Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report

Introduction

1.1The Australian brumby is an important icon of Australian culture[1] - celebrated in verse by Banjo Patterson, and featuring in the 2000 Sydney Olympics opening ceremony, Elyne Mitchell’s The Silver Brumby series and the iconic film The Man from Snowy River. Within the Australian Alps, brumbies have also co-existed with humans, and a multitude of other animal and plant species, for over 200 years. By complete contrast, in the course of this Inquiry and in the Majority Report, the Australian brumby has instead been routinely depicted as a pest inflicting undesirable and untold damage throughout the region.

1.2The inquiry process and the Majority Report have repeatedly relied upon troubling methodology and anecdotal data. In a number of respects, we believe that this has overplayed the brumbies’ environmental impact and has failed to pay due regard to the views and evidence of those whose chief (and very worthy) concern is the welfare of the brumbies.

1.3To make matters worse, there has been staunch disagreement between some committee members and the relevant Federal Environment Minister, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP regarding public interest immunity over Commonwealth regulation-making powers and related constitutional matters under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in relation to brumby management.

1.4It should also be noted that the public hearings for this inquiry were staged over only two days – and that this led to multiple concerns over the treatment and time afforded to the pro-brumby advocates who attended to present evidence.Many of these witnesses were sufficiently moved to subsequently contact the Committee with a series of questions and concerns over why they were not provided with the same opportunities, respect and consideration in the provision of their evidence that they felt was afforded to other witnesses. In their view, witnesses such as Dr David Berman had their credibility and qualifications extensively questioned rather than being subjected to probative questioning within the scope of the Terms of Reference for the inquiry.

1.5We also share the view that substantially lower levels of time and respect were afforded to pro-brumby advocates relative to other witnesses. Unfortunately, we also therefore do not regard it as an epiphany or even as a surprise that the content of the Majority Report has fallen strongly on the side of those witnesses advocating for significant brumby culling.

Methodology/Data Reliability

1.6The inadequacies of the available data on brumby populations and their impact, and indeed the methods of the collection of that data were raised by Australian brumby advocates throughout this inquiry. Foremost among these were the concerns raised by Ms Galea[2] and Dr Berman[3] regarding the implausible data that was provided regarding population estimates, and was supported by concerns regarding the methodology and findings by the University of St Andrews.[4]

1.7Ms Galea questioned the reliability of cluster size collection with many of the clusters provided by Cairns (2019) being well below the 60-80 number required for reliable modelling of the detection function (Buckland et al, 2001). Further concerns were raised in the Cairns estimates as samples were combined, and the range of cluster size was 1-28 with a cluster being more than 1. The use of this cluster methodology is not best practice and does not allow for a determination of a reliable population estimate of Australian brumbies.

1.8Further studies, including longitudinal studies, be undertaken using an agreed method of collection across three time periods to meet the requirements of complex statistical modelling techniques.

1.9We also question the reliability of some of the data presented in this report, including ‘figure 2.2 Distribution of feral horses in Australia, 2000’ due to its lack of currency. In this particular case, we find it difficult to believe that there is much relevance to data from 23 years prior to the current inquiry.

1.10In our view, the Majority Report also does not adequately examine horse gestation periods and the impact of environmental events, and rate of increase discrepancies such as environmental impacts and amendments to Park Management Plans on population estimates. Similarly, there has been little to no consideration of studying the efficacy of the intervention of stockmen and locals to control the Australian brumby population using methods developed over time such as trapping and ‘brumby running’.[5]

1.11 Further studies be undertaken on alternative options to contribute to the control and reduction of Australian brumby populations.

1.12The estimates of Australian brumby numbers in the Alps provided throughout the inquiry are varied, with many questioning the reliability of collection and accuracy of the numbers reported. The lack of a scientifically credible population estimate has led to confusion and the conflation of data and concerns over the unreliability of the models presented.

1.13Ms Galea expressed concern as there was no significant increase in the overall population of Australian brumbies from 2020 (12,511 Australian brumbies) to 2022 (12,774 Australian brumbies).[6] This does not equate with the Majority Report’s claims that numbers are increasing at 15 to 20 per cent each year, rather a 3 per cent increase over 2 years. An independent study to identify accurate methods of data collection would create a better and stronger baseline for future work.

