Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share 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.

In a sense it should not be the opposition moving this motion. This motion was summed up in its intent, purpose and reasoning in a press release of 26 June 2009 by the federal member for Lyons, Mr Dick Adams, a member of the ALP, with the heading, ‘Adams angry with federal environment minister on locking up of grasslands’. This disallowance motion is all about seeking to ensure that that which the member for Lyons wanted will be carried out.

In essence what this motion is about is that in June the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts sought to list the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania as critically endangered under the EPBC Act of 1999. The problem is that the listing of the grasslands would have the effect of restricting activities carried out by farmers and other landholders where they would still be allowed access to grazing. Farmers and the Tasmanian government, a state Labor government, are concerned that there was no or inadequate consultation on the decision. This is what the member for Lyons said in the press release:

I have been working on this for over three years and I am angry that those consultations have not been considered …

He said further:

There has been no consideration of the fact that because of the drought, many of the farmers’ plans have been put on hold.

On 26 June 2009 the member for Lyons, in making the coalition’s case for this disallowance, went on to say:

Now they have some chance of renewing their farms and given the opportunity to put in irrigation, and this has effectively stopped them from developing innovations.

That is what he said of the decision to list the native grasslands. The press release continued:

Mr Adams said that although the national environment law only applies if there is a substantial change in land use that is likely to have a significant impact on the listed ecological communities, it will mean they cannot radically change their land use or intensify their activities.

In particular he refers to irrigation. Again to quote the member for Lyons in making the coalition’s case:

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

The member for Lyons went on:

If the Federal Government wants to preserve certain species, then they need to have the farmers work with them and that can only be done by recognising their conservation values within proper structures.

The member for Lyons very tellingly said:

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

This moment in this place is where the member for Lyons and the members for Braddon, Bass, Denison and Franklin can determine whether they are Canberra’s representatives in Tasmania or whether they represent their own communities in Canberra. The member for Lyons could not have been clearer in setting out reasons, with which we agree precisely, why this motion should be disallowed. He was clear, he was strong and he stood up for the farmers of Tasmania. This moment here in this chamber is when a representative determines whether he or she is a representative under the meaning of the term or whether they are simply a party lackey. So, when this division is called, I hope that the member for Lyons will remember his words: ‘…this new threat looming is not reasonable and I will fight it.’ He simply has to do what he said he would do for the people of Tasmania, and cross the floor.

The listing should be disallowed for a very simple reason. As the member for Lyons set out clearly and eloquently and with seeming courage, it will have an impact on farmers’ capacity, it is not necessary, it is not required and there are alternative ways to carry out the protection of native lowland grasslands in Tasmania. We will see right now whether the member for Lyons stands by his statement of 26 June, whether he will vote with us, whether he will cross the floor or whether he has been tamed. The same applies to the members for Braddon, Bass, Denison and Franklin. Will they stand up for Tasmania or are they simply being stood upon in a broader move by the Labor Party of Australia?

This motion should be disallowed and the members should stand up for Tasmania. I would challenge the member for Braddon. Does he agree with the words of the member for Lyons: ‘… this new threat looming is not reasonable and I will fight it’? The coalition urges that this motion be supported, that the disallowance go ahead and that the Tasmanian members stand by the words of the member for Lyons.

See this speech in context