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

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.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion for disallowance seconded?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say I did not think I would end up standing in the House of Representatives with the opposition spokesman, the shadow minister for the environment, actually opposing the protection of lowland native grasslands of Tasmania consequent to a decision not to approve this disallowance motion taking place in the Senate. But that is what the member for Flinders is doing here today. He is diligently doing his bit to try and make sure that Australia’s environment is not protected.

I make one specific and particular point about this motion as it has come through. This is all about stunt politics and it is nothing about serious politics. It is all about stunt politics and it is nothing about a real understanding of what the Commonwealth’s responsibility for the environment really is. By the member for Flinders bringing a motion of this kind into the House, what he is actually saying is that he is opposed to the listing of this kind, he is opposed to the independent scientific advice that is provided to the minister for the environment of the day, he is opposed to the fact that we have been through a period of rigorous study and stakeholder consultation, and he is saying that the recommendation of the Threatened Scientific Species Committee, which is an arm’s length body and makes recommendations to the environment minister, is one that he thinks ought to be ignored and overturned. I did not think the day would come when the member for Flinders was actually going to put this forward in the House of Representatives but he has done it.

For the purposes of the record, the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania was publicly nominated for assessment in 2005 and the decision to list the lowland native grasslands as a critically endangered ecological community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act followed a rigorous, transparent and fair process. That is set out under environmental law, as the member for Flinders ought to well know. The fact is that it is important to emphasise that the decision I took to list the grasslands was informed by unequivocal advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. The committee includes some of Australia’s leading scientists and it had spent two years carrying out a rigorous, scientific assessment of the grasslands. Over this period there was wide expert and public consultation as is required by the act. In particular the outcomes of a Tasmanian government review in 2008 of the grasslands were taken into consideration, as was the latest vegetation mapping data provided by the Tasmanian government.

The fact is that input from experts and the advice received from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee show clearly that the grasslands are critically endangered for a number of reasons: they have undergone severe decline, they have a restricted geographic distribution and they continue to be threatened. I note that the Tasmanian government review also came to this conclusion and highlighted that the loss of remnant grasslands has continued at a considerable rate in recent years.

It is 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 the land for farming as they have always done. Farmers will only need to seek approval when new or intensified practices are likely to significantly impact on the best quality areas of the grasslands. There is an assessment process under the EPBC Act for any new or intensified activities that might have a significant impact upon the listed ecological community. Approval for such actions would be withheld only if the significant impact on the critically endangered grasslands could not be avoided.

As was made clear in the Senate when this matter was raised, the Australian government is aware of concerns about the potential impact of the listing on farmers who may have listed grasslands on their property. We have taken a number of actions to assist these landholders. Firstly, we provided a widely promoted hotline to potentially affected farmers. Farmers may use the free call number, 1800 704 520, to discuss the grasslands with an officer of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts currently stationed as a liaison officer with the National Farmers Federation. The government has ensured departmental officers are available to carry out site visits and to provide information to potentially affected farmers. Secondly, specific workshops will be held in Tasmania regarding the grasslands and the EPBC Act, and they start at the beginning of November.

Thirdly, and importantly, the Australian government is making two information guides available produced to supplement the listing and conservation advice that has been available online since the listing occurred. The first is an EPBC question-and-answer guide specifically for farmers and the second is to help people understand the reasons for the listing and to recognise and manage this ecological community. Finally, the government is willing to undertake, with the cooperation of the Tasmanian government, a strategic assessment of the midlands region, which is the process under which planning is 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. A strategic assessment of this kind under the EPBC Act would benefit farmers by reducing red tape, clarifying future development opportunities for rural communities where the grasslands are located and at the same time provide better protection for the fragile grassland environment.

This government takes very seriously its responsibility for protecting the environment. The impact of this motion makes it quite clear that the opposition does not take it seriously.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point to the member opposite that it actually has rained in Tasmania. It has rained quite significantly. I make the additional point that the level of consultation that was taken on this particular assessment process was extensive and far-reaching. The processes that I have now outlined in the House should give great confidence not only that the government takes its environmental responsibility seriously but also that the government takes its responsibility for making sure that all stakeholders are properly and relevantly informed during those processes seriously.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Hunt’s) be agreed to.