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

I wanted to re-emphasise the significance of this report, Indigenous art—securing the future. It is predominantly a unanimous report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, of which I am deputy chair. As I often do with Senate committee reports, I urge the relevant government minister to respond to it promptly. It is a continuing problem that Senate committees do a lot of work based on a lot of work by other people out in the wider community, pulling together substantial, very important and valuable reports with significant recommendations, and then we hear nothing from the government by way of formal response, sometimes for years. That is not good enough. It is not only insulting to the Senate and the committee; it is even more insulting to the many people in the wider community who put in the effort to make submissions or give evidence at public hearings. So I take the opportunity to urge the relevant minister, who in this case I think is Senator Brandis, to respond to this promptly. The report was only tabled in June, so he is not in trouble yet for being too slow to respond, but it is an area that does need action.

I will reflect on a few of the key recommendations, including that the Commonwealth establish a new infrastructure fund to assist Indigenous visual arts and craft, to complement existing national arts and crafts industry support funding, of around $25 million over a period of five years. It is not a significant amount of money in the scheme of things, but it would be very valuable. The committee also recommended expanding funding under the existing NACIS scheme and revising guidelines to confine its use to non-infrastructure projects. Some of the other key recommendations include ensuring that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can increase its scrutiny of the Indigenous art industry, including conducting educational campaigns for consumers as well as information activities with the goal of increasing successful prosecutions of illegal practices in the industry.

There is a lot of debate at the moment, of course, about situations in Indigenous communities, and part of any solution has to include viable economic opportunities for people living in those regions. One of the real values of Indigenous art, of course, is that it combines economic opportunities with strengthening, celebrating and respecting Indigenous cultures. It provides a clear pathway and one of those bridges which are so difficult to find in many cases for many Indigenous people who seek to maintain connection with and strength and continuing development of their cultures with wider mainstream Australia. So this is important in a wider sense and, in my view, important for the wider future of Australia beyond the immediacy of the opportunities it presents to Indigenous artists.

There are a range of other recommendations contained within the report—29 in total. Another key recommendation is that, as a matter of priority, the government introduce revised legislation of Indigenous communal moral rights. This is a longstanding government pledge and one that the Democrats strongly support. Indeed, a former Democrat senator, Aden Ridgeway, was one who pushed this area quite significantly. It is not acceptable that there still has not been progress in this area. Certainly it is one area where the Democrats strongly believe—and its recommendations suggest that the committee as a whole also strongly believes—that this is something that should be acted on by government quite early.

There are other recommendations. In the interests of time and allowing some space for others to speak on other documents, I will not go into them here, but I urge people who are interested in this area of Indigenous art to consider this report because it is quite detailed and valuable. I would note the very valuable contributions of a number of the people who gave evidence both in person and through written submissions to this inquiry, because they did significantly inform the committee—and I should emphasise that many other senators had far greater involvement in this inquiry than I did. Due to time constraints I was not able to be as fully involved as I would have liked, but I certainly endorse the report and the importance of the area.

We should take the opportunity during this increased focus on Indigenous issues at the moment—I certainly welcome it, even if I do not welcome some of the government measures that are accompanying that increased focus—to look at some other areas where we need to do more, and this is certainly one of them. As any of us who have been to some of the many Indigenous communities as well as the many other centres around the country would know, there is some extraordinary and amazing art out there and many communities are now starting to tap into the potential through the internet for sales via that means.

It really does provide lots of positive opportunities for Indigenous people. But I do not think we should underestimate the benefits—and not just the economic benefits—to Australia as a whole. There is a lot of talk in other contexts about Australian values, Australian history and Australian culture. We as a nation have done very poorly at celebrating and recognising Indigenous cultures and really taking that onboard as part of what being Australian is all about. The more we can have a vibrant, effective and non-exploitative visual arts and crafts sector for Indigenous Australians, the greater the benefit would be, in my view, to how Australians perceive themselves, to Australia and to how we are perceived around the world as a whole. It is important beyond just the immediate confines of what opportunities it provides to Indigenous people. As I said, it is predominantly a unanimous report with a few minor variances in a couple of areas—important though they may be—one of which is the permit system in the Northern Territory, which we can talk about next week. It is predominantly unanimous, and that is all the more reason why it should be promptly and comprehensively adopted by the government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to support most of the deputy chair’s comments on the Indigenous art report. I had the honour to be a member of that committee and in fact chaired the first few days of the hearings when Senator Eggleston was not available. As one who does not have any appreciation of any fine art, I was absolutely blown away by some of the Indigenous art I saw in the course of this inquiry. The committee travelled very widely in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and to some of the capital cities as well.

