Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, I present the committee's report incorporating a dissenting report entitled Managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate: the way forward together with the minutes of proceedings.

The fact that the earth's climate is changing is well documented. Australia and other countries have long run data showing a marked change in the earth's temperature. Although we can be certain that climate change is occurring, its effects on Australia's environment, in particular on biodiversity, is unknown beyond the models and theories that are being used to make informed projections.

Australia has a rich biodiversity and many species are only found here. The committee quickly learnt during the enquiry that climate effects varied greatly across species. For some, the increase in the earth's temperature and related effects will diminish their habitat reduce their numbers perhaps to extinction. For others, the changing climate will be to their advantage and their population will increase.

The committee received 89 submissions, four supplementary submissions and 60 exhibits. As befitting a national enquiry, the committee held site inspections, briefings and public hearings in each of Australia's states and territories. In the course of these site inspections, the committee received extensive and valuable evidence on the effects of climate change on nationally important ecosystems. As a result, two interim reports were published in May and November of 2012. The interim reports provide a useful platform for this final report.

During its investigations, the committee received a great deal of support from not-for-profit environmental groups, natural resource management bodies, state government agencies, research institutions, and landholders. All these organisations and individuals were very generous with their time and expertise and they made important contributions to the report.

The committee found that important information is being collated about our biodiversity, that it can better be coordinated and the funding for it should be long term. The policy for coordination is already partly in place through the National Plan for Environmental Information. What is needed is quicker progress for a project that is, admittedly, very challenging due to its innovative nature and broad scope.

The Council of Australia Governments can also contribute. The committee would like to see it help develop national environmental accounts as well as a central national biodiversity database which can be scientifically accredited and to which information can be uploaded.

The committee received consistent evidence that the usual three-year funding cycle for environmental projects is too short, because it does not allow researchers to build up a baseline for a process that is continuing over decades.

The committee heard evidence from an organisation that had to reinvent their project at each funding application so that they could also continue their long-term work. This is counterproductive, and the committee believes that agencies should be able to extend their funding periods when warranted.

The committee recognises the important of natural resource management organisations. These bodies have the advantage of operating at the local level and delivery of many NRM programs. However, they have different origins, depending on the state or territory in which they are located. This has resulted in a significant variation in their consistency, standards and quality. The committee supports the regional delivery model but believes there is scope for improvement and has made recommendations in relation to NRM bodies' skills, standards and funding.

As in most research areas, there is considerable demand for funding but only limited resources are available. The committee was mindful not to propose a large increase in funding for biodiversity action. Much of the baseline research that would inform this work still needs to be done. However, the committee did make some funding recommendations where the quality and value of the work warranted it. An example is the Atlas of Living Australia. The committee believes that the atlas would be a natural repository for the digitisation of Australia's biological collections and that the Australian government should work with the atlas to develop a sustainable funding model for it.

I thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the enquiry through submissions, participating at hearings or assisting the committee at its briefings and inspections. I also thank my colleagues on the committee and the secretariat for their contributions to the inquiry and report.

While I am on my feet, I also express my personal concern that some state governments appear to be relaxing state laws which restrict activities in national parks that were purposely introduced to protect natural environmental assets and the biodiversity values of national parks. Lifting restrictions such as to allow cattle grazing and hunting in national parks further puts at risk efforts to conserve biodiversity and create biodiversity corridors and refuges for flora and fauna that are already at risk.

See this speech in context