Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak to the motion in my name and I do so with great justification. I would remind members of this place that Australia is a relatively recently European populated nation on this planet. We have done a great deal as a nation during our 200-plus years in this place, but more and more it would seem that there is a philosophy beginning to emerge today that would lock up this nation. It would stop development. It would cease the very enterprises that have made this nation a great place. Most recently, over the quiet media Christmas-New Year break, Ningaloo Reef and some terrestrial environs were, firstly, declared national heritage. Then, secondly, a declaration was made that they would be listed for World Heritage. This was done, almost, by sleight of hand—not quite in the dark of the night, but almost—and I believe that the motivation for this action is rather difficult to determine. I strongly suspect, however, that these declarations are made and these propositions put forward by people with scant regard for the continued development of mankind as a species. I suspect that they are far more concerned with getting their own name and personal short-term endeavours up into the media spotlight, because I cannot for the life of me reconcile the idea of locking up productive resources and natural environments of Australia with a declaration that they have the interests of Australians at heart.

I am all for protecting the environment. But I am all for protecting the environment for the human species. I am all for making this planet a better place for humans to live. I am not at this stage interested in abdicating my part in that endeavour to cockroaches or Rattus rattus. Maybe other people’s objectives are to simply vacate this nation and leave it to the natural environment, and I am sure that will be a wonderful attribute to make as Australians to the global economy. Perhaps not; perhaps more we should be inclined to consider that we need to sustain the natural environment with humankind as part of it. I like to think of humankind as being at the top of the food chain rather than, as I see others being more concerned with, at the bottom.

The Kimberley region of Western Australia is vast, and much of it is still almost wilderness. I say ‘almost’ because there is a thriving pastoral industry which exists in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. However, it is proposed that much of that active pastoral region—which is providing employment for Australians and export dollars for the benefit of Australians—be listed for National Heritage, as a forerunner to World Heritage listing. Seventeen million hectares—that is a huge tract of country, rich in resources, rich in diamonds and rich in nickel. It is a vast area for agriculture and horticultural development. And, as I have said, it exists as a great resource for the pastoral industry—for the export of livestock to hungry mouths overseas. Those hungry mouths, I am sure, are not quite as concerned as some here in Australia are with locking up as wilderness that Kimberly region. Rob Gillam, President of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, has made a couple of comments about the idea. He said:

… a National Listing precedes a World Heritage Listing, which virtually ensures that a region is locked away from future development, and that existing industries are severely curtailed.

He is referring of course to the pastoral industry. He went on to say:

If you wanted to preserve the vast riches of the Kimberly for peoples other than Australians into the future, this would be the best way to do it.

He said:

The Minister is either totally naive, or he has been instructed by his friends in the conservation movement to use National and World Heritage listings to deny any development benefits to both the Aboriginal and broader communities of the Kimberley region.

AMEC, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, say: ‘Heritage list the Kimberley, and lose mining.’ Darren Brown of AMEC said:

Adding more red tape by applying National Heritage status to such a vast area would be the last straw for many companies who would consider moving their investments to other jurisdictions.

Traditional Owner Advisory Group member Mr McCarthy said, ‘We are simply throwing a blanket over the whole of the Kimberley.’

We cannot afford to simply let this sleight of hand go on. The people of the Kimberley, especially the Indigenous population of the Kimberley, deserve a future. A future with income, genuine training, jobs and self-esteem, a future that includes making a contribution to the Australian economy, will only come with development.

The Northern Development Taskforce has reported today that the Kimberley ought to be providing more employment—a little sleight of hand about how much employment by pastoralism, agriculture and horticulture—but they say the Kimberley population needs employment. They allude to the fact that tourism will be the great salvation for Indigenous population in the undeveloped Kimberley. Think for a moment of the underdeveloped population and wilderness of Sumatra or Africa—there are some wonderful tourist destinations in Africa. There are still some wonderful trips to be had into the darkest centres of Borneo. And of course, there is our own Papua New Guinea. Look at those wonderfully exotic destinations and the icons they present for global tourism and then think of the standard of living of the locals. Think how close Sumatra is to the population of Europe. And think how its standard of living has gone through the roof as a result of global tourism because it is a wilderness area. Not a lot. Not a very high standard of living. But many whose philosophy would tie up the Kimberley would dictate that that is the future for our Indigenous population—taking pennies from tourists, the occasional job as a guide. What sort of a future is that?

