS, to continue to turn kangaroos into money, and to justify, encourage and support, a commercial Industry based on the commercial slaughter of kangaroos.

We respectfully submit that the requirement for damage mitigation must remain, to be consistent with Government policy, and to comply with the objects of the Legislation. By removing the damage mitigation requirement, the Plan fails to meet the requirements of the Legislation, subsection 10(1B), and regulation 5 (c), (d), (e), (f).

3. UNSUSTAINABLE USE On Page 127, Section 37 documents, a number of concerns were expressed about the unsustainability of the red kangaroo quotas. Instead of recognising those concerns NSW NPWS and EA have abrogated their obligation to comply with “sustainable use” legislative requirements. The principle of Ecological Sustainable Development is supported by government policy. Central to this government policy is the Precautionary Principle. The Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment (the IGAE) endorses the precautionary principle in the following terms: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and

(ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options (4) [Emphasis added]

The IGAE has been adopted by all Australian governments.

On Page 5 of the Plan, we read that the plan uses the ESD definition contained in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act, 1991, No 60.

However, elsewhere we note that Stein states, at a Land and Environment Court conference, in October 1999, “It is accepted that ESD should be treated as a complete package where no one principle should dominate over any other. (16) This requires that the precautionary principle be applied with consideration of other principles forming part of ESD.” (Justice the Hon Paul l. Stein AM)

Throughout the comprehensive and well researched submissions tendered to NSW NPWS, by the community groups, there were many comments expressing concern about unsustainability of the Industry, and the Plan. These concerns where dismissed out of hand, as NSW NPWS swept the issues under the carpet. We discuss this elsewhere in our submission.

In her submission to the NSW Draft Kangaroo Management Plan, Susie Rowe noted (Page 186 of the t-documents) “Natural resource planning and management in Australia is based around the principles described in section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, as follows: (a) The precautionary principle -namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (b) Inter-generational equity -namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. (c) Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. (d) Improved valuation and pricing of environmental factors.

(a) The precautionary principle -namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Please provide evidence of the full scientific certainty that there is no occurrence of degradation of the species of kangaroos.” End Quote. Of course they haven’t done that, as we clearly show in our submission to the Tribunal.

We believe that the NSW NPWS and the Federal Minister have not considered the Precautionary Principle at all, never mind in equal consideration with any other principles they may have considered. On that basis we respectfully submit that the Plan does not meet the requirements of government policy, or Subsection 10(1B), nor regulation 5, (c), (d), (e), and (f).

4. FAILURE TO CONSIDER COMMUNITY CONCERNS. Throughout our submission we have made reference to the ignoring of comments and concerns relating to community submissions. There are many references in the Section 37 documents claiming that the Plan has been amended to cater to community concerns.

We can find no evidence that the original Draft Plan has been altered in any way to incorporate community concerns.

We observe that in the Statement of reasons provided by the Minister, Page 15 of the T-documents, para 41, states “The Management Program was amended by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service in a number of cases as a result of comment received”. When a lie of this magnitude is made, we can only conclude that the whole document is based on similar misrepresentations, or else perhaps, has the Minister been deceived by his departmental officers?

We note that on Page 126, of the Section 37 documents, Attachment c, EA states that “the Act states that prior to approving the management program that you must consider all comments received.” Neither Environment Australia, nor NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service have done that. Community comments have been ignored, or dismissed out of hand as though having no relevance.

Instead of taking community concerns on board, the agencies have only dismissed them, stating ”the information was not available to them”, (it is to us) (Page 127, t-documents), and is enclosed, (see Exhibit G, Bilton and Croft) or that “the plan is sufficiently flexible to incorporate new information----“, or” have not been generally accepted by the scientific community” (Page 134, t-documents). However we have already shown that neither agency listens to the community groups, who work continually with kangaroos, and have much knowledge and experience. We find it impossible to believe that that attitude, entrenched within NSW NPWS, would change. Statements are made in the Plan to “incorporate new information”. We find it unlikely they would do that, unless it was “ their own” information, to suit their own ends. On the evidence shown to date, there is no evidence that any information, or matter of concern, provided by the community, would be responded to.

Some examples include; Page 130. Concerns about the loss of genetic strength and the natural selection process are dismissed out of hand, using words such as “unlikely”.

Page 131. Concerns about adaptive management are not addressed, with statements like “Animal welfare and/or environmental interests would be considered……” . End quote. We submit that we have shown very clearly throughout this document, that there is no intention by NSW NPWS to actually consider (other than to refute or dismiss), or to incorporate community concerns into the Plan.

Page 132. Comments that non-lethal control measures be investigated dismissed as ” not feasible”. Health issues dismissed as “not their responsibility”.

Page 133. Monitoring of populations. Vague statements made about “audits”.

Page 135. Comments made to the Draft Plan that kangaroos should not be counted in National Parks or Reserves to determine a quota, dismissed by NSW NPWS as not practical or necessary.

Page 136. For more than 10 years, groups have been criticising the Code of Practice. The agencies are still promising a “review”.

Page 137. Monitoring of compliance. Agencies talk about having an adequate budget, but that is not the experience of the groups. NPWS budgets have already been gutted to provide other services outside the department, which now operates on shoestring. Morale of the in-the-field NPWS workers is at an all-time low. There are no indications, or evidence provided, that there will be enough money available to monitor compliance either adequately. Such important information should be included in the Plan. We also note they have dismissed comments about property assessments, by saying damage mitigation is not the aim of the Plan.