The report is a good one. It is unanimous. We were privileged indeed to have on our committee, towards the end of it at least, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp who, when he was minister for the arts, actually gave the committee the reference. He ended up, after he retired from the ministry, actually being part of the committee. In answer to Senator Bartlett’s urging that the government respond: I know from Senator Kemp’s comments that the government will respond to this report, because it is a report that the government sought. The government was very keen to get an in-depth look at the Indigenous arts industry.

The range of paintings and art was just sensational to my very inexperienced and uncultured eye. There is a considerable amount of money flowing around the industry. I saw a painting on the wall of a gallery—I think it was in Kununurra; somewhere in Western Australia anyhow—that the gallery said had been sold for $140,000. There were others like that. That is obviously very much at the high end of the scale, but in a number of the galleries we visited I saw very good paintings. There seemed to be an average sale price from $3,000 up to $10,000 to $15,000. So there is a lot of money in it and, as Senator Bartlett mentioned, the committee recognised that even in the desert it is an industry that Indigenous people can do well and in which they can create wealth for their communities. There are not a lot of job opportunities, but good Indigenous artists can bring money back into their communities. It is not just the artist himself or herself; the paintings have to be framed, so Indigenous young people are learning how to frame art. Just packing them up and sending them away is an employment opportunity in itself. There was a lot of very positive activity happening there.

Indigenous art supports not only those communities but also a very big industry around it. There are a number of galleries and a huge number of buyers. I was very surprised just to see what an extensive industry it is. Not all is well in the state of the Indigenous arts industry, however. There is exploitation and fraudulent behaviour. There were some accusations about so-called ‘carpetbaggers’. There was evidence along these lines that buyers would come in, encourage—by deception or by means of alcohol or otherwise—Indigenous artists to mass produce art that they could pay not much more than a bit of alcohol for and then take it away and make big money out of. It seems like a simple proposition to address, but the committee found it very difficult. The majority of dealers and buyers are honourable. There is an organisation with a code of conduct. But there are, as in everything, one or two bad eggs who give that part of the industry a bad name.

We were given evidence that some Indigenous young people who wanted a car or something would take an elderly relative who was a very good artist away from the community, lock them into a hotel room and tell them they had to paint three or four paintings. They would then sell the art to a fraudulent dealer who would have arranged with them that for four paintings they would get a car. There is that bad side to the industry, but I do not want to emphasise that because, while there were some instances, by and large it is a very positive industry for Indigenous people. The report goes through a lot of those particular issues.

I want to mention—I cannot recall the name; I am not sure if there is anyone here that can help me—a community in the centre of Australia that has a fabulous Indigenous arts enterprise. They have their own gallery and centre. I should actually preface this by saying that the federal government does fund many Indigenous arts centres in many communities around Australia, and part of the call in the report is for the government to increase funding to some of those or in some other way support them.

But this group I was going to tell the Senate about opened a new $5 million art gallery just a few weeks after the committee was there. They pride themselves on the fact that they run this whole operation without one cent of government assistance, and they do not want any government assistance. This Indigenous community built this new $5 million gallery themselves, and they run it very well. They have been going for a long time and they know how to do it. Generally speaking, the communities sell the paintings, and around 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the sale price goes to the artists and the rest of it goes to the centre, out of which they pay for all the ongoing costs—and they employ other people. In this particular instance, they also built their own hospitals in their community, without government help, on the back of their share of the earnings from the art produced by this place. So there are a lot of very positive stories. The committee has made recommendations, which I know the government will respond to. It depends on the election, of course—that is going to be a bit of an interference—but there will be a response. It certainly is a good report, and, for anyone interested in Indigenous art, a reading of that report would be very beneficial and interesting.

