Mehreen Faruqi’s Selective Compassion

Greens senator Meheen Faruqi says words matter. She is right. “Extinction”, “native animals“, “responsibility and “Country” are all words that should carry particular weight for Australians, especially a Greens senator.

Last week, Senator David Pocock called for a fully funded, long-term plan for invasive species management, research and eradication. Faruqi opposed his motion, challenged the term “invasive” and argued against lethal control. From the political party that prides itself on protecting nature, that’s an extraordinary position. You could say it’s selective compassion for cats over bilbies.

Let’s consider the animals missing from her argument. Feral cats alone kill more than 1.5 billion native mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs every year, plus 1.1 billion invertebrates. They’ve contributed to the extinction of more than 20 Aussie mammals. And then there’s the impact of other invasive species like feral horses, foxes, deer, feral goats, feral pigs, cane toads, etc … the list goes on.

The photo accompanying this article was shared with me when I was Australia’s Threatened Species Commissioner. It shows a feral cat shot in Queensland shot by a conservationist after being found with a bilby in its mouth. The damage to the bilby is confronting. And yes, the cat suffered too. But suffering belongs in this debate. If the photograph makes us uncomfortable, we should ask whose suffering we are recognising - and whose we are overlooking?

I’ve also seen the damage firsthand. Working alongside Indigenous rangers and conservation scientists, I’ve dissected feral cats and examined their stomach contents. Across those examinations, we found dozens of native animals, from insects to reptiles and mammals. These were the remains of Aussie wildlife. The tireless work of Indigenous rangers, scientists and skilled conservation shooters helps keep species like the bilby alive. They deserve support, not judgement, for this difficult conservation work.

Aussie animals experience suffering too. They’re hunted, injured and killed. Compassion that concentrates on invasive species while overlooking their native victims is a painfully one-sided understanding of animal welfare. It’s naïve, selective and ideological.

Faruqi’s argument that introduced animals aren’t responsible for being here also misses the point. Of course they’re not morally culpable. People brought them here. And that strengthens our responsibility to address the damage. “Invasive” describes an ecological problem. It doesn’t accuse an animal of wrongdoing. Replacing it with “introduced” obscures a crucial distinction: not every introduced species is invasive. Dahlia’s are pretty introduced plants, but they’re not running riot across Australia causing extinctions like blackberries or rabbits. They’re “introduced”, not “invasive”. So yes, again, words matter.

The RSPCA uses the term “invasive”. Its website describes cane toads as a “highly invasive species” and it publishes guidance on humane killing. It recognises the need to control introduced animals while insisting that methods should minimise suffering. That’s a serious welfare position. The RSPCA calls for conservation outcomes to be measured and it rejects indiscriminate killing. These safeguards strengthen conservation; they don’t require us to abandon it.

Nor is control inevitably futile. In May, governments announced that Little Dog Island in Bass Strait was finally free of feral cats. The island supports an estimated 500,000 breeding pairs of short-tailed shearwaters, and little penguins are now returning. That’s a concrete conservation outcome. Eradicating the feral cats was humane because it saved the suffering of many more native animals.

As an Australian of Aboriginal descent, I also find the implications of Senator Faruqi’s remarks for Country impossible to ignore. “Always Was, Always Will Be” carries responsibility. Country includes animals, plants, waterways and the relationships between them. Respect for Aboriginal land has to include support for protecting it from invasive predators, destructive herbivores and weeds. Habitat destruction and climate change demand action too. But their existence doesn’t excuse neglecting another major threat.

Senator Faruqi’s hypocrisy is in demanding humane treatment for invasive animals while failing to reckon with the suffering they inflict on native wildlife. Compassion can’t stop at feral cats and ignore the billions of native animals - like this bilby - that they maul and kill each year in Australia. Nor can commitment to conservation be credible if it rejects the measures science shows are needed to protect Country and prevent further extinctions.

Senator Faruqi acknowledges Country before her speeches, but that means little without her support for action to protect it. If she wants to live up to Greens commitments to nature conservation and Aboriginal peoples, she needs to listen more and lecture less. She should be supporting effective invasive species management with dedicated funding and measurable conservation outcomes. That has to include lethal control of feral animals. Humane conservation has to account for the suffering caused by failing to act, as well as the suffering caused by intervention. Anything less is selective compassion - and Australia’s wildlife pays the price for that.

A conservationist in Queensland shared this photo with me when I was Threatened Species Commissioner.