Page 138. Animal welfare concerns again dismissed out of hand.

Page 141. New Information. On page 243 they (NSW NPWS) again claim that the draft KMP is sufficiently flexible to allow for incorporation of new information through the annual sitting of the commercial quota, and as a response to discussions within the new Kangaroo Management Advisory panel, stating any new information will be discussed by the Kangaroo Management Advisory panel. We provide evidence later in our submission, that Kangaroo Management Advisory Committees are only a talkfest, at best, and are unable to seriously consider, or implement, community views. Claims that NSW NPWS would modify the Plan should new information become available are extremely unlikely, given that we have already shown that they don’t listen to any evidence provided.

Comments they have been made about there being “extensive literature” to support other sustainable Industries elsewhere in the world are unproven. While there is some literature, it has almost all been produced by Industry to support their applications for government funding assistance. In fact there is compelling evidence of fact to show that commercial killing of wildlife, decimates species. (Whales, seals, elephants, mutton-birds, passenger pigeons, dodos, dugong, many fish species, etc, etc.)

Page 142. Comments made about kangaroo body parts left in the paddock dismissed. (See Exhibit D, Photo)

Page 143. We discuss the Gregg and Pople document “THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA” throughout our submission.

We say again, we note that on Page 126, of the Section 37 documents, Attachment c, EA states that “the Act states that prior to approving the management program that you must consider all comments received.” Neither Environment Australia, nor NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service have done that. Community comments have been ignored, or dismissed out of hand as though having no relevance. This is very clear.

We respectfully submit that the objects and intentions of the Legislation is to allow community concerns to be considered, in a genuine, lawful, and proper manner, in any kangaroo management Program, and the Plan, and the process of development of the Plan, is inconsistent with the objects of the Act. Specifically, subsection 10(1B), and regulation 5, (a), (c), (d), (e), (f).

4. GENETIC LOSS AND NATURAL SELECTION PROCESS

"When a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos, he destroys a complex system by killing the alpha male, his immediate rivals and the older females who are the educators of the mob. This selective hunting results in females mating with young males and the loss of the inherited genetic strengths of the mob" Defying natural selection, and acting to ensure the artificial process of always killing the biggest and best out of a mob, is a threat to the future survival of the species. Even though there may be an increase in populations, the animals are not healthy, not fit and the populations are unstable.

The critical point is that the survival of any of our wildlife species depends on a multitude of interrelated complex factors. If we continue to exert further pressure through inappropriate culling, this could very well precipitate the rapid extinction of the species.

"In any wild animal, if you disrupt in a short period of time the normal reproduction processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years, you are in danger of putting the species at risk. Many of these species suffered incursion of exotic bacteria’s and viruses when their populations contained a critical and unsustainable gene pool " Doug Reilly 'From Conservation to exploitation in South Australia' 'THE KANGAROO BETRAYED!' (Exhibit A) A recent research document 'Kangaroo Genetics: Impact of Harvesting’ Report for NSW NPWS, by Dr Peter Hale carried the statement that; 'The effects of the commercial harvest are therefore unlikely to produce genetic changes in the population, so that there was no negative genetic fallout from decades of killing the biggest and best kangaroos, those that carry the most vigorous genes. (See Exhibit J) (Please note that this document is not currently available, but will be shortly.)

However, this assumption by Dr Hale has been challenged on several points by Dr Ian Gunn the Director of 'Animal Gene Storage Resource Centre of Australia ' Monash University Medical Centre, and other scientists. (See Exhibit K )

This is one of the most serious concerns any organisation devoted to kangaroo protection has. (See Page 36,and 39, 70, and 71, (See the Kangaroo Betrayed, Exhibit A)

In the publication THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA, scant regard is afforded to genetic concerns. Some apologetic mention is made of non-shooting areas without a full explanation of what that means.

Kangaroos are shot at in every place a kangaroo shooter can get with a vehicle. The areas that are safe to the kangaroo are generally hilly, boggy or too dense with forest or inaccessible for some other reason. Kangaroos and humans have one thing in common. If the area is no good for humans then it is no good for the shot at species, and these areas are small, not evenly distributed and may not have feed. National Parks are also credited as a refuge but the same story affects them, with no safe corridors for wildlife to move through.

“The biggest (alpha) males are continuously and relentlessly hunted down. They may escape being shot this year or the next, but kangaroo shooting will get them sooner or later. THE COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA puts its faith in a ten year study where shooting has happened anyway. A proper study is near impossible, as the genetic structure has been altering since European invasion. (Invasion is used on purpose when it comes to the kangaroo at least!) Kangaroos are not magically separated from the laws of evolution and with the preferential emphasis on killing the Alpha males they have been and are being genetically altered to a degree that puts their very long-term healthy survival at stake.” (David Nicholls, ex-kangaroo shooter)

We submit that the biggest and most genetically fit kangaroos are the target animals. Even this is being disguised as the program is called culling. Culling is popularly understood to be the weeding out of the weak, the infirmed and the old. The commercial kill is targeting the strong and the bold for commercial gain. Common sense has taken a huge dive into the highly speculative chasm of self-interest on this point alone. (See AAT in 1985, No.N85/229 AAT No 2692, Para 17.)