Compare that with a future, an absolute future equal to any that we enjoy as members of a real workforce. Compare that with resource development—export dollars for Australians to maintain the standard of living that we enjoy today. Compare it with the pastoral industry developing fodder crops for cattle that can be mustered during the wet, close to bitumen roads for export to feed the world. Think of the real dollars, the real jobs and the real opportunities that would come and imagine the much better future the Indigenous population of the Kimberley would enjoy if we continued to develop the Kimberley in a sustainable way—subjected to modern regulation and enjoying modern technology—rather than, as has been suggested here, simply locking it up for the future and converting it back to wilderness.

No-one involved in this proposition suggests who is going to manage the country. Right now, pastoralists are the only affordable land managers we have. More importantly, they are the only reliable, affordable land managers we have. That ought to be kept in mind, because the government agency that will be responsible for managing a World Heritage listed area in the Kimberley will be the Department of Environment and Conservation in Western Australia, which is already so poorly resourced that they cannot manage the country already under their control. Other members in this debate will raise the issue of what happens to the pastoral country when it is vacated. I simply say again that this area of the Kimberley must remain sustainable and productive and not be tied up as wilderness. (Time expired)

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not too sure whether to tackle the member for Kalgoorlie for jumping the gun with his motion, given the process that is actually underway in the Kimberley—and I will address that in a moment—or accuse him of being well over a decade too late, given that he has been the member for Kalgoorlie, including the area of the Kimberley, for some time and it has taken until the election of the Rudd Labor government for some serious and cooperative planning, including development, to be undertaken in conjunction with the Western Australia government. So, as I say, I am not too sure whether you are jumping the gun or you are a decade or more too late.

I might say that I think the member for Kalgoorlie and I would agree that the Kimberley is a very special place. As one who has been fortunate to visit the Kimberley on many an occasion, I do have a great sympathy with the notion of protecting and heritage listing many parts of the Kimberley. I am also a realist, though. I grew up in the bush and I believe in the opportunities for regional development and employment for those who live in rural and remote areas of Western Australia.

There are two particular processes that I want to address today, one involving the West Kimberley, which I think is the genesis of some of the member for Kalgoorlie’s concern. Secondly, I want to talk about developments in the East Kimberley.

There was an agreement reached with the Western Australian government some two years ago, where the then state Labor government and the Rudd government agreed that the two governments working together would embark upon a strategic assessment of the West Kimberley, including, under the EPBC Act, a common user liquefied natural gas precinct to service the Browse Basin reserves.

Part of that agreement included an assessment of the cultural and environmental values of the West Kimberley and formal identification of its national and potential international heritage values. In other words, there is a joint process being undertaken. I am concerned that the member for Kalgoorlie’s motion appears to be predicated on a lack of understanding about what that process involves and the very rigorous and proper consultation process that is now underway. Indeed, the Australian Heritage Council’s assessment is required to include extensive consultation with landowners, occupiers and the Indigenous people with rights and interests, and they make recommendations to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts on possible national heritage values and the potential boundaries and protection required for those national heritage values.

As I understand it, Minister Garrett has asked the council to provide him with their advice by 30 June 2010. So I want to assure the member for Kalgoorlie that there is a rigorous consultative process underway. The member for Kalgoorlie, and those he advocates on behalf of tonight, have ample opportunity to have input into that process, and I urge them and encourage them to do so as part of those recommendations concerning the West Kimberley going to Minister Garrett by 30 June 2010.

I think it is also important in this debate to acknowledge that National Heritage listing is not a means to restrict development. It is to ensure that National Heritage values are given appropriate weight in decision making when new developments are proposed. I would hate for you to think that National Heritage listing means that there would be no opportunity for future development in any particular region.

