Latest news with #TonyPerrett
ABC News
31-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Conservationists say they have been shut out of plans for Queensland state forests as government consults industry
Conservationists say they have been shut out of planning for the future of Queensland state forests, as the government develops a 25-year plan for the timber industry. The LNP made a pre-election pledge to deliver a Queensland Future Timber Plan (QFTP) in its first year in government, which will be up in October. Premier David Crisafulli has promised to give the forestry industry consistency in order to build one million homes by 2044. The Timber Supply Chain Ministerial Roundtable made up of forestry, housing and agricultural industry bodies met for the first time in May. In contrast, the previous government's advisory panel had scientists, First Nations leaders and conservationists, in addition to industry representatives. Andrew Picone from Pew Charitable Trusts, who was a member of that group, said conservationists were miffed by their exclusion. "At the moment the decision is being made between the timber industry and Queensland government, and we don't feel that is the right approach, it's certainly not transparent," he said. "We're talking about three million hectares of public native forests." Minister for Primary Industries Tony Perrett said QFTP was "future-proofing the forest sector after the former Labor government plan was never delivered". 'This industry roundtable is contributing to a draft of the Queensland Future Timber Plan which will be released for wide-ranging and open public consultation," he said. Mr Picone said Queensland had a history of collaboration between conservationists and the forestry industry. The South-East Queensland Forestry Agreement, made in 1999 by the Beatty Labor government, is an example of that collaboration, with all sides agreeing native hardwood forestry would end in most state forests south of Gladstone by the end of 2024. That agreement was altered in 2019 by Annastacia Palaszczuk to only cease native hardwood logging in forests south of Noosa in 2024, and to extend logging north to Gladstone until at least 2026. Mr Picone said he worried the new government's process left the door open to further water down the 1999 agreement. "The Queensland government isn't ruling out opening up areas we thought they were finished with — opening them back up to logging. So we're quite concerned about that," he said. The chief executive of Queensland's oldest conservation group, National Parks Association Queensland, Chris Thomas, said "changing positions and backflips" by consecutive state governments had "created animosity" between conservationists and the logging industry. "I think the relationship is getting harder and more adversarial the longer this goes on," he said. The state's peak body for forestry and logging, Timber Queensland, which is part of the government's roundtable, declined to comment, instead pointing to a press release from May. The release said the QFTP would "remove barriers and pave the way for sustained growth" of the industry. "We look forward to working on a bold plan that delivers policy certainty to increase sustainable production while at the same time safeguarding the environment," chief executive Mick Stephens said at the time. "The assumption that harvesting timber from native forests is necessarily harmful to biodiversity is not correct." Mr Picone said 50,000 hectares of state forest, south of Noosa, where logging ceased in 2024 is "in limbo" while the government makes a decision on its future. The Pew Charitable Trust and other groups are calling for those forests to receive various levels of protected land status to ensure logging cannot resume there in the future. "If it's not going to be part of the logging schedule — which it shouldn't be, it's close to population bases, there are a lot of recreational uses for these areas — then we think there ought to be a public process to determine the best use for those areas," he said.
