Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to this report, the environment committee’s report Conserving Australia: Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas. It is quite a substantial report, 350 pages, and has 18 recommendations. It is a report I feel has not received adequate attention. Unfortunately, it was tabled out of session; it did not get significant debate in the Senate. It contains a lot of important recommendations. All bar one of the recommendations is unanimously supported by the committee across the board, and that to me reinforces the value of those recommendations.

The first thing I want to point out—and it flows on from my comments this afternoon about the disgraceful tardiness of the government in responding to committee reports like this one; a substantial piece of work—is that two of the recommendations contained in this report relate to the government not yet responding to the report from the same committee from 2004 about invasive species. There were mountains of evidence given to this inquiry about the significant impact of invasive species, weeds and the like, escaped aquarium fish and other things causing immense environmental impact as well as economic harm throughout the country, including in protected areas. Frankly, the government cannot pretend it is being serious about this when it is yet to provide a formal response to a comprehensive Senate committee report into just that issue from three years ago.

Another recommendation I want to emphasise is the final one, which requested the Commonwealth to consider substantially increasing funding for World Heritage areas. One of the problems in this area, as with many, is that you have all the finger-pointing about how much the feds should put in and how much the states should put in. The committee tried to stay out of that argument. It recognises that national parks in general are predominantly a state matter, but clearly World Heritage areas do entail a federal responsibility. Of course there is direct responsibility under the federal environment protection act, which the Democrats were pivotal in strengthening and passing in 1999, but we have not had consistent regular funding around World Heritage areas from a federal level.

One example of this is the wet tropics World Heritage area, which covers from the Daintree, past Cairns, south down to Cardwell and almost to Townsville. It is an incredibly important area with massive biodiversity. The committee had the privilege of flying over part of that area to Mission Beach, where there are significant risks with continuing development that is threatening the survival of cassowary in the region. We visited Mossman Gorge, which is featured in this report, which is under significant pressure from visitation but which also has significant opportunities for engagement with local Indigenous people. But the lack of certainty and the inadequacy of funding for the Wet Tropics Management Authority, which is doing such very important work in that area, is holding back the potential of what that area can deliver. It is putting at risk the World Heritage values of the wet tropics World Heritage area. It is holding back the potential for major engagement of Indigenous communities. Eighteen different Indigenous tribal groups have come together and formed a regional agreement under the Aboriginal Rainforest Council, including with the Wet Tropic Management Authority, and there is some amazing potential for properly integrating the continuing cultural reality of the wet tropics area with the biodiversity—the ecological values—but it is being held back because the resourcing is not there. It is a clear area where the federal government can do more and it would deliver great benefits.

I link to that the recommendation about endorsing a recent report, the Gilligan report, which also recommended substantially increased funding for Indigenous protected areas. These not only help strengthen the ecological values of many areas but provide employment opportunities and meaningful connection to country and tap into the immense knowledge that Indigenous people have in land management.

The other recommendation I want to stress goes to that point: recommending that all governments give greater priority to Indigenous knowledge and participation in park management. As a nation we have grossly undervalued the immense knowledge that is there and continues to be there with the traditional owners and other Indigenous people in managing country. The reason so many of these areas still have great ecological values is that they were managed by Indigenous people in a way that enables them to remain sustainable. That is a very important recommendation and I urge all governments to do more.

I note the Queensland government has moved down that path—finally. In evidence given to the committee in Cairns, the Cape York Land Council and others expressed a lot of frustration at the inability of Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to enable proper engagement of Indigenous people with management of national park areas. I was pleased to see just recently an announcement by the state government that legislation has been introduced that will finally enable joint management of national park areas under Indigenous land use agreements with Indigenous people in the Cape York area. That is a very positive thing. I was speaking on this in the Senate yesterday; I would like to touch a little bit further on the point I was making then. One of the hurdles and frustrations in that area goes back to protected areas having an effect of locking out or disempowering traditional owners and Indigenous people. It is clearly part of the frustration that occurred recently in the north over the wild rivers legislation, but that has also been addressed as part of the agreement. I note that Noel Pearson has said that the wild rivers legislation will be amended to protect native title rights and interests and to provide for mandatory water allocations for Indigenous communities in each of the catchments on the cape affected by the wild rivers declaration. This is an important and positive step.

It had been a source of great tension between some Cape York Indigenous people, including Noel Pearson, and the Wilderness Society. I have been critical of the Wilderness Society in the past, and I have certainly been critical of environmentalists who undervalue the immense knowledge that Indigenous people have. I spoke in this place last year criticising William Lines, an environmentalist who I should say is not directly associated with the Wilderness Society. He was quite derogatory in denying the reality of Indigenous involvement and knowledge in managing country. We need to be encouraging more people in the environment movement to recognise this reality, and that is why I would repeat my call to those on the cape, now this issue has been resolved, to back away from further criticisms with regard to particular individuals in the Wilderness Society who have been singled out. Lyndon Schneiders and Anthony Esposito are two environmentalists who I believe have done more than most to try to work with and engage with Indigenous people and to ensure their expertise is recognised and that employment opportunities are produced from that. It sends a dangerous message to the wider environment movement if they see some of those who have done the most over the years being singled out and attacked. We can all criticise, and I have done that myself; it is time now to work constructively. I think the opportunities are there to do that, and we really need to try to focus on that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate interrupted.