Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Inclusion of ecological communities in the list of threatened ecological communities [Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania], made on 18 June 2009 under section 181 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed.

The disallowance motion that I have just moved constitutes a very important issue for farmers, particularly those in the northern Midlands of Tasmania and also in other areas of the state. This matter demonstrates, as we on this side have said so many times in this chamber before, the way that the Labor government deal with farmers in Australia and their attitudes towards these farmers, particularly their lack of consultation and the way they are prepared to ride roughshod over the rural sector. You really have to wonder what the government have got against Australia’s farmers. We saw this with the removal of the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS fees and charges where the government just made a decision to go ahead with that—there was no consultation; they just took it away, effectively putting an additional 60 per cent burden on farmers from AQIS export fees and certification processes and then telling farmers that they needed to pay for the government to reform itself.

We saw it over summer last year in Tasmania with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, when farmers wanted some water out of a couple of lakes in the Clyde catchment, and Peter Garrett would not even speak to or meet with these farmers. He came to Tasmania on five occasions during that period of time. He came down in October last year to visit the CSIRO offices in Hobart, to announce a new marine species, with some happy snaps and some smiling faces. He came down in November for the community cabinet. He came down in January, to see the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery state collection and to announce a reserve, with more happy photos and smiling faces. He came to launch a Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra CD with more happy shots. He came down in May this year to announce $2½ million would be spent on some convict site protections. But not once, despite invitations and requests to come and have a look at the sites, did he go near the farmers in the Clyde catchment.

Here we have in this circumstance the minister listing lowland native grasslands in Tasmania as critically endangered, again without the support of farmers, and, according to the Tasmanian government, without due consultation. In fact, according to the member for Lyons, Mr Dick Adams, it was without due process. Mr Adams said, in his press release of 26 June, when this announcement was made:

“We should work towards voluntary conservation with incentives and if the only way to have conservation of a particular area is to pay for it, then that is what should occur.

We have seen nothing like that in the interim. Mr Adams said:

“The farmers have gone through enough lately with the drought and all the trauma that was associated with that. Now this new threat looming is not reasonable and I will fight it.”

Mr Adams continued on to say he was now working with the minister. So he is no longer fighting it. He has conceded that this measure will go through. He is not prepared to stand up for the constituents in Tasmania whom he has told he would fight it. So he is doing one thing in Tasmania and doing something else here in Canberra. He said:

“It is not good enough to prevent farmers from using their land in an economic way and not compensating them.

When Mr Garrett made this listing back in June, he suggested to the farmers that they should apply for Caring for Our Country funding to assist them with this process. You can imagine the farmers’ surprise when a week later—a week after the announcement and Mr Garrett’s saying to the farmers, ‘Go away and apply for some Caring for Our Country funding’—Mr Garrett rejected an application by the farmers through NRM North, in cooperation with other regional NRM groups, for funding to do just that. So Minister Garrett does not consult, surprises everybody, including the Tasmanian government—and I will come to that in a moment—says, ‘Apply for Caring for Our Country funding to assist you with the problems that you have,’ and then a week later rejects the application. What are farmers supposed to think? What are farmers supposed to do?

Tasmanian Minister David Llewellyn wrote to Mr Garrett and made some very salient points, one of which was:

As your own threatened species scientific committee notes in its advice, private landholders play a critical role in the conservation of grassland.

That is certainly the case. In fact, a lot of these grassland communities would not exist but for the fact that landholders continue to care for them. Mr Llewellyn also said:

I am also extremely concerned that your decision—

to list—

has not taken into account the available evidence. It is particularly disappointing that, in deciding to include POA grassland that occurs on the slopes as a result of past clearing of derived or induced grasslands, you have ignored the advice provided by my department. This advice was based on extensive and detailed field work which concluded that POA grassland on the slopes did not meet EPBC Act criteria. I ask you to explain why you consider it necessary to list derived grasslands and urge you to reconsider the listing in light of this information. I note that in your letter you state that funding to protect and restore threatened ecological communities is available to landholders and the community through the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country package.

Yet we already know that they have rejected such an application. So against advice Minister Garrett has gone ahead and listed this. Mr Adams says he is out there fighting, he is working really hard and he is going to support the farmers—but now he is working with the government and in the period since June, when the listing was made, we have seen nothing.

Yesterday I received communication from a farmer—a landowner at Swansea. He has managed the property that he lives on for the last 40 years and which his family has managed since 1846. He says that he is disgusted and disappointed about the way in which this listing has come about. He was not consulted. Even to this day, he has received no letter or contact from departmental or government officers, and yet the jackboots are walking all over his farm. This guy is not a mad farmer—he does not run off doing crazy stuff on his property. In fact, he has an extraordinarily proud record of preserving and working on his land, with not only productive land management but also conservation projects on his land. He has worked with NRM South and his local council on landcare issues; he has fenced off his riparian areas to protect waterways; he has dedicated areas to the private forest scheme; and he has on-sold to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, with covenants for future protection, among many other things. This farmer is a progressive farmer, working to look after his property because he knows the benefits of doing that. He has also been president of his local Landcare committee, so obviously he is not anticonservation, but he is very much against the process that brought about this listing.

