Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share 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.

The disallowance motion that I have just moved constitutes a very important issue for farmers, particularly those in the northern Midlands of Tasmania and also in other areas of the state. This matter demonstrates, as we on this side have said so many times in this chamber before, the way that the Labor government deal with farmers in Australia and their attitudes towards these farmers, particularly their lack of consultation and the way they are prepared to ride roughshod over the rural sector. You really have to wonder what the government have got against Australia’s farmers. We saw this with the removal of the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS fees and charges where the government just made a decision to go ahead with that—there was no consultation; they just took it away, effectively putting an additional 60 per cent burden on farmers from AQIS export fees and certification processes and then telling farmers that they needed to pay for the government to reform itself.

We saw it over summer last year in Tasmania with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, when farmers wanted some water out of a couple of lakes in the Clyde catchment, and Peter Garrett would not even speak to or meet with these farmers. He came to Tasmania on five occasions during that period of time. He came down in October last year to visit the CSIRO offices in Hobart, to announce a new marine species, with some happy snaps and some smiling faces. He came down in November for the community cabinet. He came down in January, to see the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery state collection and to announce a reserve, with more happy photos and smiling faces. He came to launch a Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra CD with more happy shots. He came down in May this year to announce $2½ million would be spent on some convict site protections. But not once, despite invitations and requests to come and have a look at the sites, did he go near the farmers in the Clyde catchment.

Here we have in this circumstance the minister listing lowland native grasslands in Tasmania as critically endangered, again without the support of farmers, and, according to the Tasmanian government, without due consultation. In fact, according to the member for Lyons, Mr Dick Adams, it was without due process. Mr Adams said, in his press release of 26 June, when this announcement was made:

“We should work towards voluntary conservation with incentives and if the only way to have conservation of a particular area is to pay for it, then that is what should occur.

We have seen nothing like that in the interim. Mr Adams said:

“The farmers have gone through enough lately with the drought and all the trauma that was associated with that. Now this new threat looming is not reasonable and I will fight it.”

Mr Adams continued on to say he was now working with the minister. So he is no longer fighting it. He has conceded that this measure will go through. He is not prepared to stand up for the constituents in Tasmania whom he has told he would fight it. So he is doing one thing in Tasmania and doing something else here in Canberra. He said:

“It is not good enough to prevent farmers from using their land in an economic way and not compensating them.

When Mr Garrett made this listing back in June, he suggested to the farmers that they should apply for Caring for Our Country funding to assist them with this process. You can imagine the farmers’ surprise when a week later—a week after the announcement and Mr Garrett’s saying to the farmers, ‘Go away and apply for some Caring for Our Country funding’—Mr Garrett rejected an application by the farmers through NRM North, in cooperation with other regional NRM groups, for funding to do just that. So Minister Garrett does not consult, surprises everybody, including the Tasmanian government—and I will come to that in a moment—says, ‘Apply for Caring for Our Country funding to assist you with the problems that you have,’ and then a week later rejects the application. What are farmers supposed to think? What are farmers supposed to do?

Tasmanian Minister David Llewellyn wrote to Mr Garrett and made some very salient points, one of which was:

As your own threatened species scientific committee notes in its advice, private landholders play a critical role in the conservation of grassland.

That is certainly the case. In fact, a lot of these grassland communities would not exist but for the fact that landholders continue to care for them. Mr Llewellyn also said:

I am also extremely concerned that your decision—

to list—

has not taken into account the available evidence. It is particularly disappointing that, in deciding to include POA grassland that occurs on the slopes as a result of past clearing of derived or induced grasslands, you have ignored the advice provided by my department. This advice was based on extensive and detailed field work which concluded that POA grassland on the slopes did not meet EPBC Act criteria. I ask you to explain why you consider it necessary to list derived grasslands and urge you to reconsider the listing in light of this information. I note that in your letter you state that funding to protect and restore threatened ecological communities is available to landholders and the community through the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country package.

Yet we already know that they have rejected such an application. So against advice Minister Garrett has gone ahead and listed this. Mr Adams says he is out there fighting, he is working really hard and he is going to support the farmers—but now he is working with the government and in the period since June, when the listing was made, we have seen nothing.

Yesterday I received communication from a farmer—a landowner at Swansea. He has managed the property that he lives on for the last 40 years and which his family has managed since 1846. He says that he is disgusted and disappointed about the way in which this listing has come about. He was not consulted. Even to this day, he has received no letter or contact from departmental or government officers, and yet the jackboots are walking all over his farm. This guy is not a mad farmer—he does not run off doing crazy stuff on his property. In fact, he has an extraordinarily proud record of preserving and working on his land, with not only productive land management but also conservation projects on his land. He has worked with NRM South and his local council on landcare issues; he has fenced off his riparian areas to protect waterways; he has dedicated areas to the private forest scheme; and he has on-sold to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, with covenants for future protection, among many other things. This farmer is a progressive farmer, working to look after his property because he knows the benefits of doing that. He has also been president of his local Landcare committee, so obviously he is not anticonservation, but he is very much against the process that brought about this listing.

There are things that he believes could and should have been done. He, as someone who is living on the land, working on the land and protecting the land, makes sense. He would like to see clear and accurate identification of the areas in question. He says there has been no ground-proofing and that the areas listed on the DPIW website in Tasmania are grossly inaccurate, so the government does not know what it is declaring. There should be considered discussions and wide consultations of what sorts of management practices are needed. It does not have to be a lock-up so that these grasslands can never be utilised. They can be utilised but with careful management. That is what he says. He wants to continue to carefully manage these grasslands.

The opinions of the landowners should be considered. These people know the land and they work with the land. I have seen what they have done in Tasmania. The north-facing slopes project that was developed in the southern Midlands in Tasmania has had a brilliant outcome: high productivity for the farmers, greater conservation of the grasslands and a better return for everyone. Yet that was funded through the NHT process—a cooperative process with the farmers. It is Mr Cotton’s view that this process has set landcare back 20 years. He is not a radical. He works actively to protect his property for generations after him. His family has been there since 1846; he has been there for 40 years. He wants to see future generations of his family continue to work that parcel of land.

I find it absurd that we continue to have processes where the jackboots come out with respect to agriculture. This government is continuing to trample all over them, against the advice of the Tasmanian government, without consultation with landowners and without consultation with farmer groups. It just does not seem to add up. The local member says it is a bad idea and that he will fight it, and yet what do we get? Peter Garrett just wants to continue with the listing process. The lands are not even properly measured. It just does not seem to add up to me that we should continue with this process.

It has been said that what we are proposing in the chamber today is nothing more than a stunt. I can assure Mr Adams that this is serious. This is about working cooperatively with farmers. I have been to meetings where they have wanted to talk about how they manage their lands. They have insisted for a long time that they are more than happy to work with governments—not have the jackboots roll across their farm—to continue to maintain their properties. The environment department recognises that itself, and yet here the minister is happy to trample across these properties without consultation and without measurement to properly identify how this process could be taken forward, and then he knocks back the funding that he invited the farmers to apply for to do the work. I cannot see why these regulations should be allowed to continue.