I listened closely to the member for Kalgoorlie. I was not aware of whether he provided any specific evidence of problems on behalf of particular constituents in his seat but, if so, I certainly urge him to encourage them to join in the process and made sure that their views are heard. I suspect he and I share what I consider to be of much greater concern in inhibiting development in this region: the duplication of approval processes and requirements from state, local and federal governments. If there is one thing I would really like to see us address, it is to ensure a much more streamlined process for all involved in those development applications.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, another Western Australian, Gary Gray, the member for Brand, on his progress with the East Kimberley Development Package. I am assuming that the member for Kalgoorlie is well aware that the Rudd Labor government entered into agreement again with the Western Australian government regarding a nation-building initiative which involved a joint assessment. It involved not only the Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia but also the Western Australian Minister for Regional Development, Brendon Grylls.

The parliamentary secretary, along with the relevant ministers in the Western Australian state government, has visited the East Kimberley several times to meet with local citizens, community groups, non-government organisations, business and the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley to hear and discuss their ideas on infrastructure requirements for the region. The member for Kalgoorlie would be well aware that on 3 July last year the Prime Minister and the Western Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, launched the East Kimberley Development Package. This followed the Western Australian government’s decision to proceed with the expansion of the irrigated agricultural land around Kununurra and their commitment to the National Water Initiative.

Since that package was announced and agreed to between the parties we have seen a number of projects being launched. Some 29 individual projects are in some stage of planning, design or implementation in the East Kimberley. We have seen construction commence on several projects, including the upgrades to the Wyndham health facilities and the hospital component. We have seen the construction of staff housing begin. We have seen improvements in the residential rehabilitation facility near Wyndham. We have seen the Kununurra Airport upgrade for the patient transfer facility. The WA government has recently awarded contracts for the construction of 23 dwellings in Kununurra and Wyndham, and a tender is currently out for the construction of five more dwellings. We have community consultations progressing on the more complex projects of the Kununurra Hospital expansion and the redevelopment of the Kununurra education precinct. There has been tremendous involvement of the community in the designs for the Wyndham Community Jetty, which promises to have an important community aspect.

We have not forgotten the issue of employment, especially the issue of Indigenous employment. I am told by the parliamentary secretary that the first 12 participants to go through pre-employment apprenticeship training with Kimberley Group Training are 100 per cent local Indigenous people. Funding for salary and mentoring support for 20 new local apprentices will increase the availability of skilled labour in the region to come.

All of the projects funded under this package are scheduled to be completed by June 2012. Contrary, I think, to the concerns raised by the member for Kalgoorlie in his motion, there are two very good and complementary processes underway involving the Western Australian government, local participants, residents and Indigenous landowners in the Kimberley, both for the West Kimberley and the East Kimberley. I believe that with that level of cooperation there will only be good and successful development for the region to come out of those proposals.

I say to the member for Kalgoorlie: you are jumping the gun. The process is still underway. You can have your say, but you are a decade too late. You were part of a government that for 12 long years did not take one step to see cooperative assessment and evaluation of the Kimberley region. I am sorry to be partisan about it, but like you I also think the Kimberley is a very special place. I look forward to future development in the region as well as the protection of significant natural heritage areas.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently, Sue Bradley, a pastoral leaseholder who also runs a B&B, what is commonly referred to as a station stay business, within the proposed Kimberley heritage listed area—some 17 million hectares—raised the issue of the need to protect a small section of the Kimberley. She quite rightly was initially interested in protecting ancient Bradshaw stick-figure paintings of people, certain sections of the Mitchell Plateau and features of the north-west Kimberley coast. She was shocked when Minister Garrett nominated such a huge area, encompassing working pastoral, mining and business centres.

From past experience of declarations of wilderness areas, I can tell you that this proposed World Heritage listing will guarantee an explosion of introduced feral animals, vermin and noxious weeds. It will increase the potential for massive wildfires fed by unmaintained fuel on the ground, which naturally follows lock-ups of so-called wilderness and heritage areas, which because of size cannot be appropriately managed by government agencies such as the Department of Environment and Conservation Western Australia. They simply do not have the finances or personnel to adequately manage an area of that magnitude.