There are things that he believes could and should have been done. He, as someone who is living on the land, working on the land and protecting the land, makes sense. He would like to see clear and accurate identification of the areas in question. He says there has been no ground-proofing and that the areas listed on the DPIW website in Tasmania are grossly inaccurate, so the government does not know what it is declaring. There should be considered discussions and wide consultations of what sorts of management practices are needed. It does not have to be a lock-up so that these grasslands can never be utilised. They can be utilised but with careful management. That is what he says. He wants to continue to carefully manage these grasslands.

The opinions of the landowners should be considered. These people know the land and they work with the land. I have seen what they have done in Tasmania. The north-facing slopes project that was developed in the southern Midlands in Tasmania has had a brilliant outcome: high productivity for the farmers, greater conservation of the grasslands and a better return for everyone. Yet that was funded through the NHT process—a cooperative process with the farmers. It is Mr Cotton’s view that this process has set landcare back 20 years. He is not a radical. He works actively to protect his property for generations after him. His family has been there since 1846; he has been there for 40 years. He wants to see future generations of his family continue to work that parcel of land.

I find it absurd that we continue to have processes where the jackboots come out with respect to agriculture. This government is continuing to trample all over them, against the advice of the Tasmanian government, without consultation with landowners and without consultation with farmer groups. It just does not seem to add up. The local member says it is a bad idea and that he will fight it, and yet what do we get? Peter Garrett just wants to continue with the listing process. The lands are not even properly measured. It just does not seem to add up to me that we should continue with this process.

It has been said that what we are proposing in the chamber today is nothing more than a stunt. I can assure Mr Adams that this is serious. This is about working cooperatively with farmers. I have been to meetings where they have wanted to talk about how they manage their lands. They have insisted for a long time that they are more than happy to work with governments—not have the jackboots roll across their farm—to continue to maintain their properties. The environment department recognises that itself, and yet here the minister is happy to trample across these properties without consultation and without measurement to properly identify how this process could be taken forward, and then he knocks back the funding that he invited the farmers to apply for to do the work. I cannot see why these regulations should be allowed to continue.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have here today is a terrible precedent. I do not know if Senator Colbeck, the Liberal Party, the Tasmanian member for Lyons, Mr Adams, or Mr Llewellyn, the minister in Tasmania, know the full consequences of what they are doing. It was the Howard government that passed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It was the Howard government that set up the process by which areas could be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. There has never been a precedent for the disallowance of an area recommended to go onto a threatened species list since the act was introduced. This would set a precedent whereby political decisions are made to destroy the integrity of the threatened species lists associated with the EPBC Act. Henceforth, anytime anyone does not like a threatened species listing, they will be able to use the parliament to block it, so you will get only those things on the list that are deemed to be politically acceptable, and that would be wrong. This would set the worst-case precedent.

I am no fan of the EPBC Act. At the time it was introduced by the government, I was one of those who said that it was a terrible piece of legislation and that it would not protect threatened species. That has been proved time and time again, no more so than in recent times when my colleague Senator Bob Brown went to the Federal Court to demonstrate the complete failure of the EPBC Act to protect threatened species because of its deference to the regional forest agreements. That was a whole court process, and governments came in behind it and altered the law in order to destroy the court decision that Senator Brown had achieved. But the fact of the matter is that we do have the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the integrity of its threatened species list is critical.

At the minute, we are in Biodiversity Month. I think it is really interesting that in Biodiversity Month—7 September is Threatened Species Day—we should have the Tasmanian Liberal senators, the Labor member for Lyons, Mr Adams, and the Tasmanian minister, Mr Llewellyn, trying to stop the lowland grasslands of Tasmania being added to the threatened species list. No-one, it seems, is disputing the fact that these grasslands are threatened species. This is a political argument as to whether an identified threatened species should be listed, and the Liberal Party and the National Party are saying, ‘No, it should not be listed.’ That is wrong. It is a political decision.

The evidence has been gathered over three years. This was first nominated for listing in 2006, and there has been, contrary to what has been said, extensive consultation. Senator Colbeck has identified one property owner who says that he was not consulted. I have no reason not to believe that that is the case, and there may be others. Nevertheless, three years of consultation and assessment have determined that these grasslands are threatened, and they are of national importance. The temperate grasslands are one of the most underrepresented ecosystems in Australia’s conservation estate, according to Gilfedder et al, 2008. They are recognised as one of the most threatened vegetation types, according to one of Tasmania’s leading academics, Jamie Kirkpatrick. In February 2009, only four natural temperate grasslands had been formally listed as threatened under the EPBC Act: the natural temperate grasslands of the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, which are listed as endangered; the iron-grass natural temperate grasslands of South Australia; the natural temperate grasslands of the Victorian volcanic plain; and the natural grasslands on the basalt and fine textured alluvial plains of Northern New South Wales and southern Queensland.

