National Wild Dog Action Plan

Holzberger opposed the motion, drawing on personal experience working on stations in western New South Wales during the millennium drought. Holzberger argued that the collapse of the dog fence occurred under the previous Liberal-National government, attributing the neglect to that administration rather than the current one. Holzberger stated that the Albanese government was investing approximately $20 million in wild dog management and held a philosophy of protecting industries and farmers, contrasting this with the previous government's approach.

Birrell supported the motion, reiterating that wild dog predation caused significant financial and emotional distress to livestock producers. Birrell argued that farmers could not tackle the issue alone as wild dogs crossed property boundaries, national parks, and state borders. Birrell highlighted that federal funding for the coordinator was expiring in September 2026 and criticised the government for treating wild dog management as solely a state responsibility, despite funding coordinators for other invasive species. Birrell called for the government to commit $250,000 annually to maintain the program.

Repacholi acknowledged the serious impact of wild dogs on livestock producers and the need for coordinated control measures. Repacholi disputed the claim that the government had abandoned pest management, citing more than $20 million invested in the National Wild Dog Action Plan and a $650,000 grant to Australian Wool Innovation. Repacholi emphasised the government's broader biosecurity investments, including over $2 billion since 2022, and stated that while states held primary responsibility for ground management, the Commonwealth played a key role in coordination and research.

Pasin supported the motion, describing the severe distress caused by wild dog predation on livestock flocks. Pasin criticised the government for failing to back its rhetoric with action, noting the uncertainty surrounding the $250,000 annual funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan. Pasin argued that the government was biased against agriculture, citing the ban on live sheep exports and water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin as evidence. Pasin also opposed the reintroduction of dingoes in the Grampians, contrasting this with previous government efforts to secure funding for the dog fence.