I recently visited the Kimberleys with my wife and we stayed at El Questro Station. El Questro operates as a pastoral lease and as a wilderness experience for tourists. It cohabits with nature. It protects the environment while running an eco-friendly pastoral business. The Kimberleys have been aptly described by many as a national treasure as well as a vital and critical part of Western Australia’s and Australia’s economies. This beautiful and productive part of our country has been responsibly managed, nurtured and protected by the people who settled it and live in it in a sustainable way, and who have done so for decades.

That description of the Kimberleys could be applied to the Kosciuszko National Park. I raise the issue of the Kosciuszko National Park as a means of advising my parliamentary colleagues, who may not be aware, of what will happen when you declare wilderness areas—areas that were previously inhabited by man and responsibly managed in company with nature for many, many decades. The Kosciuszko National Park was locked to pastoralists 30 or 40 years ago. Over the following decades there was an explosion of introduced animal pest species and noxious weeds. Despite governments of both political persuasions wanting to shut down Kosciuszko to anybody other than bushwalkers, it deteriorated to such an extent that in 1992 I made a prediction about what would happen. I warned my then volunteer bushfire brigades not to go into the Kosciuszko National Park if a lightning strike hit it because the fire would consume anything and everything in its path, and the intensity of the fire would destroy all the genes of the natural fauna and flora there.

Sadly, that came to pass in 2003 and it did not surprise me that it did. Unfortunately, the fire not only destroyed the genes of much of our native flora and fauna—because the fire was so hot it sterilised the earth 60 feet below the surface in some areas—but also created a massive social problem because it killed people and it destroyed property. That is the sad reality of going down the path of declaring wilderness areas that you cannot manage and to which you do not allocate sufficient resources to ensure that the weeds and the feral animals that have been introduced by man into those areas are responsibly managed, as they are when you have pastoralists and other businesses working in the area looking after the ecology of our natural environment in this great country of ours. So I caution all of these people pushing for this huge wilderness area in the Kimberleys to think very seriously about what I have just described. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am concerned about, and opposed to, the member for Kalgoorlie’s motion opposing National Heritage listing for the Kimberley region for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the motion runs the risk of bringing about exactly the outcome that the member seems concerned to avoid. This is because it misrepresents both the assessment process and the effect of National Heritage listing. By making these claims—for example, the suggestion that the heritage listing consideration process will itself seriously damage the future of mining in Australia—the member for Kalgoorlie is himself acting to undermine business and investment confidence.

The member’s motion also suggests that there is no meaningful community consultation being undertaken and this is clearly not the case, as explained comprehensively by my colleague the member for Hasluck. The recent history of this matter is that, in February 2008, the Australian and Western Australian governments reached an agreement that set out to achieve an ecologically sustainable development solution for the Kimberley region. Within the framework of that agreement, the objectives were to concentrate development and associated impacts at the best location and within a defined area; to properly consider the cumulative impacts of what has, to some degree, been the piecemeal development of the north-west of Western Australia; to put in place proper region-wide conservation and heritage protection; and to provide greater certainty to both industry and the community, especially in relation to future LNG related development. Under this agreement, it was accepted that the question of the location of an LNG hub and the question of appropriate and long neglected environmental and heritage conservation planning, both in the context of National Heritage listing and in the context of the North-west Marine Bioregional Plan, would proceed simultaneously and would be resolved in the course of 2010. This includes a strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The starting point for all of this, the first principle in any consideration of the Kimberley, is the recognition that it represents not just a vast area but also an immense part of Australia’s common wealth. That common wealth includes the mineral resources, it includes the precious and, in many cases, fragile environmental values of the region and, of course, it includes our Indigenous heritage. For those reasons, when it comes to determining how we should approach both development and conservation in the Kimberley, consultation must occur with the people who live and work in that region and especially with the Indigenous Australians whose continuous stewardship of the land has lasted tens of thousands of years.