The remnant lowland native grasslands of Tasmania are regarded as one of the most threatened and fragmented ecosystems and the most depleted vegetation formation in Tasmania and they deserve to be listed. The evidence is there, the assessment has been done and they are not currently listed as a threatened vegetation community under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act. Why is that? I assume it is because of our minister, Mr Llewellyn, who has the proud record of being the person who has most proactively throughout his entire parliamentary career done everything in his power to destroy conservation efforts in Tasmania to promote the logging of as much native forest as he could possibly facilitate. He has also acted against the interests of maintaining species through his proactive prosecution of the case for every development under a Labor government policy of dig it up, cut it down, build a road into it, put a resort on it or shoot it. That has been the conservation policy prosecuted by the Tasmanian government. It does not surprise me one iota that they would object to the listing of these grasslands, but these are one of the most threatened vegetation communities.

The Tasmanian Midlands, one of the main areas where the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania are found, is one of the 15 national biodiversity hotspots declared by the Australian government, but the Liberal Party senators and the National Party senators want to deny one of these hotspots listing under the act. In addition, the grasslands and the orchids, herbs and reptiles that depend on them are identified as one of the conservation priorities for the Tasmanian Northern Midlands in the Australian Natural Resources Atlas biodiversity assessment of Tasmania. The grassy ecosystems in the Campbelltown-Ross Tunbridge areas of Tasmania are considered to be particularly important. The township lagoon nature reserve at Tunbridge is a 16-hectare site listed on the National Estate that contains lowland grasslands. The 116 native species found in the reserve represent approximately 15 per cent of the 750 native plant species of grasslands in Tasmania. Significant populations of a large number of threatened species at the national or state level can be found in the reserve. These include Basalt peppercress, grasslands paper daisy, Tunbridge leek orchid, Tunbridge Buttercup, the tussock skink and the Tunbridge looper.

In addition to their value as a habitat for endemic and threatened species, the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania are an economically valuable resource for Tasmania’s agricultural sector. I notice that Senator Colbeck did not mention that, but they are used in the wool industry, where around half of Tasmania’s high-value fine-wool sheep graze on native grasslands. This talk about jackboots and locking up fails to recognise that that use will continue in spite of the listing of the grasslands as a threatened species. Native pastures are known to produce some of the finest wool, due to their low nutritional value and more even growth through the year when compared to sown pastures. The natural wildflower displays of some remnants in spring may also offer future ecotourism potential.

The interesting thing about the native grasslands is that one of the most threatening processes to these grasslands—and there are many—is climate change. At the awards ceremony the other night for young scientists involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, one of the awards was for a young person doing research on perennial grasses. We know that we need to be maintaining, looking after and looking at perennial grasses as a mechanism for sowing into them. There is a lot of work being done in New South Wales using native perennial grasses as a way of improving agricultural systems. These native grasses must be conserved for their own sake and for the species they support and also because they can potentially have significant use in agriculture.

I mentioned that there were many threatening processes. You would assume, from what Senator Colbeck said, that there was none. The main identified threats to the ecological community include: clearing and conversion of land, and consequent fragmentation of native vegetation remnants; pasture improvement and fertilisation; invasion by weeds and feral animals; inappropriate grazing and fire regimes; urban expansion; off-road-vehicle disturbance; salinity; and the low level of protection in reserves.

Of course, those things are still impacting on threatened species and threatened communities as we speak today. You only have to drive into any service station on the Midland Highway at any particular time to see off-road vehicles covered from head to toe in mud and dust from being out there in the bush, ripping up the bushland as fast as they possibly can. And that is encouraged by car industry advertisements suggesting that that is an appropriate way to engage in recreation in the countryside—by taking a vehicle in there and seeing how much mud and slush you can get all over the top of it.

Invasion by weeds and feral animals is really significant, but remember also that these grasslands provide incredible habitats for species that are threatened. We already have, on the threatened species lists federally, the wedge-tailed eagle in Tasmania, the spotted-tailed quoll, the tiger quoll, the eastern barred bandicoot, the Tasmanian devil and the Bass Strait wombat. All of them are vulnerable except for the wedge-tailed eagle, which is endangered. And all of those rely on habitat. They are known species in the landscapes and vegetation communities near or inside these ecological communities that need to be protected.