We respectfully put it to the Tribunal, that we firmly believe that in this matter particularly, the government departments (both State and Federal) have abrogated their legal responsibilities under the Act to address this issue of progressive genetic loss and genetic degradation. We respectfully submit that this matter clearly demonstrates that the Management plan fails to meet the requirements of subsection 10 (1B), (c), and Regulation 5 under the Act, specifically a, c, d, e, and f.

5. TAX PAYER FUNDING FOR THE KANGAROO INDUSTRY; SUBSIDISING THE KILLING

Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) continues to allocate significant funds in their Annual Plan for ' Kangaroo Product Marketing '.

The Commercial Use of Wild Animals Report' was funded by the Kangaroo Industry. ALP Northern Territory Senator Bob Collins was a Founding member and launched The Ramsay Report 1994, 'Bureau of Resource Sciences'

Cocktail party in Parliament House Canberra to announce a new research and development program administered by the RIRDC, to assist the continued development of the kangaroo industry, launched by Federal Minister Warren Truss and Michael Archer (Australian Museum), to not only promote the Industry, but to provide RIRDC funds of $120,000 for media releases, salaries etc to John Kelly. (Kangaroo Industry Association Australia )

RIRDC diverted $92,000.00 from the Tasmanian Dept of Transport to John Kelly for kangaroo, possum, wallaby meat harvesting and meat processing . Environment Australia puts out glossy publication designed to promote eating kangaroo meat

The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia states (KIA Internet web page) that they receive $500,000 funding per year from Federal Government

A primary understanding of the “sustainable use” buzzword is that a sustainable Industry should not only be ecologically and environmentally sustainable, but financially sustainable as well. Clearly the kangaroo industry is not financially viable, without significant taxpayer assistance.

The kangaroo Industry is an Industry that keeps skimming the cream off the top, without any productive input into future management. (Ingrid Witte, BSc. Hons. Page 40, the Kangaroo Betrayed, Exhibit A)

We again respectfully submit that the plan fails to meet the requirements of subsection 10 (1B), and Regulation 5 under the Act, specifically (f). We find it difficult to accept that continued government subsidisation of this Industry is consistent with the obligations of Australia under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. It also fails to meet the requirements of government policy on Ecological Sustainable Development.

6 COUNTING METHODOLOGY

The counting methodology has been criticised for many years and it has been changed so often that it no longer has any value or credibility. Aerial counting is well known for its lack of accuracy. (See the Kangaroo Betrayed, Exhibit A)

Following a workshop held at the University of Queensland in 1998, Tony Bigwood Director of Wildlife Populations Environment Australia issued a directive to the NSW NPWS Kangaroo Program Manager, Joshua Gilroy that new correction factors would apply and admitted that grey kangaroos could not be distinguished from the air and recommended that the correction factor be lifted from 2 to up to 4.8. In 1997, the correction factor for greys was 2.2. Corrections factors are better known as 'guesstimates'

Correction factors apply in the following way…when you see one kangaroo, multiply by 4.8 or a number nominated such as 6.9, to compensate for those kangaroos that cannot be seen. Every state uses different correction factors, and they keep changing them.

Different States use different methodology, different staff, and different processes. Yet the individual State population estimates, are lumped to together to provide a total Australia-wide population estimate, which we submit is only a wild guess. Even kangaroos in National Parks are counted to keep the numbers up, their bottom line is to be able to argue they have “plagues“ of kangaroos that are depriving honest hardworking farmers of their livelihoods.

This information is used to set quotas, based on population estimates, but they do not stand up to public scrutiny. Many times, for many years, we have asked for information about the counting techniques. We have never succeeded in obtaining any information that we could independently assess. This attitude of not providing any relevant information to the community groups, is also reflected in their refusal to allow us to access some submissions to the Plan, other than through FOI, even though the Plan is subject to a legal appeal to the AAT.

Correspondence received today (17/6/02) from NSW NPWS have indicated that they will make the documents available to us, at a total cost of $60. This is a significant amount for non-government-funded groups to come up with, as all of our operating funds are donated by the public, or come out of our own pockets. By making the access of these documents difficult to us, NSW QPWS indicates a lack of proper respect to the Tribunal, and its processes, and the Legislation that supports it.

We also note that a recent communication from the NSW NPWS (Exhibit P) has asked that submissions provided to the KMAC be kept from the public. This is the kind of secret service mentality of hiding data from the community, and lack of transparency, that is imposed on the public by the NSW NPWS. This attitude has made some people in the Industry so paranoid that we are advised that some documents we will receive under FOI, at the owner’s request, will have names and details removed from them. This paranoia is clearly fostered and encouraged by NSW NPWS.