1.14We dispute the validity of the claim that feral horse populations in the Australian Alps are rapidly increasing at a rate of 15 to 20 per cent per annum as this data was provided in 2011,[7] and since this date the Australian Alps have been subject to various Management Plans,[8] impacted by a number of natural disasters which would have severely reduced the reproductive abilities of the Australian brumby herds,[9] as well as the rate of increases of such herds.

1.15The RSPCA recommends that an impact evaluation be conducted considering various species and their impacts on the Australian Alps.[10] The Australian Brumby Alliance supports this position and would like to see native species counts conducted using dung counts adjusted to decay results and repeat for introduced species. Ensuring these studies relate to specific species and measuring both the positive and negative impacts of species on the Australian Alps will provide a more holistic overview of the health and sustainability of the region.

1.16The Brumby Action Group has called for a population count of Australian brumbies living in the Australian Alps using a methodology other than computer distance modelling to ensure an accurate and real number be established.[11]

1.17Impact evaluation studies be conducted on the impact, both positive and negative, of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps instead of focusing on the raw numbers.

1.18Study on population of Australian brumbies be undertaken using reliable methodology with a higher rate of accuracy with evaluations after 3 and 6 years.

1.19Federal funding options be considered for the use of drones to aid in the population counts and the delivery of their management plans.

1.20When discussing the numbers and the rate of removal of brumbies from the Australian Alps, many who presented evidence were supportive of number reduction as swiftly as possible. However, the major source of disagreement relates to the numbers of brumbies present in the Australian Alps.[12]

Aerial culling and non-lethal control methods

1.21We have no issue with aerial culling as a means for feral animal control; however, this means of culling is currently precluded under the 2021 NSW Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan (Kosciuszko Management Plan) and should not be considered as a means to control Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps until all other control methods have been adequately employed, together with studies conducted to determine an accurate number of Australian brumbies in this region.Non-lethal controls should be continuously monitored and evaluated for effectiveness and consultation be conducted for efficacy.

1.22There are various control techniques available for the management of Australian brumby numbers, including fertility control, mustering and trapping, exclusion fencing and ground culling. The RSPCA submits that aerial culling is significantly less humane than other methods in the Relative Humaneness Matrix for Feral Horses matrix,[13]however this matrix does not consider control methods such as roping, loading and transport to abattoirs or for domestication, fertility control or exclusion fencing.Further research needs to be undertaken regarding control methods.

1.23Brumby rehoming organisations made many submissions relating to the positive outcomes when rehoming Australian brumbies after capture.Consideration should be given to developing a best practice to capture, transport and provide funding to these organisations who work to rehome the Australian brumby. Funding and support may also be considered to support organisations to develop brumby rehoming infrastructure[14] close to the Australian Alps, thereby minimising any stress from transport following capture.

1.24Save the Brumbies have had success with their adoption program which has seen more than 400 Australian brumbies successfully rehomed.With adequate funding and support for these rehoming organisations, a reliable rehoming program could be developed as a non-lethal reduction control for the Australian brumbies. In our view, the feasibility of all non-lethal methods must continue to be explored before lethal control methods are considered.

1.25In order for aerial culling to be even considered a humane practice, there needs to be optimal conditions.Professional shooters whose skills are better the gold medal Olympian shooters, optimum terrain and visibility. Aerial shooting is currently available for pigs and deer in New South Wales, however the current NSW Management Plan prohibits aerial culling of the Australian brumby.

1.26Ground shooting is seen as a preferred alternative to aerial culling and does not require a helicopter to run down the Australian brumby for extended periods of time and would have increased accuracy. The RSPCA and the Australian Veterinary Association discussed levels of humane pursuit times of Australian brumbies.[15]Four minutes is considered a humane period of time to run down horses whilst aerial shooting from a helicopter, with pursuit times of up to 11 minutes recorded.Whilst horses can move at speeds up to 75km/hr, this may not be sustainable across challenging terrain and whilst mares are pregnant or with foals at foot.

1.27Based on the evidence provided, we do not agree with complete removal of the Australian brumby from the Australian Alps, however we do support the recommendations to reduce these numbers to retain genetically and environmentally safe Australian brumby levels.[16] There is an enhanced community concern when it comes to the treatment of animals that can also be domestic pets, such as horses, cats and dogs and the community is generally not supportive of the shooting of these animals as evidenced by the culling of the Australian brumbies at Guy Fawkes River National Park in 2000.

