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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today, relating to phytophthora dieback in Western Australia and, in particular, the Fitzgerald River National Park.

Phytophthora dieback has long been an issue in Western Australia, which has obviously been recognised by the fact that in the past there has been a threat abatement plan generated. As the minister highlighted, there was one developed in 2001, it was reviewed in 2006 and, as the minister informed the Senate this afternoon, a new one was put in place in May 2009. The problem here is that at this stage it looks like that abatement plan is unfunded.

As I touched on in my question, the south-west of Western Australia is highly vulnerable to dieback. A million hectares of some of the most biodiverse bushland on the planet is already infected with phytophthora dieback and a further million hectares in the south-west of Western Australia are at high risk. The Fitzgerald River National Park, in the south-west of WA, is one of the most highly diverse places in an already highly biodiverse area. It is largely unaffected by phytophthora dieback at the moment. There is a small area of infection in the park, which governments and the department in various guises—the Department of Land Management is now the Department of Environment and Conservation—have worked very hard to make sure is contained.

The point here is that, unless we take this threat seriously, we may lose most of the biodiversity in south-western Western Australia. Phytophthora dieback has been identified as the most threatening process to the biodiversity in the south-west of WA. It is absolutely imperative that we put in place measures to stop its spread and particularly to stop it getting into as yet uninfected areas, which is why the Fitzgerald River National Park is so important and why researchers are saying they need at least $10 million per year to keep these uninfected areas protected. They have put forward a plan to both the state and Commonwealth governments.

One of the problems here is that, although phytophthora dieback has been identified as a key threatening process and although it is recognised as being the most threatening process affecting the biodiversity in south-west WA, the threat abatement plan has not been funded and, unfortunately, it was not listed as a priority under Caring for our Country. We have got to ask why. Is it because it is in Western Australia, which is far away from Canberra and the eastern states? Is it because it is not recognised in the eastern states for the devastation that it is causing in Western Australia? Western Australians are sitting back and saying, ‘Why isn’t this key threatening process a priority under Caring for our Country?’

That is why I asked the government today what it is intending to do about it. How is the government intending to address what is listed under the EPBC Act as a key threatening process? Where is the funding for the abatement plan? Where is the funding to protect the Fitzgerald River National Park? The Fitzgerald River National Park, as the minister quite rightly pointed out, is a state national park, but it is one of national significance. It is one of international significance because it is one of only two parks in Western Australia that is listed under the archaic Man and the Biosphere Program, which means that it is internationally recognised. I say ‘archaic’ because I think we need to address the ‘Man and the Biosphere’ name. Nevertheless, it is recognised as a park of international significance. Therefore, we need to do our utmost to protect the biodiversity in that park.

It is essential that the federal government not only discuss, as a matter of priority, with the Western Australian government what they are going to do about funding that particular park but also discourage the Western Australian government from putting a road along the coast and through the middle of some of the most important areas in the Fitzgerald River National Park. They also need to be talking to the state government about why the state government is not listing threatened ecological communities under the national register and why they are not listing them under the EPBC Act. I think this is part of the problem. These threatened ecological communities are not being recognised nationally and therefore, of course, the federal government does not necessarily think they should be a priority for funding, despite the fact that dieback is recognised as a key threatening process. Obviously something is going wrong here. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.