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

I, and on behalf of Senator Macdonald, move:

That the Senate:

(a)

notes the significant disease threat posed by the introduced species Phytophthora cinnamomi to ecological communities across Australia;

(b)

expresses disappointment with the lack of effective action at the national level to address the scale of this threat; and

(c)

calls on the Commonwealth Government to:

(i)

develop an effective national threat abatement plan including specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound goals, objectives and actions, and

(ii)

negotiate on the basis of this plan with state and territory agencies and land managers to leverage the resources, commitments and expertise needed to deliver its outcomes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government do not support this motion. This motion has come about because of the actions of the Greens and coalition senators in disallowing the threat abatement plan for Phytophthora cinnamomi last week in the Senate. The government had in place a plan which it considered effective. The plan included appropriate goals, objectives, actions, performance indicators, milestones and monitoring programs. The actions are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound. The plan had been developed through negotiation with state and territory agencies, who had indicated their support for it.

By disallowing the plan the Senate has thrown out this work and significantly set back the process of addressing this major threat to biodiversity. As senators would know, the government is not permitted to make a regulation within six months that is the same in substance as the one disallowed. Having disallowed the 2009 plan, the outdated 2001 plan is reinstated. The actions in the 2001 plan either have been completed or do not reflect the latest research. So there is now no authoritative statement on the environmental effects of Phytophthora cinnamomi nor the best methods of responding to this threat. The government will now consider whether the 2001 plan remains a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate this key threat, as section 270A(2) of the EPBC Act requires. If that is not found to be the case, the minister may need to consider revoking the 2001 plan.

The uncertainty caused by the Greens and coalition senators also raises more serious questions about the future of threat abatement planning. The Senate has never before disallowed, as far as I am aware, a threat abatement plan, despite 11 other plans having been made, many during the term of the coalition government. It is difficult to understand why this one was disallowed while the others were allowed to stand. Given this uncertainty, it is unclear whether further work on threat abatement planning is warranted in the terms of the current Senate. The government will be considering this issue very carefully.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

The Senate debated this issue last week and the government is well aware why the Senate chose to disallow this particular threat abatement plan. It was because it was already outdated. The consultation process was not thorough. The information was from 2006. It was not a SMART program. I articulated the details during the debate, as did Senator Macdonald.

It is ridiculous for the government to claim that the Senate disallowing this particular threat abatement plan puts at risk the process for any threat abatement plan. Obviously, the threat abatement plans that have been passed by this place were reviewed and found to be satisfactory. The point here is that the Senate has done its job; it reviewed this threat abatement plan and found that it was unsatisfactory. The Greens—and Senator Macdonald also, I am sure—consulted the experts on Phytophthora cinnamomi, commonly known as ‘dieback’ in Australia, and were advised very clearly that the threat abatement plan was not adequate, was not what we would call a ‘smart program’ and was not efficient or effective. It did not have actions and, most of all, it did not have any resources attached to it with which to implement it. So whether it was the 2009—read ‘2006’, which was when it was first consulted on—plan or the 2001 plan is immaterial, because there are no resources attached to it and, therefore, no way of carrying out said plan. So we very strongly suggest that the Commonwealth does not spit its dummy. The government should develop a strong, effective, efficient and smart threat abatement plan, instead of threatening the Senate with taking its bat and going home on threat abatement plans in the future.

Question agreed to.