Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will reflect on what Senator Milne said about this being a shocking precedent. I take issue with Senator Milne: it is not a precedent unless it happens. In relation to the EPBC Act, I want to express my concerns in relation to the north-south pipeline, the so-called Sugarloaf pipeline in Victoria, which is planning to take 75 billion litres of water out of the Goulburn River—which is struggling, as is the entire Murray-Darling Basin. I look forward to hearing from the minister shortly. We are having discussions with the minister’s office in relation to the EPBC process around that particular pipeline. The EPBC Act has important work to do to prevent environmental catastrophes, to prevent sometimes irreparable environmental damage. I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with Senator Colbeck and Senator Brown and the material that I have received from the minister’s office in relation to this.

This is a decision that has been reached as a consequence of an independent process under the act. It is a decision that has been reached by independent scientists on the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. It is a decision that has been reached as a result of consultation. I do not think that there is an issue so much about consultation with respect to the process; there are concerns in relation to the outcomes and the ramifications of the decisions. But it is fair to say that the decision that has been reached followed due process. It followed the advice of an independent panel that includes some of Australia’s leading scientists. There was wide expert and public consultation, as required by the act.

The concern is that these grasslands are critically endangered because they have undergone a severe decline, have a very restricted geographic distribution and continue to be threatened. Voluntary mechanisms have been insufficient to ensure the protection of this ecological community. These grasslands provide a habitat and resources for some 20 nationally listed threatened species and 60 state listed species, including the Tasmanian devil. It is also fair to say that this regulation does not prevent farmers and other land managers from continuing to use land for farming as they have always done. But I acknowledge the point that Senator Colbeck has made, that where there needs to be change in land use, such as for irrigation, these regulations will apply—hence the concerns in relation to that.

I note the comments of the Tasmanian Labor member Dick Adams, who has been quite critical of these changes in the media. He has as recently as 27 June this year been quoted in the Hobart Mercury saying that he is angry with the federal government not considering the need to compensate affected farmers and that it simply is not reasonable to go down this path. Farmers need to do something about their drought-ravaged land through irrigation. I can consider the arguments. The policy imperative here is to look at what the effect will be if these species are destroyed and if these grasslands become further damaged.

That is why, as a result of discussions that I have had with the minister’s office—and I am looking forward to the government indicating this and putting this on the record formally—the government will look at a number of processes to deal with the concerns of farmers, including, firstly, setting up a hotline number so that they can discuss their concerns with the department as well as a liaison officer with the National Farmer’s Federation and, secondly, making available officers to carry out on-site visits and to provide information to potentially affected farmers. Reflecting on that, both Senator Colbeck and Senator Milne, even though they have come at this from quite different positions, have talked about those farmers who are innovators and who are willing push the envelope in terms of working with the land. I do not think that that is ideological in any sense. It does not have anything to do with the politics of the farm; it has to do with wanting to look after the land. Those farmers should be encouraged and commended.

Thirdly, the Australian government is willing to undertake, with the cooperation of the Tasmanian government, a strategic assessment of the midlands regions, a process under which planning can be carried out on a regional scale in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders, taking into account a broad range of matters, including the concerns of regional communities. I see that as a mechanism whereby the concerns that have been expressed by Mr Adams on behalf of his constituents could be ventilated appropriately in a constructive way so that these matters could be dealt with.

Fourthly, the government will undertake a strategic assessment of this kind under the act that would benefit farmers by reducing red tape and clarifying future development opportunities for rural communities wherever grasslands are located and, at the same time, provide better protection for the fragile grassland environment. Fifthly, the Australian government is willing to commence its assessment, with Tasmania’s cooperation, before the end of this year and that a report on the impacts and proposed management arrangements could be publicly released within six months of that commencement.

I think that all of these measures, and I am looking forward to the government confirming them, keep the integrity of the regulations in place but take into account the concerns of some of the stakeholders and communities. I think, in some cases, these measures will allay those concerns by enabling better communication. If this review indicates that there is a need for some adjustment—not to the regulations but in terms of allowing communities to adjust—then so be it. That is a matter for another day.

I think this is a constructive way forward. I acknowledge what Senator Milne says: that we need to look at this process very seriously and that we need to keep the integrity of the EPBC process. I believe the process has had integrity, but I also acknowledge that, insofar as there have been concerns expressed by local communities, these can be dealt with adequately in the manner which I understand the government will set out shortly. If that is the case, I cannot support the disallowance. However, I commend Senator Colbeck for raising this because I think it is legitimate to raise concerns. I think it is legitimate to ventilate concerns of communities, but I believe these concerns can be adequately dealt with by the measures that I have set out. I think it is important that these grasslands be protected, given the impact they have on a number of endangered species.