1.28The RSPCA submitted that studies should be undertaken to study the welfare of trapped horses as this is not widely known. The Invasive Species Council suggested that rounding up the Australian brumbies in shooting corrals would also achieve a large number reduction, however raised concerns over the public perception of this practice. Further research should be undertaken on the best welfare practices for the treatment and the reduction of numbers of Australian brumbies.If non-lethal alternatives are not adequately considered, there will be a continued reliance on lethal outcomes.

1.29Greater investment in developing and refining humane non-lethal methods for the reduction of numbers of Australian brumbies.

1.30Support be given to the current NSW policy for number reduction as outlined in the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan.

1.31The Federal Government should offer the NSW Government additional funding to support control methods, provided they do not take up aerial culling.

Environmental impacts

1.32Based on the evidence provided throughout this hearing, the Australian brumby is widely depicted as the most significant risk to various animals and plants within the Australian Alps.Yet this view does not sufficiently consider the rates of disease such as Amphibian Chytrid Fungus within populations of frog species such as the Corroboree frog,[17] with the risk of extinction instead being ascribed largely to the hard-hooved Australian brumby.

1.33There is considerable evidence in the public domain that outlines that horse tracks are damaging for grasses and various species of animals. However, the tracks and damage created by SnowyHydro 2.0, bike tracks, alpine ski infrastructure and vehicles has not been considered as part of this inquiry.Further study into the impacts of the damage caused to habitats and structures, and how this relates to the damage specifically caused by Australian brumbies, should be undertaken.The impact of introduced trout in the waterways of the Australian Alps on endangered species should also be taken into account for future examination of impacts to the Australian Alps.

1.34The limited mapping provided shows significant endangered species habitats outside the horse retention zones and doesn’t warrant the eradication of the Australian Brumby from the entire park.[18]

Legal powers of the Commonwealth, States and Territories – and the Albanese Government’s inaction

1.35Despite the Committee providing an extension of time to her, Minister Plibersek refused to provide details of the legal advice received by Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water regarding Commonwealth regulation-making powers on brumby management and related constitutional matters under the EPBC Act. However, she did indicate that the ‘Commonwealth is restricted from imposing obligations on states without their consent.’The Minister asserted that the full text of this advice could not be released as it ‘would be against the public interest and breach established convention…’ and despite the Committee’s best efforts to reiterate that the Senate had resolved that this was not grounds for claiming public interest immunity, the Minister opted not to provide this legal advice to the Senate.

1.36It therefore appears that the Albanese Government’s philosophy is that the Commonwealth has no legal method to take over responsibility for park management from the states and territories. Notwithstanding that there are many differences in their approaches, methods and beliefs, the states and territories impacted by Australian brumbies variously maintain control over their National Parks and the development of any management plans for the control of numbers of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps.

1.37Legal advice be sought regarding Commonwealth regulation-making powers and related constitutional matters under the EPBC Act.

1.38This approach of the Albanese Government seems to be a continuation not only of its broader inability to embrace serious reform and to make difficult decisions – but also its unwillingness to continue the hard work that had already been undertaken by the former Coalition Government.

1.39After her nearly 18 months as the Federal Environment and Water Minister, there is now a widespread view that Minister Plibersek has little interest in making meaningful and beneficial changes.

1.40This has been particularly true of her approach to her long-flagged changes to national environmental laws. Despite much rhetoric about the apparent urgency of these changes, and a promise (in her ‘Nature Positive Plan’ document of 8 December 2022) that ‘a package of new national environmental legislation will be prepared in the first six months of 2023’, there is still no sign of any such package.

1.41In the area of brumby control, she has shown equally little appetite to act.

1.42Tellingly, at the inquiry hearing of 23 August, DCCEEW officials were asked by Senator Hughes if they could nominate even one specific action that the Minister has taken to reduce feral horse activity and populations, especially in the context of her 2022 pledge to achieve zero plant and animal extinctions.More than once, they were unable to identify anything other than the formation of another bureaucratic body.

1.43Similarly, despite DCCEEW officials’ reluctance to initially directly answer Senator David Pocock’s questions about differences between funding for brumby management under Minister Plibersek and the former Coalition Environment Minister, the Hon Sussan Ley MP, the true answer eventually emerged in the answer to Question on Notice IQ23-000253.[19] This showed that the former Coalition Government provided $1,530,000 of such funding, but that the Albanese Government has allocated only $200,000 in new money.