So when you say you will not allow these to go onto the threatened species list you are saying that the habitats for some of these iconic native species, already vulnerable or endangered, should not be allowed to be registered on a national list. What a disgrace! What a shame! We had the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts saying recently that it has got to the point where we have more than 1,750 species in Australia listed as threatened. And now we have a situation where many of them are on the road to extinction—one of those being the Tasmanian devil, which is suffering from devil facial tumour disease. There are many diseases in our wildlife.

We are losing wildlife at a great rate. The International Union for Conservation of Nature—which I retired as vice-president from last year—is the global expert on environment policy and it predicts that one-third of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2050. And people say: ‘Well, that must be referring to the polar bear, which will be extinct in the wild in the next 15 years. That’s a shame; we can go to the zoo and see a few sad creatures as long as they last.’ But Australia is contributing to that one-third of all species which will be extinct. We have the highest rate of mammal species loss in the world. This is a disgrace. And it has happened because governments have successively failed to protect our native ecosystems—whether they are wetlands, forests, grasslands or marine environments—because always, when it comes to a choice between extracting as much as possible in an unsustainable way out of those ecosystems and protecting them, extraction is what is preferred under legislation at a state and national level. That has certainly been the case in Tasmania and continues to be the case there.

At last we have recognition of the work of Professor Jamie Kirkpatrick and Louise Gilfedder. I have to say that they have worked tirelessly for decades to have grasslands recognised as a significant threatened species. Often they have said that, whilst they totally support the movement for the protection of high-conservation-value forests, they worry that the forests have really taken the focus off the critically endangered nature of our grasslands. At last we have here before the Senate the prospect that these grasslands might be listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. But, no, we have the Liberal Party and the National Party, in what is becoming a fault line in rural Australia, trying to set a precedent under our conservation legislation to prevent the listing. It would be a political precedent under this act.

Why do I say that there is a fault line in rural and regional Australia?—because out there we have progressive farmers who recognise that what is driving extinction, loss, and a lack of productivity is the unsustainable way in which Australia has managed landscapes in the past. Senator Colbeck mentioned one of the progressive farmers on the east coast who are engaged in all of these activities—fencing remnant vegetation, fencing riparian areas, working in land care and so on. Those people want natural resource management and ecological sustainability to be a key part of that process. They recognise feral animals and weeds as a great problem, not only to productivity but to biodiversity. They recognise that climate change is real and urgent and adding pressure. Those people are turning around and saying, ‘Why is it that those people who purport to represent rural and regional Australia are failing the bush—the country—so badly by not recognising that if you do not have a sustainable environment you do not have productivity in agriculture?’

As long as they have climate change denial, opposition to conservation and a refusal to recognise the plight of endangered species, you will see the Liberal Party and the National Party continue to lose support in the countryside as people there recognise that they need to go with progressive thinkers on climate, ecosystem protection and the kinds of research that will guarantee productivity whilst protecting animal welfare, ecosystems and species. That is where the fault line is developing.

Increasingly, we see the dinosaurs emerging. This disallowance is a dinosaur disallowance. It purports to represent farmers. I do not believe that, because the consultation that has gone on over the last three years demonstrates that there is support. Where is there is a coalition of interest in terms of this is between the conservation movement and the farmers who say that we must pay people in rural Australia to maintain ecosystems and to carry out ecosystems services on behalf of the whole community. I recognise that people think that one of the problems with the emissions trading scheme is that it fails to look at green carbon and ways in which you might pay farmers—make money available—for weed eradication, eradication of feral animals, restoration of native vegetation and restoration and rehabilitation of bushland on their own land. I could not agree more. The conservation movement and the farmers are actually as one in recognising that that needs to happen.

I urge the Senate to recognise that, if this disallowance happens to be passed—and I hope that there are enough progressive people in here who recognise that that would be a backward step so it is not passed—you will be disembowelling the EPBC Act. You will be setting a precedent whereby stopping a listing of a threatened species becomes something that people who want to develop at any cost around the country will be able to do by coming to a political party that is prepared to go with a predevelopment-at-any-cost argument against the environment. This is a shocking precedent and I urge the Senate not to support this disallowance.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will reflect on what Senator Milne said about this being a shocking precedent. I take issue with Senator Milne: it is not a precedent unless it happens. In relation to the EPBC Act, I want to express my concerns in relation to the north-south pipeline, the so-called Sugarloaf pipeline in Victoria, which is planning to take 75 billion litres of water out of the Goulburn River—which is struggling, as is the entire Murray-Darling Basin. I look forward to hearing from the minister shortly. We are having discussions with the minister’s office in relation to the EPBC process around that particular pipeline. The EPBC Act has important work to do to prevent environmental catastrophes, to prevent sometimes irreparable environmental damage. I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with Senator Colbeck and Senator Brown and the material that I have received from the minister’s office in relation to this.