We submit that failure to address issues of concern relating to kangaroo populations, that the plan fails to meet the requirements of the Act, subsection 10(1B), and Regulation 5 under, specifically, (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

7. UNSUSTAINABILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL KILL

“ Sustained yield presupposes that animals are removed from the herd (mob) according to the needs of the herd (mob) for the presence of mature males and females sufficient to ensure reproduction rates. There is a shooters preference for mature males and the kill of this class may be as high as 80%. This clearly, over the short term, will change the reproduction rate and better the performance of the higher percentage of females in the herd (mob). However, there is some evidence that reproduction is reliant upon proven males. This type of 'culling' removes the most fit males and females and moves the herd (mob) overall towards unfitness and an unstable population. 'Taking the biggest and best Red kangaroos for the skin trade and taking the young one to two year old red kangaroos for the human meat consumption trade puts insupportable pressure on the red kangaroos. An up to 80% male bias in the kill leaves weaker, more unfit, unstable unhealthy populations to bred 'next years' crop.' (David Nichols) “

Compelling evidence heard at the 'Recent Advances in the Scientific Knowledge of Kangaroos' Conference held at the UNSW July 14, 2001 (See Exhibit G, Bilton and Croft) revealed that the average female red kangaroo produces only 3.5 viable offspring in her lifetime of 9.75 years. This means that the red kangaroo population only grows between 6-8% a year when under pressure. The current quota of 21% of estimated population of red kangaroos is three times the growth rate and will reduce the population by 75 % in ten years if the full quota is taken each year. There is already evidence of this reduction of red kangaroo populations occurring.

Another startling figure to come out of the above conference was a statement by Dr Steve McLeod, NSW Agriculture, that the average age of the red kangaroo populations was two years and the average weight only 18kgs. This makes it clear that the red kangaroo is under extreme pressure bearing in mind that red kangaroos can live to nearly thirty years of age, and reach a weight of 85 kg or more…

This information above has been submitted to both NSW NPWS and Environment Australia, and has been ignored. On Page 245, response 5, they state that they “ ---aim to make sustainability of the kangaroo populations the programs’ primary goal, rather than the mitigation of damage to the land or agricultural production. This recognises NPWS’s primary responsibility for the care and protection of native wildlife --- etc.” End Quote.

Firstly, it is not kangaroos that damage the land, and this distressing comment above demonstrates the contempt that the managers of the kangaroo program have for kangaroos.

Secondly, if they weren’t managing kangaroos sustainably before, why weren’t they? The requirements of the Legislation, together with Australia’s obligations to several international agreements, require that they do. It is very clear. Yet they have failed to demonstrate in any of the 17 pages (only 17 pages!) of the Plan, that this Plan will manage kangaroos any more sustainably than they were being managed before, which they admit, several times throughout the Plan, was not at all.

With respect, on consideration of these matters, we submit that the Plan fails to meet the requirements of subsection 10(1B), (c), and Regulation 5 under the Act, specifically, (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

8. CRUELTY AND THE CODE OF PRACTICE. The Code of Practice for the 'Humane' Shooting of Kangaroos stipulates that ' pouch young of a killed female must also be killed immediately by decapitation or a heavy blow to the skull to destroy the brain or shooting.' Such a method has been condemned by the international community when applied to baby harp seals. If we took a pet animal to a vet to be put down, and asked the vet to cut its head off, as required in the Code of Practice, what would the vet’s reaction be? So why is this cruel and inhumane practice legal in Australia?

Who monitors this brutality? Film footage we have, records stomping on joeys heads, bashing joeys against bullbars, against tree trunks, and sometimes the perpetrators do not even bother to kill joeys, but instead just leave them to die.

The Code of Practice doesn’t even refer to dependent ex-pouch young, which are either shot (See Photo, Exhibit I) or abandoned to die of cold or starvation.

Ex-kangaroo shooters say that there are many factors, which affect the accuracy of their 'skills', and there only has to be a minute error in the aim for wounding to occur. Moonlight, wind, damage to telescopic sights, tiredness, driving long distances, and continually 'shot at' kangaroos become jumpy and fail to stand still. The mouth of a kangaroo can be blown off and the kangaroo can escape to die of shock and starvation. Forearms can be blown off, as can ears, eyes and noses. Stomachs can be hit, expelling the contents with the kangaroos still alive. Backbones can be smashed to an unrecognisable state. Hind legs can be shattered with the kangaroo desperately trying to get away on the other leg or without the use of either. Shooting can be very arduous, with extreme weather conditions, poor nutrition and equipment failure. A few flat tyres on a stinking hot or freezing cold night can soon turn the kangaroo into ’the enemy” with the added justification of ridding a menace to the landholders, a mindset is in place to accommodate all kinds of atrocities being accepted.(David Nicholls, ex-kangaroo shooter, Exhibit O)

Some kangaroo shooters believe that the 15% figure of wounding quoted by the RSPCA is a minimum figure, to say the least. (David Nicholls, ex-kangaroo shooter, submission to the Plan.)

Australia has Federal Legislation and Regulations, which facilitates the exploitation of kangaroos, but no legislation to protect them from extreme cruelty.

The Code of Practice is not linked to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) so clearly there is no legal enforcement of the Code of Practice.

There is no effective monitoring of Codes of Practice. The shooter himself monitors all requirements. Enforcement of legislation in remote Australian rural areas is impossible.

In the responses to the Draft Plan, NSW NPWS have dismissed cruelty issues out of hand, making vague comments about the Code of Practice not being their responsibility.