Sky News AU
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Queensland LNP government says Labor's 'lacklustre' approach to eradicating fire ants fuels major spread south of the border
The Crisafulli government has slammed the opposition for allowing Queensland's fire ants problem to spread from the Sunshine State into the northern rivers' region of New South Wales. Fire ants are an invasive species which are believed to have entered Australia in shipping containers from America, while the spread in Queensland is understood to have kicked off in Brisbane in 2001. They have been known to affect agricultural areas, with studies from the United States revealing a 35 per cent reduction in potato yield in Florida, and a 65 per cent reduction in corn yield in Mississippi. They can affect more than 50 agricultural and horticultural crops, as well as turf and nursery species. All are grown in Australia, in areas which fire ants could inhabit with fears the species could damage and kill some plants by tunnelling through roots and stems. The Crisafulli government is now ramping up eradication efforts from a seasonal approach to a new year-round treatment in three regions. The treatment will take place in Somerset, Lockyer Valley and Scenic Rim regions, which follows scientific trials conducted by the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. The program will then move east towards the southern Gold Coast, where warmer temperatures persist for a longer period. 'The era of Labor's lacklustre go-slow approach to fire ants is over and we are meeting this challenge with all the resources available,' Minister for Primary Industries Tony Perrett said. 'The research-based treatment all year round could change the game for the National Fire Ant Eradication Program and puts Queensland in a very exciting position to have the best chance to eradicate fire ants from Australia by 2032', he said. 'We are listening to the most cutting-edge science, and we are implementing key recommendations from multiple scathing reports that Labor ignored during their decade in power." The ants are known to have a painful bite and adapted to life in Australia through the lack of natural predators and the warm sub-tropical climate. The Invasive Species Council said more than 97 per cent of Australia is a suitable climate for fire ants. They could inhabit almost the entire continent except for the most extreme, coldest locations. According to the National fire ant eradication program, the invasive species have been detected across mainland Australia barring Tasmania.
Forbes
02-06-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Experts Question Queensland's New Shark Control Strategy
The Queensland government has identified potential locations for its expanded shark control program, ... More based on the presence of Surf Life Saving Queensland and data reflecting beach use. Queensland's Shark Control Program is about to undergo its most significant expansion in decades, with the state government pledging nearly $90 million to install new shark nets, increase the number of drumlines and broaden the reach of drone patrols along the coastline. The move comes amid growing public concern about unprovoked shark bites, especially during peak swimming seasons. 'Today's announcement is big and bold, it puts swimmer safety first,' Minister for Primary Industries Tony Perrett said. 'I have said time and time again, the best science must inform our actions when it comes to [the Department of Agriculture and] However, the plan has sparked immediate backlash from scientists, conservationists and environmental law experts, who say the expansion could do more harm than good to both marine life and public safety. Dr Daryl McPhee, an Associate Professor of Environmental Science at Bond University and one of the country's foremost experts on shark-human interactions, voiced skepticism about the effectiveness of the program during an interview on 4BC Breakfast: 'Regardless of how much the government spends and what it does, there are still likely to be unprovoked shark bites in Queensland waters. […] We have a lot of sharks and a lot of people going in the water.' Shark nets and drumlines have been used in Queensland since the 1960s, with the aim of the nets being to reduce the local population of large, potentially dangerous sharks (primarily tiger sharks and bull sharks) in areas popular with swimmers and surfers. Yet the effectiveness of these methods has been repeatedly questioned. While nets and drumlines may give beachgoers a sense of security, there is limited scientific evidence showing they reduce the overall risk of shark bites. In fact, many shark incidents in Australia have happened at netted beaches. And Sea Shepherd has warned that the planned upgrades could breach national environmental protections. 'Under Section 43B(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, any enlargement or intensification of the Queensland Shark Control Program could be deemed illegal,' Sea Shepard Australia's Jonathan Clark said. This is because current methods like gill nets and baited drumlines often catch more than just the targeted sharks. Non-target species such as dolphins, turtles, rays and even endangered sharks frequently get entangled or killed by these devices. 