In that context, I refer to the remarks made by Don Henry, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, in support of the ACF’s productive working relationship with the Kimberley Land Council and the Kimberley traditional owners, where he said:

… we are committed to our collaborative efforts of the last decade to protect the Fitzroy River, progress options for  ecologically sustainable and culturally appropriate economic development, and to promote National Heritage listing, with Traditional Owner consent, for the Kimberley.

The elements identified by Mr Henry are entirely in keeping with the purpose of the agreement in the framework process settled upon between the Australian and Western Australian governments. What is more, in September last year the Hon. Chris Ellison provided a preliminary report to the Western Australian government as part of the state government’s Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy, in which it was noted that most submissions referring to the National Heritage listing process have been positive and supportive.

This government knows the importance and the good common sense of taking a holistic approach to land management in development and conservation, in economic opportunity and in the social dividend that must flow from the private development of our common wealth. For those reasons, this government is intent on applying proper assessment processes to guide both the protection and the development of Australia’s natural resources.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has made it clear from the outset that National Heritage listing of the Kimberley, should it occur, would not affect the continuing pastoral use of the area. Nor would National Heritage listing act as a means to directly restrict mining or related development in the Kimberley. National Heritage listing, if it should be applied to the Kimberley, would serve the important function of ensuring that heritage values are given due consideration in the decision making on any proposed development.

Finally, let us remember that our environmental and Indigenous heritage is not without economic value. Notwithstanding the member for Kalgoorlie’s comments on Sumatra and PNG, the lesson of the last 25 years in Australia is that tourism is one of the few sectors to have climbed the export earning ranks, taking its place as a major foreign income earner among resources and primary production. Protecting the environment is therefore both an end in itself and an act of economic responsibility. Many regard the Kimberley as an untapped tourism resource. As the representative of the largest single-member constituency in the world, I am sure that the member for Kalgoorlie can see the good sense in a large-scale and long-term approach to sustainable economic development in the north-west of Western Australia. (Time expired)

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Kalgoorlie. On 6 February 2008, the Commonwealth and WA governments agreed to commence a formal assessment of the national heritage values within the Kimberley region. The completion date for the assessment by the Australian Heritage Council has been set for 30 June 2010. The area being assessed is around 17 million hectares, generally extending from Roebuck Bay in the west to the Hann River in the east—including Drysdale River National Park—and from the Fitzroy River in the south to and including the Bonaparte and Buccaneer archipelagos in the north. Although the entire area is being assessed, it does not mean that the entire area will be recommended for listing.

Under the EPBC Act, actions that have or are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national and environmental significance require approval from the minister, and national heritage is a matter of national environmental significance. Therefore, if parts of the Kimberley are placed on the National Heritage List any future proposal for development in these parts may require approval from the minister under the provisions of the act. Current pastoral business practices would not be affected by the listing, only future investment and development—and that is where the member for Kalgoorlie is concerned. Proposals are then usually approved with specific environmental conditions imposed so that the impacts on the national heritage values will be minimised. If the proposal can be assessed by WA state processes, the minister must make a decision on assessment within 30 business days. It is vital that that happens, if this is the case.

There are legitimate concerns that the government has not adequately communicated with the various interested holders in the region. This has led to confusion and concern about how they will be affected by the possible listing. It is critical that the government urgently address this issue and explain what the possible listing means for future development in the region. Once the assessment period has ended and areas selected for listing have been decided, the government must then identify and commit the necessary resources that will be required for management and protection.

It cannot be disputed that certain areas of the Kimberley must be protected for future generations. However, these areas cannot be listed simply to gain political kudos. These areas must be legitimately protected and maintained, and those stakeholders affected must clearly understand what is involved in the protection of those areas. Unnecessary red tape and impediments to future responsible pastoral and mining activities must be avoided at all costs—as the member for Hasluck said. The Kimberley region has been managed by humans for at least 50,000 years, and it would be impossible to achieve the heritage value of this region without human intervention—particularly for fire management and management of feral animals and plant pests. Continued engagement with our native populations and increasing their opportunities in constructive employment is vital for their future and that of the Kimberley.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for his debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.