One statement on Page 261 states that “Compliance with the Code is already a legal requirement for all licenses issued under the draft KMP. To give animal welfare and the Code a higher profile, NSW NPWS will amend the draft and add references to the Code in the Objectives of the new KMP.” Of course, this didn’t happen. We have previously shown that the approved Plan is no different to the Draft, and this again demonstrates the lack of commitment by NSW NPWS to adequately address issues raised by the community.

They have made vague references to “discussing”, or a “review” of the Code throughout the “public consultation” process, but complaints have been made about the Code for more than two decades, with no satisfactory response from NSW NPWS. Any comments made by NSW NPWS in this matter have been only made to defuse community concerns, not to resolve them. They have not been able to address the issues of the humane killing of in-pouch or ex-pouch joeys, other than to hit them on the head with an iron pipe, or cut their heads of with a sharp instrument (meaning knife or axe.) We believe that the purpose and objects of the Legislation is to address concerns about the commercial kill, raised as far back as 1980.

We find it difficult to accept that the objects and intentions of the Legislation are to dismiss community concerns about cruelty. We respectfully submit that Government failure to deal with these matters, means the Management Plan fails to meet the requirements under the Act, (d) and with respect, we submit that the plan fails to meet the requirements of Regulation 5 under the Act, Specifically, (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f). It also fails subsection 10(1b) (c), Whether the Legislation is effective.

9. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE HAS NO VOICE FOR KANGAROO PROTECTION AND IS A FARCE

The government places much reliance on the so-called 'Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use'. While the 'Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use' may lay claim to be expert in their field perhaps, they are all biased in favour of the commercial harvesting of kangaroos. 3 of the scientists come from the same Queensland Institution while 2 of those are from the same Department and all hold the same views.

The Chairman is the Ministers’ handpicked choice. On Page 124 of the t-documents, we see that this committee consists of, from ”community”, Pople and Grigg, both from pro-Industry-biased societies which support and encourage wildlife use. (See David Nicholls’ submission, page 155 of the t-documents) Both are employed to support the kangaroo Industry, both receive funds for assessing the commercial kangaroo kill, wrote the ‘Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia ’'Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use', and Grigg and Pople do the kangaroo counting! They have both been involved in organising a number of kangaroo “conferences” to try to gather community and scientific support for the Industry.

We observe that the document used by the government agencies to support their kangaroo kill, “Commercial Kangaroo Harvesting in Australia” was written by Gregg and Pople. A disclaimer on the front page states that the views in the document are the views of the authors, and may not represent the views of State and Commonwealth governments. In an article inside the document, the authors have claimed the kill is sustainable, and demonstrate enthusiastic support. We submit that this is hardly an independent document, and in view of the controversy and community concern about the kangaroo kill, it is hardly an appropriate document for government to use to defend the Industry.

The remainder of the committee then consists of Forest, Fisheries, Plant Industries, a veterinary representative, and another fish biologist! Of the government Staff, three more fisheries people. For kangaroo management? Who speaks for the kangaroo? Who speaks about the other so-called “sustainable” wildlife harvesting operations around the world, like fishing, where the killed animals have become endangered or extinct?

There is no voice for the welfare of kangaroos, no voice for Tourism and related non-consumptive use, no voice to say that kangaroos should not be killed as a resource because they have intrinsic value, and no voice to speak against the largest and fittest males being singled out by the commercial industry, leaving kangaroo populations a teetering pyramid. This disregard for important stakeholders like the $60 billion nature-based tourism industry, and breaches of ecological and scientific oversight are indeed very serious.

To have such a stacked committee making decisions about Wildlife Use is morally indefensible because it does not permit discussion about other ways we value wildlife.

For years we have called for a truly independent scientific committee on wildlife use, to independently advise the Federal Minister, to be reconstituted. This Scientific Committee should be called Wildlife Protection, not Wildlife Use.

We respectfully submit that the continued use of this biased pro-industry committee fails to meet the requirements, objects, or intentions of the Act, subsection 10, (1B), and Regulation 5, specifically, (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

10. STATE KANGAROO ADVISORY COMMITTEES IGNORE OPPOSTION TO INDUSTRY

NSW and Queensland government kangaroo advisory committees are set up to facilitate the Industry, and have nothing to do with the welfare, or sustained populations of kangaroos. In Queensland, only two delegates represent conservation interests, and one of those publicly supports the commercial kangaroo industry. Repeated requests over many years to have more animal welfare or tourism involvement have been ignored.

I, (Pat O’Brien) sit on the Queensland Kangaroo Management Committee, and have done for several years. I have said publicly many times that the committee has been set up to facilitate the Industry. Of the only two conservation representatives, I am the only one to speak on behalf of the kangaroos. The other “conservation” person supports the Industry. The committee is stacked with Industry and pro kangaroo kill government representatives. Although the Queensland Plan is not the subject of this appeal, we mention this because the NSW Kangaroo Management Committee is even worse.

Maryland Wilson, from the Australian Wildlife Protection Council states that “ I act as the Animal Welfare Representative on the NSW KMAC. To my disappointment and disgust, KMAC takes no responsibility for the welfare of kangaroos or cruelty to them. KMAC acts as a clearinghouse for kangaroo killing. · They issue licences · They issue tags · They do not police the killings at point of slaughter which is where cruelty occurs · They take no notice whatsoever of the welfare of kangaroos”

The NSW NPWS designs their program to accommodate one basic premise…a profitable and on-going commercial kill of kangaroos, regardless of threats to kangaroo populations which they do not want to know about. They are the agents of death. . Nothing else is ever considered, despite our years of trying to make the non-consumptive use of kangaroos with suitable infrastructure, an issue.” End quote. (See Exhibit M)

In previous years, some groups have walked off the NSW Kangaroo Advisory Committee because of its failure to listen, or to accommodate community views.