'These lethal methods don't protect people … Minister Perrett is ignoring the science, legal risks, and public safety, while intensifying a program that should have been phased out years ago. We need to have the shark nets removed, the drumlines ultimately have to go, and we have to get into the modern ideas of using that technology such as drones, shark barriers, and really good public education.' The government is expanding the shark control program in a bid to protect swimmers and uphold ... More Queensland's reputation as a tourism destination. The state government has defended its investment, arguing that the expansion is about using 'every available tool' to keep the public safe. But critics argue that such measures divert attention and resources from alternative strategies that could be more effective and environmentally responsible. Modern drone patrols have been one of the more promising tools added in recent years. Drones allow lifeguards to scan for sharks in real time, alerting people on the beach or in the water if a large animal is detected. However, even drones have limitations. Cloudy skies, rough surf and limited battery life can all reduce their effectiveness. And like any surveillance technology, they rely heavily on well-trained operators and rapid response protocols. Education campaigns, personal shark deterrents like electric anklets and improved signage at high-risk beaches are also often pointed to as lower-impact ways to manage human-shark interactions. The tension between public safety and environmental conservation is not unique to Queensland, but the scale of the planned investment and the potential for legal conflict makes this a notable strike agaisnst shark conservation in the country. If Sea Shepherd goes ahead and sues the state for environmental breaches (which it says isn't out of the question), Queensland may find itself forced to scale back or alter its strategy to comply with national law. This situation is just the latest example of just how complex and contentious shark control has become in an era where both beach safety and biodiversity are high public priorities. In the end, the key question remains: will nearly $90 million worth of nets, drumlines and drones actually make Queensland's waters safer? Or are we spending millions on an illusion of control in a wild ocean we don't fully understand? While public demand for visible shark control measures is understandable, science suggests that no approach will fully eliminate risk. As Dr McPhee pointed out, 'We have a lot of sharks and a lot of people going in the water.' Perhaps the most realistic strategy moving forward is one that accepts some level of risk, prioritizes coexistence and focuses on reducing harm to people and the ocean as a whole.
The Guardian
31-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Gut punch': top shark expert quits Queensland advisory panel after LNP expands cull program
One of Australia's leading shark researchers has resigned from his position of almost eight years advising the Queensland shark control program, as members of that scientific working group say they were 'shocked' and sidelined by the state government's decision to expand the lethal control of sharks. Announcing an $88m shark management plan overhaul which would see shark nets and baited drum lines designed to kill target shark species rolled out at more beaches, and existing drum lines used more intensely, the primary industries minister, Tony Perrett, claimed this week that the Liberal National party's strategy was backed by research. 'I have said time and time again; the best science must inform our actions when it comes to Fisheries,' Perrett said on Sunday. But the expansion of the state's shark cull was slammed by conservation groups such as Australian Marine Conservation Society as an 'outdated' and 'unscientific' approach that 'does nothing to improve beach safety'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Amid the noisy backlash this week, marine science professor Colin Simpfendorfer quietly handed in his resignation from the scientific working group to Perrett. Simpfendorfer had been a member of the advisory body since its inception in 2017 and is regarded as one of the country's foremost shark experts, having served as the co-chair of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission's (IUCN SSC) shark specialist group. He declined to comment. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, however, several members of the working group said they advised against the expansion of lethal control and were not informed of the LNPs plans to do so until days before they were announced. 'Everyone was shocked and everyone was pretty upset that there wasn't consultation,' one working group member said. 'We were told there was something coming and it was postponed and postponed and postponed. We kind of had the feeling that it was going to be bad … but it was a gut punch.' AMCS shark scientist and campaigner Dr Leonardo Guida said Simpfendorfer was 'unequivocally' Australia's most renowned and respected shark scientist. 'I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that Colin is, not just Australia's best and most respected and well known shark scientist but, even globally, he is up there at the top,' he said. Guida said he would like to sincerely thank Simpfendorfer for his expertise and service in the 'undoubtedly very challenging role' of providing scientific advice to 'what is essentially a state sanctioned marine cull of sharks'. 'As to what his resignation says, only a matter of days after Queensland's announcement to extend the shark cull, my interpretation of that would be that the Queensland government has made a decision that is no longer in line with scientific advice and recommendation,' Guida said. 