This is a decision that has been reached as a consequence of an independent process under the act. It is a decision that has been reached by independent scientists on the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. It is a decision that has been reached as a result of consultation. I do not think that there is an issue so much about consultation with respect to the process; there are concerns in relation to the outcomes and the ramifications of the decisions. But it is fair to say that the decision that has been reached followed due process. It followed the advice of an independent panel that includes some of Australia’s leading scientists. There was wide expert and public consultation, as required by the act.

The concern is that these grasslands are critically endangered because they have undergone a severe decline, have a very restricted geographic distribution and continue to be threatened. Voluntary mechanisms have been insufficient to ensure the protection of this ecological community. These grasslands provide a habitat and resources for some 20 nationally listed threatened species and 60 state listed species, including the Tasmanian devil. It is also fair to say that this regulation does not prevent farmers and other land managers from continuing to use land for farming as they have always done. But I acknowledge the point that Senator Colbeck has made, that where there needs to be change in land use, such as for irrigation, these regulations will apply—hence the concerns in relation to that.

I note the comments of the Tasmanian Labor member Dick Adams, who has been quite critical of these changes in the media. He has as recently as 27 June this year been quoted in the Hobart Mercury saying that he is angry with the federal government not considering the need to compensate affected farmers and that it simply is not reasonable to go down this path. Farmers need to do something about their drought-ravaged land through irrigation. I can consider the arguments. The policy imperative here is to look at what the effect will be if these species are destroyed and if these grasslands become further damaged.

That is why, as a result of discussions that I have had with the minister’s office—and I am looking forward to the government indicating this and putting this on the record formally—the government will look at a number of processes to deal with the concerns of farmers, including, firstly, setting up a hotline number so that they can discuss their concerns with the department as well as a liaison officer with the National Farmer’s Federation and, secondly, making available officers to carry out on-site visits and to provide information to potentially affected farmers. Reflecting on that, both Senator Colbeck and Senator Milne, even though they have come at this from quite different positions, have talked about those farmers who are innovators and who are willing push the envelope in terms of working with the land. I do not think that that is ideological in any sense. It does not have anything to do with the politics of the farm; it has to do with wanting to look after the land. Those farmers should be encouraged and commended.

Thirdly, the Australian government is willing to undertake, with the cooperation of the Tasmanian government, a strategic assessment of the midlands regions, a process under which planning can be carried out on a regional scale in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders, taking into account a broad range of matters, including the concerns of regional communities. I see that as a mechanism whereby the concerns that have been expressed by Mr Adams on behalf of his constituents could be ventilated appropriately in a constructive way so that these matters could be dealt with.

Fourthly, the government will undertake a strategic assessment of this kind under the act that would benefit farmers by reducing red tape and clarifying future development opportunities for rural communities wherever grasslands are located and, at the same time, provide better protection for the fragile grassland environment. Fifthly, the Australian government is willing to commence its assessment, with Tasmania’s cooperation, before the end of this year and that a report on the impacts and proposed management arrangements could be publicly released within six months of that commencement.

I think that all of these measures, and I am looking forward to the government confirming them, keep the integrity of the regulations in place but take into account the concerns of some of the stakeholders and communities. I think, in some cases, these measures will allay those concerns by enabling better communication. If this review indicates that there is a need for some adjustment—not to the regulations but in terms of allowing communities to adjust—then so be it. That is a matter for another day.

I think this is a constructive way forward. I acknowledge what Senator Milne says: that we need to look at this process very seriously and that we need to keep the integrity of the EPBC process. I believe the process has had integrity, but I also acknowledge that, insofar as there have been concerns expressed by local communities, these can be dealt with adequately in the manner which I understand the government will set out shortly. If that is the case, I cannot support the disallowance. However, I commend Senator Colbeck for raising this because I think it is legitimate to raise concerns. I think it is legitimate to ventilate concerns of communities, but I believe these concerns can be adequately dealt with by the measures that I have set out. I think it is important that these grasslands be protected, given the impact they have on a number of endangered species.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take long. There is a very noticeable fault with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which, as Senator Milne indicated, was brought through by the Howard government. You can describe the fault this way. You can disallow the listing of rare and endangered species, habitats and ecosystems, which have gone through a very long and rigorous scientific assessment, analysis and potential listing process, as has occurred with these critically endangered grasslands in Tasmania. However, for the many, many species, habitats and similar places which are critically endangered and which are, as governments come and go, being lost forever in Australia, there is no process for us to bring them up and get them listed. It still has to go via the minister. The whole thing is completely loaded against the environment.

