Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I will just make a few comments about the government’s position on this disallowance motion. Of course, we are not supporting it, for some very important reasons. Fundamentally, the most critically important of them is that, as Senator Milne so rightly pointed out, the effect of this disallowance motion would be to destroy the integrity of the EPBC Act, and I do not think that would be in the interests of anyone.

When listening to Senator Colbeck’s contribution to the debate in speaking to his disallowance motion, I was intrigued to note that he did not acknowledge that the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania were publicly nominated for assessment in 2005, not only when he was a member of the government but in fact when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The decision to list the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania as a critically endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act followed a very rigorous, transparent and fair process that is set out in the legislation. Minister Garrett’s decision to list the grasslands was informed by the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, an independent panel that includes some of Australia’s leading scientists. Senator Milne described the influence and capacity of those scientists, and we appreciate that.

The scientists spent over three years carrying out a very rigorous scientific assessment of the grasslands. In that time there was wide expert and public consultation, as required by the EPBC Act. In particular, the outcomes of the Tasmanian government review of the grasslands in 2008 were taken into consideration, as was the latest vegetation mapping data provided by the Tasmanian government. The input from the experts and the listing advice received from the scientific committee showed that the grasslands are of national importance and that they are critically endangered because they have undergone a severe decline in extent, they have a very restricted geographic distribution and they continue to be threatened. There has also been a severe reduction in the ecological community’s integrity because of fragmentation, weed invasion and the loss of species diversity. Again, Senator Milne spoke to those very issues.

The assessment of the grasslands clearly demonstrates that they meet the criteria for listing under the EPBC Act. I note that the Tasmanian government review also came to that conclusion. It highlighted that the loss of remnant grasslands has continued at a considerable rate in recent years. This indicates that voluntary mechanisms alone have been insufficient to ensure the protection of this ecological community. The remnant lowland native grasslands of Tasmania are regarded as one of Tasmania’s most threatened and fragmented ecosystems and the most depleted vegetation formation in Tasmania because more than 83 per cent of the grasslands have disappeared since European settlement. Protection of the grasslands is also vital. Senator Milne described the habitat and resources of more than 20 nationally listed threatened species and 60 state listed species, including the iconic Tasmanian devil and the other species that she drew from the threatened species list. It is critical to support the broader ecosystem and habitat of those species as well.

Senator Colbeck made, I thought, some fairly rash statements about the impact of this listing on farming. It is very important to emphasise that the listing of the lowland native grasslands of Tasmania will not prevent farmers and other land managers from continuing to use land for farming, as they have always done. We know that some of the best wool in Australia comes from this part of Tasmania and half of Tasmania’s sheep graze on those native pastures. The listing does not prevent farmers from continuing with existing sustainable grazing principles and practices. Farmers will only need to seek approval for actions that significantly change or intensify their activities, and isn’t that fair enough in circumstances where these new or intensified practices are likely to significantly impact on the critically endangered grasslands? There is an assessment process under the EPBC Act for any new or intensified activities that may have a significant impact upon the listed ecological community. Approval for such actions would only be withheld if significant impacts on the critically endangered grasslands could not be avoided.

As Senator Xenophon contributed in his remarks, the Australian government is aware of the concerns about the impact of listing on farmers who may have listed grasslands on their property and has committed to taking a number of actions to assist these landholders. Firstly, the Australian government is setting up a special hotline number for potentially affected farmers to discuss their concerns with an officer of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts currently stationed as a liaison officer with the National Farmers Federation.

Secondly, the Australian government will make departmental officers available to carry out site visits and to provide additional information to potentially affected farmers. Specifically, departmental officers will be able to help farmers determine whether the ecological community is present on their properties and whether any proposed changes to their land use are likely to significantly impact on that grassland. In addition, an information guide is currently being finalised to supplement the listing advice that is already available. This advice will help people understand the reasons for the listing, how to recognise and manage the ecological community and the implications for landowners. This information guide will be widely distributed. As both Senator Brown and Senator Xenophon commented, the issue here is really about land management and stewardship. We acknowledge that those good farmers who engage in sustainable farming practices are very mindful of these processes, as is the farmer that Senator Colbeck spoke about. He is obviously someone who takes his responsibility for land management very seriously.

Thirdly, the Australian government is willing to undertake, with the cooperation of the Tasmanian government, a strategic assessment of the midlands region. Under this process, planning is carried out at a regional scale, in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders, and takes into account a broad range of matters, including the concerns of regional communities. A strategic assessment of this kind under the EPBC Act would certainly benefit farmers by reducing red tape and clarifying the future development opportunities for rural communities where the grasslands are located. At the same time, it would provide better protection for the fragile grassland environment. The Australian government would be willing to commence this assessment, with Tasmania’s cooperation, before the end of this year. The government anticipates that a report on the impacts and proposed management arrangements could then be publicly released within six months of commencement.

The government recognises the vital and valuable role that private landholders have played in the conservation of native grassland remnants and believes that the listing of the grasslands can complement other conservation measures in ensuring its survival for the benefit of future generations.

I would like to touch on some of the specific claims that Senator Colbeck made in his contribution—one of which was about lack of consultation. I want to put on the record that the picture that Senator Colbeck painted about lack of consultation is not exactly accurate. The government undertook wide consultation throughout the assessment process. In 2006, a technical workshop was held in Hobart to assist with the assessment of the ecological community and then a formal public consultation was also undertaken. At the very beginning of the assessment, stakeholders were invited to provide written submissions, and they were invited to do so again in March 2009, before the assessment was completed. The key stakeholders groups who were consulted included local councils, conservation groups, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and state government authorities. There were a range of responses received, both supportive and non-supportive.

Between 2006 and 2009, several face-to-face meetings were held with key stakeholders, along with a range of other regular communications around the process. Departmental staff met with officers from the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association on four occasions between December 2007 and May 2009 to discuss the potential listing of the ecological community. A formal submission was received from that association in March 2009. As well, the Tasmanian government was regularly consulted and it provided ongoing technical assistance during the assessment of the ecological community. The notion that this has happened by stealth and without consultation is an absolute furphy.

In response to the concerns about the inclusion of derived—that is, human induced—grasslands, the listed ecological community certainly includes both natural and derived, or human-induced, grasslands. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee and the experts in grasslands found that some patches of lowland native grasslands that are historically derived from other ecological communities—for example, through clearing of trees in woodlands—may be similar in vegetation composition and structure to the natural grasslands, and some of these derived grasslands can be extremely rich in native species and contain in themselves numerous threatened species. It can be impossible to determine which grasslands are natural, which have developed as a result of post-European settlement land management practices and which have been the result of Indigenous burning regimes or historic severe climatic events. Not all the patches of grassland, be they derived or natural, are actually included in the listed ecological community. The listing only applies to vegetation remnants that are in good condition, and the listing advice clearly sets out the condition thresholds that determine whether a patch of grassland is protected under the EPBC Act. There is significant information about the whole classification process and the way in which it came into being.

Most importantly, the government does not support this disallowance motion, because it concerns native grassland that is categorised as critically endangered as an ecological community. It is of national importance and it is something that needs to be protected for all of Australia. The natural environment is a critical part of Tasmania’s pristine attraction and, as such, we want to do what we can as a government to ensure that it is protected. Senator Colbeck, that very important message that stands to a disallowance motion in this respect and that would actually go to the integrity of the EPBC Act cannot be underestimated.