In NSW the NPWS called for public submissions to the Draft 2002 Kangaroo Management Plan at the UNSW Science Conference which they sponsored. The Plan removed the damage mitigation clause because they said it could not be monitored and audited. Over 80% of public submissions seen by the NSW Advisory Committee were opposed to the Plan. NPWS then ignored all those submissions, and sent the Plan off to the Federal government for rubberstamping. So much for community consultation.

We respectfully suggest that failure to adequately consider the community submissions to the Draft plan, means the Plan fails to meet the objects, intentions, and requirements of the Act, Subsection 10 (1B), and Regulation 5, (a), (c), (d), (e), (f).

HEALTH ISSUES

Kangaroos are shot at night, disembowelled amongst the faeces of other animals on the ground, hung on the side of truck, than driven around for the rest of the night, amongst dust and insects. Eventually they are taken to a chiller box, and held in storage until required. They are then trucked to an abattoirs and processed. There is no inspection before shooting, and ante-mortem inspections are carried out by the shooter in the field. Considerable concerns have been raised about health issues of this game meat. It has been well documented that kangaroo meat carries many diseases and viruses. (Speares and Obendorf) (See Exhibit N) (See the Hon. Richard Jones’ submission, Page 172, dot point 4, t-documents)

In South Australia in 1998, AQIS health official Eddie Andriessen blasted the industry, saying that recent inspections revealed flyblown, dust and dirt contaminated meat being sent to Adelaide for sale. 15 chiller boxes inspected were not up to standard, being unclean, and "uncleanable". The surrounds had roo feet left there from 2 years ago. (Evidence tabled by AQIS at the South Australian Kangaroo Management public meeting, 5th November, 1998)

In Brisbane, a woman who unknowingly consumed undercooked kangaroo meat in a restaurant, contracted toxoplasmosis, and her baby was born blind as a consequence. (Womans Day 16th Oct 1995 "Kangaroo meat blinded my baby") (See David Obendorf, BVSc Hons, B (An) Sc, PhD, The Kangaroo Betrayed, Pages 31, 32, 33.)

Many people have expressed legitimate concerns about the effect of chemicals on kangaroos in areas which have been sprayed for grasshoppers, using Fenitrothion. (See Exhibit Q) Cattle were removed form large areas in NSW, and SA last year because of concerns of chemical residues in meat sold for export. But how do you remove kangaroos from large areas where spraying is occurring. You simply cant. So if beef cattle can have chemical residues in the meat which cause health concerns, so can kangaroos. Yet the government departments have ignored all these health risks.

Further, after 16 years of telling farmers the toxic chemical Fenitrothion is safe, degrades rapidly in the environment, and is readily broken down, Dr David Hunter APLC (Australian Plague Locust Commission) Entomologist, said on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 14 October, 2000 “its use has been restricted due to the “health risks it poses to humans as well as wildlife”.

The Hon. Richard Jones Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) in the New South Wales Parliament asked a series of questions pertaining to kangaroos in the New South Wales Parliament. John Della Bosca New South Wales Member of Parliament answered: “ the affected areas are then quarantined from kangaroo harvesting for a few weeks “

(Earlier the APLC said that there is a 14-21 day withholding period for sheep and cattle but kangaroos are free ranging and their movements could not be controlled. Kangaroos are in the same areas as cattle and sheep. Exhibit Q).

How are they quarantined? Who enforces this quarantine? Are there road blockades? How do they control the movements of kangaroos? Are the kangaroo chillers sealed so they can’t be used during the time they are quarantined? “ (As stated by Mr Della Bosca, MP). We know it is extremely unlikely that any of these preventative measures took place. The NSW NPWS has repeatedly said that health issues were not a concern of theirs, and makes vague comments about a “Memorandum of Understanding with Safe Foods.”

Mr. John Della Bosca, MP stated in Parliament that “ controls are in place by government and the industry to provide assurances that kangaroo meat processed for human consumption and pet food will not be contaminated with organophosphates” His statement rings hollow and simply cannot be true. Again the politicians sweep health issues under the carpet.

“Most Australian scientists and bureauracrats know little or nothing about emerging wildlife diseases. But there are very clear warnings from some eminent scientists.” (Obendorf, Goldsmid, and others.)

State and Federal Governments ignore the health warnings about Game meats. Again we respectfully submit that this management Plan fails to meet the requirements of the Legislation Subsection 10 (1B), and regulation 5, specifically (d)

11. TOURISM VALUES

The commercial kangaroo industry by its own admission is worth $200 million a year. The consumptive tourism Industry is worth $60 billion, according to the Federal Tourism Minister. Dr David Croft has described large mobs of kangaroos as one of the great wildlife experiences that the outback has to offer both domestic and international tourists. Most tourists who travel the outback lament about how few kangaroos they saw, and "most of them were road kills." Dr Croft believes that a sound tourism strategy would promote viewing of large mobs of kangaroos and associated fauna as a world class wildlife experience. (See the Kangaroo Betrayed, Exhibit A)

Government agencies, in ignoring this non-lethal non-consumptive option, and opting for, encouraging and supporting a commercial kill, we believe have directly breached the requirements of the Act, Regulation 5, (f) and Subsection 10(1B) (c).