But here we are with this provision that no listing can occur without there being a political opportunity to use numbers to knock it out. I am aware—you will not be, Acting Deputy President, because you do not have to cross Bass Strait—that it is almost impossible to get a plane seat to Tasmania this weekend. You have to ask: sporting activities and other things aside, why is that? It is because of the global economic situation. Many, many Australians on the mainland want to spend holiday time in Tasmania. In fact, the hospitality industry is doing very, very well and thousands of jobs are being created and supported by it. The airlines have not been able to keep up. Why is that? It is not just an accident at this cool time of the year. It is the sheer beauty and international reputation of Tasmania’s wildness and the preservation of its natural assets.

We have a choice here whether we are simply going to be exploiters, as in the past, or guardians, which is the way of the future—and also where the economy and the jobs are. That it is not understood by last-century thinking, the last-century thinking which disparages all that, does not understand the new economy, does not understand where the jobs lie these days, and is inherent in this motion coming from Senator Colbeck. It is part of an old, but weakening, political culture, not just in Tasmania but elsewhere in Australia.

Senator Milne mentioned the protection of grasslands on the Southern Tablelands, in South Australia and elsewhere. The question we might put to Senator Colbeck is: can he demonstrate where that has been against the interests of local communities? I might put another question. We have had the state government come up with a proposal, and it gained national prominence quite recently, for turning the very region we are talking about into the so-called food bowl of Australia by diverting rivers and waters from western Tasmania into one of the driest regions of Tasmania. These are the very areas where the grasslands we are talking about are. This would presumably change one of the richest fine wool growing areas in the world into a highly irrigated, food-producing area, with as yet unspecified crops. This would be a complete change of land use, which inevitably means a complete change to the natural pattern of those lands and the elimination of the cohabitation of the existing productive grasslands—their replacement with a new form of industry which would see, perhaps, the elimination of some of these grasslands.

I ask: where was the consultation about that? Where is the environmental assessment, let alone the economic and social assessment? Who has consulted with the Indigenous people, who occupied these regions for thousands of years, let alone with the townspeople of Campbelltown, Tunbridge, Ross and the other townships—Jericho and the other townships of the Midlands—or with the people on the land who absolutely love their land as it is. These people on the land are extremely proud of the fact of the persistence of rare, endangered and very, very special natural attributes. They are taking on, with a great deal of enthusiasm, the roles of ensuring that the grasses, the orchids, the skinks, the butterflies, the eagles, the devils and the whole wondrous natural amenity are going to be there for future generations and of warding off the coming inevitable threat—the millions of people coming to Tasmania to enjoy its naturalness.

That is what is at threat from this very poorly-thought-out motion from Senator Colbeck. It runs against the economy and the job creativity, which is now established as Tasmania’s greatest boon for the future. Tasmania is on the threshold of a magnificent future based on its naturalness and its heritage, including its human-built heritage, which are very, very rare in this highly crowded, highly destructive human community that we have on the planet at the moment. There are 6.8 billion people at the moment, there were 2.5 billion when I came onto the planet and there will be nine or 10 billion by mid-century on this very, very stressed planet. Here we have a jewel but somebody says, ‘Well, let’s make sure we vouchsafe that jewel,’ and immediately there is this political reaction saying, ‘No, we will not be part of that process.’ It is pretty disappointing that Senator Colbeck has brought this motion forward. It is pretty disappointing that there should not be a thirst and a wonder and an excitement and enthusiasm about protecting these fabulous remnant grasslands and their ecosystems in Tasmania.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just make a few comments about the government’s position on this disallowance motion. Of course, we are not supporting it, for some very important reasons. Fundamentally, the most critically important of them is that, as Senator Milne so rightly pointed out, the effect of this disallowance motion would be to destroy the integrity of the EPBC Act, and I do not think that would be in the interests of anyone.

When listening to Senator Colbeck’s contribution to the debate in speaking to his disallowance motion, I was intrigued to note that he did not acknowledge that the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania were publicly nominated for assessment in 2005, not only when he was a member of the government but in fact when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The decision to list the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania as a critically endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act followed a very rigorous, transparent and fair process that is set out in the legislation. Minister Garrett’s decision to list the grasslands was informed by the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, an independent panel that includes some of Australia’s leading scientists. Senator Milne described the influence and capacity of those scientists, and we appreciate that.

The scientists spent over three years carrying out a very rigorous scientific assessment of the grasslands. In that time there was wide expert and public consultation, as required by the EPBC Act. In particular, the outcomes of the Tasmanian government review of the grasslands in 2008 were taken into consideration, as was the latest vegetation mapping data provided by the Tasmanian government. The input from the experts and the listing advice received from the scientific committee showed that the grasslands are of national importance and that they are critically endangered because they have undergone a severe decline in extent, they have a very restricted geographic distribution and they continue to be threatened. There has also been a severe reduction in the ecological community’s integrity because of fragmentation, weed invasion and the loss of species diversity. Again, Senator Milne spoke to those very issues.