Question agreed to.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of report No. 12—the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report Conserving Australia: Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas. I commend the report to the Senate and, in so doing, I wish to raise my concern about a particular area in Tasmania, the Florentine Valley, and a document that has been signed by Forestry Tasmania with forestry activists. It is a memorandum of understanding that was signed in June this year. In my view, it is an indicator that we are headed for another Labor-Green accord, this time at a federal level—a Rudd Labor-Green accord. It is an indicator that, in Tasmania, the Green-Labor accord is alive yet again. That accord did occur at a parliamentary level from 1989 to 1992, and it was disastrous for Tasmania.

The memorandum of understanding which has been signed relates to the Florentine Valley, which had previously been available for forestry operations. That document, in substance, says that criminal activity to be undertaken in that area will not be undertaken. You do not require a lawyer to tell you that you cannot contract not to undertake criminal activity. It is deeply concerning that an MOU like that would be signed by Forestry Tasmania on behalf of the Tasmanian government. In my view, it is a potentially illegal document and it is nothing more than state sanctioned blackmail. This is an agreement between Forestry Tasmania, on behalf of the Tasmanian government, with these forestry activists—who, prior to the signing of this MOU, had sought to lock up that area of forestry operations entirely to make it a conservation area so that there would be no further forestry operations in that area. That MOU sends a message to me and to the community that Forestry Tasmania is willing to do a deal with the Greens to lock up more of Tasmania for forestry purposes. That is of great concern. It says to me that that is exactly what could happen at the federal level as well.

Why does it say in the body of that MOU that the agreement will be reviewed after the federal election? That says to me that federal Labor knows exactly what is going on. It says to me that there has been a wink and a nod. Why do I say that? Because Kevin Rudd, the federal Labor leader, has never said that there would be no further lockups in Tasmania. It says to me that he knows full well that that he will do a preference deal with the Greens in the lead-up to the election and then, after the election, say that the Florentine Valley is ruled out for any further forestry operations, that it is a no-go zone, and that more of Tasmania will be locked up.

Why do I say that? Because I know what Labor’s federal environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, has said on the public record. I want to advise the Senate what he has said with respect to some of these areas. Let us go back to an AAP story on 1 August 1998, in which he is talking about RFAs. He said they are ‘a completely flawed and discredited process, initiated by government’. Of course, both sides of this parliament have previously supported the regional forest agreement which was initially signed in 1997 and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement, which was signed in 2005. That second five-year review of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement began on Monday, 28 May. We know Peter Garrett’s view on RFAs, but what else does he say about locking up further parts of Tasmania? On the Sunday program on 1 April 2007, he said:

I won’t be opposing the policy, Laurie.

that is, Laurie Oakes—

What we have now is policy that’s been agreed by the Caucus, that’s in that draft platform—

the federal Labor platform—

it’s policy that reflects not only the RFAs, it also reflects the Tasmanian community agreements on forests, and it also reflects a number of important principles about forestry, which include no overall job losses in the sector, a sustainable forestry industry, consultation with unions, with the government—

and this is the important part—

and also further protection of identified, properly identified, high conservation value forests and other natural ecosystems, and that’s as it should be.

That is a reason for the concern. This was essentially reiterated on 13 January 2007, just some months ago, in the Australian newspaper, where Mr Garrett said:

The principles that will guide Labor’s forest policies are further protection of identified high conservation value old-growth forests ...

We know what that means: more lockups in Tasmania are on the way. We have a Labor-Greens accord heading our way at a federal level and, in my view, that will be bad for Tasmania. It will be bad for the timber industry, it will be bad for jobs, and it is not what we want. I would like federal Labor to come clean and say exactly what they have planned for Tasmania. Why won’t Mr Rudd rule out further lockups in Tasmania?

I note the Prime Minister’s recent comments in the Australian on 9 August 2007. He warned that Australia faced a ‘Garrett recession’ caused by delivering a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse emissions, which has been promised by Labor. That is the Prime Minister’s view, and I think he is entirely right. He has substance in putting that view forward. So we are heading towards a federal Labor-Greens accord, like we had in Tasmania at the state parliamentary level. To think that the state Labor government would sign an MOU, an agreement with forestry activists, which actually said: ‘Yes, you agree not to conduct and undertake criminal activity.’ So they will go to that level and say, ‘The Florentine Valley is likely to be locked up. We want you out of there. You won’t be conducting criminal activity there against forestry operations. We’re pleased about that.’ They are willing to stoop that low. That concerns me greatly. I think it will concern the timber communities of Tasmania.