'That this is a clear departure from scientific advice itself'. Several sources said that in its nearly eight years the working group had been successful in getting 'more science into decision making' around shark management in Queensland and in moving from lethal to non-lethal shark control – but that Sunday's announcement marked a 'philosophical' shift from the top. Some attributed the shift to pressure from commercial and recreational anglers who report increasingly having fish taken from their lines by sharks. Many scientists agree this behaviour – known as shark depredation – is on the rise in many places around the world, though none spoken to for this article believe that a shark cull will have any impact on depredation rates, nor improve the safety of swimmers. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Others said the decision was partly a reaction to a number of recent shark bites in Queensland, including that which killed 17-year-old surf life saver Charlize Zmuda while swimming at a Bribie Island beach in February, and that which killed youth pastor Luke Walford, who was spear fishing in the Keppel Bay Islands last December. Bribie Island has baited drum lines, while the Keppel islands do not. Shark scientist and Emmy award-winning underwater cinematographer Richard Fitzpatrick, who has been on the scientific working group since its inception, says media reporting around fatal shark incidents may also have contributed to the expansion of lethal shark control measures. 'Media hysteria in Australia is one of the biggest problems with the whole shark issue,' he said 'Imagine if it were reported at the same level we do with car fatalities'. Fitzpatrick said the expansion of lethal shark measures had 'definitely' made him consider his position on the working group, but said that, ultimately, working with the government had allowed scientists to pursue much-needed research into shark tracking and movement. Included in the government's shark control plan, he said, was a survey of shark populations which would be 'essential', would 'not be cheap' and 'must be done properly'. 'We haven't had a stock assessment done on the target species in Queensland properly ever,' he said. 'Getting that done is absolutely critical now'. 'At the end of the day our approach is to do the best research possible.' Whether that research informs decision making or not, however, is a minister's prerogative. The primary industries minister said he stood by his comments the shark control plan was backed by science in the wake of Simpfendorfer's resignation. 'The Crisafulli Government makes no apology for reaffirming the purpose of the Shark Control Management Plan 2025-2029 Plan to prioritise the safety of people above all else,' Perrett said. The minister said research showed and a recent KPMG report confirmed that 'traditional methods (nets and drum lines) are still the most effective way of protecting swimmers'. 'Until the new technology is scientifically proven as effective at protecting beach goers as traditional methods, we will continue to invest in what keeps Queenslanders and our beaches safe,' he said.
ABC News
31-05-2025
- General
- ABC News
Petition to restrict cat owners rejected by Queensland government
The Queensland government has rejected a call to tighten the laws on domestic cat ownership to help protect the environment. The petition, tabled in March by Sunshine Coast resident Tony Magrathea, called for cats to be kept inside or within a cattery outside the home. It called for a limit on how many could be kept in a household, mandatory desexing, and a ban on breeding. It also called for the state government to take over control of domestic cat management from local governments. Mr Magrathea said varying laws across the 77 local government areas had contributed to the feral cat problem. "Some [councils] have limited how many [cats] you can have, some you have to register them, some you have to keep inside and it's pot luck where you live as to what rules you get," he said. The government on Thursday rejected the petition which attracted more than 1,100 signatures. Primary Industries Minister and Gympie MP, Tony Perrett, said local governments were best placed to manage cats. "They understand the unique needs of their community and are responsible for managing cats, including stray and roaming cats, under their local laws," Mr Perrett said. Mr Magrathea said he was disappointed in the state government's response. The Australian Capital Territory has the tightest restrictions across the country with owners required to microchip and desex their cats by four months and have 24/7 pet containment. According to the Invasive Species Council, the average pet cat kills more than a hundred reptiles, birds, and mammals annually. The head of the University of Adelaide's Invasion Science and Wildlife Ecology Group, Phill Cassey, said cats were vivacious killers and one of the top introduced predators of small to medium-sized native animals. "They do roam a lot." He said pet owners consistently underestimated how far their cats were going. "They're travelling many kilometres," he said. Dr Cassey said an overarching authority to manage domestic cats made sense as councils' varying policies offered a piecemeal approach. "We don't want to stop people having cats, they're an incredibly important companion animal, but they need to be kept inside because once they're outside they have a devastating impact on our animals," he said.
