On Tuesday 12 May 2026, I spoke in support of a motion to disallow regulation which rescinds a planned phase-out of permits to shoot flying-foxes in Queensland. You can read my speech below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard).
I rise to make a brief contribution on this disallowance motion. I support the motion, to be clear at the outset. The purpose of the motion is to disallow provisions that would otherwise allow a wide-scale recommencement of the culling of flying foxes. What it will do is allow for damage mitigation permits to be issued. These are permits that allow fruitgrowers to shoot and kill flying foxes.
Government members interjected.
Mr BERKMAN: They can object as much as they like because they do not want to be seen as the Disney movie villains that they are, but ultimately that is what it is about. It is about repealing regulation that prevents the issue of damage mitigation permits to kill flying foxes.
Now, let's be clear, flying foxes are not just super cute; they are keystone species. They are essential to ecological function. They are essential to the health and vitality of the surrounding environment and the collapse of their populations has profound ecological impacts. They are essential to the distribution of seed and pollen within our woodlands and rainforests. We have heard a lot from other speakers on this issue, but a single flying fox can distribute 60,000 seeds across 50 kilometres in a single night.
They are also hugely culturally significant for Aboriginal people and communities. Jiritju Fourmile, a Gimuy Walubara man from the Yidinji nation, described a devastating heatwave in November 2018 which killed a third of the Australian population of spectacled flying foxes in one week. He explained—
The Flying-fox is a big part of our Aboriginal community… One of the most magical things about Gimuy used to be watching the Flying-foxes cover the evening with a curtain of black. Now, we barely see any. Soon, we will probably see none... This will mean another connection to Country gone. What else will then keep us connected to the land? One less animal means one less Goopi, one less spirit.
In 2023, laws were introduced to phase out the issuing of these permits, offering industry plenty of time to prepare. This is not something that has just happened overnight. These regulatory changes permanently revert to the position that growers can continue to obtain permits. The justification given in the explanatory notes was that industry was concerned about the cost to install and maintain permanent exclusion netting and related insurance.
The end of last year was when the regulation was tabled, and I was genuinely curious about what work the department has done to actually understand the difficulties and what are the problems that these primary producers are facing. I asked the Minister for Primary Industries a question—question on notice 38—in February this year. On 12 March, the minister came back with an answer. The question was—
With reference to the control of flying foxes for crop protection—Will the minister advise (a) how many Queensland growers the department has assessed are unable to transition to full exclusion netting and (b) in relation to (a), (i) in which Local Government Areas are these growers located, (ii) what specific constraints prevent each of them from transitioning to full exclusion netting and (iii) what solutions has the department considered to address these constraints?
The minister's answer was actually quite shocking. He stated—
The Department of Primary Industries has not conducted a formal assessment of growers affected by flying foxes who are unable to transition to full exclusion netting. As no formal assessment has been conducted, there are no details to respond to (b) in identifying specific growers.
That applies obviously to specific barriers or regions where there are those barriers. It is not just a bit absurd; it is kind of reprehensible, I would suggest, that a decision like this could be made without even having done any kind of formal assessment of the obstacles to meeting—
Mr Powell: Let me address that.
Mr BERKMAN: It would have been nice, I will say in response to the minister's interjection, the minister for or against the environment, that is if the Minister for Primary Industries might have had some information to hand to respond—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lister): Members’ comments will come through the chair.
Mr BERKMAN: It is baffling to me that the government can point the literal gun at a keystone species without strong evidence that lethal control is effective in protecting fruit crops. There are non-lethal methods that exist that we know are effective. There is an absence of any reliable evidence to show us that shooting flying foxes will be a reliable way to protect fruit crops.
It is extraordinary to me that they will go to this extent without real evidence in support, but they do not turn the same sort of scrutiny to major supermarkets whose aesthetic standards lead to extraordinary proportions, like 30 per cent, of crops being dumped before they even leave the farm gate. There is no reasonable basis to continue the provision of damage mitigation permits for the killing of flying foxes, especially in the context where we are seeing climate impacts over time causing mass mortality events for these same species that are supposed to be protected.
Again, I support this motion and I would call on the government to reconsider their approach to this. We know there are alternatives and we know that they can be effective if only primary producers are given the support that they need from government.