The assessment of the grasslands clearly demonstrates that they meet the criteria for listing under the EPBC Act. I note that the Tasmanian government review also came to that conclusion. It highlighted that the loss of remnant grasslands has continued at a considerable rate in recent years. This indicates that voluntary mechanisms alone have been insufficient to ensure the protection of this ecological community. The remnant lowland native grasslands of Tasmania are regarded as one of Tasmania’s most threatened and fragmented ecosystems and the most depleted vegetation formation in Tasmania because more than 83 per cent of the grasslands have disappeared since European settlement. Protection of the grasslands is also vital. Senator Milne described the habitat and resources of more than 20 nationally listed threatened species and 60 state listed species, including the iconic Tasmanian devil and the other species that she drew from the threatened species list. It is critical to support the broader ecosystem and habitat of those species as well.

Senator Colbeck made, I thought, some fairly rash statements about the impact of this listing on farming. It is very important to emphasise that the listing of the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania will not prevent farmers and other land managers from continuing to use land for farming, as they have always done. We know that some of the best wool in Australia comes from this part of Tasmania and half of Tasmania’s sheep graze on those native pastures. The listing does not prevent farmers from continuing with existing sustainable grazing principles and practices. Farmers will only need to seek approval for actions that significantly change or intensify their activities, and isn’t that fair enough in circumstances where these new or intensified practices are likely to significantly impact on the critically endangered grasslands? There is an assessment process under the EPBC Act for any new or intensified activities that may have a significant impact upon the listed ecological community. Approval for such actions would only be withheld if significant impacts on the critically endangered grasslands could not be avoided.

As Senator Xenophon contributed in his remarks, the Australian government is aware of the concerns about the impact of listing on farmers who may have listed grasslands on their property and has committed to taking a number of actions to assist these landholders. Firstly, the Australian government is setting up a special hotline number for potentially affected farmers to discuss their concerns with an officer of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts currently stationed as a liaison officer with the National Farmers Federation.

Secondly, the Australian government will make departmental officers available to carry out site visits and to provide additional information to potentially affected farmers. Specifically, departmental officers will be able to help farmers determine whether the ecological community is present on their properties and whether any proposed changes to their land use are likely to significantly impact on that grassland. In addition, an information guide is currently being finalised to supplement the listing advice that is already available. This advice will help people understand the reasons for the listing, how to recognise and manage the ecological community and the implications for landowners. This information guide will be widely distributed. As both Senator Brown and Senator Xenophon commented, the issue here is really about land management and stewardship. We acknowledge that those good farmers who engage in sustainable farming practices are very mindful of these processes, as is the farmer that Senator Colbeck spoke about. He is obviously someone who takes his responsibility for land management very seriously.

Thirdly, the Australian government is willing to undertake, with the cooperation of the Tasmanian government, a strategic assessment of the midlands region. Under this process, planning is carried out at a regional scale, in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders, and takes into account a broad range of matters, including the concerns of regional communities. A strategic assessment of this kind under the EPBC Act would certainly benefit farmers by reducing red tape and clarifying the future development opportunities for rural communities where the grasslands are located. At the same time, it would provide better protection for the fragile grassland environment. The Australian government would be willing to commence this assessment, with Tasmania’s cooperation, before the end of this year. The government anticipates that a report on the impacts and proposed management arrangements could then be publicly released within six months of commencement.

The government recognises the vital and valuable role that private landholders have played in the conservation of native grassland remnants and believes that the listing of the grasslands can complement other conservation measures in ensuring its survival for the benefit of future generations.

I would like to touch on some of the specific claims that Senator Colbeck made in his contribution—one of which was about lack of consultation. I want to put on the record that the picture that Senator Colbeck painted about lack of consultation is not exactly accurate. The government undertook wide consultation throughout the assessment process. In 2006, a technical workshop was held in Hobart to assist with the assessment of the ecological community and then a formal public consultation was also undertaken. At the very beginning of the assessment, stakeholders were invited to provide written submissions, and they were invited to do so again in March 2009, before the assessment was completed. The key stakeholders groups who were consulted included local councils, conservation groups, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and state government authorities. There were a range of responses received, both supportive and non-supportive.

Between 2006 and 2009, several face-to-face meetings were held with key stakeholders, along with a range of other regular communications around the process. Departmental staff met with officers from the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association on four occasions between December 2007 and May 2009 to discuss the potential listing of the ecological community. A formal submission was received from that association in March 2009. As well, the Tasmanian government was regularly consulted and it provided ongoing technical assistance during the assessment of the ecological community. The notion that this has happened by stealth and without consultation is an absolute furphy.