I commend Barry Chipman and his team right across the state for the work that they are undertaking in supporting Timber Communities Australia. They have branches all around the state standing up for timber communities and saying that they are important for Tasmania. Yes, it must be balanced. I make no apologies for saying that we need strict environmental guidelines applied. In making these comments, I refer to the Federal Court decision today, which has knocked out entirely the Tasmanian Wilderness Society’s appeal against Malcolm Turnbull, as the federal minister.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s excellent. I hadn’t heard that.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is excellent, Senator Ian Macdonald. Thank you for that comment. It has been knocked out entirely, and Mr Turnbull’s position on the pulp mill for Tasmania has been supported, so he is entitled to proceed in accordance with the law under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. He is no doubt doing that diligently and professionally, as he has been doing to date. I am very concerned on behalf of the people of Tasmania that there will be a federal Labor-Greens accord—like the state Labor-Greens accord we have had in Tasmania. The writing is on the wall. We have seen it with this MOU and with federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, not ruling out any further lockups. That is the concern I have.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also a member of this particular committee, although the inquiry had started before I joined it. I want to make some comments on the report. Senator Barnett has scared me with his comments about the Tasmanian Labor-Greens accord. We all remember the last time the Labor Party thrashed about to find a new messiah and came up with Mark Latham, who would have sold Tasmania down the drain, along with all the workers and everyone else. At that time, he was enthusiastically supported by all of the people who are currently in the Labor Party in determining policy. Senator Barnett, there are elements of fact behind the record of the Labor Party that make your warnings very appropriate.

I move on to the committee report. The committee had a lot of evidence before it, but one of the themes that came through in considering Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas is that governments, particularly state governments, are very keen to establish national parks, usually in the 12 months before a state election, because it gives them green credentials and, in this way, they can guarantee that they will always get Greens preferences. You hear various members of the Greens political party berating, for example, Peter Beattie in my state, and yet you can bet your last dollar that, come the election, they will again preference Mr Beattie. Watch this federal election too. Some in the Greens political party, in some of their committee work—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Lightfoot, I rise on a point of order in terms of relevance. I understand that there should be some flexibility in relation to some of the discussions that go on about committee reports, but at least there ought to be some attempt made to link what the good senator is actually talking about to the report itself. I suggest that it has no relevance whatsoever and that, if he does not have anything to say about the report, he should wind up his comments and we can move on.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall, you have made your point.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, Senator Marshall has not read the report. He certainly was not on the committee and does not have a clue as to what is in the report. The matters I am talking about are actually germane to the report. I think they constitute a recommendation of the committee—that is, that state governments create these national parks to get Greens preferences and have an aura of environmental concern as they run into the 12 months before the state election. Then, once the national parks are set up, they do not spend a cent on them. The management of national parks—and this committee report is very clearly critical of the management by state governments—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was a member of this committee and we did not receive evidence to the nature that state governments—

The Acting Deputy President:

What is your point of order?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that Senator Macdonald, unfortunately, is not representing the facts of the report. He is making his own commentary. He is not representing the facts as presented to the committee.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order, Senator Siewert. The remarks that Senator Macdonald was making were relevant and they were—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

You should not interrupt me when I am speaking, Senator Siewert. The remarks that Senator Macdonald was making were relevant. They may not have suited you, Senator Siewert, but they were relevant

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They certainly are my own commentary. I am not pretending, Senator Siewert, to be speaking for you or for other members of the committee, but there was clearly evidence before the committee of concern at the lack of funding for management of national parks—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, I wonder whether you would be kind enough to direct your remarks through the chair. Senator Siewert, you will have ample opportunity, if you wish, to speak on this report No. 12 after Senator Macdonald has finished.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, Mr Acting Deputy President, by way of disorderly interjection is saying to me that my commentary—that not a cent has been spent—is not accurate. Well, perhaps I am using ‘not a cent’ in a way of emphasising that state governments, in particular, do not spend anywhere near sufficiently. You could almost say that, for the small amounts of money they do spend, they might as well not spend a cent, because those small amounts are not adequate to properly manage national parks. As a consequence, national parks have become a haven for feral animals and weeds.