12. INDUSTRY FEEDS FERAL ANIMALS

Remains of kangaroos are left on the ground to provide food for feral pigs and wild dogs. These animals also have a significant impact on other native species, both fauna and flora. Pigs have also been known to eat newly–born lambs. Instead of erecting adequate fences around lambing paddocks, farmers then use 1080 poison in an attempt to control them. 1080 also kills native animals, with many reports of non-target wildlife deaths, and as a consequence, a National Chemical Registration Authority review is currently being held into the use of 1080. As a result of 1080 use impacting on native species, and feeding and sustaining exotic animal populations, such as pigs, cats, and foxes, the commercial kangaroo Industry not only impacts on kangaroo populations, but on other native species as well, and also on the protection of bio-diversity. This in itself is in breach of our International Treaties, and of government policy referred to earlier. (See photos, Exhibit D)

Over 11,000 species threatened with extinction have crowded onto the World Conservation Union's latest "Red List", including 116 types of primate. The 2000 Red List, released recently by the IUCN-World Conservation Union, identifies 18,276 endangered species worldwide, but warns the number is conservative because many categories such as amphibians, fish and plants are not yet fully assessed. The United States tops the list for total threatened species with 998, followed by Malaysia with 805, Indonesia with 763, Brazil with 609 and Australia with 524. The ranking’s, however, in part reflect the bias of modern scientific study, which until recent decades has been concentrated in Western nations. The IUCN notes most tropical rainforest species are yet to be identified, let alone have their status assessed. Indonesia has the highest number of threatened birds and animals - the best documented groups - at 140 and 113 respectively. Australia has 63 mammals and 35 birds on the slide to extinction. These include Gilbert's potoroo in Western Australia, Victoria's eastern barred bandicoots, trout cod, orange bellied parrots, Regent honeyeaters and the grassland plant curly sedge. Since white settlement, Australia is known to have lost 23 birds, 19 mammals and 64 plants. According to the Red List, human activity has been responsible. The IUCN notes that it is likely that the Australian figures are extremely conservative, as not enough data is available to accurately assess the abundance, or otherwise, of many species. (IUCN Press release)

We respectfully submit that this lack of appropriate management and effective disposal of body parts and offal, also fails to meet the requirements of subsection 10 (1B), (c), and the Regulations, 5, (c) and (f).

14. Five Year Plan.

Throughout the Submissions from the community, much concern was raised about the use of a five year Plan. Respondents noted that 5 years was too long to be able to act on outbreaks of disease, or unforeseen population diminishment. (See the Hon. Richard Jones’ submission, Page 172, dot point 4, t-documents) The NSW NPWS responded by claiming that audits and reviews would be undertaken to ensure the Program was sustainable, and that quotas would be adjusted yearly if necessary. We have shown many times over that the NSW NPWS does not now listen to the community, and is unlikely to have funding to do adequate, competent, and professional audits anyway, so its difficult to believe that appropriate audits and reviews would be undertaken. Kangaroo Management Plans should be for 12 months only.

15. Summary.

We note that in the transcript of a Fund for Animals appeal to the AAT in 1985, No.N85/229 AAT No 2692, in Para 64, the members noted; “The correspondence before the Tribunal, leading up to the approval of the management program in 1984 and again in 1985, gives the impression that the ANPWS {now Environment Australia}, (and indeed also the QNPWS) were concerned only to get some document formally approved by a given date to enable the culling of kangaroos and export of kangaroo products to continue. Save as to one aspect, considered at length in paragraphs 67 and following, infra, they were not very much concerned as to the actual content of the document”. End quote.

And again, in Para 66 of the same document, “Even granted the complexities of administration of Commonwealth-State relations, the conclusion is inescapable that the ANPWS appear to have adopted the attitude that neither the content of the management program, nor the formalities of approval of the management program, nor, more recently, the requirements of the AAT Act or of the Tribunal (as to which see paragraphs 24-29 supra), were matters which required its serious attention. To an extent, this attitude derives from the underlying assumption described in paragraph 51 supra, that nothing has really changed with the introduction of the Wildlife Act. Having reached this conclusion, the Tribunal, in considering the submission by the applicant that "The Minister was not, or ought not to have been satisfied as to the matters set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section 5(1) of the Regulations", (a submission which is discussed at length in paragraphs 112 and following, infra) is put upon its enquiry as to whether, in advising the Minister as to the approval of the management program, the ANPWS regarded the matters set out in the regulation as worthy of serious consideration.” End quote. As we have commented previously, nothing has changed. In the year 2002, this cavalier attitude persists throughout the government Departments.

In the United States, kangaroos had been listed for many years on the Threatened Species List, under US legislation. Australian conservation and animal welfare groups fought tenaciously, with very limited funds, to keep them on the List. After heavy lobbying by Australian rural politicians and Industry groups, the kangaroos were taken off the Threatened Species list in 1995. There was then no requirement to comply with any US management plan, and Environment Australia (then Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service) had no requirement to develop plans which would need to be approved by the United States government.

