Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I think I should add some contributions on the thrust of the report Conserving Australia: Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas, which I emphasise was a unanimous report apart from one recommendation that Senator Siewert dissented from. That did not touch on any of the issues that anybody has talked about, although, as Senator Siewert and Senator Marshall pointed out, some of those issues have not actually had a lot to do with the report either.

Senator Barnett’s contribution was interesting. I will not spend my time going through that at length but, inasmuch as it was relevant to the report—and I do not think it was at all—it was expressing concern about the potential for further protection of forests. It is a pretty clear and unanimous recommendation of this report that we do need to have an expansion of protected areas in Australia through a range of mechanisms, including expanding our National Reserve System targets and funding. That is far more than old-growth forests. But to suggest, in speaking to a report that was chaired by a government senator and endorsed by all government senators, including Senator Ian Macdonald, that any hint of expansion and protection of old-growth forests is a horrendous thing strikes me as rather perverse. I am certainly not going to enter into the detail of all the disputes in Tasmania. You can have arguments about different areas, whether or not certain areas are suitable and all the different issues, but to suggest that, as a basic principle, further protection of forests is a bad idea or an ominous concept is extremely worrying. I hope it represents just Senator Barnett’s view and not that of the coalition. It certainly does not represent the views of the coalition senators on the committee.

It is certainly not my place here to defend Mr Garrett, the opposition shadow minister for the environment, but I think quoting him from 1998 about his views before he got into parliament is not overly fair. I also think that to suggest that any commentary he has appropriately made about expanding further protection is somehow an ominous thing is going completely against the thrust of the report that he was speaking to, which, I say once again, was endorsed by all of the coalition committee members and was, at least in the latter parts of the inquiry, chaired by a coalition senator. This inquiry was one in which I was chair of the relevant Senate committee until the government took over all of the Senate committees and made themselves chair of all of them. That is not a reflection on the current chair, I hasten to add. The inquiry was nonetheless almost entirely unanimous, and I want to return to the specific and important recommendations of the report, which were unanimously supported.

It particularly included a strong recommendation to boost National Reserve System investment, expanding protected areas in a wide range of capacities. That does not just mean putting them all in national parks, by any means. It is something that the Tourism and Transport Forum, through its Natural Tourism Partnerships Action Plan, has recognised as something that is needed and that is beneficial from an economic point of view. I point to the evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry that the investment to date by the federal government in the National Reserve System has been incredibly effective. The only real shortcoming is that there has not been enough. It is an example of the constructive approach that certainly the Democrats take—and that in this case all members of the committee, from all parties, took—in not just continually criticising what others do and what the government does but looking to identify areas that are working, seeking to encourage further support for those measures that are effective and a good investment and building and expanding on those investments. The Democrats strongly support the recommendations in this report that call for an expansion of the National Reserve System investment.

I point to a recent report on protected areas which came from the proceedings of a conference of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas with the support of WWF. That was held in Canberra in June, not long after this report was tabled. It showed that the committee, by and large, was on the right track, which was pleasing to me. This symposium brought out a significant range of recommendations in a report that certainly was consistent, in large part, with what the Senate committee recommended. As I did before and will do regularly with committee reports, I urge the government to take it on board and urge the relevant minister to respond to it promptly and comprehensively.

By way of demonstrating how that sometimes does not happen, I refer to two of the report’s specific and very straightforward recommendations that the government actually respond to a 2004 report from the committee on weeds and invasive species, which has still not been responded to. I heard some of Senator Macdonald’s commentary about weeds and invasives and how national parks, when they are not properly managed, are a problem in that regard. I certainly agree that if areas are not properly managed—whether they be national parks, other protected areas or private land in general—and do not have enough resources put into them then invasives, including weeds, can be a problem. The suggestion that national parks are just a breeding ground for weeds that escape onto farmers’ land which is otherwise pristine and wonderful is a gross exaggeration, but certainly there is an issue of ensuring that invasives are properly dealt with in national parks as well. Frankly, if the government were that concerned about invasives and that willing to properly do what needs to be done, they would have bothered responding to the Senate inquiry into that, which we had over three years ago. That is not to say that they have done nothing in this area in the last three years. But that was a comprehensive, unanimous inquiry, over three years ago, which had a comprehensive range of recommendations and would have significantly addressed the problem of invasives, whether you are talking about national parks or anywhere else, to which the government has yet to respond. To me, that shows the real commitment—or lack of real commitment—from the government in this area.

I also want to emphasise why this report is important in a wider sense. It is not just about increasing protected areas because they are pretty and we will get tourists in there and make money. Protected areas are absolutely critical for protecting and maintaining biodiversity, and that is a fundamental protection and insurance to minimise the ecological damage caused by climate change. What we really need to do—and the report goes to this to some extent, although not as much as I would have liked—is more clearly identify how we can put in place insurance, if you like, through our protected areas system against the threat to biodiversity of climate change.

Biodiversity is not just a nice scientific concept. It is actually one of the most fundamental things for maintaining ecological health, and that means ecological health for all of our ecosystems. It includes clean water, productivity of land, maintaining Indigenous cultural practices and a whole range of other things. Biodiversity being put at risk, as it is by climate change, threatens all of us in a very direct economic sense as well as an environmental sense. By expanding the National Reserve System, we can make a very effective investment at not very significant cost. The WWF has called for a minimum of $250 million over five years. That is only $50 million a year.

I would also emphasise the importance of integrating better management across the landscape. This is where the report, I think, has some valuable contributions to make in demonstrating it is not just about more national parks. It is the role of private landholders, it is the role of protected areas and conservation reserves and it is the role of non-government organisations such as the wildlife conservancies and others—non-government organisations that also manage areas of ecological significance and in many cases provide connectivity that joins up different areas. That can very much increase the strength and protection of biodiversity against climate change, improve integrated management across the landscape and provide greater opportunities for engagement with traditional Indigenous owners. Indigenous knowledge about land management and practices is a massive wellspring of land management knowledge and practices we are not making full use of. I would re-emphasise the value of the committee’s report and recommendations to take better respect and advantage of Indigenous knowledge and expand Indigenous protected areas. (Time expired)