Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened Native Vegetation Communities) Bill 2006 recently passed both houses of the Tasmanian parliament. The bill seeks, by regulation of the state, to conserve native vegetation on private lands. The details of this legislation, and the way in which it was pushed through the Tasmanian upper house, quite rightly caused concern among many people in rural communities in Tasmania.

Regrettably, the Tasmanian government told stakeholders, most notably farmers and landholders, that the Australian government was forcing this legislation to be passed—under threat. The alleged threat was that, if the Tasmanian government did not put in place its own legislation to cover the issue of non-forest vegetation, the Australian government would come in over the top of the state government with legislation that would be far more draconian and, therefore, even more detrimental to our farmers. This is categorically wrong.

It was up to the Tasmanian government to draft the legislation and to implement the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement on non-forest vegetation. There was no pressure from Canberra as to the exact form of this legislation and as to which native vegetation communities were to be protected. In addition, there was an assertion made that the Australian government was insisting on the inclusion of certain grass species on the list of vegetation protected by this legislation. Again, this is categorically wrong.

My federal Tasmanian colleagues and I take this matter extremely seriously. On their behalf, I have spoken with my colleagues the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Peter McGauran, to confirm the Australian government’s position. On 23 November, I received a letter from Senator Campbell which clearly outlines the position of the Australian government in relation to this land management issue. Senator Campbell’s letter reads, in part:

In May 2005, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania signed the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. Since then, the implementation of the non-forest vegetation legislation has been entirely an issue for the Tasmanian government ...

And it is clear that the Tasmanian government has full jurisdiction on this matter. The letter goes on:

... there has been no role for the Australian government in that legislation, nor has any pressure been placed upon the Tasmanian Government as to how they should or should not implement their legislation or the particulars of what must or must not be included.

Given this clear and unequivocal position, it is regrettable that the state government has attempted to blame Canberra for its legislation. There are no two ways about it—the process is straightforward: the Tasmanian government has jurisdiction here, and it bears the responsibility.

The new Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd—or, as we call him, Kevin Cliche—has muttered about the need for a better system of federalism in Australia. His first ‘fork in the road’ or ‘bridge’ might be to travel to Tasmania to let them know that state governments have responsibilities and need to act honestly with their constituents. They cannot hide behind the Australian government.

I recall a similar circumstance in my home state of Tasmania when an exceptional circumstances application made by the Central Highlands community was being considered. A devastating drought had gripped their region—in fact, I came off leave to help deal with the matter. When the extent of the support by the federal government was announced, some farmers complained about its lack of reach. True to form, the state Labor government immediately blamed Canberra. Fortunately, I was able to locate the letter in which the Tasmanian government requested the degree and type of assistance sought—on which this government fully acted and delivered. There was no sense of responsibility and no apology; it was just a case of ‘blame Canberra’. At the time, the circulation of that letter from the Tasmanian government to the Australian government did put an end to this dishonest nonsense from the state government. I similarly trust that the letter from Senator Campbell on this occasion will put an end to the current dishonest nonsense that is being peddled.

I now return to the issue of certain grass species that have been nominated for the list of protected vegetation. A public nomination has been made to have two grass species listed on the EPBC. Contrary to assertions made by the Tasmanian government, this nomination is not being driven by Canberra. This nomination, received from the public, is part of an independent process which is subject to the usual scientific rigours and due process of any such nomination.

I trust that my contribution this evening clears up the issue. I call yet again on the Lennon Labor government in Tasmania to take responsibility for their legislation and explain it to those upon whom it will have an impact. Above all, I call on the Tasmanian government to desist from misleading Tasmanian landholders about the impact of their legislation.