The Australian government spends tens of millions of dollars every year to address the weed menace. Incidentally, this is a responsibility for state and local governments but which has not been taken up by state governments, so the federal government spends tens of millions of dollars every year to address the weed menace. And what do state governments do? They actually harbour the weeds in these national parks. They do not spend sufficient money on weed control in the national parks. All the farmers, land owners, environment groups and natural resource management groups spend a lot of money on land surrounding national parks to get rid of weeds. All of that work, effort and money is to no avail, because the weeds simply get blown out of the national parks onto the adjoining farming land.

Anyone on the land who lives near a national park—well, certainly up my way—will tell you about pigs and other feral animals that take refuge in the national parks and then come out and destroy the Australian biodiversity. We spend a lot of time complaining about the reduction of our natural biodiversity in Australia, and one of the causes of that is national parks that are not properly managed, principally by state governments. The federal government manages some national parks and we manage marine national parks. We try to put a bit of money in it and, I think, there was a general consensus—Senator Siewert will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure—that parks managed by the federal government are better resourced and better managed. It is of great concern to me—and I try not to make this a political point, but it is true—that Labor state governments have been very good at establishing national parks and then putting very little money—I am not saying none—into their proper maintenance.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that you know that weeds cost Australia $4 billion every year. The federal government’s Defeating the Weed Menace program put in, I think, $45 million over several years and then there was an addition to that, if I recall correctly, of another $20 million. We put a lot of money into addressing weed control, but what do the state governments do? They create more national parks which form havens for weeds that blow out, and it means that we are really chasing our tails. One government puts money in to try and address a $4 billion problem and another government keeps creating national parks without the proper management.

I like national parks and many national parks that are created are good. Some of the Labor governments in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have created national parks in good native timber growing areas, and they have done that for political reasons, not for conservation reasons. Where they are properly placed, national parks do protect Australia’s very unique biodiversity, but they do not protect it unless they are properly managed. This committee report highlights the desperate need for better management by all governments, but particularly by state governments, of national parks that have been created. I will conclude my remarks there.

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

I think I should add some contributions on the thrust of the report Conserving Australia: Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas, which I emphasise was a unanimous report apart from one recommendation that Senator Siewert dissented from. That did not touch on any of the issues that anybody has talked about, although, as Senator Siewert and Senator Marshall pointed out, some of those issues have not actually had a lot to do with the report either.

Senator Barnett’s contribution was interesting. I will not spend my time going through that at length but, inasmuch as it was relevant to the report—and I do not think it was at all—it was expressing concern about the potential for further protection of forests. It is a pretty clear and unanimous recommendation of this report that we do need to have an expansion of protected areas in Australia through a range of mechanisms, including expanding our National Reserve System targets and funding. That is far more than old-growth forests. But to suggest, in speaking to a report that was chaired by a government senator and endorsed by all government senators, including Senator Ian Macdonald, that any hint of expansion and protection of old-growth forests is a horrendous thing strikes me as rather perverse. I am certainly not going to enter into the detail of all the disputes in Tasmania. You can have arguments about different areas, whether or not certain areas are suitable and all the different issues, but to suggest that, as a basic principle, further protection of forests is a bad idea or an ominous concept is extremely worrying. I hope it represents just Senator Barnett’s view and not that of the coalition. It certainly does not represent the views of the coalition senators on the committee.

It is certainly not my place here to defend Mr Garrett, the opposition shadow minister for the environment, but I think quoting him from 1998 about his views before he got into parliament is not overly fair. I also think that to suggest that any commentary he has appropriately made about expanding further protection is somehow an ominous thing is going completely against the thrust of the report that he was speaking to, which, I say once again, was endorsed by all of the coalition committee members and was, at least in the latter parts of the inquiry, chaired by a coalition senator. This inquiry was one in which I was chair of the relevant Senate committee until the government took over all of the Senate committees and made themselves chair of all of them. That is not a reflection on the current chair, I hasten to add. The inquiry was nonetheless almost entirely unanimous, and I want to return to the specific and important recommendations of the report, which were unanimously supported.