Any real effort to produce comprehensive, or even adequate plans, was gradually dispensed with. We are now presented with a slim Kangaroo Management Plan, which has ignored public comment, and not changed in any way from the original Draft. It is very clear that the NSW NPWS had no intention of changing the original Draft. There is no doubt about this. The Draft was developed “ in house ”, to suit bureauracratic and political objectives only, and we have conclusively shown that there was no intention of altering it to comply with community, legal, or environmental concerns. The “Plan” consists of 17 pages. Only 17 pages, in a Plan specifically required by State and Federal law. A Plan to manage an Industry which is cruel, controversial, has broad community opposition, significantly impacts on other native species, is financially propped up by the taxpayer, and is well-known internationally as the worst land wildlife massacre anywhere in the world!

To comply with the intent and objects of the legislation, we submit that the Plan should include; full details of the counting process, including the methodology, who does the counting, who pays for it, what techniques are used, how the species were visually separated during the aerial surveys, and full details of any ground truthing undertaken. The Plan should also incorporate community considerations and comments. It should include all details of how kangaroos are transported from point of kill to processing plants, including how animals are separated for human or pet consumption, and how long animals remain stored in outback chiller boxes. Every thing about the killing, skinning, transport, end processing should be included. The Plan should be extensive and wholly transparent, and be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Anything less is not a Plan, but a statement of intent to kill kangaroos.

The Plan should include full and complete details and costings of any proposed audits and/or reviews. It should include a full and complete description of the commercial Industry, including the data obtained from the previous years’ kill. This data should include all figures relating to age, sex, and weight, of all animals received by the processing plants. Everything relating to the Plan should be transparent, to satisfy community concern, and the intent and requirements of the Legislation. It should include the total cost to the taxpayer of the commercial kill management program. Any and all budgets should be included, also those of any other department which is involved in any “Memorandums of Understanding”. The Plan should clearly demonstrate, without any doubt, that the commercial kangaroo kill is ecologically sustainable, as required by law, and government Policy.

The Plan talks blithely of a TAFE course for shooters, but no detail is given. There is no information as to wether TAFE teaches them to shoot, write legibly, drive a 4-wheel drive vehicle, or sharpen an axe. The Plan is very vague about adaptive management “experiments”, and gives no details of proposals. It talks about ”special quotas” but gives no details, other than vague statements about “climatic” trends, “local” conditions, and “exceptional” conditions, but fails to determine what those statements mean in real terms. All these details should have been included.

The Plan should include detailed processes to satisfactorily and genuinely include community input into the ”audits” and “reviews”. Full details of any “Memorandums of Understanding” with other government agencies should be included, together with budgets, and in detail.

The Plan talks vaguely about community participation, but we have shown clear and conclusive evidence, many times throughout our submission, that the NSW NPWS has no intention of listening to, or seriously considering, any public comment. We have shown that the so-called Advisory Committees are nothing more than a farce, a placebo, an attempt to delude the public that an adequate consultation process is in place.

We have demonstrated that the Plan is a disgrace, and we believe it fails to comply with the objects and intent of the Legislation. This is not a plan, it is a statement of support for the commercial kangaroo kill. The Plan is a dismal and poorly constructed attempt to provide some legality and credibility to the commercial kangaroo kill.

We believe we have shown clear and compelling evidence throughout our submission, that NSW NPWS had no intention of considering community views. We submit we have shown clearly that the Federal government department, Environment Australia, has not properly and lawfully considered the many issues associated with this Plan, and in many such matters has failed to comply with the Legislation. We have shown that the Federal Minister has merely rubber-stamped the NSW NPWS Plan, without considering public comment, and should not have approved the Plan, pursuant to Subsection 28 (1). We have clearly demonstrated that the paucity of adequate information and detail in the Plan is symptomatic of the contempt that the authors of the Plan have for the law, the community and their concerns, the natural environment, and for the kangaroos themselves.

We respectfully submit to the Tribunal that for decades, really nothing has changed within the government departments, except the name of those departments. The same attitude that the AAT previously noted was so apparent in 1985, still exists today, in the year 2002. The departments running the kangaroo kills are a pro-wildlife use and abuse bureauracracy, which have no leadership or morality, are unelected, largely unaccountable, out of control, in contempt of the broader community views, and of the law itself.

Most Australians are under the impression that Environment Australia and each of the State Wildlife Authorities protect our wildlife. We have shown that nothing could be further from the truth. NPWS and Government Wildlife Agencies such as Environment Australia are pro-kangaroo industry and DO NOT PROTECT, nor conserve, kangaroos; they promote the kangaroo industry; they oversee the kangaroo killing zones and monitor the kangaroo industry; they set quotas to kill kangaroos; they act as agents for issuing killing tags; they are apologists for the kangaroo killing industry.

We respectfully submit to the Tribunal that we believe our submission has presented ample evidence and argument, to support our contention that the NSW Kangaroo Management Program 2002 should be set aside, on the grounds that the Minister was not, or should not have been, satisfied as to the matters prescribed in Section 10(B), of the Act, and regulation 5, of the Regulations.

End Primary Submission, our Statement of Issues. Pat O’Brien

Click here to return to the Kangaroo Home page!