In response to the concerns about the inclusion of derived—that is, human induced—grasslands, the listed ecological community certainly includes both natural and derived, or human-induced, grasslands. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee and the experts in grasslands found that some patches of lowland native grasslands that are historically derived from other ecological communities—for example, through clearing of trees in woodlands—may be similar in vegetation composition and structure to the natural grasslands, and some of these derived grasslands can be extremely rich in native species and contain in themselves numerous threatened species. It can be impossible to determine which grasslands are natural, which have developed as a result of post-European settlement land management practices and which have been the result of Indigenous burning regimes or historic severe climatic events. Not all the patches of grassland, be they derived or natural, are actually included in the listed ecological community. The listing only applies to vegetation remnants that are in good condition, and the listing advice clearly sets out the condition thresholds that determine whether a patch of grassland is protected under the EPBC Act. There is significant information about the whole classification process and the way in which it came into being.

Most importantly, the government does not support this disallowance motion, because it concerns native grassland that is categorised as critically endangered as an ecological community. It is of national importance and it is something that needs to be protected for all of Australia. The natural environment is a critical part of Tasmania’s pristine attraction and, as such, we want to do what we can as a government to ensure that it is protected. Senator Colbeck, that very important message that stands to a disallowance motion in this respect and that would actually go to the integrity of the EPBC Act cannot be underestimated.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address some of the issues that have cropped up as part of the debate on this disallowance motion. This motion certainly was not brought into this place lightly. I find some of the assertions that have been made, particularly by the Greens, quite disappointing. The fact that when somebody disagrees with them they have to resort to labelling and calling people names to try and denigrate their stance demonstrates a real lack of capacity, in my view. I am really disappointed that labelling people just because they have a different perspective on the way to go about things from the Greens has been part of the process today. I think the Greens criticising any senator for using the processes of this place to achieve what they want is extraordinarily hypocritical because they do not hesitate to do that. That is their right and I would defend that right of members of this place. That is what this place is about—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you hurt?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not hurt, Senator Brown. I have watched you work in this place and recognise your capacity to use the mechanisms of this place to defend the things that you believe in. I recognise that that is what you do—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a Tasmanian.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a Tasmanian, Senator Brown, and I acknowledge and admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up for what you believe in. That is important and is what we should be doing in this place. You should use the mechanisms that exist in this parliament to stand up for the things that you believe in and to try and achieve outcomes. That is what we should be doing, but to criticise somebody else for doing that is something I find disappointing. That is what we are here for; that is what we are here to do. It is an important part of the processes of being a member of this place. I make the point that it seems to be okay to criticise another senator for doing what is your stock in trade, and you are very good at it.

This is not about trying to destroy; this is trying to alert the government that there needs to be a proper way of dealing with this. I tried very hard, during my initial presentation, to ensure I did not give the impression that we were all about knocking over, destroying, raping and pillaging, as has been suggested. That is not what I am about and that is not what this process is about. The theme that I bring in today is the way that the government has managed this. Senator Milne spoke of Jamie Kirkpatrick, who was a part of this process and is recognised as having some real authority in making a contribution to this process. Let me put on the record what Mr Kirkpatrick actually said as part of the listing:

The only way of doing it in the longer term is to make it financially attractive for land owners to maintain grasslands. And that means stewardship payments—

and I acknowledge that Senator Milne talked about that, as did Senator Xenophon—

payment for performance. And it’s really necessary to have that in the case of grasslands because they are not simple to manage.

And I acknowledge that the government made comments in respect of that as well. He went on:

I agree with the listing, but I don’t agree with just having a listing and just leaving it at that. That is worthless.

But that is what this government has done. The landowners made an application for funding to assist them with protecting the grasslands. A week after announcing the nomination, the government rejected it. Here is one of the experts, one of the authorities that Senator Milne quoted, saying that the process that the government has undertaken is worthless. Why shouldn’t we question that? It is more than a legitimate process.

I acknowledge Senator Xenophon’s contribution to this and his negotiations with the government. If the only thing that this disallowance motion does is prompt the government to put in place some real actions to carry this forward, given that nothing has happened since the listing in June, then at least we have achieved something. This goes back to the principles I spoke about before and Senator Brown using the mechanisms of this place to achieve outcomes. At least we have achieved something if it has sparked the government to do something. The local member has not been able to achieve anything at this stage. At least the government is now putting in place a process based on the pressure of this process to take it forward.

I thank my colleagues for their contribution to this debate. I again express my disappointment that the Greens come in here trying to label people who disagree with them. They will not argue the case. They try and denigrate anyone who has a different view—their stock in trade, unfortunately. I commend the motion to the Senate because it does place pressure on the government. That is why the mechanisms were put into this bill in the first place. That is part of this process. It does not necessarily always have to be about politics, Senator Brown. It can be about trying to do the right thing and getting the government to do the right thing. I think you understand that because you are more than capable and have demonstrated your willingness to use the processes of this place to try and pressure the government into achieving outcomes. That is what I hope we can achieve out of this process today.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Colbeck’s) be agreed to.