It particularly included a strong recommendation to boost National Reserve System investment, expanding protected areas in a wide range of capacities. That does not just mean putting them all in national parks, by any means. It is something that the Tourism and Transport Forum, through its Natural Tourism Partnerships Action Plan, has recognised as something that is needed and that is beneficial from an economic point of view. I point to the evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry that the investment to date by the federal government in the National Reserve System has been incredibly effective. The only real shortcoming is that there has not been enough. It is an example of the constructive approach that certainly the Democrats take—and that in this case all members of the committee, from all parties, took—in not just continually criticising what others do and what the government does but looking to identify areas that are working, seeking to encourage further support for those measures that are effective and a good investment and building and expanding on those investments. The Democrats strongly support the recommendations in this report that call for an expansion of the National Reserve System investment.

I point to a recent report on protected areas which came from the proceedings of a conference of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas with the support of WWF. That was held in Canberra in June, not long after this report was tabled. It showed that the committee, by and large, was on the right track, which was pleasing to me. This symposium brought out a significant range of recommendations in a report that certainly was consistent, in large part, with what the Senate committee recommended. As I did before and will do regularly with committee reports, I urge the government to take it on board and urge the relevant minister to respond to it promptly and comprehensively.

By way of demonstrating how that sometimes does not happen, I refer to two of the report’s specific and very straightforward recommendations that the government actually respond to a 2004 report from the committee on weeds and invasive species, which has still not been responded to. I heard some of Senator Macdonald’s commentary about weeds and invasives and how national parks, when they are not properly managed, are a problem in that regard. I certainly agree that if areas are not properly managed—whether they be national parks, other protected areas or private land in general—and do not have enough resources put into them then invasives, including weeds, can be a problem. The suggestion that national parks are just a breeding ground for weeds that escape onto farmers’ land which is otherwise pristine and wonderful is a gross exaggeration, but certainly there is an issue of ensuring that invasives are properly dealt with in national parks as well. Frankly, if the government were that concerned about invasives and that willing to properly do what needs to be done, they would have bothered responding to the Senate inquiry into that, which we had over three years ago. That is not to say that they have done nothing in this area in the last three years. But that was a comprehensive, unanimous inquiry, over three years ago, which had a comprehensive range of recommendations and would have significantly addressed the problem of invasives, whether you are talking about national parks or anywhere else, to which the government has yet to respond. To me, that shows the real commitment—or lack of real commitment—from the government in this area.

I also want to emphasise why this report is important in a wider sense. It is not just about increasing protected areas because they are pretty and we will get tourists in there and make money. Protected areas are absolutely critical for protecting and maintaining biodiversity, and that is a fundamental protection and insurance to minimise the ecological damage caused by climate change. What we really need to do—and the report goes to this to some extent, although not as much as I would have liked—is more clearly identify how we can put in place insurance, if you like, through our protected areas system against the threat to biodiversity of climate change.

Biodiversity is not just a nice scientific concept. It is actually one of the most fundamental things for maintaining ecological health, and that means ecological health for all of our ecosystems. It includes clean water, productivity of land, maintaining Indigenous cultural practices and a whole range of other things. Biodiversity being put at risk, as it is by climate change, threatens all of us in a very direct economic sense as well as an environmental sense. By expanding the National Reserve System, we can make a very effective investment at not very significant cost. The WWF has called for a minimum of $250 million over five years. That is only $50 million a year.

I would also emphasise the importance of integrating better management across the landscape. This is where the report, I think, has some valuable contributions to make in demonstrating it is not just about more national parks. It is the role of private landholders, it is the role of protected areas and conservation reserves and it is the role of non-government organisations such as the wildlife conservancies and others—non-government organisations that also manage areas of ecological significance and in many cases provide connectivity that joins up different areas. That can very much increase the strength and protection of biodiversity against climate change, improve integrated management across the landscape and provide greater opportunities for engagement with traditional Indigenous owners. Indigenous knowledge about land management and practices is a massive wellspring of land management knowledge and practices we are not making full use of. I would re-emphasise the value of the committee’s report and recommendations to take better respect and advantage of Indigenous knowledge and expand Indigenous protected areas. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.