Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the Australia state of the environment report 2006. Like my colleague Senator Milne, I am dismayed at this report. Although it is quite obviously a greenwashing of the government’s handling of the environment, it does actually contain some issues and facts that the government cannot run away from. For example, in the water section it talks about how the increasing demand for water is placing significant pressure on Australia’s inland water system. Unfortunately, this section dealing with inland waters did not address the issue of climate change, despite the fact that just yesterday the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs reported on its water inquiry and stated that climate change was playing a significant role in water security management.

The report also highlights the fact that water consumption has increased by 10 per cent—so much for our efforts to reduce our water consumption. It also highlights the fact that our riparian vegetation is suffering significantly and is continuing to decline. It states that 80 per cent of the remaining red gums on the Murray River flood plain in South Australia are stressed to some degree and that 30 per cent of them are severely stressed, and this severe decline has occurred in the previous 12 months. So just in the last 12 months, we have had even further decline in our riparian vegetation.

The report also talks about our wetlands and the stress that they are under. It says:

The impact on wetlands has been dramatic. As many as 231 nationally important wetlands are under pressure across Australia. Of the 64 Ramsar wetlands, latest assessments indicate that 22 have changed in ecological character or have the potential to change …

The report also highlights the fact that there has been an increase from four to 14 in the percentage of our fisheries which are at severe risk. This highlights the flawed approach this government takes in its fisheries management and the fact that it will not put any species in our commercial fisheries on the threatened species list because if it did that, of course, it would have to actually do something about protecting them adequately. The facts clearly demonstrate the government’s approach is flawed.

The report also highlights the fact that clearing has occurred at the rate of 1.5 million hectares this year and the government claimed, ‘Oh, that’s okay, because it has decreased.’ It is still 1.5 million hectares and we know that clearing vegetation is the biggest cause of biodiversity loss in this country. So much for the work that the government is doing on reducing clearing and protecting our biodiversity.

What I particularly wanted to highlight is in the water section. Despite the fact that this is a greenwashing, the report also highlights some significant issues around the government’s processes and programs to try to protect our natural environment. I will read some quotable comments. The report states:

These programmes have addressed local and regional needs, but Australia needs a systemic approach that develops sustainable systems of land management that address fundamental environmental problems.

It goes on:

As important as these programmes are, they provide little ground for complacency—the magnitude of human impact often exceeds the scale of restoration programmes.

It continues:

It is likely that the Murray River will require at least three times this volume of water if there are to be significant improvements in the entire river environment, rather than just improvements to the parts that are targeted to receive environmental flows …

Moreover, analysis shows that so-called ‘best management practices’ might not achieve sustainability or the desired catchment management targets. This is partly a product of the small scale and fragmented nature of various investments in inland water, riparian and catchment management. Past investments in these programmes addressed local needs, but did not often address the larger, strategic needs for improved practices and sustainable solutions.

It then goes on:

… it should be noted that the success of many excellent, small-scale habitat and species restoration programmes is easily compromised by unsustainable large-scale land and water use patterns.

So much for NHT and the government’s much heralded environment restoration programs. They are clearly being undermined by poor governance, bad policy, overallocation of our water resources, mismanagement and failure to deal with land clearing and wetlands decline. The picture is an indictment of the approach that has been taken: ‘Let’s throw some money at small-scale projects but not deal with the underlying causes.’ It is quite clear—for example, in the Macquarie Marshes and the Gwydir wetlands—that the government has been unable and unwilling to deal with the causes that have led to the problem, overallocation and failure to deal with other broadscale issues in the catchment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. (Time expired)

Leave granted; debate adjourned.