1.44That answer to Question on Notice IQ23-000253 has also cast very serious doubts on a claim made by Minister Plibersek, in a letter of 10 October 2023 to the Committee, that her government has ‘provided over $2 million to the states and territory for feral horse control’.

Murray Darling Basin Authority

1.45We find the recommendations regarding the Murray Darling Basin Authority concerning as they propose the authority undertake work that is not part of their core responsibilities.

1.46The Murray Darling Basin Authority is not a catchment management authority, and these recommendations only serve to give more work to the Murray Darling Basin Authority outside their core responsibilities at a time when they should be focusing on delivering on their core responsibilities.The state and territory catchment authorities are already empowered to undertake research of this nature and these recommendations are the Commonwealth extending themselves into areas that already have a designated authority.

Conclusion

1.47The 2021 Kosciuszko Management Plan has a number of safeguards in place to ensure the welfare of the Australian brumby is considered, such as no aerial culling.

1.48Whilst it is noted that there is momentum and shared commitment across the four relevant governments, this is ultimately a state/territory issue and there is no legal basis for the Commonwealth to be involved in this issue without the consent of the States or Territories, other than an advisory capacity and this inquiry is an exercise to extend the powers of various Commonwealth agencies rather than focus on the impact and management of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps.

1.49Based on the submissions and the evidence presented, there is a clear desire for pro-brumby advocates to work with the state and territory governments to develop an agreeable action plan relating to the control of Australian brumby numbers in the Australian Alps, however this is not reciprocated by the government departments and anti-brumby groups.The concerns raised by biostatistician, Ms Galea, and other reputable parties brings the data provided into dispute and effort should be made to examine how data is collected without bias and the obstinate belief that the data provided should be enough.

1.50We agree that the impacts of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps should be minimised and managed, but we do not accept the data provided in this report and would request that further studies and community consultation be undertaken to ensure an accurate snapshot of the numbers of Australian brumbies there.

1.51Once population numbers of Australian brumbies are determined, and best practice methods implemented to reach the target and numbers are stabilised, a process of impact control could be used as a process to determine areas for reduction.Further studies into the positive and negative impacts of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps are required before lethal control methods are employed on a widespread basis.

1.52It is worth observing, of course, that one point that has universal agreement is that the impact of brumbies on the Australian Alps is an emotive subject. Passionate arguments are evident on all sides of this very difficult and complex topic. Efforts should be made to mediate between parties to have respectful conversations and interactions.

Senator Hollie HughesSenator Ross Cadell

MemberMember

Footnotes

[1]Brumby Action Group, Submission 71, p. 17.

[2]Ms Claire Galea, Submission 801.

[3]Dr David Berman, Submission 602.

[4]Ms Claire Galea, Submission 801, p. 15.

[5]NSW Government, Submission 361, p. 4.

[6]Ms Claire Galea, Submission 801, p. 13.

[7]See: Professor Don White, Submission 17, p. 5; DSWEPC, Feral horse and donkey fact sheet, 2011.

[8]2021 Koscuiszko National Park Wild Horse Management Plan (NSW); Namadgi National Park Feral Horse Management Plan 2020 (ACT); Feral Horse Action Plan 2021 (Vic).

[9]NSW Government, Submission 361, p. 3.

[10]RSPCA, Submission 84, p. 14.

[11]Brumby Action Group, Submission 71, p. 17.

[12]RSPCA, Submission 84, p. 6.

[13]RSPCA, Submission 84, p. 6.

[14]Save the Brumbies Inc., Supplementary to Submission 3.2.

[15]Dr Michael Banyard, Conservation Biology Special Interest Group Representative, Australian Veterinary Association, Proof Committee Hansard 23 August 2023, p. 11; Dr Dianne Evans, Senior Scientific Officer, RSPCA Australia, Proof Committee Hansard 23 August 2023, p. 11.

[16]Name Withheld, Submission 14, p. 2.

[17]Dr David Berman, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 September 2023, p. 17.

[18]Deakin University, answers to questions on notice, 7 September 2023 (received 18 September).

[19]DCCEEW, answers to questions on notice, 23 August 2023 (received 6 September 2023).